Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Six French Science Academies Dismiss Study Finding GM Corn Harmed Rats
Quote:
Two additional panels of experts in France said the rat study does not change their view of Monsnto's engineered corn or the Roundup herbicide. See the postscript below.]
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.
Review of the Séralini et al. (2012) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology
Quote:
Food and Chemical Toxicology a publication describing a 2-year feeding study in rats investigating the health effects of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 with and without Roundup WeatherMAX® and Roundup® GT Plus alone (both are glyphosate-containing plant protection products). EFSA was requested by the European Commission to review this publication and to identify whether clarifications are needed from the authors. EFSA notes that the Séralini et al. (2012) study has unclear objectives and is inadequately reported in the publication, with many key details of the design, conduct and analysis being omitted.
Gee, one would think that with all the expert scientists they would know what is required to make a study valid... Leaving certain things out of a study sure is suspicious don't you think?
And please, don't come out with "all those organizations that dismissed this study are paid Monsanto shills"....
Type: Statement of EFSA
On request from: European Commission
Question number: EFSA-Q-2012-00841
Approved: 03 October 2012
Published: 04 October 2012
Affiliation: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
As I posted earlier, this is the United States of America where the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their accusations are the truth. So far in this thread all that has been posted is biased studies citing GMO tests on animals...
The truth is simple: Some pot-smoking hippie wrote a blog about the dangers of GMOs. It gets repeated as fact, cited as research, and it becomes its own religion.
It wasn't very long ago that I had a young couple berating me because I'm not all over the "Go Organic or Go Hungry!!!!" craze. They were dumbfounded by how stupid I am to be pumping my body full of all those pesticides & other toxic chemicals. Ironically, both of them smoke, and drink heavily.
After a decade of use on more than 1 billion acres (400 million hectares) worldwide, plant biotechnology delivers proven economic and environmental benefits, a solid record of safe use and promising products for our future. Following are key global facts about the advantages of genetically modified foods and crops:
8.25 million farmers — 90 percent of whom farm in developing countries — choose to plant biotech crops.
Farmers in 17 countries on six continents are using plant biotechnology to solve difficult crop production challenges and conserve the environment. Over the past decade, they’ve increased area planted in genetically modified (GM) crops by more than 10 percent each year, increased their farm income by more than US$27 billion, and achieved economic, environmental and social benefits in crops such as soybeans, canola, corn and cotton.
To date, total acres of biotech crops harvested exceed more than 1 billion with a proven 10-year history of safe use. Over the next decade, expanded adoption combined with current research on 57 crops in 63 countries will broaden the advantages of genentically modified foods for growers, consumers and the environment.
Twenty-five Nobel Prize winners and 3,400 prominent scientists have expressed their support for the advantages of genetically modified foods and crops as a “powerful and safe” way to improve agriculture and the environment. Numerous international organizations also have endorsed the health and environmental safety of biotech crops, including the Royal Society (UK), National Academy of Sciences (USA), the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Commission, the French Academy of Medicine, and the American Medical Association.
Of course the anti-GMO crowd will say all the above organizations are nothing more than mouthpieces of Monsanto....
Quote:
Farmers have decreased pesticide applications by 172,000 metric tons.
Consumers consistently rank a reduction in pesticide applications as the most valuable benefit of plant biotechnology — which is important since farmers have significantly reduced pesticide sprayings, while conserving the water and fuel otherwise depleted with tillage or plowing. The planting of biotech crops has reduced the "environmental footprint" of cotton, corn, soy and canola by 14 percent, as calculated using an established environmental index quotient (EIQ) that compares the potential impacts of pesticides applied in a conventional field to a field planted with a biotech crop.
The truth is simple: Some pot-smoking hippie wrote a blog about the dangers of GMOs. It gets repeated as fact, cited as research, and it becomes its own religion.
It wasn't very long ago that I had a young couple berating me because I'm not all over the "Go Organic or Go Hungry!!!!" craze. They were dumbfounded by how stupid I am to be pumping my body full of all those pesticides & other toxic chemicals. Ironically, both of them smoke, and drink heavily.
