Did you watch the videos I put up or are you just going to avoid them. One was an actual 3 year trial on lab rats. They requested for human trials but the unions wouldn't allow them to do them. What's wrong? They showed a very reasonable hypothesis but Monsanto and the unions won't let them study. What do they have to hide. The clinical human trials by Monsanto are 3 month studies. Nothing substantial. If it's safe, then why so much resistance?
tlongII is right. We're seeing trustworthy (for the most part) organizations like WHO and WebMD saying there's no health risk. Creating a hysteria around food that causes people to not buy it so it rots costs money. Doing the GMO thing must make growing the food cheaper or better, or they wouldn't be doing it.
As for your documentary, here's a look by an MD at the talk show host who made your film: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre Following Wilson and Akre's contract not being renewed, the two filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the Monsanto recombinant bovine growth hormone story."[6] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the agriculture company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[7] The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425,000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission. An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]
Well ain't that special?!?! http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/usdagmeconomics.htm Yeah it really looks like it is cheaper or better! Are you going to try and discredit the USDA as well?!?! LMAO!
And if you think there isn't something fishy; there were several studies by Iowa State University regarding GMO crops. We had them before in the early part of 2000's and the University took them down. Ironically, one of the largest contributors to Iowa State University's AG department is Monsanto. In fact, most University Studies, giving by major AG universities have taken down any or all negative results for GMO "roundup ready" crops.
Wow mags. You keep finding this shit on holistic bullshit sites. good find. You might consider they cherry picked a sentence here and a sentence there to paint a very different picture than the report actually was about.
Oh and the ones that believe "labeling" will drive prices up is fooling themselves. Here is a economic study at the Iowa State University, that suggests RR crops and conventional farming are needed to sustain a competitive market, therefor regulating pricing by consumers. <-- Support for labeling and consumer choice. http://www.card.iastate.edu/faculty/profiles/giancarlo_moschini/sobolevsky-moschini-lapan-ajae.pdf The funny thing about Denny and trying to debate me on Agriculture. This is my business and I work with agronomist and farmers throughout the world. This is like a Music Major trying to argue with a biologist about symbiosis. If you think pulling WebMD articles is "credible" is laughable. The true research is being done in the AG Universities. Try searching UC Davis, Nebraska State University and Iowa State University. They are the top 3 AG schools in the nation.
Cherry Picked? Does it even matter? The USDA did say that, yet you choose to ignore a sentence because you think its cherry picked?
I look at the source. It's not the report. It's filtered with a specific bias. It's obvious. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/ 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable For the win.
This is where your argument is seriously flawed Denny, especially one that is a naturalist. Have some fucking common sense man and see the forest through the trees. I mean you would know about the symbiotic relationships between organisms that sustain life. That plants require certain microbes in order to function. That glyphosate, kills those microorganisms, therefor creating a snowball effect in the opposite direction. A little homework Denny… Put 1 tablespoon of salt on a house plant's soil and tell me what it does? Now expand that simple test to a chemical fertilization of an entire field. Most commercial farms have that much Sodium in their soil from build up. Now you add Glyphosate into the mix and understand that it stops nutrient uptake of phosphorus, magnesium, and iron and get back to me.
LMAO Forbes is for big corporations. Talk about "cherry picking" Hahahaha. Dude you have no fucking clue about agriculture. Probably why you are oblivious about the entire problem! The only thing you are winning Denny, is proving how short sighted you are. But the forum already knows this.
I get it. You get to cherry pick, or you choose your links accordingly. Not fair for me to do so? http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article. A.N. acknowledges ABOCA Spa (http://www. aboca.com/it) for the financial support on manuscript preparation.
That link is quite good. They reviewed close to 1800 scientific papers on GMO released the past 10 years. That would include your ag schools. In the abstract of their report, it says: We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense.
You are aware that any "patented" product must have permission by the patent owner to test? In other words, Monstanto will allow you to test, but cannot publish unless you receive permission after their review? What does that mean Denny? Well if the results aren't in their favor, they say "No you cannot publish this study". <--- Fact
LMAO! Your own link brother. Serves you right for trying to machine gun links that you have zero understanding of. Researchers are scared to go too far into the trials because they may get cut of funding… DOH MOMENT! Oh so other researchers can't review it, to validate the study? Hahahaha Go figure?!?! I wonder why? And they even recommend GM labeling! HAHAHAHA Hey thanks Denny for your link. Guess you already got your shovel.
I call bullshit. Provide a link that says anyone needs permission to test something that is patented and write about it.
And wow. It says "the sky is blue" and you quote that and say in your own words, "see, they say the sky is green!" Just wow. I'm done with you.
Well shit Denny, you call bullshit and give me links to try and support your claim. And even in those links, you didn't read through enough before posting. All supporting studies still recommend labeling. herp derp!
You're done because you thought you hit a home run, but realized it was only your dream. The advocation of GM labeling is essential for free trade. There is a value added component to crops that aren't genetically modified. All the researchers agree. Yet your refusal for seeing this only implies you have no idea what you are talking about. You advocate free trade! Liberalism! Let the market decide! Then debate that GM labeling is wrong! Talk about fucking straddling the fence! Hahaha
