Genetically modified food can have it's flaws...

[StaxBundlez]

Monsanto GM maize may face Europe ban after French study links to cancer

Monsanto GM maize may face Europe ban after French study links to cancer - France - RFI

NK603 is a type of corn, or maize, that has been engineered to make it resistant to the herbicide Roundup, which is also manufactured by Monsanto, and is used by farmers to maximise yields

France will ask for a Europe-wide ban on a genetically modified maize developed by US agribusiness Monsanto if the findings of tests made public Wednesday prove to be true. The study found that rats fed on the corn for two years developed tumours the size of ping-pong balls, liver damage and digestive problems.

[dinosaur]

flaws?

gee....ya think?

[CharlesInCharge]

There was a Russian experiment many years ago that found rats and even cockroaches (insects that can survive nuclear fall out) developed organ problems and even passed on the same organ diseases genetically down a few generations to its offspring (children).
One kind of genetically modified red food die or something, also caused allergic reactions in people which was lucky singled out and forever taken off the shelves.

They've know this shit from the beginning but the system and media tells a different story, this is why you have Mr.know it all's even in this forum who think they smart to defend GMO's.

You know Canadians living well into their senior years is unproductive in the "New World Order" scheme of things. They prefer people to work their ass off in the young adult years, get problems mid life, spend all the saved money on hospitals and die before collecting pensions and being a drag on the economy.

[wstce92]

GMO's get a bad rep cause these companies are just looking to maximize revenues. The tech's not there.
But to feed the world, imo, genetically modifying crops is what we need to do
It's the companies you hate, not the tech. It's like saying you hate cars cause Chinese and Russian cars are shit and kill people.

[CharlesInCharge]

The new world order with their Monsanto have been limiting seeds around the world to a magnitude that you cant fathom... so that genetically naturally variants of food are taken out and so that farmers and countries as a whole have to be dependent (combination seed and special pesticide) on Monsanto for a food supply.

We as a human race dont need to be experimenting by mixing DNA's at this time when the basic avenues of "feeding" the world arent even pursued by the hegemonic powers... in fact history has shown constant genocides around the world by these so called human rights champions of the world. GMO's could very well be to designed to kill population growth rather then doing it to make great profits and "feed the world".

Are you willing to give these GMO potatoes and maze to your family wstce92?

[rsx]

Didn't they use mice that were highly susceptible for cancer and tumor growths and weren't they 2 years old already (old in rat years)?

[Hurricane]

Not this again...we just went through this whole discussion on the board recently.

By the way, from the article you posted:

Gilles-Eric Seralini, who works at the University of Caen in Normandy, has publicly opposed GM agriculture for some time and often found himself in a minority when he sat on a government committee examining them.

His study cost three million euros, he says, and was funded by and anti-GM campaign, Criigen, the Charles Mayer Foundation and Ceres, a group formed by major retailers.

And the guy who did the study, decided to share the results with the media, before sharing them with other scientists for a critical analysis.

How do you think all you anti-GMO people would act, if Monsanto released a study tomorrow to journalists, before it was confirmed by independent sources, saying the corn was safe? Because, that's what happened here (only from your side).

[SkinnyPupp]

More 'shocking' photos to get people worked up on a superficial level without being skeptical and looking for more information.

[CharlesInCharge]

Haha you guys are actually putting the lab in question? This isnt the first study to show these kind of abnormalities.

There's even video on these rats
CRIIGEN - Slides explaining the work

[Gridlock]

I have no inherent problem with the concept of GMO food, in of itself.

I have every problem with:

A company that sues neighboring farms for using their "gourmet" seeds that have landed there through wind currents.

A company, as in one singular company putting themselves in a position to control the world's food supply.

No one actually taking one minute longer to ask, should we be doing this? Because that minute is unprofitable.

In short, I don't trust these bastards.

The gov't has been messing with the food supply for 50 years, leading to one president telling farms, "get bigger", so you lose the small family farm, and gain multi-nationals that down 1000's of hectares.

Right here \/ it will say:
This post FAILED by: SkinnyPupp

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Right here \/ it will say:
This post FAILED by: SkinnyPupp

You made a well thought out post, and put your point of view forward. You weren't spouting off the same illogical shit that other tinfoil hats and morons post all the time.

