14 Year Old Girl hands Kevin Oleary his ass On Monsanto issue

[Rasheed1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIXER_yZUBg


:applause: Youngin took this fool to the woodshed. Im impressed.

[Jameerthefear]

:applause: would hit it.

[Doctor K]

Um her arguments were pretty bad throughout. Kevin made sense. She didnt

[shlver]

I like how she shot back with "should we be messing with mother nature?" :roll:
No she did not "hand him his ass."
Artificial selection has been going on since agriculture has started, the stark advantage of GMO's is the specificity of gene selection that modern genetic engineering currently provides. This means it is easier to test and identify any undesirable gene interactions.

[Is He Ill]

Um her arguments were pretty bad throughout. Kevin made sense. She didnt

O'leary just kept accusing her of being completely against a scientific approach to food, while she was just arguing for transparency and ethical testing.

[Rasheed1]

She handed that man his ass ... He switched his argument up at least 3 times..

The girl is right.. the labeling issue is the biggest problem.. If its soo beneficial? then label the products and let the consumer decide whether or not they want to buy the products..

[ace23]

Why would anyone oppose GMO? I don't get it.

[shlver]

She handed that man his ass ... He switched his argument up at least 3 times..

The girl is right.. the labeling issue is the biggest problem.. If its soo beneficial? then label the products and let the consumer decide whether or not they want to buy the products..
No labeling would imply difference and the general population does not understand the difference. It would only pave the way for propaganda and logistical consequences. The same propaganda was used in Zambia and millions starved as a result.

[Rasheed1]

No labeling would imply difference and the general population does not understand the difference. It would only pave the way for propaganda and logistical consequences. The same propaganda was used in Zambia and millions starved as a result.


no matter how hard people try.. you cannot make a good argument against transparency.. Oleary tried and got smacked down each time...

[shlver]

no matter how hard people try.. you cannot make a good argument against transparency.. Oleary tried and got smacked down each time...
I just made an argument but you chose to ignore it.

[vinsane01]

So is she against hybrid seeds as well? It could sprung out from mother nature without interference from us, but it didnt. So i guess, it is technically messing with mother nature too. Right? :D

I dont know much about this stuff, so naturally i'd agree with more labeling and more testing. But arent people already eating GE crops for decades now? Anyway, oleary made a good point about underprivileged people needing to eat these stuff because the only other alternative is to become ill, starve and die.

[Rasheed1]

I just made an argument but you chose to ignore it.



claiming that people are too dumb to understand what they put in their bodies, therefore it is better not to tell them at all?

thats not a good argument..

I ignored it because its a bad argument.. lets educate the public and have more testing.. there is no good argument against that no matter what you say

[shadow]

This is a typical case of two people arguing over two different things. He seems to be arguing for the big picture approach while she's focused on the details of the matter. Neither is really wrong. That chick is a politician in the making though. She didn't answer questions straight, stuck to her talking points and kept coming back to the labeling thing.

[Brunch@Five]

I dont know much about this stuff, so naturally i'd agree with more labeling and more testing. But arent people already eating GE crops for decades now? Anyway, oleary made a good point about underprivileged people needing to eat these stuff because the only other alternative is to become ill, starve and die.

you see, that is what GMO companies and advocates want to tell you: that GM food is a decision between life and death for poor people. And at the same time they modify their seeds so that farmers cannot use them more than one year (or their offspring), essentially making the agro-industry and even small farmers dependent on their product. That is not helping poverty and hunger in developing countries, that's solely for the profit of the companies.
They have no credibility in terms of "we're saving the world".

There are alternatives to reducing hunger, such that would not set out to cure merely symptons, but help create a proper agricultural market in those societies.

[Crystallas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEZYQF9WlE

Everyone should watch this.

[gigantes]

you see, that is what GMO companies and advocates want to tell you: that GM food is a decision between life and death for poor people. And at the same time they modify their seeds so that farmers cannot use them more than one year (or their offspring), essentially making the agro-industry and even small farmers dependent on their product. That is not helping poverty and hunger in developing countries, that's solely for the profit of the companies. ...
wow. how prevalent is this practice?

can you imagine multi-regional disaster of choice knocking out services and supply for a year+, therefore people in their desperation try to re-seed grow their own and... the crops just won

[shlver]

claiming that people are too dumb to understand what they put in their bodies, therefore it is better not to tell them at all?


thats not a good argument..

