Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

steve333

macrumors 65816
Dec 12, 2008
1,283
912
So, a study using rodents for this 'long term' study is fine, but a study using rodents that grew massive tumors from GMOs isn't?
There are studies showing intestinal inflammation in pigs eating GMOs that doesn't occur eating the same exact non GMO food.
Check the cancer rates from pre-GMP 1995 to now. In my years in school from kindergarden through graduating High School I didn't know one person in my age group that had cancer. Childhood cancer was very rare, considered an old person's disease. Is that the case now? Food allergies and degenerative diseases such as fibromyalgia previously unheard of, is there are an envrionmental cause? What do you think it is?

Here are 2 links for those here who may want to learn more about this country's disgraceful food supply. I know you're too far gone to appreciate it

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...2&tag=ultraculture-20&linkId=7XVMSOLROGBTKHVZ

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...producers-are-quietly-dumping-gmo-ingredients

https://www.facebook.com/GmoInside/...13449.478981558808326/792600257446453/?type=1
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
So basically you were going to refute every study I gave links to, which I suspected.
The Seralini Study was re-validated by the way. I'm sure you knew that already, guess it wasn't worth it for you to say so.
Pig studies are completely valid since their digestive system is similar to ours, which I'm sure you knew but didn't think anyone else would.

My advice to you is to get a new job. If you own Monsanto stock, and I'm sure you do, sell it.
Monsanto has been banned in most countries it has tried to invade. Putin said there is no way he will allow Russia's food supply to be tainted by GMO toxins. Poland has burned all corn GMO crops, and on and on.
Our corrupt politicians would take money from satan so it's up to the people to make it happen and it is.
Once GMOs are labeled that's the end of Monsanto, which is why they are spending so much money to defeat labeling efforts.
It WILL happen, and your beloved Monsanto will be exposed along with all the politicians, like Obama, and the Clintons.

Tyson is a moron. Comparing hybrids to GMOs makes no sense. Combining the traits of 2 apples in the field to create a different apple is obviously not the same as aplicing soil organisms and e. coli into GMO corn to make it pesticide resistant and causing insect insides to explode.
GMO bt corn is registered as a pesticide.

Get better sources and it won't be so easy for him to refute them. >_>;
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421

I can tell you from the start, without doing any research, that at least one of those is a horrible source. Seriously, the second it just an editorial. It "sources" a single researcher at Cornell University.

The last one didn't create a good link between the two sources of data they wanted to link. It showed a link between GMO and animal problems, but we're not animals and no studies have shown that they're bad for HUMANS.

Seriously, I'll look over the others later ... but if all your sources are THAT bad, they're easily debunked.
 

steve333

macrumors 65816
Dec 12, 2008
1,283
912
I can tell you from the start, without doing any research, that at least one of those is a horrible source. Seriously, the second it just an editorial. It "sources" a single researcher at Cornell University.

The last one didn't create a good link between the two sources of data they wanted to link. It showed a link between GMO and animal problems, but we're not animals and no studies have shown that they're bad for HUMANS.

Seriously, I'll look over the others later ... but if all your sources are THAT bad, they're easily debunked.

Saying that animal studies don't correlate in any way is simply not true.
What are we, robots?
Saying a source is horrible-what does that even mean? The studies that Mr. Monsanto posted were funded by Monsanto, and this is a credible source to you?
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
Saying that animal studies don't correlate in any way is simply not true.
What are we, robots?
Saying a source is horrible-what does that even mean? The studies that Mr. Monsanto posted were funded by Monsanto, and this is a credible source to you?

Is it peer reviewed? Because it doesn't matter who funds a peer reviewed study.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
Oh yes it does.

Why? should it? If it's been peer reviewed, as in studied by people who aren't doing the study or have ties to it, then why does it matter who initially funded the study? Unless you're saying those peers were also paid by Monsanto, which is a grave accusation that needs evidence.
 

steve333

macrumors 65816
Dec 12, 2008
1,283
912
Why? should it? If it's been peer reviewed, as in studied by people who aren't doing the study or have ties to it, then why does it matter who initially funded the study? Unless you're saying those peers were also paid by Monsanto, which is a grave accusation that needs evidence.

Monsanto sponsored all of those studies, Monsanto also goes after scientists who disagree with them. They have been blackballing researchers for decades.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
When my sources are continually rebuffed I don't like wasting my time

In other words, you just come here to find people to agree with you? Or that won't call out your bad sources? Or what? Because I'm seriously wondering if you know the point of those forum.
 

steve333

macrumors 65816
Dec 12, 2008
1,283
912
This has nothing to do with much, just interesting to see companies changing their tune about GMOs

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ben-jerry-throws-fudge-brownie-084602863.html

----------

In other words, you just come here to find people to agree with you? Or that won't call out your bad sources? Or what? Because I'm seriously wondering if you know the point of those forum.

I come here to discuss things, but when I spend my time to find valid resources and then they are judged invalid I decide to spend my time in other ways
 

steve333

macrumors 65816
Dec 12, 2008
1,283
912
So I should just not call out your sources when they're not good sources?

You can call them out but there is no reason to, IMO.

Just read this article about Ben and Jerry's and their support for GMO labeling. I like this blurb:

One out of three consumers intentionally avoids genetically modified ingredients, up from 15 percent in 2007, according to the Hartman Group, a trend tracker. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rejected calls to mandate GMO labeling but allows foodmakers to volunteer on packaging whether foods don't contain GMOs. More than five dozen countries require such labels.

Avoiding GMOs isn't easy. More than 80 percent of the soybeans and corn grown in the U.S. in 2013 came from genetically engineered crops, according to the Department of Agriculture. About 75 percent of the foods Americans eat contain GMOs in some form.

----------

A response to the article which encapsulates the grip Monsanto has on our government. It is not a natural state for one company to have this much power.
It's at the grass roots level where we will win the battle.

Monsanto and Hillary Clinton's Redemptive First Act as Secretary of State
Please Google in this name " The World According to Monsanto" and watch this video.

For those who hope Obama will bring something different to the world, we must first see clearly what is happening, and make demands of him that are profound, not show.

Meanwhile corporations like Monsanto are moving rapidly to take control of food supplies ... and democracies, including ours.

Obama chose Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. We cannot know what deals were struck to make her stop her destructive campaigning long after it was apparent she had lost. But we do know that Mark Penn, CEO for Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's large PR firms representing Monsanto advised her for years and ran her campaign. And when she showed up again, by Obama's side, suddenly so did a man named Michael Taylor ... also again.

MIchael Taylor is a Monsanto lawyer Bill Clinton once put in charge of the FDA where he approved Monsanto's rBGH. Hillary was back, andObama was putting Taylor on his transition team

Using the transition team's advice, Obama appointed Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, overriding 20,000 opposing "grassroots" emails. The objection to Vilsack? His deep Monsanto connections.

Hillary Clinton's connections to Monsanto go way back the Rose Law Firm where she worked. Rose represents Monsanto, Tyson, and Walmart -the world leaders in genetic engineering, animal production and industrialized food. She received favors there, as did Bill.

In office, Bill's USDA immediately and significantly weakened chicken waste and contamination standards, easing Tyson's poultry-factory expansion, , and his USDA head, Espy, was indicted for bribes, money laundering, and much more, with Tyson was the largest corporate offender.

Bill appointed Michael Taylor head of the FDA and put other Monsanto employees in as US Agricultural Trade Representatives, onto International Biotechnology Consultive Forums, and more ...
Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

He also signed this into legislation- On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.