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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Total Ban On GM Corn in France Follows Popular Opposition [View all]
- We've allowed our corrupt government (FDA) to permit this poison to be sold as ''food'' in the marketplace without having even met the minimum laboratory standards for testing protocols. The Europeans wouldn't let them, and they haven't let them, and they won't let them. They won't be guinea pigs for Capitalist tools.
That's our job......
[center]America's premier POISON MAKERS.
[/center]
That's our job......
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.
[center]America's premier POISON MAKERS.
[/center]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
177 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
Shit happens in France because politicians FEAR people. In the U.S.A., they LAUGH.
Auggie
May 2014
#5
what's "all over the internet" is anti-science, anti-intellectual fear mongering...
mike_c
May 2014
#153
Do you have a credible link or are we just going to go with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories? nt
Gore1FL
May 2014
#66
Of course the FDA agrees with Monsanto, they appointed most of the FDA commissioners! Sheesh!
DeSwiss
May 2014
#55
PRESS RELEASE > Environmental Chemicals Harm Reproductive Health: Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Change
proverbialwisdom
May 2014
#131
Don't like ENSSER as source? Gone. PLEASE FOCUS ON THE INTERSECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH & BIOTECH FOOD.
proverbialwisdom
May 2014
#132
I deleted all matters ENSSR from the post you are criticizing and added post #140. Please review. nt
proverbialwisdom
May 2014
#141
How's this grab you? MOST soy is GMO, maybe this isn't, wouldn't u like more testing on soy formula?
proverbialwisdom
May 2014
#140
So what happens when someone produces a GM corn that meets all the standards?
C_eh_N_eh_D_eh
May 2014
#10
NOBODY said "science is scary". A shitload of scientists said MONSANTO is scary.
loudsue
May 2014
#13
People say science is scary all the time, and it's not the scientists I'm worried about.
C_eh_N_eh_D_eh
May 2014
#18
That is the meme of Monsanto and other large pesticide/herbicide companies ...
MindMover
May 2014
#80
Again I will state that you are parroting Monsantos meme .... which is ridiculous ... nt
MindMover
May 2014
#82
It's quite astonishing, watching you fight the good fight against know-nothings here
FarrenH
May 2014
#116
Hasn't shown a negative impact on humans or rats? Not true, check it out.
proverbialwisdom
May 2014
#109
I do not know more about the status of this ban in France. Do you know about this?
proverbialwisdom
May 2014
#90
My response to your post was in error. It's fixed, why are you repeating yourself?
proverbialwisdom
May 2014
#110
That web site is anything but creepy. It is focused on getting the science right.
HuckleB
May 2014
#177
Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods
HuckleB
May 2014
#165