But since you asked, I have to oblige

[LiquidTurbo]

Somebody school me on GMOs. How are they harmful? Isn't it like eating food that's had it's genetic makeup altered, sort of like food that has evolved ? Like there was on time where all orange trees bore seeded oranges. Then by a freak of nature there was a tree that didn't have oranges with seeds. All seedless oranges are derivatives of the original seedless orange. What's the difference if we go in and modify the orange manually?
Posted via RS Mobile

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

Somebody school me on GMOs. How are they harmful? Isn't it like eating food that's had it's genetic makeup altered, sort of like food that has evolved ? Like there was on time where all orange trees bore seeded oranges. Then by a freak of nature there was a tree that didn't have oranges with seeds. All seedless oranges are derivatives of the original seedless orange. What's the difference if we go in and modify the orange manually?
Posted via RS Mobile

Health wise, nothing proven. Politically, well read Gridlock's post

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

Somebody school me on GMOs. How are they harmful? Isn't it like eating food that's had it's genetic makeup altered, sort of like food that has evolved ? Like there was on time where all orange trees bore seeded oranges. Then by a freak of nature there was a tree that didn't have oranges with seeds. All seedless oranges are derivatives of the original seedless orange. What's the difference if we go in and modify the orange manually?
Posted via RS Mobile

Really short version.

There is a school of thought and practice that through selective breeding, you can manipulate the product of a plant(or animal for that matter, but let's completely ignore the eugenics movement of the 30's) It happens all the time.

Take for example, those that breed orchids. By splicing plants together and through other techniques, you can "create" new breeds of the plant.

This would be done on the "macro" scale. And what you are talking about is exactly that. If you want seedless oranges, then you harvest and promote the natural development of oranges without seeds.

With GMO, you are basically(speaking very high level here, as the technology involved is insane) but basically doing the same thing at the gene level. But, we don't need to play with trying to eliminate seeds from an orange, we can start adding fish DNA because it metabolizes nutrients faster, or make the entire structure of the plant resistant to pesticides so we can douse the fields with insect killers and not affect the plant we are trying to grow.

So, in theory, people say, "game on!" That's all good, right? Pests suck, so let's kill the pests. Insects are horribly inefficient, so let's breed a plant that in its very own capabilities repels insects.

Here's where the problems come in. First up, this shit ain't cheap. So the companies that do it(Monsanto being the big one, and then everyone else) create their seeds so they don't reproduce. So every year, you have to come back and buy more seeds for next years crop. And because your fields were used with this shit once, you have to use it all the time.

Next, the company that makes the seeds, is the one that makes the pesticides that its designed to not be affected by. So, its profitability is linked to its own product.

Add to that, that it promotes increased use of pesticides, that causes runoff problems and pollutes lakes, streams and rivers.

Oh, and that pesky little "no time for over time studies" so, lets just put this shit on the market and hope we were right. That's worked so well before. Thinking DDT era here.

Monsanto hires crazy amounts of lobbyists. Not in itself a problem, but have you ever noticed that the really good companies don't seem to need as many?

It goes on and on.

Politics and farming are linked, and they shouldn't be. Something as basic as our food supply should be regulated and that's all. But there seems to be more to it.

[CharlesInCharge]

Heres are the great threats.
Imagine this tumor corn being released into the Mexican wild life environment, over taking (because its bug resistant) all of the other corn species over millennia.

Now think about people, even in other countries like Canada if that food was exported, getting genetic error in their genes at a young age and passing a disease down to its child to have liver problems... and that child doing the same to the next generation even if its off spring dont eat corn.

Is this possible Gridlock, you seem to have a good understanding of this stuff.

[sekin67835]

Pesticides being implemented into food is always a bad idea. You're ingesting it, thus absorbing the pesticides with it. Sure it is more efficient but IMO, the aftermath of this product hasn't been studied enough yet. Further more recently, scientists have discovered a pesticide/herbicide that is disorienting bees, cause them to leave their hive and thus destroying the bee population. At this stage of GMO it is unsafe to promote this technology.
Posted via RS Mobile

[CharlesInCharge]

Exactly why gamble our species when its not needed as elites are hell bent on controlling the world right now and not implementing basic avenues of farming but instead going against it.
No one is smart enough in this world to say what alien genetic mixture is safe.

Cockroaches and mice dieing on this stuff and any chance in disturbing bees ecology should make this an open and shut case not to use mutant GMO's.

Maybe all us Americans are a sacrifice of a people guinea pigs to see the implications of this new science.

