Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

Ziphius

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I try my best not to.

Are you saying that cabbage we buy in stores is already genetically modified? (I would find that surprising).

Yep, many crop plants such as cabbage, wheat, and watermelons have had polyploidy (i.e. increasing the number of chromosomes) induced via the chemical colchicine.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid#Polyploid_crops

Hopefully it won't be too much an ordeal to remove these from your diet.

Sarky

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A non-crazy sources to you is probably MSM, I am hardly going to find it in that. :rolleyes:

You're still not answering the question.

For the fourth time: Do you have a non-crazy source? Yes or no? If yes, provide it. If no, admit it. Nice and simple.

Any other answer will force me to conclude at this stage that you have no such sources, and I will expect an apology for wasting everyone's damn time with this rubbish.

shedweller

I think, what we have here, is a difference of opinion as to whats crazy and whats not crazy.

SuperInfinity

Ziphius wrote: »

Yep, many crop plants such as cabbage, wheat, and watermelons have had polyploidy (i.e. increasing the number of chromosomes) induced via the chemical colchicine.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid#Polyploid_crops

Hopefully it won't be too much an ordeal to remove these from your diet.

It would be a huge ordeal to remove those from my diet, I probably would just cave in if/when it gets to that stage and start eating them.

You haven't made any kind of a joke or point there.

Ziphius

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It would be a huge ordeal to remove those from my diet, I probably would just cave in if/when it gets to that stage and start eating them.

You haven't made any kind of a joke or point there.

Yes I did. Cabbage and numerous other crops have been genetically modified already.

Ziphius wrote: »

Yep, many crop plants such as cabbage, wheat, and watermelons have had polyploidy (i.e. increasing the number of chromosomes) induced via the chemical colchicine.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid#Polyploid_crops

Hopefully it won't be too much an ordeal to remove these from your diet.

SuperInfinity

Ziphius wrote: »

Yes I did. Cabbage and numerous other crops have been genetically modified already.

What you're suggesting is incorrect, ie. you are a liar. Have a think about that next time you look yourself in the mirror.

What do you expect me to write, a big long indigified post explaining why polyploidy has nothing to do with gm foods?

Ziphius

SuperInfinity wrote: »

What you're suggesting is incorrect, ie. you are a liar. Have a think about that next time you look yourself in the mirror.

What do you expect me to write, a big long indigified post explaining why polyploidy has nothing to do with gm foods?

Oh, of course I didn't expect you to actually support your argument with any evidence. I'm familiar with your posting style.

steddyeddy

SuperInfinity wrote: »

What you're suggesting is incorrect, ie. you are a liar. Have a think about that next time you look yourself in the mirror.

What do you expect me to write, a big long indigified post explaining why polyploidy has nothing to do with gm foods?

Induced polyploidy is a from of genetic modification.

steddyeddy

This is just a quick summary I wrote about Genetic engineering of plants. There might be some mistakes so apologies in advance!




The debate about genetic engineering is extensive and has being going on for decades however the purpose behind genetic engineering is to breed a crop with a desired trait and this in itself has being going on for thousands of years. Although recent techniques allow us to modify, cut out and insert genes into crops with relative accuracy the desire to imbue a desired trait into a crop led farmers and plant breeders to experiment with breeding and cross breeding species of plant in an effort to breed the ideal crop. The very fact that there is “domesticated” plant species and wild plant species is testament to the fact that sometime in the past man has cultivated plants to have a desired trait such as sweetness, faster growth or larger tubers. These early farmers knew nothing of genetic engineering yet they still managed to completely breed thousands of species with the desired traits. The potential to manipulate plant growth and trait development is huge in plants as they are totipotent, that is plant cells have a high differentiating potential. This can be seen when plants generate an entire individual out of a small branch cutting.
In 1865 a monk called Gregor Mendel published a paper which would bring science into the art of plant breeding. Mendel experimented with different varieties of peas and began to see that certain hybrids and patterns were emerging with remarkable consistency. This led Mendel to theorize that the traits being expressed were the result of dominant and recessive “alleles” and that by breeding a certain variety of plant with another variety certain traits could be selected for. Unfortunately Mendel’s paper was ignored when it was first published until three scientists rediscovered it simultaneously. The new techniques first discovered by Mendel brought with it major advances in plant breeding. One of the first crops to benefit was corn which was previously allowed to cross pollinate, new techniques and insights into heredity led to plant breeders were artificially self-pollinated and cross pollinated again in order to procure a crop with favourable alleles.
Every once and a while a trait began to spring up in plants that hadn’t previously exhibited it. Scientists concluded that this must be a result of random mutations. This realization spawned the technique of inducing mutations rapidly with chemicals or using methods involving x-rays or gamma rays. Another method of inducing rapid mutations involved growing a plant using a tissue culture. Undifferentiated plant cells grown in a tissue culture could be artificially manipulated and induced to grow into whole plants.