I ignored it because its a bad argument.. lets educate the public and have more testing.. there is no good argument against that no matter what you say
I'm claiming that there is no reason to differentiate the foods because the labeling serves no purpose. And yes the general population is dumb enough to fall for propaganda that says something is "wrong" or "different" about these foods when the health and safety risks are almost nonexistent. The biggest risks are food allergies and that occurs with non GMO foods. It's fine if you want to label your products as "organic" and sell at higher prices, but it is not fine to force labeling and hurt revenue because of non scientific ideas. So I'm asking you, why should we label if not for scientific or safety reasons?

Answer this question. What constitutes being labeled genetically modified? Bud grafting? That is still combining the DNA of two plants. Genetic modification occurs with conventional methods of crop improvement. Can you differentiate what kind of genetic modification occurred? Could you differentiate, as a regular consumer, which method of genetic modification is safe to eat? The vast majority of our foods are gm. The label serves no purpose because the foods on the market have shown to have no risks.

I'm going to repeat this again, genetic engineering allows us to be very specific with gene selection and in the process easier to identify and test for protein toxicity and other undesired gene interactions.

[Crystallas]

I'm claiming that there is no reason to differentiate the foods because the labeling serves no purpose. And yes the general population is dumb enough to fall for propaganda that says something is "wrong" or "different" about these foods when the health and safety risks are almost nonexistent. The biggest risks are food allergies and that occurs with non GMO foods. It's fine if you want to label your products as "organic" and sell at higher prices, but it is not fine to force labeling and hurt revenue because of non scientific ideas. So I'm asking you, why should we label if not for scientific or safety reasons?

Answer this question. What constitutes being labeled genetically modified? Bud grafting? That is still combining the DNA of two plants. Genetic modification occurs with conventional methods of crop improvement. Can you differentiate what kind of genetic modification occurred? Could you differentiate, as a regular consumer, which method of genetic modification is safe to eat? The vast majority of our foods are gm. The label serves no purpose because the foods on the market have shown to have no risks.

I'm going to repeat this again, genetic engineering allows us to be very specific with gene selection and in the process easier to identify and test for protein toxicity and other undesired gene interactions.


I used to agree with you. Then I started having my own health issues, which all were fixed by keeping the same diet of foods, just changing the source of origin to organics. Not just myself, but other members in my family as well as friends.

[shlver]

I used to agree with you. Then I started having my own health issues, which all were fixed by keeping the same diet of foods, just changing the source of origin to organics. Not just myself, but other members in my family as well as friends.
That's fine. I haven't had any issues eating normal food and I purposely avoid organic.

[Crystallas]

That's fine. I haven't had any issues eating normal food and I purposely avoid organic.

Yeah, I didn't have issues until my mid 30s. When you're young, your body doesn't seem to react as much. Hell, kids eat junkfood diets with no issues, then boom, they turn a certain age and gain fat like crazy.

[shlver]

Yeah, I didn't have issues until my mid 30s. When you're young, your body doesn't seem to react as much. Hell, kids eat junkfood diets with no issues, then boom, they turn a certain age and gain fat like crazy.
Would you mind elaborating on your health issues and which foods you switched over from?

[Rasheed1]

I'm claiming that there is no reason to differentiate the foods because the labeling serves no purpose. And yes the general population is dumb enough to fall for propaganda that says something is "wrong" or "different" about these foods when the health and safety risks are almost nonexistent. The biggest risks are food allergies and that occurs with non GMO foods. It's fine if you want to label your products as "organic" and sell at higher prices, but it is not fine to force labeling and hurt revenue because of non scientific ideas. So I'm asking you, why should we label if not for scientific or safety reasons?

We should label the products because not everyone want to eat GMO foods..

Saying the public is too dumb to make an informed decision is weak. Im not concerned with profits at the expense of the consumers right to know what they are ingesting...

