Organic grown wheat contains GM impurities

[canndo]

But yet, that use also stopped, nearly. Governments in subtropical countries could ill afford the use if there was no immediate payback.
Nobody's damning Carlson. But she either did poor research or didn't give a damn about the millions, yes, millions, who died as a result of her actions. Praising her is inappropriate.

No one died as a result of her actions. The immediate payback was near instant death of the mosquito that carries malaria, what better payback could there be than that?

I think I am missing your point here.

 

[Harrekin]

intake filters, shower (good for more than just chickens), and a washing machine.

What about when you're really high and you want to just look at your plants?

 

[Doer]

What about when you're really high and you want to just look at your plants?

Web cams in sterile covers?

 

[Harrekin]

Web cams in sterile covers?

Nah, I find you need to smoke with them sometimes, show them what they're supposed to be.

 

[Doer]

Nah, I find you need to smoke with them sometimes, show them what they're supposed to be.

LOOLOOOOLLLLLLLL! I do that, for exactly that reason.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I am not in the business of genetic modification but genetic replication that may well be used for that same modification - different things actually.

ahh different so your argument from authority was bullshit from the start

it does explain the shoddy quality of your "evidence" while leaving enough "professional overlap" to say your a disgrace to it

A2011studypublishedintheJournalofAppliedToxicologyshowedthatwhenBt-toxinderivedfromMonsanto’scornwasexposedtohumancells,thetoxindisruptsthemembraneinjust24hours,causingcertainfluidtoleakthroughthecellwalls.Theauthorsspecificallynote,“Thismaybeduetoporeformationlikeininsectcells.”Inotherwords,thetoxinmaybecreatingsmallholesinhumancellsinthesamemannerthatitkillsinsects.Theresearchers“documentedthatmodifiedBttoxins[fromGMplants]arenotinertonhumancells,butcanexerttoxicity.”[SUP]82[/SUP]A2011CanadianstudyconductedatSherbrookeHospitaldiscoveredthat
93%ofthepregnantwomentheytestedhadBt-toxinfromMonsanto’scornintheirblood.Andsodid80%oftheirunbornfetuses.[SUP]83[/SUP]

did you format it like that to hide where you got it from? you do know its normally expected to cite where you get it from

http://realagenda.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/state-of-the-science-of-gmo-health-risks-sm-2013.pdf

perhaps you could directly link to studies rather than trawl crap like that link

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-links-gmo-food-leukemia

brilliant "bloggist" opens with the bunk cancer study...

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-new-evidence-establishes-dangers-of-roundup/

projectcensored? looks legit, oh look its talking about a herbicide not GMO

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/new-review-points-to-glyphosates-dangerous-health-effects/

great another blog talking about herbicide not GMO and he talks about the bunk study rats and cancer

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_Toxic_to_Mouth_Cells.php

GMO?


for somebody claiming to work within the "sciences" this is frankly shocking

 

[echelon1k1]

Not all products are safe. That's a given.

Yes, some companies will do what they can to continue to stay in business. I'm sure Monsanto is no different.

Also see: Johns Manville, any tobacco company, and CSR Limited in Australia.

It still doesn't mean all the products they produce should be done away with(though some should).

DDT eradicated a threat that has killed billions of people. I have read(not sure if true) that half of all deaths in human history are thanks to malaria.

Thanks to DDT, we do not have that deadly problem here in the states anymore. Nor in Europe.

GMO has the potential to do really great things for us as a species. We need to continue to develop them.

James Hardie was another company that was huge into mining and manufacture of asbestos products. A lot of the claims against CSR were then also brought against james hardie.

 

[echelon1k1]

ahh different so your argument from authority was bullshit from the start

it does explain the shoddy quality of your "evidence" while leaving enough "professional overlap" to say your a disgrace to it


did you format it like that to hide where you got it from? you do know its normally expected to cite where you get it from

http://realagenda.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/state-of-the-science-of-gmo-health-risks-sm-2013.pdf

perhaps you could directly link to studies rather than trawl crap like that link



brilliant "bloggist" opens with the bunk cancer study...

projectcensored? looks legit, oh look its talking about a herbicide not GMO


great another blog talking about herbicide not GMO and he talks about the bunk study rats and cancer

GMO?


for somebody claiming to work within the "sciences" this is frankly shocking

It's unfortunate, but corporations aren't subject to Freedom of Information Act Laws... There is no incentive for them to publish any data that could even imply their product is or could be dangerous to humans or animals.