In 1953 Watson and crick discovered the famous double helix structure of DNA as well as the essential function and base pairing aspects of DNA. This had major implications for the field of genetics and the scientists involved in plant breeding began to take notice and use this new knowledge to incorporate new methods of breeding into their efforts. One of the new methods to be explored was haploid breeding, this methods takes advantage of the fact that some naturally occurring plants were haploid that is they contained only one set of chromosomes. Species of Wheat for example which has been cultivated for thousands of years by humans can be diploid or even tetraploid. Once scientists found haploid plants they set about doubling the single set of chromosomes to obtain two identical sets of chromosomes. This technique is mainly used for research but it has been used to create cultivars of maize, barley and tobacco to name a few.
The pinnacle of genetic engineering of crops came with the development of the transgenic plant. The transgene is a gene that is transferred naturally or through genetic engineering from one organism to another. The passing of genetic material occasionally occurs naturally in plants through a process called horizontal gene transfer, this is facilitated by viruses, transposons or retro viruses which can transfer themselves to new sites in a genome.
Previously plants could be breed with in their own species and sometimes their own genus however the use and development of the transgene meant that genes could be passed between plants that could not conventionally breed, In some cases genes from bacteria were inserted into plants in order to achieve a desired trait.
The process of creating a transgenic species is a complicated one simply knowing which trait you want to imbue the target plant with is not sufficient. First you have to locate the gene that expresses the desired trait which is no simple task since gene expression never boils down to a single gene. Each gene will have promoters and regulators. The transgene could potentially have other effects on the plant or the genes expression could interfere with other active genes, all these issues have to be addressed.
Once the gene of interest is located it is isolated and cloned by amplification in a bacterial vector. A vector is a DNA molecule which is attached to a gene or DNA of interest to enable it to be taking up by a host organism, in this case a bacterium. The most common types of vectors are plasmids or cosmids.

When the gene is cloned and amplified in a vector several modifications must be made. First promoter genes are attached to ensure expression of the gene, a terminator sequence is then attached to ensure the gene gets switched of at the right point and finally a marker is added to ensure the gene was successfully integrated into the target genome.
There are several methods used to insert the gene into the genome, the most commonly used methods are by use of a gene gun which is an electronic method of delivering plasmids or by use of a bacterium called agrobacterium. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a soil dwelling bacteria that “infects” a target plant with its DNA through a plants wounds. This bacteria causes gall diseases in certain plants however by removing the gene in Agrobacterium tumefaciens which causes tumours and replacing it with a modified transgene it can be an accurate way of ensuring the transgene is integrated into the target genome. These selective markers contain genes that bestow immunity from herbicides or antibiotics, the plant tissues would then be transferred to a medium containing herbicides or antibiotics and the tissues in which the genes have been successfully integrated would be the only ones remaining. The first transgenic plant was a tobacco plant engineered in 1986 to be resistant to herbicides. The plant cells are then grown in controlled environmental conditions and fed with special nutrients and hormones to ensure correct growth; this is known as tissue culture. The growth of these transgenic plants has been the hardest aspect of the genetic engineering of crops but new developments are being made to ensure more species of plant benefit from this method.
Cisgenesis is another more recent method of genetic engineering and involves the transfer of a gene from a plant to another species of plant from the same family or even the same genus i.e. the gene transfer is between crossable plants and doesn’t involve a transgene. The gene that is transferred includes the introns, promoters and terminator sequence of a gene so it is a lot faster than transgenesis and early results have been promising and The fact that the genes transferred come from crossable plants has led some state that plants bred by Cisgenesis should not be subject to the same level of regulation that transgenic plants are subject to.