Labeling shouldnt hurt GMO products if they dont have bad reputation.. It is their job to make sure the benefits of their products are known to the public...

Hiding it because you think the public is too dumb to understand what they want is a weak argument


Answer this question. What constitutes being labeled genetically modified? Bud grafting? That is still combining the DNA of two plants. Genetic modification occurs with conventional methods of crop improvement. Can you differentiate what kind of genetic modification occurred?

bud grafting doesnt bother me personally, but that isnt the whole point... What I find acceptable may be different from what someone else finds acceptable.

there should be no issue with transparency...



Could you differentiate, as a regular consumer, which method of genetic modification is safe to eat? The vast majority of our foods are gm. The label serves no purpose because the foods on the market have shown to have no risks.

2 things

first.. "safe" is a broad term..

secondly "safe to eat" is not the only hurdle.. besides what is "safe" there is also what is acceptable to eat..

there many reason why people should be able to choose for themselves.. religious reason, ethical reasons.. These choices should not be denied to the public.

This is exactly why the labeling should occur..


I'm going to repeat this again, genetic engineering allows us to be very specific with gene selection and in the process easier to identify and test for protein toxicity and other undesired gene interactions.

That is fine :confusedshrug: lets just label the products so the public can choose what they want and what they dont want

I'll re-iterate what I been saying the throughout this thread...

Your argument that the "public is too dumb to understand what they are ingesting, so lets hide it from them" is a poor argument..


Many countries already have labeling laws.. There is no reason we cannot have more countries doing the same thing..

We need more testing and labels to give the public the chance to educate themselves and make an informed decision

I couldnt care less about protecting someone's profits, especially at the expense of transparency and having an informed public...

[beer]

shlver how do you feel about Monsanto's other creation. bovine growth hormone/Rbst?

[reppy]

I hate these scummy ****s -- "think of the children," they say. We need to modify nature so that plants don't produce seeds for the children. Monsanto isn't trying to save the children.

I really hope there's a special place in Hell for people like this guy.

[Crystallas]

Would you mind elaborating on your health issues and which foods you switched over from?

Same diet, all I did was replace everything with organic sources. I had psoriasis, which is gone now. My sister has a gluten sensitivity that would put her in the hospital. Now she still eats gluten, but only organic gluten sources, which give her no problems. My switch wasn't on purpose. All I did was do my weekly grocery shopping from Trader Joes, and I felt better after a few days. I stuck to eating organic sources, in a few days my psoriatic arthritis pain was completely gone. Same price for food, different sources, same diet. I would say it took about a year to clear the rest of the psoriasis up.

[HardwoodLegend]

Same diet, all I did was replace everything with organic sources. I had psoriasis, which is gone now. My sister has a gluten sensitivity that would put her in the hospital. Now she still eats gluten, but only organic gluten sources, which give her no problems. My switch wasn't on purpose. All I did was do my weekly grocery shopping from Trader Joes, and I felt better after a few days. I stuck to eating organic sources, in a few days my psoriatic arthritis pain was completely gone. Same price for food, different sources, same diet. I would say it took about a year to clear the rest of the psoriasis up.

Any changes in water consumption?

Curious if that had any effect at all.

[gigantes]

shakehand, why would you -purposely- avoid organic? are you worried about fraudulent suppliers or something?


also, i don't understand people's confusion about what "GMO" is referring to. in this case doesn't it specifically mean DNA-splicing has occurred? what is this about bringing grafting and x-breeding and all that stuff in to it? that's nothing to do with the topic AFAIK.

...

also, if the FDA is going to require GMO on labels, couldn't they classify it in some way in order for that to be helpful information? like, "this plant has X animal DNA spliced in" or "this food is relatively well-tested" (versus being poorly tested). i mean, anything along those lines.

what is with this all-or-nothing approach to providing the public this information? it really does seem thinktankish.

[IamRAMBO24]

shakehand, why would you -purposely- avoid organic? are you worried about fraudulent suppliers or something?


also, i don't understand people's confusion about what "GMO" is referring to. in this case doesn't it specifically mean DNA-splicing has occurred? what is this about bringing grafting and x-breeding and all that stuff in to it? that's nothing to do with the topic AFAIK.

