Montasanto GM Maize and roundup causes massive tumours and early death.

[walker 0]

Hi all

A study published yesterday in Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal, with the story now carried in the Grocer a retail industry magazine, shows that GM Maize with the GM chemical Roundup for which the Maize was modified to tolerate causes massive tumours.

PRE WARNING The video link at the bottom of the page I am is VERY GRAPHIC! Do not follow if you are disturbed by such things.

Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in ‘shocking’ new cancer study

The world’s best-selling weedkiller, and a genetically modified maize resistant to it, can cause tumours, multiple organ damage and lead to premature death, new research published today reveals.

In the first ever study to examine the long-term effects of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, or the NK603 Roundup-resistant GM maize also developed by Monsanto, scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females, compared with 23 and 14 months respectively for a control group...

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsanto-weedkiller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article

As Always follow the link to the opriginal text in full, BEWARE OF FOLLOWING THE VIDEO LINK AT THE BOTTOM DISTURBING!

Monsanto's GM Maize is already banned for human consumption in the Europe and the UK, but is sold across the USA and used in Corn Syrup products and animal feed.

Monsanto censored and bankrupted a Fox Affiliate to prevent them bringing to light early indications of problems with Monsanto's products.

June 1998

"We Paid $3 Billion For These Stations. We'll Decide What the News Is."

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team at WTVT, Fox's Tampa Bay affiliate, thought they had a dynamite story: Despite promises to consumers, supermarkets in Florida were selling milk produced with rBGH, a synthetic growth hormone developed by Monsanto that boosts milk production. The use of rBGH causes udder infections in cows, requiring increased use of antibiotics, but the monitoring of antibiotic residues in milk was inadequate, Akre and Wilson found.

Most ominously, the Fox reporters found that some scientists believe that rBGH-boosted milk contains heightened levels of IGF-1, a hormone associated with increased risk of cancer (Science, 1/23/98). Despite Monsanto's claim that rBGH is "the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," no thorough studies exist on whether milk produced with rBGH is carcinogenic.

These are vital facts for consumers in Florida--and around the country--to know. But the story never aired on WTVT, and Wilson and Akre are now out of a job and suing Fox--because of Fox's efforts to alter their story to make it acceptable to Monsanto.

On February 21, 1997, days before the first installment of the rBGH story was scheduled to air, Monsanto sent a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. (Ailes was a campaign advisor to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show.) The letter questioned Akre and Wilson's "objectivity and capacity for reporting on this highly complex scientific subject," and charged that the reporters "have prejudged the safety of [rBGH] and the corporate behavior of Monsanto." The letter urged Ailes to involve himself directly in an effort to "get the facts straight" about rBGH, hinting none-too-subtly that the alternative would be a massive lawsuit: "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner."...

http://www.fair.org/extra/9806/foxbgh.html

As always follow the link to the original article in full

Monsanto, enough to give you nightmares.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 22, 2012 by walker

[papanowel 120]

We sometimes use food with GM to feed the cow, so don't think we are not eating it. :(

[Sealife 22]

Hmm interesting

in the transition from paraquat, diquat etc , Round up was the most prevelant of Weedkillers in use in my trad , the salesman were wiidely known for proving how safe this simple isopropylene of salt really was by Drinking some :0.

I wonder if they are still alive today , In a more Ironic Twist of faith one of our chaps who would have used this over last 10 years is being buried on Monday , he was riddled with Cancer , this post is very disturbing for me on a personal level, seems i have been blindly believing the Chemical i thought was safe was not , i was recently reading about Finale from Bayer and how crops are GM`d to protect them from it and stepped up Rams to phase it out, however this news here is most shocking.

Some Media i watched whilst searching

Rml_k005tsU

Edited September 20, 2012 by Thromp

[nettrucker 143]

People are consuming this shit for decades. Waiting for our chaps to chime in, that this is only a conspiracy theory . . . . where's my tinfoil hat? Well do a research on what happened in India with Monsanto involved. These are criminals but today the real criminals aren't going to jail anymore.

My anger has no limits, but then the masses will tell you hey man you know you are one of these conspiracy chaps. It's not possible that people would do such things for whatever reason. Most probably Monsanto has excellent connections to the pharma industry. Most probably their lawyers (if ever there will be an investigation) will turn it upside down and argue hey man too many people get sick we need more doctors. You see we're creating new jobs in America, so watch the positive side of it.