The traits selected for in genetic modification include but are not limited to increased resistance to herbicides, increased resistance to pests, increased resistance to extremes of cold and heat, increased yield, the addition of nutrients and manipulation to increase the rate of growth. We see from the above history of modification of crops that certain traits have been selected for and against for thousands of years. What has changed is the methods and accuracy involved in the selection of such traits.
Since the modification through direct genetic manipulation there has been an increasing division in scientists and the public regarding the benefits and costs of genetically modified foods or GMOS. The arguments against GMOS have been made from an ethical, ecological, human health and economical perspective. Most of these arguments have escalated following the progression of transgenics.
The environmental arguments are based around the effects of placing foreign genes in an organism. Some propose that the due to the natural process of horizontal gene transfer some transgenes will naturally end up in foreign organisms. This would be a concern if a gene for herbicidal resilience ended up in weeds for example. There is also concern that some of these genes will or could mutate producing unknown consequences. The possibility also exists that promoter regions added to transgenes could activate what are known as “sleeper” genes with in an organism. The activation of sleeper genes along with most other concerns involving the use of transgenic plants is just a theory at the moment and hasn’t as of yet been observed in action. One thing is certainly true is that if a transgene “migrates” to unintended organisms then they would be very hard to recall.
Along with the environmental concern there is also debate about the potential effects of GMOS on human health. When a gene found in Brazil nuts was transferred to a soybean variety it was found that people with allergies to nuts who consumed to soybean experienced the same allergic reactions associated with Brazil nuts.
While as of yet unobserved some people have theorized that the antibiotic resistant markers added to the transgene in order to identify it could bestow an antibiotic resistance on other species however since this concern has been raised scientists have stopped using gene markers with potentially negative connotations for the environment or human health.


The proposed classification of GMOS in some countries such as the UK is based on the assessed risk involved with the potential effects on human health or the environment but there is also an economic effect to consider. Many fear that small farmers will suffer as a result of the increased use of GMOS. Many have theorized that biotechnology companies will dominate the market and that they will take up niches previously occupied by the agriculture sector. Fear has also been expressed that the biotechnology companies could claim that their methods and products are intellectual property and fail to release their research to the public research sector. This would have the most effects in poor countries that lack a large private research industry.
There is validity in many of these points indeed the introduction of allergens into a foreign organism has already happened but much of the concerns can either be rectified or have yet to be observed. The relatively recent development of Cisgenesis carries less of the implications of transgenics and as such has been met with excitement by people on both parts of the debate. Like all science this is a work in progress and no doubt major progress will be realized.
The listing the benefits of GMOS is in many cases as simple as stating the trait added to each crop but there are several wide spread benefits that proponents of GMOS advocate. The negative effects on the environment, human health and the economy are often countered when examining the benefits of GMOS.
The proponents argue that adding traits to imbue higher resistance to stress, cold and disease would no doubt increase the productivity of the agricultural sector. The variables in the success of most crops often depend upon the weather, diseases or stress the very problems that GMOS could combat. Reduced losses would yield greater yields.
Even human health could benefit from GMOS as one of the first applications for genetic modification was the introduction of nutrients previously absent from crops that often formed the staple diets of millions. Many diseases in developing countries are the result of a basic lack of nutrients; Indeed protein has been added to many strains of potato in an effort to combat malnutrition in developing countries. Even the accidental addition of an allergen from a Brazil nut to a soybean could help scientist identify the gene that expresses allergens in nuts.

SuperInfinity

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is just a quick summary I wrote about Genetic engineering of plants. There might be some mistakes so apologies in advance!




The debate about genetic engineering is extensive and has being going on for decades however the purpose behind genetic engineering is to breed a crop with a desired trait and this in itself has being going on for thousands of years. Although recent techniques allow us to modify, cut out and insert genes into crops with relative accuracy the desire to imbue a desired trait into a crop led farmers and plant breeders to experiment with breeding and cross breeding species of plant in an effort to breed the ideal crop. The very fact that there is “domesticated” plant species and wild plant species is testament to the fact that sometime in the past man has cultivated plants to have a desired trait such as sweetness, faster growth or larger tubers. These early farmers knew nothing of genetic engineering yet they still managed to completely breed thousands of species with the desired traits. The potential to manipulate plant growth and trait development is huge in plants as they are totipotent, that is plant cells have a high differentiating potential. This can be seen when plants generate an entire individual out of a small branch cutting.
In 1865 a monk called Gregor Mendel published a paper which would bring science into the art of plant breeding. Mendel experimented with different varieties of peas and began to see that certain hybrids and patterns were emerging with remarkable consistency. This led Mendel to theorize that the traits being expressed were the result of dominant and recessive “alleles” and that by breeding a certain variety of plant with another variety certain traits could be selected for. Unfortunately Mendel’s paper was ignored when it was first published until three scientists rediscovered it simultaneously. The new techniques first discovered by Mendel brought with it major advances in plant breeding. One of the first crops to benefit was corn which was previously allowed to cross pollinate, new techniques and insights into heredity led to plant breeders were artificially self-pollinated and cross pollinated again in order to procure a crop with favourable alleles.
Every once and a while a trait began to spring up in plants that hadn’t previously exhibited it. Scientists concluded that this must be a result of random mutations. This realization spawned the technique of inducing mutations rapidly with chemicals or using methods involving x-rays or gamma rays. Another method of inducing rapid mutations involved growing a plant using a tissue culture. Undifferentiated plant cells grown in a tissue culture could be artificially manipulated and induced to grow into whole plants.


