29 Jan 2013, 2:12 pm
29 Jan 2013, 8:05 pm
30 Jan 2013, 1:14 pm
13 Mar 2013, 5:59 pm
13 Mar 2013, 7:47 pm
13 Mar 2013, 8:02 pm
13 Mar 2013, 9:15 pm
14 Mar 2013, 5:33 am
14 Mar 2013, 9:20 am
14 Mar 2013, 9:25 am
14 Mar 2013, 10:23 am
This appears to be a mish-mash of two mostly unrelated topics:
1. GMO's = Evil Incarnate Extinction Event Way Beyond The Moral Event Horizon.
2. Monsanto = Ass-holes.
2½ months ago I posted a recent statement (October 2012) in this thread from the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the publishers of the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Science, which - on the basis of countless studies - reach the conclusion that there is no health risk from GMO foods compared to foods made from conventional crops.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/ ... tement.pdf
Apparently, not everyone got the message. So if people disagree with the AAAS statement, then please provide links to a sufficient amount of scientific studies which invalidate it.
Oh, and please include:
1. Name of authors of the study and their affiliation.
2. Name of reputable peer review journal in which the study was published.
3. Description of key results of the study and its methodology.
Until then, all I have to say in reaction to statement (1) is:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/klaxon.htm
As for statement (2), well... guess what... ass-holes aren't exactly in short supply on this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just
a-floatin' around the sun...
14 Mar 2013, 10:39 am
14 Mar 2013, 11:29 am
Monsanto already has sued lots of american farmers. The thing is, that you are not allowed to regrow a seed on which monsanto has patent. So normally a farmer takes his seed from that he got from the done crops of the year before, plants it, and when its grown out, he saves part of his seed again, so he can plant them the next year.
But because of the monsanto company too dumb, to know that at least if they are adding artifical plants in OUR nature (not their nature), that it shouldnt be able to spread itself uncontrollable with the wind, the Monsanto seed flies to the fields of normal american farmers. When the plants are ready, the farmers want to do what they have done since centuries, save a part of their crops so they have seed next year. The problem is: Some of the seeds they want to keep are now from the Monsanto-mutant plants. And because of Monsanto having the patent for their seed, the farmer is not allowed to seed Monsanto mutant plants, without paying Monsanto. (He doesnt want anyway, but who cares.)
So the solution the american farmer has now:
1) Buy every year expensive new (normal not mutant) seed instead of using the seed of his own crops as he did since centuries, because of that incompent Monsanto freaks being to dumb to produce a product that is not spreading uncontrollable through nature.
2) Gather his own complete seeds he wants to use on his fields, to a laboratory, so some scientists can check every single seedcorn for DNA of Monsanto mutants, because of that incompent Monsanto freaks being to dumb to produce a product that is not spreading uncontrollable through nature.
3) Do what they have done since centuries, and use their own spared seeds from the crops of the year before and get sued by Monsanto, because of that Monsanto freaks not only being complete incompetent about their products, but also being complete greedy useless garbage, lucky about every opportunity to force a farmer to buy their damn mutant plant seeds.
4) Buy Monsanto seeds instead of doing what he have done since centuries because ....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html
But if you dont believe me, maybe you will believe Monsanto themselfs: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages ... seeds.aspx (But better get yourself some cheese and whine, because the Monsanto version about the poor companies, that have to be paid for their own incompetent products and the problems their incompetent products produce, so that they can research more incompetent, selfspreading products is really, really sad.)
So Monsanto is crying about why my country is against nonsense mutant plants, but I have to ask myself why we should want such stuff? So our small farmers are sued by a million dollar company? - Yeah, sure - who wouldnt want his food producing neighbor get sued by an greedy a...company. So they are polluting our native plants with their incompetent selfspreading products. - Yeah, sure....I am always willing to give up my surrounding nature so some company leaders can earn some millions more. So the advantages of that stuff are fabulous! *sarcasm* Sadly, I live in a country full of idiots who dont want to benefit from that advantages. 
14 Mar 2013, 12:29 pm
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/ ... tement.pdf
Apparently, not everyone got the message...
I'm with you on this.
There is no difference in the risks and nutritional value between genetically-modified foods and so-called "organic" foods (all foods are organic, being composes of carbon-based molecules).