People will never wake up because most people are naive and brainwashed and furthermore incapable of critical thinking. Their blind trust in institutions never finish to amaze me.

Rant over!!!!!!!

[instagoat 133]

Excellent find. The full text of the study can be found here: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

Good illustration of science at work. Now there´s to hope that neither the rabid anti-GM nor the rabid pro-GM people begin throwing either panic-fits or attempt to suppress the research.

Now, people need to realize one thing. The world is NOT FAIR, there are NO EASY ANSWERS, and everything has GOOD and BAD effects. You could die of hydroxylic acid poisoning tomorrow. This is a question of cost-benefit. GM crops can increase the amount of produce to harvest trough resistance against adverse environmental conditions and pests. If people in countries with nonexistent infrastructure don´t have to suffer trough famine anymore, that´s a big step forward for them even if they now carry the risk of getting cancer earlier in life until either normal crops can produced in sufficient amounts, or GM crops with less health impact are developed.

GM products are a marvel, same as stemcell research, advanced metallurgy, modern computing, organ printing and bionic limb replacement.

I get -really- upset when people hold this up to obstruct human progress. Nobody ever claimed it was easy. Stop expecting easy answers. Wether you are against nuclear power, genetically modified crops, stemcell research, think that structured water is a be-all end-all solution to all health problems or that there is some such thing as free energy or cold fusion, it hurts our progress as humans.

We have to accept that it is always an uphill struggle, and that sacrifices have to be made. I am on meds daily, without them, I would not be where I am right now. People always complain about the side effects (I get them too.), but people also never consider the complexity of the task at hand. To objectively and conclusively find out not only -what- works, but -why- it works and -where-, and how it can be improved and made less dangerous, if it is.

GM products have the problem that genetics, aside from the bare bones of the language and techniques for deciphering the basics, is still a not very well researched field. Everything we do right now is hit and miss, but without trying, we will never get better. To try, we need large companies like Monsato to take up the ideas and -produce- them, so we can see the effect on a sufficiently large scale to make out wether something works or not.

Neither the scientists, nor Monsato, nor the opponents are good or evil here. People that try to paint the issue as some such where there are such lines drawn, however, are. There is a difference between a healthy argument and blame-shifting/panic creation, and I am always afraid that discussions like this deteriorate to some level like that.

Also sry, emotional topic for me, might not make sense entirely.

[nettrucker 143]

Excellent find. The full text of the study can be found here: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

Good illustration of science at work. Now there´s to hope that neither the rabid anti-GM nor the rabid pro-GM people begin throwing either panic-fits or attempt to suppress the research.

Now, people need to realize one thing. The world is NOT FAIR, there are NO EASY ANSWERS, and everything has GOOD and BAD effects. You could die of hydroxylic acid poisoning tomorrow. This is a question of cost-benefit. GM crops can increase the amount of produce to harvest trough resistance against adverse environmental conditions and pests. If people in countries with nonexistent infrastructure don´t have to suffer trough famine anymore, that´s a big step forward for them even if they now carry the risk of getting cancer earlier in life until either normal crops can produced in sufficient amounts, or GM crops with less health impact are developed.

GM products are a marvel, same as stemcell research, advanced metallurgy, modern computing, organ printing and bionic limb replacement.

I get -really- upset when people hold this up to obstruct human progress. Nobody ever claimed it was easy. Stop expecting easy answers. Wether you are against nuclear power, genetically modified crops, stemcell research, think that structured water is a be-all end-all solution to all health problems or that there is some such thing as free energy or cold fusion, it hurts our progress as humans.

We have to accept that it is always an uphill struggle, and that sacrifices have to be made. I am on meds daily, without them, I would not be where I am right now. People always complain about the side effects (I get them too.), but people also never consider the complexity of the task at hand. To objectively and conclusively find out not only -what- works, but -why- it works and -where-, and how it can be improved and made less dangerous, if it is.

GM products have the problem that genetics, aside from the bare bones of the language and techniques for deciphering the basics, is still a not very well researched field. Everything we do right now is hit and miss, but without trying, we will never get better. To try, we need large companies like Monsato to take up the ideas and -produce- them, so we can see the effect on a sufficiently large scale to make out wether something works or not.