In 1953 Watson and crick discovered the famous double helix structure of DNA as well as the essential function and base pairing aspects of DNA. This had major implications for the field of genetics and the scientists involved in plant breeding began to take notice and use this new knowledge to incorporate new methods of breeding into their efforts. One of the new methods to be explored was haploid breeding, this methods takes advantage of the fact that some naturally occurring plants were haploid that is they contained only one set of chromosomes. Species of Wheat for example which has been cultivated for thousands of years by humans can be diploid or even tetraploid. Once scientists found haploid plants they set about doubling the single set of chromosomes to obtain two identical sets of chromosomes. This technique is mainly used for research but it has been used to create cultivars of maize, barley and tobacco to name a few.
The pinnacle of genetic engineering of crops came with the development of the transgenic plant. The transgene is a gene that is transferred naturally or through genetic engineering from one organism to another. The passing of genetic material occasionally occurs naturally in plants through a process called horizontal gene transfer, this is facilitated by viruses, transposons or retro viruses which can transfer themselves to new sites in a genome.
Previously plants could be breed with in their own species and sometimes their own genus however the use and development of the transgene meant that genes could be passed between plants that could not conventionally breed, In some cases genes from bacteria were inserted into plants in order to achieve a desired trait.
The process of creating a transgenic species is a complicated one simply knowing which trait you want to imbue the target plant with is not sufficient. First you have to locate the gene that expresses the desired trait which is no simple task since gene expression never boils down to a single gene. Each gene will have promoters and regulators. The transgene could potentially have other effects on the plant or the genes expression could interfere with other active genes, all these issues have to be addressed.
Once the gene of interest is located it is isolated and cloned by amplification in a bacterial vector. A vector is a DNA molecule which is attached to a gene or DNA of interest to enable it to be taking up by a host organism, in this case a bacterium. The most common types of vectors are plasmids or cosmids.

When the gene is cloned and amplified in a vector several modifications must be made. First promoter genes are attached to ensure expression of the gene, a terminator sequence is then attached to ensure the gene gets switched of at the right point and finally a marker is added to ensure the gene was successfully integrated into the target genome.
There are several methods used to insert the gene into the genome, the most commonly used methods are by use of a gene gun which is an electronic method of delivering plasmids or by use of a bacterium called agrobacterium. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a soil dwelling bacteria that “infects” a target plant with its DNA through a plants wounds. This bacteria causes gall diseases in certain plants however by removing the gene in Agrobacterium tumefaciens which causes tumours and replacing it with a modified transgene it can be an accurate way of ensuring the transgene is integrated into the target genome. These selective markers contain genes that bestow immunity from herbicides or antibiotics, the plant tissues would then be transferred to a medium containing herbicides or antibiotics and the tissues in which the genes have been successfully integrated would be the only ones remaining. The first transgenic plant was a tobacco plant engineered in 1986 to be resistant to herbicides. The plant cells are then grown in controlled environmental conditions and fed with special nutrients and hormones to ensure correct growth; this is known as tissue culture. The growth of these transgenic plants has been the hardest aspect of the genetic engineering of crops but new developments are being made to ensure more species of plant benefit from this method.
Cisgenesis is another more recent method of genetic engineering and involves the transfer of a gene from a plant to another species of plant from the same family or even the same genus i.e. the gene transfer is between crossable plants and doesn’t involve a transgene. The gene that is transferred includes the introns, promoters and terminator sequence of a gene so it is a lot faster than transgenesis and early results have been promising and The fact that the genes transferred come from crossable plants has led some state that plants bred by Cisgenesis should not be subject to the same level of regulation that transgenic plants are subject to.




