Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?

  • Total voters
    369
Antidisestablishmentarian

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
Someacdude said:
Then dont believe it, you really think organic foods hold a huge market share because of hippies? Its because it works, thats why we as Americans are so obese, our bodies think they are starving since our food industry is driven by greed and not quality. Im not doing anymore research for others, even when i prove a point i rarely get a thank you.
Eat what you want, grow what you want, doesnt matter to me, im about done with everything but organic food anyway.

Try it, veg juice for 3 days with store bought veggies, then do it for 3 days with organic.

wish i could afford all organic now
Click to expand...
So no citations?

As far as I'm concerned, you are blowing smoke up my ass.
 
Antidisestablishmentarian

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
why is everyone so against touching their own g-spot? sure it can cum pouring out and get a lil messy if you touch it just right, so just keep a towel handy ;)

Analysis Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

Mike Barrett
Infowars.com
April 15, 2013

Is GMO corn nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO corn? Monsanto will tell you the answer is a big ‘yes’, but the real answer is absolutely not. And the simple reality is that they are continuing to get away with their blatant misinformation. In fact, a 2012 nutritional analysis of genetically modified corn found that not only is GM corn lacking in vitamins and nutrients when compared to non-GM corn, but the genetic creation also poses numerous health risks due to extreme toxicity.
With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government. The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous GM crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers.
Non-GMO Corn 20x Richer in Nutrition than GMO Corn
The 2012 report, entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, found numerous concerning and notable differences between GMO and non-GMO corn, none of which are particularly surprising. First, the report found that non-GMO corn has considerably more calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, iron, and zinc.

  • Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 – non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.

  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.

  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 – non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.

  • Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.
As far as energy content goes, non-GMO corn was found to ‘emit 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn’, as reported by NaturalNews. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.
Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
Click for full-size version.
GMO Corn Also Found to be Highly Toxic
Not surprisingly, the report found what many of us already know – that GMO corn is highly toxic. While non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup), and other toxic substances, GMO corn is riddled with these toxins.

Based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations, the maximum amount of glyphosate allowed in drinking water is 700 parts per billion, which equates to .7 ppm. The amount is a set “level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems”. Europe allows even less glyphosate in water, at .2 ppm. The report found that GMO corn contains 13 ppm – that’s 18.5x the “safe amount” set by the EPA.
Similarly, GMO corn contains concerning levels of toxic formaldehyde, at 200 ppm. According to Dr. Don Huber, a respected expert on GMOs, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. The GMO corn was found to contain 200 times more formaldehyde than this ‘maximum’ safety amount.
Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
Click for full-size version.
Biotech Giants Like Monsanto Caught Lying Again
Monsanto has been making the claim for years that genetically modified foods are equivalent or even of higher quality than non-GMOs, but nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous studies have shown us the dangers of GMO foods such as GMO corn, along with the dangers of the massive amount of pesticides that accompany GMO crops. This 2012 report reminds us once again that corporations like Monsanto simply can not be trusted, and that the company will continue making false claims until the end of days in order to profit and slowly genetically engineer the world.
—
The 2012 report 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, was reportedly shared with the owners of MomsAcrossAmerica.com by De Dell Seed Company, the only non-GMO seed supplies in Canada. De Dell Seed Company received the document from a company called ProfitPro, based in Minnesota.
Additional Sources:
Onlinelibrary.Wiley
This post originally appeared at Natural Society
This article was posted: Monday, April 15, 2013 at 5:26 am
Click to expand...
Your article has no credibility. There is no such thing as the Monsanto Protection Act. Can you say biased?
 
Trousers

Trousers

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection you are a childish, ignorant liar.

Did you actually read any of those "studies"?

Could you reference the study that says that GMO crops cause tumors?
It would be fun if you did. That study and the others you posted are not scientific and have no basis in reality, like you.

You are exactly like the climate deniers.
You do not care about the scientific method, you just want to hear what you want to hear.


Here are over 600 actual, peer reviewed, independently funded, scientific studies that show that GMO crops are perfectly safe.
Some of the studies go back to the 1980s.
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Those studies are much better than the blogs you post.


I do not expect you to believe independent scientists, but you should really stop posting shit and claiming it is gold. You are a liar, stop it.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Trousers said:
DNAprotection you are a childish, ignorant liar.

Did you actually read any of those "studies"?

Could you reference the study that says that GMO crops cause tumors?
It would be fun if you did. That study and the others you posted are not scientific and have no basis in reality, like you.

You are exactly like the climate deniers.
You do not care about the scientific method, you just want to hear what you want to hear.


Here are over 600 actual, peer reviewed, independently funded, scientific studies that show that GMO crops are perfectly safe.
Some of the studies go back to the 1980s.
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Those studies are much better than the blogs you post.


I do not expect you to believe independent scientists, but you should really stop posting shit and claiming it is gold. You are a liar, stop it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what he said.

They big assumption they want us to swallow is the BIG LIE of the entire thing.

GMO has been studied for decades. It is studied in the Peoples own Labs. We don't depend on Monsanto. WE ride their asses as hard as we ride the hippy ass.
 