People are stupid.
The truth is simple: Some coke snortin scientists wrote a blog about the supposed good in GMO foods.. then a large coorperation decides to capitalize on it (never mind the safety studies), and (because no-one believes it's safe) they use deceit and lies to sneakily force it into the food supply, and have you consume it....You're right, people are stupid, especially the ones that don't mind having others tell them what they can/should/will eat, and refuse to even consider that they have the rights to know what's in that food....I'm not a proponent of "blind trust".
The truth is simple: Some coke snortin scientists wrote a blog about the supposed good in GMO foods.. then a large coorperation decides to capitalize on it (never mind the safety studies), and (because no-one believes it's safe) they use deceit and lies to sneakily force it into the food supply, and have you consume it....You're right, people are stupid, especially the ones that don't mind having others tell them what they can/should/will eat, and refuse to even consider that they have the rights to know what's in that food....I'm not a proponent of "blind trust".
Big difference here: YOU and YOUR ILK are making unfounded accusations. Absurd accusations. It is YOUR JOB to prove these accusations credible. Unless and until you do that, you're playing the part of the fool. Everyone but you knows it.
This is EXACTLY like the slanderous garbage about "pink slime" - a finely ground meat that's exactly like what goes in hot dogs, braunschwager, etc. A few media blowhards tried to make a name for themselves, millions of idiots believed them, and a $1.2 billion lawsuit is now in the works. It's high time for people to START being responsible for the idiotic and unfounded accusations they make!
The truth is simple: Some coke snortin scientists wrote a blog about the supposed good in GMO foods.. then a large coorperation decides to capitalize on it (never mind the safety studies), and (because no-one believes it's safe) they use deceit and lies to sneakily force it into the food supply, and have you consume it....
So all of these organizations employ "coke snortin scientists".......
~ The Royal Society (UK)
~ National Academy of Sciences (USA)
~ The World Health Organization
~ The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
~ The European Commission
~ The French Academy of Medicine
~ The American Medical Association
Your post goes to show just how ludicrous, downright silly and childish some of the accusations are from the anti-GMO crowd...
So all of these organizations employ "coke snortin scientists".......
~ The Royal Society (UK)
~ National Academy of Sciences (USA)
~ The World Health Organization
~ The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
~ The European Commission
~ The French Academy of Medicine
~ The American Medical Association
Your post goes to show just how ludicrous, downright silly and childish some of the accusations are from the anti-GMO crowd...
The Royal Society (UK) says:
Quote:
The Royal Society report, Genetically modified plants for food use (1998), concluded that the use of genetically modified (GM) plants potentially offered benefits in agricultural practice, food quality, nutrition and health, but that there were several aspects of GM technology which required further consideration. We recognise thatthere is public concern about GM technology, particularly with respect to the safety of GM food for human consumption and to the possible effects of the technology on the environment. Since the 1998 report there has been new research which the working grouphas evaluated. This update focuses on the effects that GM foods might have on human health and the use of the principle of substantial equivalence in GM food safety testing.
Is not an endorsement.
The World Health Organization says:
Quote:
... All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations says:
Quote:
... It is UN policy that the decision with regard to the acceptance of GM commodities as part of food aid transactions rests with the recipient countries
... In order to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of GMOs, takes place in complete safety, the European Union has established a legal framework regulating genetically modified (GM) food and feed in the EU.
Global economic and environmental benefits of GM crops continue to rise
Quote:
Over the 15 year period covered in the report, crop biotechnology has consistently provided important economic and production gains, improved incomes and reduced risk for farmers around the world that have grown GM crops” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, co-author of the report. “The environment in user countries is benefiting from farmers using more benign herbicides or replacing insecticide use with insect resistant GM crops. The reduction in pesticide spraying and the switch to no till cropping systems is also resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of these benefits are found in developing countries”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