The traits selected for in genetic modification include but are not limited to increased resistance to herbicides, increased resistance to pests, increased resistance to extremes of cold and heat, increased yield, the addition of nutrients and manipulation to increase the rate of growth. We see from the above history of modification of crops that certain traits have been selected for and against for thousands of years. What has changed is the methods and accuracy involved in the selection of such traits.
Since the modification through direct genetic manipulation there has been an increasing division in scientists and the public regarding the benefits and costs of genetically modified foods or GMOS. The arguments against GMOS have been made from an ethical, ecological, human health and economical perspective. Most of these arguments have escalated following the progression of transgenics.
The environmental arguments are based around the effects of placing foreign genes in an organism. Some propose that the due to the natural process of horizontal gene transfer some transgenes will naturally end up in foreign organisms. This would be a concern if a gene for herbicidal resilience ended up in weeds for example. There is also concern that some of these genes will or could mutate producing unknown consequences. The possibility also exists that promoter regions added to transgenes could activate what are known as “sleeper” genes with in an organism. The activation of sleeper genes along with most other concerns involving the use of transgenic plants is just a theory at the moment and hasn’t as of yet been observed in action. One thing is certainly true is that if a transgene “migrates” to unintended organisms then they would be very hard to recall.
Along with the environmental concern there is also debate about the potential effects of GMOS on human health. When a gene found in Brazil nuts was transferred to a soybean variety it was found that people with allergies to nuts who consumed to soybean experienced the same allergic reactions associated with Brazil nuts.
While as of yet unobserved some people have theorized that the antibiotic resistant markers added to the transgene in order to identify it could bestow an antibiotic resistance on other species however since this concern has been raised scientists have stopped using gene markers with potentially negative connotations for the environment or human health.


The proposed classification of GMOS in some countries such as the UK is based on the assessed risk involved with the potential effects on human health or the environment but there is also an economic effect to consider. Many fear that small farmers will suffer as a result of the increased use of GMOS. Many have theorized that biotechnology companies will dominate the market and that they will take up niches previously occupied by the agriculture sector. Fear has also been expressed that the biotechnology companies could claim that their methods and products are intellectual property and fail to release their research to the public research sector. This would have the most effects in poor countries that lack a large private research industry.
There is validity in many of these points indeed the introduction of allergens into a foreign organism has already happened but much of the concerns can either be rectified or have yet to be observed. The relatively recent development of Cisgenesis carries less of the implications of transgenics and as such has been met with excitement by people on both parts of the debate. Like all science this is a work in progress and no doubt major progress will be realized.
The listing the benefits of GMOS is in many cases as simple as stating the trait added to each crop but there are several wide spread benefits that proponents of GMOS advocate. The negative effects on the environment, human health and the economy are often countered when examining the benefits of GMOS.
The proponents argue that adding traits to imbue higher resistance to stress, cold and disease would no doubt increase the productivity of the agricultural sector. The variables in the success of most crops often depend upon the weather, diseases or stress the very problems that GMOS could combat. Reduced losses would yield greater yields.
Even human health could benefit from GMOS as one of the first applications for genetic modification was the introduction of nutrients previously absent from crops that often formed the staple diets of millions. Many diseases in developing countries are the result of a basic lack of nutrients; Indeed protein has been added to many strains of potato in an effort to combat malnutrition in developing countries. Even the accidental addition of an allergen from a Brazil nut to a soybean could help scientist identify the gene that expresses allergens in nuts.

*slams head against desk repeatedly*

What kind of a senseless joker are you?

steddyeddy

SuperInfinity wrote: »

*slams head against desk repeatedly*

What kind of a senseless joker are you?

The scientific kind. I believe boards has a "attack the post and not the poster" guideline.

Run_to_da_hills

The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GMO corn.

Kellogg's seem to be tops on the list. :eek:

If you have mice infestation just spill some cornflakes on the kitchen floor. :pac:

http://www.naturalnews.com/037315_Monsanto_GM_corn_breakfast_cereals.html

patrickbrophy18

I saw this a few months ago and I still find it horrific. Anyone who feeds animals food with genetically modified contaminants should have their licenses revoked. I can't even begin to imagine the excruciating pain that these rats have to bear with these comparatively large tumors. Effectively, each of their ordeals are akin to that of the Vietnamese patient seen here (albeit, on a smaller scale). It makes me sick to my stomach knowing that people perform such cruel tests on undefendable creatures.:eek::mad:

TheChizler

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I saw this a few months ago and I still find it horrific. Anyone who feeds animals food with genetically modified contaminants should have their licenses revoked. I can't even begin to imagine the excruciating pain that these rats have to bear with these comparatively large tumors. Effectively, each of their ordeals are akin to that of the Vietnamese patient seen here (albeit, on a smaller scale). It makes me sick to my stomach knowing that people perform such cruel tests on undefendable creatures.:eek::mad:

I think you might want to take your issues up with the people who specifically bred the rats to grow tumors, not necessarily the ones who fed them.