...

also, if the FDA is going to require GMO on labels, couldn't they classify it in some way in order for that to be helpful information? like, "this plant has X animal DNA spliced in" or "this food is relatively well-tested" (versus being poorly tested). i mean, anything along those lines.

what is with this all-or-nothing approach to providing the public this information? it really does seem thinktankish.

Hard to argue here.

Having labels on foods would be an awesome idea. Even if GMOs haven't been proven unsafe, we should have the choice to choose it over organic. And vice versa: if someone wants all the pesticides and bullsh*t that goes into GMO foods, then let them choose whether or not they want to f*ck up their bodies.

C'mon now, it's f*cking ridiculous when sh*t like this is in same the category as real "beef":

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/120201011135_020112_slime.jpg

[secund2nun]

I like how she shot back with "should we be messing with mother nature?" :roll:
No she did not "hand him his ass."
Artificial selection has been going on since agriculture has started, the stark advantage of GMO's is the specificity of gene selection that modern genetic engineering currently provides. This means it is easier to test and identify any undesirable gene interactions.

There is no advantage. They are engineering pesticide into the food. When you eat the food you are eating pesticide. Many studies have confirmed that GMO leads to organ failure. Monsanto is the same company that produced the toxic poison Agent Orange, which the US government used to terrorize civilians in Vietnam.

Longest-Running GMO Safety Study Finds Tumors in Rats


http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx#axzz2bhsJOtAJ

http://www.motherearthnews.com/~/media/Images/MEN/Editorial/Articles/Magazine%20Articles/2013/04-01/Longest-Running%20GMO%20Study%20Finds%20Tumors%20in%20Rats/GMO-Corn-Fed-Rat%20jpg.jpg

Rats that were fed GMO diets all grew large tumors.

Death to Monsanto. There is a reason many countries have GMO bans. Also in addition to their pesticide poison GMO corn, Monsanto will sue innocent farms for infringement when the wind carries the GMO Monsanto crops into the local farm's fields and contaminates it. It is outrageous.

To sit there and compare natural genetic selection breeding which is fine to Monsanto splicing pesticide into the genes of crops is crazy. There is no comparison.

[gigantes]

@secund2nun,
i did a lazy asshole search the other day on "GMO" at sciencedaily, and only three articles showed up.

most damning from what i saw seems to suggest that more study is needed.

i love motherearth and relateds, but would not try to convince anyone based on their articles. no offense, just sayin.

[secund2nun]

@secund2nun,
i did a lazy asshole search the other day on "GMO" at sciencedaily, and only three articles showed up.

most damning from what i saw seems to suggest that more study is needed.

i love motherearth and relateds, but would not try to convince anyone based on their articles. no offense, just sayin.


The French government has asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency, Reuters reports.

"Based on the conclusion…, the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union," the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement.

Researchers from the University of Caen found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a seed variety made tolerant to amounts of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller – or given water mixed with the product, at levels permitted in the United States – died earlier than those on a standard diet.

The research conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues, said the rats suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The study was published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.

Motherearth was merely just a website that reported the study. It was not their study. This study was reported by thousands and thousands of websites. It was a credible study. Many other studies also confirm this.

This is why it's banned in Franch (and most of Europe). India has banned it as well recently along with large parts of the world.

The only reason the fact that GMO are toxic for health is controversial is because the big drug industry has spread massive propaganda in favor of GMO.

[RedBlackAttack]

That's fine. I haven't had any issues eating normal food and I purposely avoid organic.
That is a good reason to be on the side of labeling, then. Whether you prefer organics or GMOs, it is never a bad thing to be informed about what you're buying/eating. Wouldn't you be able to more fully avoid organic food (or any other food) if you knew exactly what you were buying?

I'm still waiting for a good argument against transparency in the food industry.

[kentatm]

I'm still waiting for a good argument against transparency in the food industry.


that's because there isn't one.