Glyphosphates are dangerous to humans and to think that "Round-UP" ready GM crops would be any different is insane.

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

Full text - http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf

Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.

 

[canndo]

ahh different so your argument from authority was bullshit from the start

it does explain the shoddy quality of your "evidence" while leaving enough "professional overlap" to say your a disgrace to it


did you format it like that to hide where you got it from? you do know its normally expected to cite where you get it from

http://realagenda.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/state-of-the-science-of-gmo-health-risks-sm-2013.pdf

perhaps you could directly link to studies rather than trawl crap like that link



brilliant "bloggist" opens with the bunk cancer study...

projectcensored? looks legit, oh look its talking about a herbicide not GMO


great another blog talking about herbicide not GMO and he talks about the bunk study rats and cancer

GMO?


for somebody claiming to work within the "sciences" this is frankly shocking

I was waiting up to 10 minutes to post or reply. I should have attributed my sources but did not.


Now as far as your differentiation between gmo and herbicide, they go hand in hand.

What I am curious about is why so many get so agitated when it comes to defending Monsanto's dangerous actions - why is that? Why should I have to present any evidence at all? Why is it so important to you that these companies are vindicated?

I have more, more proper quotes from a few better sources, I promise.

 

[cannabineer]

I was waiting up to 10 minutes to post or reply. I should have attributed my sources but did not.


Now as far as your differentiation between gmo and herbicide, they go hand in hand.

What I am curious about is why so many get so agitated when it comes to defending Monsanto's dangerous actions - why is that? Why should I have to present any evidence at all? Why is it so important to you that these companies are vindicated?

I have more, more proper quotes from a few better sources, I promise.

I can only offer the personal observation/feeling that the principles of genetic modding aren't the same as the practices of that firm. GM isn't inherently evil ... an argument harder to make about that corporate privateer vessel. Jmo ... or is that gmo. cn

 

[canndo]

I can only offer the personal observation/feeling that the principles of genetic modding aren't the same as the practices of that firm. GM isn't inherently evil ... an argument harder to make about that corporate privateer vessel. Jmo ... or is that gmo. cn

No, GM is not inherently evil but it is inherently dangerous.

 

[cannabineer]

No, GM is not inherently evil but it is inherently dangerous.

Therein lies its utility. cn

 

[ginjawarrior]

I was waiting up to 10 minutes to post or reply. I should have attributed my sources but did not.

I
Now as far as your differentiation between gmo and herbicide, they go hand in hand.

No that would be farming and herbicide go hand in hand gmo certainly didn't start that trend

Now you say ah hah what about roundup rdy?

I say round up a much less toxic than its alternatives

What I am curious about is why so many get so agitated when it comes to defending Monsanto's dangerous actions - why is that? Why should I have to present any evidence at all? Why is it so important to you that these companies are vindicated?

Personally I have a problem with bullshit that flares up even worse when people start sprouting it in a "matter of fact tone"

As to why you should be backing up the statements you been making are you seriously asking? Is your head so far up your area that you think burden of proof doesn't apply to you?

Need I go back and quote them alongside your argument from authority to show you why it's your burden?

I have more, more proper quotes from a few better sources, I promise.

oh yeah the real information is out there I just have to believe you as you "make your living from it"
it shouldnt matter at all to me that the evidence you shown so far is hippy blogs talking about fraudulent experiments I shouldn't dare question it
Because sometime soon you'll show us the real evidence.........

Any day now

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

James Hardie was another company that was huge into mining and manufacture of asbestos products. A lot of the claims against CSR were then also brought against james hardie.

I will have to look them up. Thanks for the heads up!


Wittenoom was really bad. Estimates of 60000 dead by 2030. A whole town wiped off the map. Sad story.

 

[ginjawarrior]

It's unfortunate, but corporations aren't subject to Freedom of Information Act Laws... There is no incentive for them to publish any data that could even imply their product is or could be dangerous to humans or animals.

none of that has got anything to do with the shoddy experiments the "anti's" are trying to pass as fact (see bellow)

Glyphosphates are dangerous to humans and to think that "Round-UP" ready GM crops would be any different is insane.

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

Full text - http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf

Wow a gishgallop by a consultant and computer scientists?

and if you look reference number 55 is to an A J WAKEFIELD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Thanks but no

 

[ginjawarrior]

Full text - http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf

While the paper is dense with biological nomenclature and unfamiliar terms, as well as 286 references, the important thing to realize is that the authors didn’t conduct any research at all. It is a review of recent literature with long convoluted arguments leading up to their points.