Run_to_da_hills

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I saw this a few months ago and I still find it horrific. Anyone who feeds animals food with genetically modified contaminants should have their licenses revoked. I can't even begin to imagine the excruciating pain that these rats have to bear with these comparatively large tumors. Effectively, each of their ordeals are akin to that of the Vietnamese patient seen here (albeit, on a smaller scale). It makes me sick to my stomach knowing that people perform such cruel tests on undefendable creatures.:eek::mad:

You obviously don't seem to take into account the excruciating pain from cancerous tumours that the countless billions of rats in the wild have to suffer from eating GM corn in the fields around the globe.

patrickbrophy18

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You obviously don't seem to take into account the excruciating pain from cancerous tumours that the countless billions of rats in the wild have to suffer from eating GM corn in the fields around the globe.

What the **** is with the hostility?:mad:

I am aware that other areas of the world also genetically modify crops and it's deplorable.

Genghiz Cohen

So the complete rubbishing of that study passed you guys by then?

An intensively promoted and controversial French study claiming to find high tumor rates and early mortality in rats fed genetically modified corn and “safe” levels of the herbicide Roundup has been dismissed in a rare joint statement from France’s six scientific academies

Run_to_da_hills

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So the complete rubbishing of that study passed you guys by then?

Brown envelopes.

Sarky

Yes, brown envelopes. Of course. Because a shoddy study full of dodgy methodology and cherry-picked results not being up to scratch for the scientific community is just too unlikely to be possible. You backed the wrong reality, again, and instead of admitting it you're retreating even further into your fantasy world where every organisation is super-powerful but somehow unable to stop you from finding out the great and terrible pattern. Because you're so special and you can see things the rest of humanity can't. An true hero.

Genghiz Cohen

Sarky wrote: »

An true hero.

But not the hero we need right now.

Run_to_da_hills

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, brown envelopes. Of course. Because a shoddy study full of dodgy methodology and cherry-picked results not being up to scratch for the scientific community is just too unlikely to be possible. You backed the wrong reality, again, and instead of admitting it you're retreating even further into your fantasy world where every organisation is super-powerful but somehow unable to stop you from finding out the great and terrible pattern. Because you're so special and you can see things the rest of humanity can't. An true hero.

Yes the same brown envelopes being passed around by these same corporates like Monsanto to prevent GM labelling of supermarket food products.

There is an easy and healthy way around this, simply avoid junk food.

This would include toxic corporate mass produced branded grain products, cereals, breads etc and of course all fast food.

Genghiz Cohen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This would include toxic corporate mass produced branded grain products, cereals, breads etc and of course all fast food.

So do that, and leave the rest of us alone.

steddyeddy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes the same brown envelopes being passed around by these same corporates like Monsanto to prevent GM labelling of supermarket food products.

There is an easy and healthy way around this, simply avoid junk food.

This would include toxic corporate mass produced branded grain products, cereals, breads etc and of course all fast food.

Nah I think i'll rely on science thanks, not garbage links to the followers of humus's websites.

Run_to_da_hills

steddyeddy wrote: »

Nah I think i'll rely on science thanks, not garbage links to the followers of humus's websites.

I would be more inclined to go with the one million or so people that are demanding answers.

professore

It's this kind of poor science jumped upon by the media that has led to lethal measles outbreaks because parents won't vaccinate their children for fear of autism, despite the author of the report being thoroughly discredited and tens of proper studies showing no link.

Genghiz Cohen

Anything that agrees with my position = automatically true.
Anything that disagrees = automatically false and corrupt.

Run To The Hills' thinking in a nutshell. Completely closed minded.

SuperInfinity

I admire Run_to_da_Hills single-minded rejection of all things GM on principle.

I do think that a lot of scientists can be trusted in some ways - if they couldn't, then gmos would be everywhere with no restrictions or trials and e-coli could be ruling the world etc. Most scientists actually care a bit about the world they live in and are fairly honest and have integrity. The corporations try and get to them in whatever way they can, but there are difficulties in doing that. The problem isn't the average scientist, the problem is the one scientist, who can release any type of DNA into the wild and there can be no going back.