[RedBlackAttack]

that's because there isn't one.
This should not be a political issue. When the best argument in opposition to something like this is "it isn't necessary" and you have huge corporations pouring money into trying to stop it... Yeah, it probably is necessary.

Knowledge is power. The more you know about what you're eating, the better off you'll be.

[gigantes]

Motherearth was merely just a website that reported the study. It was not their study. This study was reported by thousands and thousands of websites. It was a credible study. Many other studies also confirm this.

This is why it's banned in Franch (and most of Europe). India has banned it as well recently along with large parts of the world.

The only reason the fact that GMO are toxic for health is controversial is because the big drug industry has spread massive propaganda in favor of GMO.
i get that, but we gotta post from the most centric, science-based sources we can IMO. to do otherwise is to give too much room for others to pick apart the facts for no good reason. i.e. psychology is just as important as the actual facts.

anyway, thanks for the info. :cheers:


same time, i would love to hear shlvr's rebuttal to these various points. he's very smart and semi-versed in this stuff due to his pre-MD work. i love debates like this, though. :D

[secund2nun]

i get that, but we gotta post from the most centric, science-based sources we can IMO. to do otherwise is to give too much room for others to pick apart the facts for no good reason. i.e. psychology is just as important as the actual facts.

anyway, thanks for the info. :cheers:


same time, i would love to hear shlvr's rebuttal to these various points. he's very smart and semi-versed in this stuff due to his pre-MD work. i love debates like this, though. :D

It's np I love spreading the information on it.

Yes I agree that studies should be used, which is why I loved the damning study on the gigantic tumors on rats fed GMO. I love debates as well.

A better summary of the findings of the rat GMO study can be found on this natural news article http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html


Findings from the study

Here are some of the shocking findings from the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that's grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that's in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Rat-Tumor-Monsanto-GMO-Cancer-Study-3-Wide.jpg




My dad is a doctor and we debate a lot of things. Let's just say I disagree with him and his doctor friends on nearly everything. :oldlol:

Here is another interesting peer reviewed study on GMO.


A new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase.

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/GMO-pig-intestines-300.jpg

The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.

The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.

The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/GMO-pig-intestines-inflammation.jpg

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/GMO-pig-intestines-inflammation.jpg


http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf Link to the study

[secund2nun]

Also to show you the culture of big ag, big drug, big insurance influencing the universities, governments take a look at what happened to Arpad Pusztai.


Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.

Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world's most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland's prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for public health.

But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into this genetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised by industry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hours after Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television. For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, and his team dismissed from their positions at the school.

Research out of Egypt finds similar results - GMOs cause severe, long-term health damage

As reported recently in Egypt Independent, similar research by Hussein Kaoud from Cairo University's Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene also made some fascinating, though politically incorrect, discoveries about the effects of GMOs on the body. After feeding nine groups of rats varying combinations of GM soy, corn, wheat, and canola, Kaoud and his team observed that these genetic poisons clearly obstructed the normal function of the animals, affirming Pusztai's research.

"I recorded the alteration of different organs, shrinkage of kidneys, change in the liver and spleen, appearance of malignant parts in the tissues, (and) kidney failure and hemorrhages in the intestine," said Kaoud about the effects of GMOs as observed in the test rats. "The brain functions were touched as well, and the rats' learning and memory abilities were seriously altered."

In Kaoud's case, his groundbreaking findings will soon be published in the respected journals Neurotoxicology and Ecotoxicology. But it remains to be seen whether or not the scientific community at large, which is heavily influenced by biotechnology interests, and the political structures that control it will accept the results as valid, or pull a similar character assassination on Kaoud and his team as punishment for defying the status quo.

What all this clearly illustrates, of course, is that modern science can hardly be considered the independent, truth-seeking, "gold standard" of interpreting and understanding reality that many people mistakenly think it is. The truth about GMOs, as uncovered by mounds of independent research, is that they are inadequately safety tested, at best, and deadly at worst. But this fact remains shrouded in deception, thanks to the corporatized, pro-GMO culture of mainstream science.

