800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes. Exactly.
But I also see that Seralini was the lead researcher.
Based on his history and "creative" use of statistics. I'll defer judgement on anything said in the article.
www.efsa.europa.eu...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Sure. As for grain storage they would either need to build completely separate facility’s or have some way of cleaning these things out completely to avoid cross contamination which would wind up being far more costly IMO.

www.google.com... &biw=1120&bih=720

You would run into the same problem with shiping look at the far right picture.

www.google.com... &biw=1120&bih=720#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=250e9a25fdad52d8&q=grain+shiping&sa=1&tbm=isch

Transporting would also be a problem as with these pictures. Mainly with the rail car and Tractor trailors because they would need separate containers otherwise there would be cross contamination from one load to another.

www.google.com... ed=0CEIQsAQ&biw=1120&bih=720

Take some time and look at the pictures and you should start to get a better understanding of the problem.

www.google.com... ed=0CEIQsAQ&biw=1120&bih=720#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=250e9a25fdad52d8&hl=en&q=processing+grain&qscrl=1&sa=1&tbm=isch

That would also mean they would have to build entirely different facilities to process grains into products because factories are messy there will always be dust and spillage if they wanted to run a non GMO batch they would need to shut down and clean for weeks to prevent cross contamination.

The shipping containers, ships, and trains are not always owned by the processing companies probably very few are so consider who would have to pay for new ones that would only be used for one or the other most are running 24/7.

reply to post by Phage


Exactly? So you meant the exact opposite of what you said? I'm confused by what you mean here.

Well, I'd hate for you to pass judgement based on a completely unrelated study. People make mistakes sometimes, you know? You probably don't know anything about mistakes though, do you? You don't make mistakes, you're phage.

It's been close to a year since his bt toxins study was released, and as far as I can tell, no one has challenged it so far.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Exactly?

No. I mean that, according to the article, the study does not really show that Bt toxin is toxic.

You probably don't know anything about mistakes though, do you? You don't make mistakes, you're phage.

Once in a while. Seralini seems to make a habit of it though.
www.efsa.europa.eu...

It's been close to a year since his bt toxins study was released, and as far as I can tell, no one has challenged it so far.

That might have something to do with it never being published in any journal which any one reads. It doesn't seem to be anywhere but ISIS.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Oh man, they'd have to CLEAN?! How dreadful.

I still don't see how multi-billion dollar companies couldn't handle a bit of cleaning. Seems pretty easy, especially considering the amount of money they make in profit each year.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I still don't see how multi-billion dollar companies couldn't handle a bit of cleaning. Seems pretty easy, especially considering the amount of money they make in profit each year.

Are you saying Monsanto should handle all the infrastructure? Why? They don't have anything to do with the distribution and processing.

reply to post by Phage


I can understand them not showing how they harm the liver, because it says they harm the kidneys.

Considering you probably meant kidneys instead of liver, how does that one sentence disprove the whole study? And how does the researcher make a habit of mistakes? Are there any other studies besides that one that he made mistakes with?

reply to post by Phage


So what's your argument all about? If Monsanto doesn't have anything to do with distribution or processing, why do you continually use the excuse of distribution and processing as a reason for Monsanto shooting down bills?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

See there? I made a mistake.
Not quite up the par of Seralini's "mistakes".

reply to post by Phage


My God... you are human!

So how does that one sentence disprove his whole study?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So what's your argument all about? If Monsanto doesn't have anything to do with distribution or processing, why do you continually use the excuse of distribution and processing as a reason for Monsanto shooting down bills?

Because no matter who pays for it, it isn't easy or cheap to implement.
Why do keep implying that Monsanto should pay for it?

What do you have against the idea of non-GMO labeling? Or didn't my point about everything probably ending up with GMO labels (as a defensive measure) on them sink in? The more I start thinking about that side of it, the more sense it makes to me.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Phage

 

My God... you are human!

So how does that one sentence disprove his whole study?

I didn't say it did.
But he usually does a pretty good job of that by himself anyway.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


A bit of cleaning???? It would be more than a bit it may just be impossible with today’s means.

It wouldn’t be the big bad corporation it would be the truck driver’s ship owner’s freight haulers that would pay to have them cleaned then they would need a small army of inspectors certifying their sterility.

Even with that if just a small amount slipped in with the rest and found its way to the processing plant and reported then there would be those from the anti gmo crowd filing billions in law suits for miss labeling.

Honestly you do not see the problem?

reply to post by Phage


But it's still not coming out of Monsanto's pocket, so it's odd that you constantly use that excuse for Monsanto. I doubt the distributors are exactly "poor" either.

I'm not against the labeling of non-GMO foods, where'd you get that? Didn't I make the suggestion earlier that GMO and non-GMO food labels should be color coded to differentiate them?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Impossible is a mighty big word to be using. It's far from being impossible. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good.

If they have to hire a small army of inspectors, that would feed right back into the economy and possibly create more jobs. What's bad about that?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Again why not just label the non-GMO food wouldn't that be easier and more cost effective.

If those companies go out of their way to make non-GMO foods then those who care will not mind paying for it right.

reply to post by Phage


No disasterous consequences? You're bias caused you to ignore reality!

Dr. Don Huber's Urgent letter to Ag secretary Vilsack

reply to post by Phage


So what was your point again? There had to be a reason you quoted that one sentence out of the entire article to use as an argument.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1




I said it may be impossible that's my understanding of it so if you have a way please explain.

Otherwise I guess you are OK with more law suits, higher shipping costs and production costs?

reply to post by Grimpachi


I wouldn't say those companies "go out of their way" to make non-GMO foods.

If companies like Monsanto are putting all of this money into research, patents, genetic modification, and lobbying, I'd say THEY are the ones going out of their way to make GMO's.

Cost effective is not always the best choice. That implies quantity over quality. If you prefer that method, more power to you, but I personally prefer quality.