Also there's a big difference between eating something that's slightly genetically modified, and something that creates massive tumours.

steddyeddy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would be more inclined to go with the one million or so people that are demanding answers.

I and many others here have explained the principles of genetic engineering. What questions do you require answers to?

Dave!

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I do think that a lot of scientists can be trusted in some ways .

Wow what a remarkable concession.

Gbear

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I admire Run_to_da_Hills single-minded rejection of all things GM on principle.

I don't think willful ignorance should ever be admired.

SuperInfinity

I think that what's important to take from this isn't that all people who eat GM foods will quickly get massive tumours and die, but rather that GM is not "just the same" as normal food. They have tampered with the fundamental building blocks of life.

Now that last sentence may sound corny to you, but that's just your own ignorance shining through. This isn't some bizarre story being made up, they are actually doing this to the planet and thereby to your own body. You can't just go messing with food on this fundamental level, because 1) this might happen 2) something a little less sinister might happen 3) all might apparently go fine. Obviously it's only the third one they're going to take, but they can't test for every possible deviation from natural food under the sun. Noone who believes in or has any grasp of evolution at all could think we would do just as good with genes that are partly randomly selected. Things only a tiny percentage of people get, like terrible headaches, early-onset alzheimers, unusual libido or metabolic problems... things that people won't be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt Monsanto and the GM foods caused. Those are the things which Monsanto do not and will not care about.

The worst thing of all is that these changes are irreversible and permanent, there is no going back. Our descendants will curse us forever for letting these things into the wild and denying them natural food forever. They are even genetically modifying trees now and all kinds of other plants and organisms. I don't know where it's all going to end, but I do know that we're all ****ed. There's practically zero chance that anything like us will exist in the future, it'll be the end of humanity.

Run_to_da_hills

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The worst thing of all is that these changes are irreversible and permanent, there is no going back. Our descendants will curse us for letting these things into the wild and denying them natural food forever. They are even genetically modifying trees now and all kinds of other plants and organisms. I don't know where it's all going to end, but I do know that we're all ****ed. There's practically zero chance that anything like us will exist in the future, it'll be the end of humanity.

There is going back when the damage is done but only for the chosen after the dust settles.

The Doomsday natural seed vault solution and guess who is behind it.

Bill Gates, Rockerfalla and Monsanto.

Why do you suppose they just locked up supplies of all the world’s natural seeds in an underground vault in Norway, but are busy altering the genetic make up of the seeds WE’RE supposed to eat?

They are obviously expecting major a fcuk up in nature down the line.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’

The Gates Of Hell Foundation

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46602078/ns/today-today_news/t/doomsday-vault-holds-seeds-could-save-world/#.UJN012-Znp8

TheChizler

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I think that what's important to take from this isn't that all people who eat GM foods will quickly get massive tumours and die, but rather that GM is not "just the same" as normal food. They have tampered with the fundamental building blocks of life.

Now that last sentence may sound corny to you, but that's just your own ignorance shining through. This isn't some bizarre story being made up, they are actually doing this to the planet and thereby to your own body. You can't just go messing with food on this fundamental level, because 1) this might happen 2) something a little less sinister might happen 3) all might apparently go fine. Obviously it's only the third one they're going to take, but they can't test for every possible deviation from natural food under the sun. Noone who believes in or has any grasp of evolution at all could think we would do just as good with genes that are partly randomly selected. Things only a tiny percentage of people get, like terrible headaches, early-onset alzheimers, unusual libido or metabolic problems... things that people won't be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt Monsanto and the GM foods caused. Those are the things which Monsanto do not and will not care about.

The worst thing of all is that these changes are irreversible and permanent, there is no going back. Our descendants will curse us forever for letting these things into the wild and denying them natural food forever. They are even genetically modifying trees now and all kinds of other plants and organisms. I don't know where it's all going to end, but I do know that we're all ****ed. There's practically zero chance that anything like us will exist in the future, it'll be the end of humanity.

You seem pretty confident! And also like a script writer.

Run_to_da_hills

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, brown envelopes. Of course. Because a shoddy study full of dodgy methodology and cherry-picked results not being up to scratch for the scientific community is just too unlikely to be possible. You backed the wrong reality, again, and instead of admitting it you're retreating even further into your fantasy world where every organisation is super-powerful but somehow unable to stop you from finding out the great and terrible pattern. Because you're so special and you can see things the rest of humanity can't. An true hero.