And this is easy to spot, because almost every other paragraph is full of scientific “weasel words” and naïve references to discredited research.
For example, they refer 5 times to Seralini’s completely discredited paper that claims the GMO crops (and maybe glyphosate we think) cause rat tumors. The European Food Safety Associationand studies from 6 nations have concluded that the study was inadequately designed and reported and that even after they requested further information, Seralini did not provide it. Six French Science Academies concurred.
In Section 3, they refer to autism spectrum disorder (ASD)as being associated with “dysbiosis of the gut,” even though the papers they refer to are based on the discredited and withdrawn papers by Wakefield.
In Section 6, they refer to “leaky gut syndrome,” which is not a recognized diagnosis and refer to an obscure paper in an alternative medicine journal that attempts to explain obesity in terms of “chemical toxins.”
But since they authors did no actual research they were left to make up bizarre causes and effects with weasel words like:

• One can surmise that
• Could be a contributing factor
• We develop a novel hypothesis
• We suspect this has to do with glyphosate’s effect…
• We hypothesize that
• …and this could be a factor…
• …could substantially enhance…
• It is plausible that…
• Is like synergistic in combination with glyphosate
• This effect can conceivable explain…
• We hypothesize that DHEA sulfate levels are a hormonal signal
• …as might be induced by glyphosate’s interference with tryptophan synthese…
• …can lead to inflammatory bowel disaease…
• …could be anticipated that…

They even manage to link glyphosate to bee colony collapse disorder and obesity to the increased use of glyphosate without any evidence whatever. It is now pretty much accepted that bee colony collapse is caused by neonicotinoid pesticides.
And since it is well known that little glyphosate is ever absorbed into the body, but is nearly all eliminated in the urine and feces, almost every one of these hypotheses does not stand up to actual facts.
This paper is not just baloney, it is a whole delicatessen!

http://www.examiner.com/article/bogus-paper-on-roundup-saturates-the-internet

 

[echelon1k1]

none of that has got anything to do with the shoddy experiments the "anti's" are trying to pass as fact (see bellow)

Wow a gishgallop by a consultant and computer scientists?

and if you look reference number 55 is to an A J WAKEFIELD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Thanks but no

By all means side with the Pro-gm crowd. And the studies the "Anti's" link through to are no better than anything you could produce unless you have access to monsantos data.

When it comes to GM the all of us are in the same boat because not even regulatory agencies test this shit, they rely on the submissions from the bio-tech firms and even then no testing is done, only an interpretation of the available data. Note I said available because they are under no real legal obligation to turn over adverse findings or potentially harmful observations to anyone.

I do encourage all those who believe in any benefits GM foods may bring to consume as much as you can, prove to us all how safe they are.

 

[echelon1k1]

http://www.examiner.com/article/bogus-paper-on-roundup-saturates-the-internet

Exactly... Regulatory agencies don't conduct their own research to ensure the safety of these modified foods. So who the fuck says GM food is proven safe?

Where are you getting all your peer reviewed papers from? Monsanto, FDA, Bayer....

Your assertions in the end are like mine, nothing but bacon... You cannot prove either way what they're saying is true and if you really trust Monsanto and co, go take a dip in Brofiscin quarry and see how you feel...

 

[ginjawarrior]

Exactly... Regulatory agencies don't conduct their own research to ensure the safety of these modified foods. So who the fuck says GM food is proven safe?

Where are you getting all your peer reviewed papers from? Monsanto, FDA, Bayer....

Your assertions in the end are like mine, nothing but bacon... You cannot prove either way what they're saying is true and if you really trust Monsanto and co, go take a dip in Brofiscin quarry and see how you feel...

What assertions have I been making apart from saying that "NONE of the evidence you have shown holds up to the slightest bit of scrutiny"

I heard about "evil Monsanto" over a decade ago and at first glance it looked compelling but the deeper I looked the more blatant lies and propaganda came up about it. Been the same for 10 years now

If the case against Monsanto was so clear cut you guys wouldn't have to resort to that shit

 

[echelon1k1]

What assertions have I been making apart from saying that "NONE of the evidence you have shown holds up to the slightest bit of scrutiny"

I heard about "evil Monsanto" over a decade ago and at first glance it looked compelling but the deeper I looked the more blatant lies and propaganda came up about it. Been the same for 10 years now

If the case against Monsanto was so clear cut you guys wouldn't have to resort to that shit

Leopards never change their spots.