Neither the scientists, nor Monsato, nor the opponents are good or evil here. People that try to paint the issue as some such where there are such lines drawn, however, are. There is a difference between a healthy argument and blame-shifting/panic creation, and I am always afraid that discussions like this deteriorate to some level like that.

Also sry, emotional topic for me, might not make sense entirely.

Man you sound like somebody who works for Monsanto. I'm not against progress as long as it doesn't kill people on the long run and yeah you make no sense to me.

[hellfire257 3]

Funny, there's no figures on a few things here. I wouldn't take this study as gospel just yet simply because it is not thorough enough. The findings need to be verified by another team and peer reviewed once again. As scientific material goes, this isn't acceptable to me. This means nothing unless the results can be reproduced and/or more detailed statistics released.

Oh, and since I'm a biology student and happen to question this study's validity, I guess I'm being paid off by Monsanto... :rolleyes: Rest easy guys, not everything is a conspiracy.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Hellfire257

[instagoat 133]

Man you sound like somebody who works for Monsanto. I'm not against progress as long as it doesn't kill people on the long run and yeah you make no sense to me.

Almost expected a reply like this. Reading what I said, it´s a bit erratic and propagandistic sounding, but I stand by the gist of what I said.

Every new product will have flaws. However, if the net benefit outweighs the drawbacks, use it until a better alternative becomes available. NOT using these products kills people, while using them will kill some of the people it saves now in the future. At the risk of sounding harsh, but I´d rather like to have people get a chance to live now even at the risk of getting cancer 20 years down the road, rather than dying from famine now.

The opposition to GM products is a 1st world fad, where people can afford having such opinions. The larger part of the world, however, cannot afford such a stance in the face of persistent problems with feeding their people. This is especially true for large parts of africa, as well as the poor people in many other countries that can hardly afford expensive imported-grain based products.

GMO products will need to be improved in the future, and their safety thoroughly tested, however, what we have right now is all we have, and I think that using it will do more benefit than harm.

But in the end, History will show, I guess.

[mrcash2009 0]

I´d rather like to have people get a chance to live now even at the risk of getting cancer 20 years down the road, rather than dying from famine now.

Whats to say going by all opposition and points that it will take 20 years down the road, cancer can come on fast. You speak for others mate, I hope you get your own personal order in soon, we can all sit and wait for the results.

GM isnt going to be just for test cases like Africa, thats just TV talk. The idea is to crash a system, have droughts, then offer the magic beans, wait and see it will be fun for you.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Before you go around screaming about the sky falling, take a look at this article and the links/sources provided.

http://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/i-smell-a-rat/

-edit

Also, this. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/09/21/under-controlled-why-the-new-gmo-panic-is-more-sensational-than-sense/

Edited September 21, 2012 by Darkhorse 1-6

[Macadam Cow 1]

The opposition to GM products is a 1st world fad, where people can afford having such opinions. The larger part of the world, however, cannot afford such a stance in the face of persistent problems with feeding their people. This is especially true for large parts of africa, as well as the poor people in many other countries that can hardly afford expensive imported-grain based products.

You do know that these 3rd world farmers using GM seeds have to buy new ones every year, right ?

When they were using local seeds, which btw were very adapted to their environment, they planted the seeds, growed them, harvested them, collected the new seeds, planted them,etc.

GM seeds aren't re-usable.

Most of the studies so far were "in house" studies, made by Monsanto themselves and were only few months long.

Farmers from all around the world are going bankrupt cause they believed in the holy graal. The suicide rate of indians farmers has never been so high.

I strongly advice you guys to take a look at some documentaries like 'The world according to Monsanto' or 'We feed the world'

Monsanto, Pioneer, Nestlé,...are all but philantropic corporations. They don't give a flying fuck about starvation in africa. Nestlé event wants to privatise water !

Here in Europe, thanks to Monsanto lobbyists and the like, more than 2.000 type of seeds have been banned because they weren't fitting so called "safety controls" (and guess who made these safety controls?)

Those were local seeds, used for centuries.

All these companies (including pharmaceutical ones) trying to make you believe they're working for the good of all have only one interest : money

If you want Monsanto to feeds you, be my guest, but personaly I avoid them like the plague.