Would you see Monsanto carry out these same tests on live rats?

No not a hope because it would expose themselves.

EU rejects French report linking GM maize to cancer

Just goes to show that the EU is also more concerned about profit and backhanders than it is about health issues. Would you see the EU carry out similar tests? I doubt it.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121128-eu-rejects-french-report-linking-gm-maize-cancer

IvyTheTerrible

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is going back when the damage is done but only for the chosen after the dust settles.

The Doomsday natural seed vault solution and guess who is behind it.

Bill Gates, Rockerfalla and Monsanto.

Why do you suppose they just locked up supplies of all the world’s natural seeds in an underground vault in Norway, but are busy altering the genetic make up of the seeds WE’RE supposed to eat?

They are obviously expecting major a fcuk up in nature down the line.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’

The Gates Of Hell Foundation

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46602078/ns/today-today_news/t/doomsday-vault-holds-seeds-could-save-world/#.UJN012-Znp8

"They", as you put it, have locked up seeds in a vault in Norway, to protect the current biodiversity of cultivated plants, in case global warming or other disasters wipe it out. You make it sound like they have locked up ALL the seeds, which is simply not true, they have preserved enough to be able to grow them later.

Run_to_da_hills

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

"They", as you put it, have locked up seeds in a vault in Norway, to protect the current biodiversity of cultivated plants, in case global warming or other disasters wipe it out. You make it sound like they have locked up ALL the seeds, which is simply not true, they have preserved enough to be able to grow them later.

The have locked up the seeds as a precaution in case when if GM exhausts itself out and back fires and cannot be reversed. Unfortunately they would only be able to store limited quantities,.

IvyTheTerrible

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The have locked up the seeds as a precaution in case if GM back fires and cannot be reversed. Unfortunately they would only be able to store limited quantities,.

So what if they can only store limited quantities? They are SEEDS. And it's not because of GM. There are LOADS of plants being stored that have never used for GM varieties.

Ziphius

Oh, this thread is back. How serendipitous.

A European Food Safety Authority press release from November 28 has dismissed the original Séralini et al. study.

"Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. These are the conclusions of separate and independent assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and six EU Member States following publication of the paper in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September 201"

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

New Scientist reports that many researchers are calling for the paper to be retracted from the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology . Which is hardly surprising.

The director of Rothamsted Research, Maurice Moloney, is quoted as saying

"The consistency of the critique from several national risk-evaluation agencies should prompt Elsevier to re-evaluate the standards of peer review at its journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology,"

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/11/retraction-gm-crop-cancer-study.html

Run_to_da_hills

Greenpeace slams EFSA’s selective approach to Seralini’s study

Environmental activists have accused the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of employing a selective approach to a controversial study by French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini that linked genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and Roundup herbicide to increased risk of cancer. In a statement issued on 29 November, Greenpeace slammed the EU food safety watchdog for failing to take into consideration “all the positive statements that various national agencies expressed on Seralini’s study,” especially those emphasising the need for study on the long-term effects of genetically modified plants (GMP) on health.

The comment came after the EFSA definitively rejected, on 28 November, Seralini’s foundlings, saying they had serious defects and failed to meet scientific standards (see Europolitics4538). The EFSA’s final assessment was based on “separate and independent assessments” by the EU watchdog itself and six EU member states (Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Italy). The EFSA said there was no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of GM maize NK603. It stopped short of taking a position on the need for a new long-term study to be conducted on the potential health effects of GMPs. Meanwhile, in its statement, Greenpeace pointed to the recommendations by the French National Agency for Food Safety (ANSES), the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council (WIV-ISP) and the German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which see the need for more research on the potential health effects associated with the long-term consumption of GMOs or long-term exposure to plant protection products.

Seralini published his study in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September. On 4 October, the EFSA published its preliminary ruling.

http://www.europolitics.info/sectorial-policies/greenpeace-slams-efsa-s-selective-approach-to-seralini-s-study-art345739-11.html

Ziphius

Ha! Bless. That's what Green Peace consider a slamming? Now this is a slamming.

"Greenpeace has lost its way. Its former glory rested on the righteousness of its actions in support of real evidence of how humanity was failing to care for the environment. Now it is a sad, dogmatic, reactionary phalanx of anti-science zealots who care not for evidence, but for publicity."

Wilson da Silva

What exactly is Green Peace's problem with the EFSA report other than it didn't align with their own prejudices?