[gigantes]

thanks, repped!


i need to take a closer look at this, since a buddy keeps bugging me to come up with an answer. i am now assembling a team of volunteers...

http://img.izismile.com/img/img6/20131008/1000/daily_gifdump_471_09.gif

[shlver]

shakehand, why would you -purposely- avoid organic? are you worried about fraudulent suppliers or something?
It's overpriced and less eco friendly with virtually no functional difference from gm food.


also, i don't understand people's confusion about what "GMO" is referring to. in this case doesn't it specifically mean DNA-splicing has occurred? what is this about bringing grafting and x-breeding and all that stuff in to it? that's nothing to do with the topic AFAIK.
Those are conventional methods of crop modification that results in genetic modification. Crop varieties produced by those methods are by definition gmo's.


also, if the FDA is going to require GMO on labels, couldn't they classify it in some way in order for that to be helpful information? like, "this plant has X animal DNA spliced in" or "this food is relatively well-tested" (versus being poorly tested). i mean, anything along those lines.
Gm foods are extensively tested already. They have to show that the new variety is the same as the parent and any protein traits and resulting metabolites are non toxic and non allergenic.

what is with this all-or-nothing approach to providing the public this information? it really does seem thinktankish.
I think the labels are useless and misleading. The large majority of our food and it's ingredients are gm or derived from gmos. Safety is a scientific issue and there is no scientific basis for labelling.

[shlver]

There is no advantage. They are engineering pesticide into the food. When you eat the food you are eating pesticide. Many studies have confirmed that GMO leads to organ failure. Monsanto is the same company that produced the toxic poison Agent Orange, which the US government used to terrorize civilians in Vietnam.

Longest-Running GMO Safety Study Finds Tumors in Rats


http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx#axzz2bhsJOtAJ

http://www.motherearthnews.com/~/media/Images/MEN/Editorial/Articles/Magazine%20Articles/2013/04-01/Longest-Running%20GMO%20Study%20Finds%20Tumors%20in%20Rats/GMO-Corn-Fed-Rat%20jpg.jpg

Rats that were fed GMO diets all grew large tumors.

Death to Monsanto. There is a reason many countries have GMO bans. Also in addition to their pesticide poison GMO corn, Monsanto will sue innocent farms for infringement when the wind carries the GMO Monsanto crops into the local farm's fields and contaminates it. It is outrageous.

To sit there and compare natural genetic selection breeding which is fine to Monsanto splicing pesticide into the genes of crops is crazy. There is no comparison.
They are not engineering pesticides into their crops. They're engineering roundup resistant varieties.

[shlver]

I will reply tomorrow when I have access to a computer. Typing on my phone is a hassle.

[secund2nun]

They are not engineering pesticides into their crops. They're engineering roundup resistant varieties.

There are 2 traits of GMOs that make it very unhealthy. The first trait which is found in Monsanto's GMO corn for example, known as Bt corn, is genetically engineered to produce the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (bt). While the FDA claims BT is safe to eat, high numbers of people have allergies to bt sprays used and the studies of animals fed with bt had severe immune responses, as the mice above indicate with massive organ failure and damaged intestines. The bt sprays were damaging enough, but the GMO crops have bt concentrations that are 1000 times greater than the bt spray.

The 2nd trait is that these GMO crops have bacterial genes inserted which allow them to survive extremely high doses of weed killer, much higher than non GMO crps. This is why GMO crops have much higher weed killer residue found on them.

Monsanto has gotten away with this because they spend millions and millions of dollars in marketing and buying out politicians. High level Monsanto corporate employees are frequently appointed to high level FDA positions. They call it a revolving door. At least 7 high ranking Monstanto employees have held high ranking FDA positions, including Michael Taylor who is currently the Deputy Commissioner for the FDA. This is why the FDA approved the Monsanto GMO bovine growth hormone in milk before information on how it affects humans was even available.

This is no different than aspartame, which was banned by the FDA for years and because the FDA research showed it caused brain cancer. But Donald Rumsfield, the then CEO of Searle which created aspartame, bragged about using his connections to get it legal and did just that and it was approved.

[gigantes]

BIG development re: the rat tumor study cited above:
[quote]In a stunning development, Food and Chemical Toxicology, which last year published the controversial rat study by Gilles-