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.
Oh wake up. Do you really not draw the connection between big business profits and industry-aligned scientists on the take? Are you really that naive? Speaking of research, ever hear of thalidomide or cigarettes? Bovine Growth Hormone? Do you know how long it took to have cigarettes and thalidomide declared dangerous? How that research was repeatedly ignored, dismissed and countered by industry-aligned "scientists"? Years. As for BGH, despite being banned since 2000 in all of Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and other countries, it is still full speed ahead in the USA.
Big business doesn't care about you or your health. It's all about the buck. If you believe otherwise you are naive. Do a little research yourself and refrain from throwing insults at people who care about their health and are concerned about the crap masquerading as food.
You just stumble from ludicrous post to ludicrous post don't you? As soon as one of your posts is totally discredited you post another...
You should have given up after you showed us your gullibility factor by The Lapine (Post #403) or your ignorance concerning the lab rats study (Post #408).
We are still waiting for you to post something that has an ounce of fact to it rather than paranoid rants....
Environmental Activist Mark Lynas On His Support of GMOs
Mark Lynas was one of the first people to break into fields that scientists had planted with genetically modified test crops — and then rip them out of the ground. Ross Reynolds talks with Mark Lynas about what changed his mind about GMOs.
You just stumble from ludicrous post to ludicrous post don't you? As soon as one of your posts is totally discredited you post another...
You should have given up after you showed us your gullibility factor by The Lapine (Post #403) or your ignorance concerning the lab rats study (Post #408).
We are still waiting for you to post something that has an ounce of fact to it rather than paranoid rants....
How is it that you unable to respond in a civil fashion? Never mind, don't really care and I won't be back to this thread so save your fingers and adrenalin for someone who cares.
As I said, you are naive if you do not believe that these large companies use industry-aligned scientists to support their views. They also hire bloggers and people (such as yourself, albeit likely more diplomatic) to infiltrate and tout their party lines. I really don't care if you believe it or not, and I won't be back to read your insults, but I am sure you will fire away, so please enjoy yourself.
You completely (but unsurprisingly) ignored my comments regarding the myriad of companies and scientists that discounted and dismissed scientific studies that found that thalidomide, cigarettes and a host of other profitable things unhealthy or life threatening. Study after study dismissed, scientists disparaged, reports concealed, etc., for years on end. Asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, saccharine, the Dalkon Shield, Zyprexa, Seroquel, rBGH, Benlate DF 50, etcetera ad nauseum. Take your pick.
But you ignored that, so I'll repeat it: There is a direct correlation between people who have worked for a company and their subsequent findings in research and their dismissal of other scientist's work.
Now the GMO corn study may be flawed. Or it may not be. There may or not be money changing hands, it may or may not be a smear campaign. But that doesn't change the historic reality that scientists can be influenced - and if that corn does cause tumours, Monsanto won't be able to hide it forever. Although they are such an ethical company aren't they Waste dumped by Monsanto has contaminated a Cardiff quarry | Environment | The Guardian
But regardless of the final outcome of the new study, one of the people that questioned the current study was Mark Tester.
"Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concern"
Who is Mark Tester? Is he a scientist who has no association with the company that produces this GMO corn? Of course not.He's a pro-GMO scientist. who according to his CV has a "commercial acumen that is clear from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont."
As I said, you are naive if you do not believe that these large companies use industry-aligned scientists to support their views. They also hire bloggers and people (such as yourself, albeit likely more diplomatic) to infiltrate and tout their party lines. I really don't care if you believe it or not, and I won't be back to read your insults, but I am sure you will fire away, so please enjoy yourself.
Ahhhh, but the other side (yours) never lies misquotes or deceives...... gotcha....
Quote:
You completely (but unsurprisingly) ignored my comments regarding the myriad of companies and scientists that discounted and dismissed scientific studies that found that thalidomide, cigarettes and a host of other profitable things unhealthy or life threatening. Study after study dismissed, scientists disparaged, reports concealed, etc., for years on end. Asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, saccharine, the Dalkon Shield, Zyprexa, Seroquel, rBGH, Benlate DF 50, etcetera ad nauseum. Take your pick.
You seem not to understand this specific thread is not about thalidomide, cigarettes asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, saccharine, the Dalkon Shield, Zyprexa, Seroquel, rBGH, Benlate DF 50, and a host of other profitable things unhealthy or life threatening.
