Why GMO Myths Are So Appealing and Powerful

Rune said:
No, I quoted directly from your source.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and nothing in it indicates that they were forced to buy Monsanto's seeds, gm seeds or that there was any mass starvation. It did, however, prove that the order was about patent laws.
 
Rune said:
The order prevented them from using their own seed lines and forced them to buy seeds from Monsanto.

It was issued by the occupying country, the US.

Their own seeds had been adapted to the local conditions and worked well. The Monsanto seeds did not.

Why did the Army order an aboriginal non-nomadic tribe to buy and only use the products of a private US corporation?
Click to expand...
Yes...when we demolish everything in the country, and pay Halliburton to reconstruct, our mega corps. laugh all the way to the bank. We supplied them with Monsanto seed, which in turn prohibits them from farming the way they have been for centuries. In essence, they either continue to buy the seed we sell them, or search for their own natural seeds, and start again from scratch.

Professor Baxter said:
Yeah, reality. On the last link... They used a sample size that was too small for the length of the study, a type of rodent that has a high rate of tumors to begin with and low life expectancy.

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

The author, Seralini, actually repeated practices that were heavily criticized in a previous study of his, which demonstrates he does not really care about the scientific validity.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127-m.pdf
Click to expand...
That study has been thoroughly dismissed. Yes...the rats were prone to tumors. He then bathed them in glyphosate, and fed it to them. Now, it isn't an accurate study of the effects of ingesting residual glyphosate from GMO corn, but it could be deemed accurate if the study attempted to prove the effects Roundup has on wildlife that is in the fields during spraying, or wildlife that ingests Roundup from puddles in the fields.

PostmodernProphet said:
???...are you thinking Monsanto is the only seed company engaged in genetic manipulation of seeds?.......
Click to expand...
Certainly not. But...I'm in a bit of a rush now so you'll have to wait for links....I was researching 'golden rice'. During that research, I found that any company employing Monsanto's patented transgenic mutation process pays a fee.


Professor Baxter said:
I googled to try and found out what he is talking about. I did not find anything.

It has nothing to do with the safety of genetically modified foods. You are discussing patent law, which is a different issue.

Monsanto is not GMO.
Click to expand...
Again...it is w/respect to the patent they have on the process. They get paid when other companies use their patented technology.
PostmodernProphet said:
I googled BT dna and nothing came up, what are you talking about.....​
Click to expand...
Bacillus Thuringiensis
 
Althea said:
Yes...when we demolish everything in the country, and pay Halliburton to reconstruct, our mega corps. laugh all the way to the bank. We supplied them with Monsanto seed, which in turn prohibits them from farming the way they have been for centuries. In essence, they either continue to buy the seed we sell them, or search for their own natural seeds, and start again from scratch.

That study has been thoroughly dismissed. Yes...the rats were prone to tumors. He then bathed them in glyphosate, and fed it to them. Now, it isn't an accurate study of the effects of ingesting residual glyphosate from GMO corn, but it could be deemed accurate if the study attempted to prove the effects Roundup has on wildlife that is in the fields during spraying, or wildlife that ingests Roundup from puddles in the fields.


Certainly not. But...I'm in a bit of a rush now so you'll have to wait for links....I was researching 'golden rice'. During that research, I found that any company employing Monsanto's patented transgenic mutation process pays a fee.


Again...it is w/respect to the patent they have on the process. They get paid when other companies use their patented technology. Bacillus Thuringiensis
Click to expand...

Those Sprague-Dawley rats have also been used repeatedly in toxicology and carcinogenesis trials, including long-term ones. They were the same as the ones used by Monsanto for their trials.

Another signatory of this joint letter to Food and Chemical Toxicology is Prof. Anthony Trewavas. Trewavas was also one of the experts quoted by the SMC in their media release that had such an impact on the reporting of the Seralini study.

In his SMC comments, which ended up being quoted in well over 20 different publications worldwide, Trewavas accuses the researchers of using a cancer-prone rat and claims: "[A] line [of rats] which is very susceptible to tumours can easily bias any result." This line of argument was also developed for the SMC by another expert, Maurice Moloney who says Sprague-Dawley rats frequently develop mammary tumours

It is this cancer-prone rat claim, which Trewavas and Moloney first set running, that more than any other underpins the Chassy-Miller allegation of fraud. The suggestion is that the study was deliberately designed to generate tumours, i.e. that Seralini and his team intentionally chose the Sprague-Dawley rat for their research in order to produce exactly the result they wanted - cancer!