Trousers

Trousers

Well-Known Member
So you don't read the garbage you post?
Then you present the lies as fact?
It is fine that you hate logic, reason and science. But why must you spread your lies and ignorance?


You are a terrible person.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
He is trolling because he has lost his way. As soon as he began posting, we began our dark mind influence. Now he is sorta in the middle.

He dares not read the drivel he post, apparently. But, he can't stop posting it for his Self needs more dark mind influence. It is all good.

The signs are there. The descent into insult and then base sex, like a lizard. From here he can ascend or stay stuck and then sink some more.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Someacdude said:
You are once again wrong.
Our whole society is swirling down the tubes and you embrace it.
Again, i was there, i saw it, farmers paid to NOT farm, all it took was a few less than scrupulous farmers to start using this garbage, their yields increased and the nutritional value of their crops decreased, these farmers reaped this so called reward and any other farmers who didnt want to lose their family farm had to capitulate.

See , i use facts, things ive seen with my own eyes and i do it without name calling etc maybe because i can actually think unlike you, try it some time, you may like it.
Click to expand...
paid to not grow a particular crop is NOT forced to grow something you dolt.

if the govt offers me $5000/acre to NOT grow barley, but i think i can get more than $5000/ acre by growing barley, i will grow motherfucking barley.

likewise if the government offers me a subsidy of $500/ acre to grow corn (the current subsidy, as a matter of fact), but i decide i can make more by growing sorghum i will grow sorghum.

there is no compulsion, there never has been, and your lies are transparent.

if you think a subsidy is compulsion, you are a fool.

you have earned every imprecation and slander i have laid upon you, by being a LIAR and a fool.

i use FACTS AND TRUTH, unlike yourself. you might want to try that, but you probably will not like it.
 
Someacdude

Someacdude

Active Member
Dr Kynes said:
paid to not grow a particular crop is NOT forced to grow something you dolt.

if the govt offers me $5000/acre to NOT grow barley, but i think i can get more than $5000/ acre by growing barley, i will grow motherfucking barley.

likewise if the government offers me a subsidy of $500/ acre to grow corn (the current subsidy, as a matter of fact), but i decide i can make more by growing sorghum i will grow sorghum.

there is no compulsion, there never has been, and your lies are transparent.

if you think a subsidy is compulsion, you are a fool.

you have earned every imprecation and slander i have laid upon you, by being a LIAR and a fool.

i use FACTS AND TRUTH, unlike yourself. you might want to try that, but you probably will not like it.
Click to expand...
I read a study where genetically engineer food causes breast cancer
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Trousers said:
So you don't read the garbage you post?
Then you present the lies as fact?
It is fine that you hate logic, reason and science. But why must you spread your lies and ignorance?


You are a terrible person.
Click to expand...
Silly trout, I challenge you to find even one occasion where I have been dishonest...but you cant because I haven't...that leaves you only to do what you do best, lying about others...its all you've got...its all Monsanto's got...
When you asked if I had read the last article, I answered truthfully as I always do, maybe ask yourself why (if i lie) would I not have lied about that?
I know its hard sometimes to try new things, but 'logic' and 'reason' are good words trout, you should try to use them to work this equation out...
Further, information from either side of this 'debate' is biased, therefor I find that such 'info' form both 'sides' is mostly irrelevant to me as I only calculate my position based on the common most basic fundamental facts of life = the numbers...the big mother of all equations...in others words that which you seem to ignore or maybe simply just cannot comprehend?
In any case the point is that (aside from my time constraints) reading that article would have no impact on my position one way or the other, it might though hold interest for someone else and so I posted it...
There is also the fact that I am usually also bating a hook for large mouth sweathogs who cant help but bight hard on such...
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Tell ya what Frank (and all the SHDT), here's your chance to finally make a difference in this life (when pigs fly)...
I'll take the high road (got wings?) and you take the low road,
and we'll meet up again here in the mornin,
if you can find a post where I lied about the quotes,
then I'll get on the boat for Loch Lomond :hug:bongsmilie
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
Silly trout, I challenge you to find even one occasion where I have been dishonest...but you cant because I haven't...that leaves you only to do what you do best, lying about others...its all you've got...its all Monsanto's got...
When you asked if I had read the last article, I answered truthfully as I always do, maybe ask yourself why (if i lie) would I not have lied about that?
I know its hard sometimes to try new things, but 'logic' and 'reason' are good words trout, you should try to use them to work this equation out...
Further, information from either side of this 'debate' is biased, therefor I find that such 'info' form both 'sides' is mostly irrelevant to me as I only calculate my position based on the common most basic fundamental facts of life = the numbers...the big mother of all equations...in others words that which you seem to ignore or maybe simply just cannot comprehend?
In any case the point is that (aside from my time constraints) reading that article would have no impact on my position one way or the other, it might though hold interest for someone else and so I posted it...
There is also the fact that I am usually also bating a hook for large mouth sweathogs who cant help but bight hard on such...
Click to expand...
Science is not a debate and there is nothing in real Journals that back your stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top