The conflict, at its core, is really all about both sides trying to head off competition in the marketplace through frivolous legal action and misleading rhetoric.
The "Organic" lobby simply can not compete on equal ground with either GMO producers, or traditional farmers, so they resort to the use of scare-mongering tactics on a gullible and ignorant consumer public.
Monsanto, on the other hand, is Big Agro, and therefor Big Evil, because they seek to profit from their investments in years of research (Profit --> Greed --> Evil; right?
). Granted, they could be a little more tolerant of independent farmers who want to increase their own profits; but farmers also need to understand that the second-generation seeds they plant may be "contaminated" with genes from neighboring farms where non-Monsanto brands may have been planted, thus reducing the effectiveness of the original genetically-modified stock.
14 Mar 2013, 1:09 pm
Link to these "believable studies", please?
As long as they're not performed by the Organics industry or bought-out eco-fanatics, of course.
October 2nd, 2012 by jrlatham
(Authors listed below) (Traduction Francaise)
A new paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini describes harmful effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified maize (variety NK603), with and without the herbicide Roundup, as well as Roundup alone. This peer-reviewed study (Seralini et al., 2012), has been criticized by some scientists whose views have been widely reported in the popular press (Carmen, 2012; Mestel, 2012; Revkin, 2012; Worstall, 2012). Seralini et al. (2012) extends the work of other studies demonstrating toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup (Gaivão et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2010; Paganelli et al., 2010; Romano et al., 2012), as reviewed by Antoniou et al. (2010).
The Seralini publication, and resultant media attention, raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence. These challenges are important for all of science but are rarely discussed in scientific venues.
[mod. edit: article truncated for copyright reasons]
Working links and footnotes found in the original article.
Link to original article:
http://independentsciencenews.org/healt ... y-roundup/
Photos of some of the GMO-fed rats in the Séralini study:
the Safety of Genetically Modified Food
by Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics,
University of Western Ontario
Genetically modified (genetically engineered) food is from crops that have been modified in the laboratory to contain genes that protect them from pests or affect their quality. Currently the technology demands that each construction should include a desirable gene, say to guard against pests, and an array of genes including virus genes and antibiotic resistance genes that are required for technical reasons. Crops currently on the market include soybean, corn, canola, cotton seed oil and potato.
[mod. edit: article truncated for copyright reasons]
Link to original article:
www.greens.org/s-r/21/21-09.html
Additional information regarding how genetics work:
The spurious foundation of genetic engineering
Barry Commoner / Harper's Magazine Feb02
Barry Commoner is senior scientist at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College, City University of New York, where he directs the Critical Genetics Project. Readers can obtain a list of references used as sources for this article by sending a request to [email protected].
Biology once was regarded as a languid, largely descriptive discipline, a passive science that was content, for much of its history, merely to observe the natural world rather than change it. No longer. Today biology, armed with the power of genetics, has replaced physics as the activist Science of the Century, and it stands poised to assume godlike powers of creation, calling forth artificial forms of life rather than undiscovered elements and subatomic particles. The initial steps toward this new Genesis have been widely touted in the press. It wasn't so long ago that Scottish scientists stunned the world with Dolly1, the fatherless sheep cloned directly from her mother's cells; these techniques have now been applied, unsuccessfully, to human cells. ANDi2, a photogenic rhesus monkey, recently was born carrying the gene of a luminescent jellyfish. Pigs now carry a gene for bovine growth hormone and show significant improvement in weight gain, feed efficiency, and reduced fat.3 Most soybean plants grown in the United States have been genetically engineered to survive the application of powerful herbicides. Corn plants now contain a bacterial gene that produces an insecticidal protein rendering them poisonous to earworms.4
[mod. edit: article truncated for copyright reasons]
Link to the original article:
www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/C ... 0Feb02.htm
14 Mar 2013, 4:56 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Food industry lies |
14 Jan 2025, 8:55 am |
| How to break into the video game industry as a career? |
28 Jan 2025, 5:31 pm |
| What would tech look like if Aspies ran the tech industry? |
28 Nov 2024, 3:48 pm |
| student died after restaurant allegedly changed food to her |
21 Dec 2024, 7:08 pm |