But although variants on this claim have been widely reported, there are a number of problems with it. Not only is this line of rats the same one that Monsanto used for the study that underlies the regulatory approval of this GM maize (NK603), but Sprague-Dawley rats have also been used repeatedly in toxicology and carcinogenesis trials, including long-term ones. They were even used in industry’s own two-year research studies submitted to regulators to support the regulatory approval of glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, one of the two substances that Seralini's team were researching.
Click to expand...

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listi...ng-a-corporate-rat-seralini-attackers-exposed
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Those Sprague-Dawley rats have also been used repeatedly in toxicology and carcinogenesis trials, including long-term ones. They were the same as the ones used by Monsanto for their trials.



http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listi...ng-a-corporate-rat-seralini-attackers-exposed
Click to expand...
The issue is the methods employed in the study. Rats were bathed in glyphosate, and it was fed to them in high concentration.

Nobody hates Monsanto more than I. If you set out to achieve a desired result in your testing, you're no better than Monsanto.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I've never understood the knee jerk reaction by the public to GMO's. It's a more precise version of hybridization that's been used for centuries except it's done in vitro instead of in vivo. I haven't seen much in the way of peer reviewed literature that shows much significant evidence that they are harmfull.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the cliff notes, no way I was reading all that
 
Professor Baxter said:
Yeah, and nothing in it indicates that they were forced to buy Monsanto's seeds, gm seeds or that there was any mass starvation. It did, however, prove that the order was about patent laws.
Click to expand...

The subjects were not mutually exclusive. I clearly do not have the same level of access to the internet as you, Professor Stringfellow.
I am sorry that you don't remember recent history, and that I don't have an exact enough accounting of it to please you.

I ask you a variation, as your objective has become slightly clearer to me, Why do you defend Monsanto, and revert to sophistry to do so?
 
I have noted a movement recently, on the left, towards claiming that Monsanto criticism is anti-science. One of the people I saw writing about it also eschews organics and even really kind of sneers at those who eat organically. Your average apple can have 45 different pesticides sprayed on it before it gets to you. I just laugh, go ahead eat it. I only eat organic apples, I know that makes me stupid. I do have to read more about Monsanto I have only a passing familiarity with the topic.
 
Althea said:
Look....the discussion isn't about BT. I've used it for years on my broccoli. The issue is inserting BT DNA into corn. Said DNA has now been found in the bloodstream of women/children who drink milk from cows that ingest GMO corn.
Click to expand...

if the issue is finding BT in humans I would say the issue should include what BT is and what harm that will cause......are you afraid that mosquitos will die if they bite pregnant women or are you afraid the children are going to be born with BT traits?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if the issue is finding BT in humans I would say the issue should include what BT is and what harm that will cause......are you afraid that mosquitos will die if they bite pregnant women or are you afraid the children are going to be born with BT traits?......
Click to expand...

I think of all this as the thin end of the wedge, this is all first generation stuff. Before too long there will GM varieties with genes taken from God knows what. I think that all GM foods in the US should have to be labelled as such as they are in the UK.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if the issue is finding BT in humans I would say the issue should include what BT is and what harm that will cause......are you afraid that mosquitos will die if they bite pregnant women or are you afraid the children are going to be born with BT traits?......
Click to expand...
I know exactly what BT is. Clearly, you have no interest in answering the questions you pose, so you can either educate yourself, or continue to do drive byes in threads that are over your head.

Another issue, is that few really know what effects the presence of this bacterial DNA will have once in the bloodstream. There have been (IMO) bogus studies done with the genes from the naturally occurring BT from soil, and blood. It destroys red blood cells. But that isn't the same gene, nor is it the same method of introduction into humans, so I dismiss that study.

However, my problem lies with the fact that our food safety administrations allowed this to be fast tracked to market, before these questions were answered.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think of all this as the thin end of the wedge, this is all first generation stuff. Before too long there will GM varieties with genes taken from God knows what. I think that all GM foods in the US should have to be labelled as such as they are in the UK.
Click to expand...
bingo. If people don't care about this crap, then they should be allowed to consume it. But...billions in lobbying has created a scenario where our leaders won't even allow a law that requires labeling of food.