Want to rant about them? Open a new thread on them but I'll wager nobody who frequents this forum will dispute the fact they are unhealthy......
Quote:
But you ignored that, so I'll repeat it: There is a direct correlation between people who have worked for a company and their subsequent findings in research and their dismissal of other scientist's work.
Why do you carry on with this ludicrous act that one side lies, cheats, pays people off, conspires against people and the other side doesn't?
I proved to you the rat study was biased and flawed for one, you still believe a story published by a satirical web site is fact. What more proof do you need that your outlook on this subject is deeply flawed and biased?
BTW, when did I ever say that thalidomide, cigarettes asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, saccharine, the Dalkon Shield, Zyprexa, Seroquel, rBGH, Benlate DF 50 don't cause health issues?
Pick anything sold on the face of this Green Earth and someone, somewhere will have health issues and possibly die from the product.
Genetically modified Bt crops get a pretty bad rap. The pest-killing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria protein these plants are bioengineered to make has been accused of harming monarch butterflies, honey bees, rats, and showing up in the blood of pregnant women.
Just one problem: None of that is true. (Click on any of those links to see a scientific refutation of each claim.) Seven independent experts in genetically modified crops I spoke to all confirmed that the science shows Bt crops to be safer than their alternative: noxious chemical insecticides.
Genetically modified crops had bumper year in 2011
Quote:
Worldwide, 395 million acres of farmland were planted in 2011 in biotech crops, 30 million more than 2010, say the figures in this year's International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications report, out Tuesday. The amount of land devoted to genetically engineered crops grew 8% last year, down from 10% growth in 2010.
Commentary by Dr. Clive James, Chair of ISAAA, on the June 2012 USDA Crop Acreage Report
USDA Crop Acreage Report for 2012, confirms that US farmers continue to demonstrate overwhelming trust and confidence in biotech crops.
Quote:
Since biotech crops were first commercialized in the U.S., and five other countries in 1996, millions of farmers in 29 countries worldwide have made decisions to plant and replant crops featuring the technology on an accumulated area of more than 1.25 billion hectares or three billion acres – an area of crop land 25 percent larger than the total land mass of the United States. ISAAA data indicate that, U.S. farmers continued to plant more biotech crops than any country in the world in 2011 – a total of almost 70 million hectares or 170 million acres, of which half the maize area, and two thirds of cotton had more than one trait, generating multiple benefits. In addition to the three principal biotech crops of maize, soybean and cotton the U.S. also grew half a million hectares of sugar beet (95% adoption achieved in 5 years – the fastest rate of adoption in the US) and modest hectarages of biotech canola, alfalfa, squash and papaya. The current devastating drought in the U.S., that is badly affecting at least half of the maize crop, is generating increased interest in biotech drought tolerant maize which is currently being tested in extensive field trials. It is premature to comment on the performance of the biotech drought tolerant maize until the analysis of data from the field trials in the U.S. is completed later this year. Drought tolerance is an infinitely more complex trait than herbicide tolerance and insect resistance and progress is likely to be on a step by step basis. Encouraging results from the 2012 field tests in the U.S. for biotech drought tolerant maize would be a significant step forward to address drought, the most important constraint to increasing crop productivity globally, to which both conventional and biotech applications can contribute.
It used to be that herbicides were sprayed on the soil before the crop seeds were planted, so very little herbicide residue ended up in the food. Nowadays, GMO crops such as soy can tolerate repeated direct spraying of herbicide on the plan...t itself while it is growing. The soybean seed is genetically modified to not be affected by the poison. Because the plant itself is now sprayed, the herbicide becomes part of the tissue of the food and can't be washed off.
Other crops, such as GMO corn, which has been genetically-modified to make its own pesticide, contain a poison that also cannot be washed off. When bugs eat the corn, it kills them. Nearly all corn products (except certified organic) are from GMO corn. That includes the ubiquitous food ingredient know as corn syrup.
GMO corn syrup and GMO soy oil are in nearly all supermarket foods, but thanks to an FDA that is virtually owned by these chemical poison companies, these GMO ingredients are not labeled. Without the Certified Organic logo shown in our cover picture above, if the ingredient list on a label includes anything with the word "corn" or "soy," chances are nearly 100% that you are are consuming GMO ingredients.
More and more very legitimate scientific studies are linking consumption of foods with GMO ingredients to cancer and other serious disease.
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.
Lies will not change the truth.