[El Bastardo]

Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge

There was a Russian experiment many years ago that found rats and even cockroaches (insects that can survive nuclear fall out) developed organ problems and even passed on the same organ diseases genetically down a few generations to its offspring (children).

But this has been proven to be untrue. Despite the resistance a cockroach has to radiation humans would consider harmful, doses as high as those found in nuclear fallout will kill cockroaches.

You're just another brainwashed tool of modern pop culture "fact media" rebranding urban legends as truth. This invalidates everything you've ever said because it shows you lack a commitment to do your own independent research, instead relying on data you assume is empirical evidence.

I think its time we look into the link between neuro-toxicity and paper mache to find out exactly what your malfunction is, Arash.



Beyond that, and unrelated to anything Arash says.

I think that gm crops are something that should be explored in the realm of science, but not by a corporation like Monsanto who has clearly demonstrated itself to be incapable of acting in a responsible manner. I'm surprised they're not part of a larger conglomerate along with Union Carbide given their flippant attitude toward human life.

Monsanto is a for-profit corporation (which I don't oppose in theory, but their practices are enough to turn me into a protesting hippie with the rest of you ilk) and they're trying to cut the biggest amount of profit from the least amount of overhead. This means that they're working to the bare minimum of FDA standards (or in some cases, lobbying to LOWER those standards) to yield crops without regard to the health of the people eating this stuff.

GM crops should be developed by those who have a passion for research and altruism... like a university science department. In an ideal world, private corporations would fund passionate people with fresh new ideas. Sadly the philosophy of "Fuck you, got/getting mine" is the 1%'s mantra version of #YOLO. The days of doing your fellow man better are gone by, replaced by the idea of packaging botulism as the fountain of youth.

Now, white lab rats aren't exactly the best thing to test gm crops on. Sure, they make great indicators for how the human brain and cardiovascular system will react to medication (before human trials begin) but they're bred to be susceptible and sensitive to all sorts of disorders. I'd love to see some independent research on those rats, and larger trials. I'm not sold just yet.

Humans are a resilient species. We've survived plagues and other assorted illnesses. We've adapted our bodies to become fueled by a huge spectrum of sources and to fight off infections that could kill other animals. We're tougher than rats. We're also tougher than the chemicals and engineering that have gone into the meat that some of us eat. GM crops are a new type of hurdle for us, but I'm sure that we could handle it.

I think that GM crops are a great idea and should be something worth exploring, but companies like Monsanto are giving them a bad name and we could possibly see a permanent association between GM crops and cancer because of careless research and shitty business practices.

tl;dr: Everybody sucks

[Redlines_Daily]

Originally Posted by El Bastardo

You're just another brainwashed tool of modern pop culture "fact media" rebranding urban legends as truth. This invalidates everything you've ever said because it shows you lack a commitment to do your own independent research...

stopped reading after this. Not interested in your opinion if you're going to be rude. There's no reason these debates can't be respectful.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily

stopped reading after this. Not interested in your opinion if you're going to be rude. There's no reason these debates can't be respectful.

The person that statement was directed towards has a long history encompassing many user names.

[dangonay]

As I said in the other thread, would someone please link me a study where they have taken GM corn and run it through a mass spectrometer to prove there are higher concentrations of harmful compounds than regular corn? Or that it contains compounds that shouldn't even be there? This is all that really matters. The DNA of something you ingest is irrelevant as your digestive system breaks foods down into their basic compounds.
Posted via RS Mobile

[CharlesInCharge]

Well well hello Mr.know it all. what up with those tumors homeboy?

[Excelsis]

^ even though you know the real information don't be cocky

and for those who didn't do your research, this isn't conspiracy this is real world truth

most evident in us where most people are brainwashed..

[El Bastardo]

Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily

stopped reading after this. Not interested in your opinion if you're going to be rude. There's no reason these debates can't be respectful.

I'm not interested in your pro-bestiality opinion in that other thread either, but I didn't take the time to derail and comment on it. I'd ask that you show me the same courtesy.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge

Well well hello Mr.know it all. what up with those tumors homeboy?

No tumors here, since there's nothing in my food to cause them.

As I stated previously (and you have ignored), where is the research showing the breakdown of all compounds in GMO's that lists the differences between them and non-GMO foods? If GMO's cause cancer then which compound is responsible? In all the time that has elapsed from the previous thread you haven't been able to come up with anything?

As usual, you have no science or hard evidence to back your claims. Just a bunch of pseudo-science passed off as fact.
Posted via RS Mobile