Kinda odd when you think that the corn lobby...one of the most powerful...couldn't keep proper labeling off the table w/respect to corn syrup. It always seems to be the chemical companies that have their way. You can't find MSG on labels either, but it's in almost everything that's processed.
 
Althea said:
Clearly, you have no interest in answering the questions you pose
Click to expand...

the questions I posed were specifially intended to show how silly the fears are....ingesting something is not going to cause the dna to patch itself into the human dna.....there is absolutely no evidence that the presence of this dna is human blood causes any negative effect even if it weren't in extraordinarily minute quantities......
 
Rune said:
The subjects were not mutually exclusive. I clearly do not have the same level of access to the internet as you, Professor Stringfellow.
I am sorry that you don't remember recent history, and that I don't have an exact enough accounting of it to please you.

I ask you a variation, as your objective has become slightly clearer to me, Why do you defend Monsanto, and revert to sophistry to do so?
Click to expand...

There is no recent history of a mass starvation caused by that order. Again, if it is so bad they could/can repeal it.

I never claimed they were mutually exclusive. You claimed they were directly linked and that the order was not primarily about patent law but rather about GM foods and Monsanto. The order is, AT BEST, remotely tangential to the topic.

I don't give a fuck about Monsanto. I am interested in science, technology and progress and opposed to conservative and naturalistic woo. There is little to no proof that GM foods, in general, are dangerous. We should continue to test for safety, but otherwise keep moving forward regardless of the idiotic fear mongering of conspiratards.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I don't give a fuck about Monsanto. I am interested in science, technology and progress and opposed to conservative and naturalistic woo. There is little to no proof that GM foods, in general, are dangerous. We should continue to test for safety, but otherwise keep moving forward regardless of the idiotic fear mongering of conspiratards.
Click to expand...

And yes, by calling those who are concerned about GMO foods "conspiratards" you have indeed made them more likely to listen to you... really. Ok, maybe not.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is complicated. YES our foods have been genetically modified for thousands of years. YES this has benefited us in many ways - drought resistant crops and whatnot. No one disputes that.

But some of us do get concerned when a company like Monsanto - who sells RoundUP - comes out with a seed for a crop that is more RoundUp resistant, so farmers can use more RoundUp. Seriously? you're selling a nasty weed eradicator and your solution isn't to come up with something less nasty but to have a crop that's more resistant? so now you're selling the seed AND selling more Roundup? And what happens as farmers use more RoundUP? what does that mean for other species and for us who eventually eat the crop? and will it lead to more mono-culturing of crops which has been shown to be bad in so many ways?

And really - do we need fish genes transplanted into a totally different species, whether plant or animal? While somewhat off topic, the most nasty flus come about through passing through birds and pigs before getting to humans - so what will all this genesplicing do?

Yes, we need to study it; but we also need to consider the implications of technology. Something may be "safe" on its own - but it may have implications in terms of farmers, costs of farming, downstream food effects, etc.

Yes, farmers are killing themselves in India. It's a complex mix of reasons, but certainly being forced to change traditional planting habits and ending up deep in debt when the promises of the new seeds don't work out probably has something to do with it. But that is probably more a government issue rather than GMO; it just happens many of those seeds are GMO but Monsanto would have loved a monopoly regardless.

I haven't said much in this thread because it IS a complex issue. I appreciate everyone putting links to useful articles; we can all get more educated about it.
 
Professor Baxter said:
There is no recent history of a mass starvation caused by that order. Again, if it is so bad they could/can repeal it.

I never claimed they were mutually exclusive. You claimed they were directly linked and that the order was not primarily about patent law but rather about GM foods and Monsanto. The order is, AT BEST, remotely tangential to the topic.

I don't give a fuck about Monsanto. I am interested in science, technology and progress and opposed to conservative and naturalistic woo. There is little to no proof that GM foods, in general, are dangerous. We should continue to test for safety, but otherwise keep moving forward regardless of the idiotic fear mongering of conspiratards.
Click to expand...


farmers not permitted to save seeds due to the company’s patent, entire communities in places like India can be pushed to the brink of starvation.

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/can-we-feed-our-world-without-monsanto/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top