800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It isn't nearly as complicated as you make it seem. Monsanto already labels them as GMO when they sell them to the farmers correct? So what's so hard about keeping them separate from non-GMO's from that step onward and eventually into the store? All it would take is a simple check list and segregation of GMO and non-GMO foods that could happen all the way down the line to the stores.

To summarize my more detailed explanation in the other thread. No.
1) Separate transportation infrastructure (trucks/ rail cars) and tracking
2) Separate storage facilities and monitoring
3) Separate processing facilities and monitoring.

Look at the requirements for voluntary non-GMO labeling. That is for small scale operations. Expand that to millions of tons of grains each year. That is why it becomes problematic.

Why not pass a law that makes them put labels on products that do not have GMOs in them as non GMO? That would cost less and accomplish the same thing. Considering there are probably more products with GMOs in them on shelves than not that would make a lot more sense.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Just because it has been certified doesn't mean it's safe.

Extensive testing does. You want testing but when it shows something is safe, you reject it. Surprise.

I guess since cigarettes are legal, that mean there are no health risks associated with them?

No. That's why there is a warning label on them.
Alcohol is legal too. Certain health hazard there as well.
What's your point?

reply to post by Grimpachi

I would say 800 scientists is stretching the truth to an extreme if not just a plain lie.

But there are attorneys on that list. We can trust them. Right?

reply to post by Phage


1) Have separate compartments in each truck/train that keeps GMO away from non-GMO; or convert trucks/train compartments into individual carrying units, i.e. instead of having two trucks carrying a mixed variety, split them into 1 GMO and 1 non-GMO. Both are well within their capabilities.

2 & 3) What makes you think they can't have both in the same storage facility, except separate? And why do you think employees at these processing centers couldn't keep the two separate if they came in separated?

I think you're over-complicating things. Keeping the two separate is well within the means of a multi-billion dollar corporation.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You honestly do not have any concept on how things are transported do you?


Also what you just described would require a full revamp of the transportation industry and every facility that stores and processes the food.

All for a label.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

Bt toxin has been used as an insecticide for decades and is certified for use in organic farming.
academicsreview.org...

Safe for humans? Or safe for bees?

reply to post by Phage


This study from November of last year says otherwise:

A new study shows that low doses of Bt biopesticide CryA1b as well as the glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, kill human kidney cells. The Bt biopesticide conferring insect resistance and the glyphosate tolerance trait tied to the use of glyphosate herbicides account for almost all the GM crops grown worldwide. Bt crops already constitute 39 % of globally cultivated genetically modified (GM) crops, yet this is the first study that provides evidence on the toxicity of Bt protein in human cells.

Source

Let me guess, this is "bad science" in your opinion. Surprise.

reply to post by Phage

You are a naughty, wicked Phage.

I wonder if any of the original signers have changed their opinion after 13 years with no disastrous results of the "experiment". I wonder if they all think a moratorium still makes any sense.

And purplemer still parties like it's 1999.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The link doesn't work can you repost it?

One thing, once again

America inluding other GMO fed country's= 3 out of 5 with obesity, diabetes, or cancer

Country's and other regions without GMO=

reply to post by Grimpachi


Oops.

It should work now. Thanks for the heads up.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I have a basic understanding of how it works, but I'm not an expert by any means.

I don't see how what I outlined would be out of reach honestly. All it would take is a few changes in procedure, nothing more. Keeping GMO and non-GMO cannot be that difficult.

Could you maybe list some things that would require the whole industry to "revamp"?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Let me guess, this is "bad science" in your opinion. Surprise.

I don't have an opinion. I get a warning about the download site so I'm not going to risk it. The don't provide the title so it's sort of hard to track it down.

It seems it wasn't published in any peer reviewed journal though. Not that it means its good or bad science either way.


Oh wait,
Within the article it says this about the study:

This study indicates that Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, and may indeed be toxic.

Isn't that somewhat different from title and other claims in the article?

reply to post by Phage

Extensive testing does. You want testing but when it shows something is safe, you reject it. Surprise.

Testing that is funded by the same people who own the product...

You can not have safety testing for GMO foods, when the people who are conducting the testing, are funded by the same corporation that creates it; Monsanto.

That's not testing, it's called conflict of interest, let alone bribery.

This would be analogous to allowing a murderer to investigate his own homicide case, merely to conclude that he is absolved of all blame, and ergo innocent...It just doesn't work..

reply to post by Phage


Here's a better link: www.i-sis.org.uk...

It even comes from a source that you have linked before, so the source can't be an issue.

Being "not inert" doesn't mean what you think it does apparently. Inert means to be in a state of doing little or nothing, so "not inert" means it is doing something, and according to your quote, that "something" is toxic to humans.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

Then there is the growing pest and weed resistance factors, what will nature do to recover?

Both of which started before GMOs existed.

Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds.

Um. really?
Do you know how herbicide resistance develops? And again. It started before there were GMOs.

edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Those were quotes by reputable sources and people who know what they are talking about. Again I don't know you but somehow I am sure that you are talking but this is not your true position. The world is more important then using it to experiment to see what happens over time, and you are not stupid you are aware.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's the same article and it also says this:

This study indicates that Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, and may indeed be toxic.

reply to post by Phage


I guess you missed my edit. I'll repost it.

Being "not inert" doesn't mean what you think it does apparently. Inert means to be in a state of doing little or nothing, so "not inert" means it is doing something, and according to your quote, that "something" is toxic to humans.

What exactly in that quote is different from the other claims? The word "may"?

reply to post by Char-Lee

Those were quotes by reputable sources and people who know what they are talking about.

And yet they make it sound like GMOs and glyphosate are the only things that might cause the development of pesticide tolerance.