Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, GMO's are great and here is why... [View all]DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)104. What utter BULLSHIT.
- The point is no one was asked if they'd mind eating these Genetically Mangled Organisms. If you wish to take part in their experiment, then fine, you go right ahead.
But I refuse to participate. And no one has the right to make me. Capice?
[center]
MONSANTO GMO's NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOL STANDARDS
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
America's premier POISON MAKERS.


[/center]
Towns poisoned by Monsanto
[center]
Séralini, et. al. - RoundUp-GMO Study Re-Published









[/center]Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
133 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fine, label them so I can know what I am serving my family. If they are so great let me chose them
peacebird
Mar 2015
#1
If GMOs are so marvelous you should be able to label them & sell them for higher$$$$, right?
peacebird
Mar 2015
#5
Nye is not a trained geneticist or a food scientist, so the anti-GMO crowd dismisses him.
Orrex
Mar 2015
#111
I'm proud to support GMOs - Can you link to any studies that show my examples have negative impacts?
Lancero
Mar 2015
#17
Please list these "thousands of peer-reviewed" studies from around the world
Art_from_Ark
Mar 2015
#126
Listen, feel free to feed your family whatever you want. My family doesn't want GMOs. We don't
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#109
Well said. I don't get the attempt to FORCE people to eat what they don't want to eat.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#110
I don't have diabetes. I don't need insulin. Label the food so we can decide whether to put
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#108
+100. They want to feed ordinary people crap. Only the rich should be able to choose.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#115
That's great, but a few people calling them that isn't going to change the dialogue.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Mar 2015
#34
I think I will just keep on buying locally grown veggies and fruits and meats from the Amish
leftofcool
Mar 2015
#6
It's only a bunch of gobbledygook if you don't understand basic biology...
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2015
#102
You won't bother? Apparently, you don't bother to read further than you want.
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2015
#107
at least they don't 'cite' websites funded by the kochs and run by the living marxism group...
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#66
If mutation breeding food is great why the need to trick people into eating it?
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#49
Good fucking grief! Not only are insulin-making bacteria living in vats separated from
eridani
Mar 2015
#31
Neither is agrobusiness. Apparently, Europe is out of scientists that agree with you.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2015
#45
Oh, anti-GMO tends to go hand in hand with anti-vax, chemtrails, and the whole shebang.
HuckleB
May 2015
#133
And all that extra roundup in our food means weeds will not grow in our intestines.
randr
Mar 2015
#87
Your argument is false, and you are already backing away from your previous claims.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#124
I oppose GMO ingredients in food, I support the manufacture of novel GMO drugs unavailable otherwise
proverbialwisdom
Mar 2015
#93
(Not directed toward KA) I saw the top link on Twitter the other night.
proverbialwisdom
Mar 2015
#125