The Future of GM Technology...

anyway:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenInRoundupReadyGMCrops.php

from the above link:


maybe you and sceptical can point me to these peer reviewed tests.[/QUOTE]

No need.

Because 86% of our Corn and 93% of our Soybeans and 93% of our Canola oil comes from GM products, and all three (mainly first two) are used in our Animal feed,

SO

IF there actually was "cell damage and reproductive problems associated with animals that have consumed GM feed", it would be friggin obvious.

But it's not.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes they did. Wiki.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto So don't preach to me about getting facts right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Same Wiki article

In January 2005, Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5m fine for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002, in a bid to avoid Environmental impact assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For your reading pleasure, a rat study:

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Please read all the way through it(er-well, at least skim heavily)...they mention the potential for kidney leakage towards the bottom.

 

i specifically asked for the peer reviewed tests.

 

it's faked, forged, a fraud, quakery, inept, insane, stupid, irrelevant,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And if you thought Monsanto was bad, Pfizer got fined 2.3 Billion by the FDA.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/08/pf...utors-david-r-henderson-charles-l-hooper.html

 

the GM industry has come under fire.
if GM foods were as safe as the industry says them there should be plenty of peer reviewed evidence.
no need = none found.

 

Because this is a NON ISSUE, it's about DDT and thus is not relevant to the issue of GM food.


BUT, you were completely WRONG about your two prime assertions that people had been infected by GM viruses.

So I'll continue to ask you the same question you dodged:

Isn't it odd that every case you think supports your claim turns out to be FALSE?

When are you going to concede that you have formed your opinion based on facts which when examined turned out NOT to be true?

WHEN?

Arthur

 

Did you read the damn article???

:shrug:

Arthur

 

Not at all. Just like you supposedly looking up monsanto producing DDT on wiki and somehow not seeing the article on them producing DDT. Then FALSELY claiming they did not produce it. Sheer Hypocracy.

 

Yes, of course Arthur! It shows Pfizer is not trustworthy and nor are the FDA!

 

and the peer reviewed evidence that GM foods are safe? where are those?
i've been reading about this putzai (spelling?) affair.
it seems his paper was called on two aspects:
1. he published his paper before it was peer reviewed
2. after it was reviewed by 6 reviewers it seems the control group wasn't feed "the proper potato".

do you really expect me to believe this? a world renown scientist that specializes in exactly the experiment he was conducting used a shoddy method?

you know something? it's your grandchildren that will reap the fruits of your stupidity

 

Forbes is a corporate butt-kissing paper anyway...
Try this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/business/03health.html

 

Congratulations to Chimpkin

That is the first decent reference posted by anyone on your side of the debate in 8 pages of this thread. Took you guys long enough!

Couple of problems with using it to support your argument.
1. It is a preliminary study, and more work is needed to confirm results.
2. No indication if the corn varieties tested are actually in use.
3. No real world back-up to suggest that the preliminary findings actually mean anything in terms of the wider world. In other words, this is a laboratory study and may not apply outside the lab.

So it is a good reference in that it appears to be good science. It is not a good support for your position, since it is still just another expression of vague concern with no real evidence that the concern means anything.

Nevertheless, my compliments to Chimpkin for actually finding some good science.

 

Oh, but it doesn't end there, how about killing children?
"In 2001, a group of Nigerian minors and their guardians sued Pfizer in US federal court under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) alleging that the company violated customary international law by administering Trovan to minors in Kano during the meningitis outbreak. The plaintiffs in Abdullahi v. Pfizer claim that the drug was given without the informed consent of the children and their parents. The plaintiffs further claim that the drug trial led to the deaths of 11 children and serious injuries to many others."

They eventually settled out of court.. http://www.business-humanrights.org.../LawsuitsSelectedcases/PfizerlawsuitreNigeria

And people think these companies care about their products safety? Oh, what naivety! I could go on producing these all night!

 

BS

I looked up DDT on Wiki and according to Wiki Monsanto didn't make it and so when I posted it I specifically wrote: "According to Wiki".

That's ENTIRELY DIFFERENT then you claiming that GM viruses infected people when there is NO SOURCE that supports your claim.

So AGAIN, you made TWO claims about infection by GM viruses.

Each one turned out to be FALSE.

Arthur

 

It says "commercialized" at the top of the study...meaning those three corn varieties are currently being marketed.

It is preliminary, yes, and the study's author admits that..

But the toxicity evident in just three months of feeding, versus controls, is pretty alarming.

 

On the contrary, it is true.

"The oft-repeated refrain that "transgenic DNA is just like ordinary DNA" is false. Transgenic DNA is in many respects optimised for horizontal gene transfer. It is designed to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes"

"The health risks of horizontal gene transfer include:

"Antibiotic resistance genes spreading to pathogenic bacteria.
Disease-associated genes spreading and recombining to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases.
Transgenic DNA inserting into human cells, triggering cancer."


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

 

Having finished reading the paper I found that I could not quite find a smoking gun in it.

Did a little look see and found this rebuttal:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sci...s/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm

Arthur