Just take a look at what they did with PCBs :

Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution

You want me to believe they've suddently changed their minds ? All of a sudden the good of all became more important to them than their profits ?

Please...

Edited September 21, 2012 by Macadam Cow

[Sealife 22]

At the risk of sounding harsh, but I´d rather like to have people get a chance to live now even at the risk of getting cancer 20 years down the road, rather than dying from famine now.

I respect your right to Die as you wish, However the fact you in that scenario have a choice ,where this topic is more about the possible highlighting of that choice being taken away from quite a major percent of the planets inhabitants , your probably Localising the issue here a little too much .

The Main thing for me about the OP , is that regardless of whether or not it turns out that Roundup or GMO have increase cancer risk, there is an undeniable fact from both side that certain companies are without doubt cornering the market and Copyrighting basic Food stuffs and that is very frightening alone , without the weight of the GMO delivery system being rather dubious.

In addition , i think every person i have seen Die of cancer would rather starve now than Excrete there Liver and other major organs and the pain that comes with it in 20 years,

Edited September 21, 2012 by Thromp

[instagoat 133]

The problems with corporations exercising their power for the sake of profit and creating customer dependence are real, and I acknowledge those. But these are two different things: the benefits of GM seeds, and the malpractices of the people selling them.

Cancer is a horrifying disease, and the prospect of getting it is a dire one, but starving is not nice either. However, starvation can be more easily adressed than cancer, and if there were any sensible policy regarding the employment of GM products in place, we would not see a lot of the problems that you describe. This extends also to sanctioned food products from europe, which are destroying local markets in africa, for example.

However, wether or not GM seeds even -cause- cancer has not been answered fully. Contrary to claims of microwaves and mobile phone radiation causing cancer, though, I see some scientific basis, so I take this research more seriously than those. That said, the now emerging criticisms of the study shouldn´t be dismissed either: don´t make this about Ideology. I raised an eyebrow when I saw the particular breed of rats they used (which were initially developed to research cancer treatments, making them -heavily- predisposed to getting cancers of every imaginable type).

With a more valid (ie, non-genetically predisposed organism) research organism, as well as test studies of other institutions without the political-ideological connections of the scientist who worked on the linked study to confirm the results, I would feel much more comfortable in accepting this.

Right now, it is scaremongery in the face of a misinformed public, and someone is going to suffer, sooner or later. (Again, this has nothing to do with the tactics of Monsato & co, which are deplorable. Another good example is the united fruit co., which went as far as bribing the US government into overthrowing a foreign government that was acting against their business interests.)

Not the research or the product should be limited in terms of regulation, bar establishment of how dangerous they actually are compared to conventional products. What should be regulated is the way these companies act abroad, to whatever degree international relations permit. One reason these companies can do as they please is because if they were cut short by the US/EU governments, companies from other places in the world with a more real-political approach would spring into the gap, with the same practices, and push the now harnessed western companies out of business.

Unless there is some sort of unified regulatory and functional enforcing body, this will be hard to curb, outside of public relations work.

Edit: And realize, Monsanto is under pressure from governments (germany, many other european countries, and the US as well I think) to prevent their products from ever "contaminating" the conventional crops. One reason why they are curbstomping anyone cross-breeding their crops in asia, and trying to make what they sell sterile, because under EU legislation every mixed crop is a legal liabillity.

As long as we prosecute the "contamination" of "conventional" produce with "GM" produce, this problem will persist. Obviously another incentive for Monsanto is to protect their product, but to say that this is the entire cause for their actions is untrue. Assigning malice to everything a company does just because they´re a large and powerful corporation is distracting from the actual problems.

Edited September 21, 2012 by InstaGoat

[nettrucker 143]

The problems with corporations exercising their power for the sake of profit and creating customer dependence are real, and I acknowledge those. But these are two different things: the benefits of GM seeds, and the malpractices of the people selling them.

Cancer is a horrifying disease, and the prospect of getting it is a dire one, but starving is not nice either. However, starvation can be more easily adressed than cancer, and if there were any sensible policy regarding the employment of GM products in place, we would not see a lot of the problems that you describe. This extends also to sanctioned food products from europe, which are destroying local markets in africa, for example.

However, wether or not GM seeds even -cause- cancer has not been answered fully. Contrary to claims of microwaves and mobile phone radiation causing cancer, though, I see some scientific basis, so I take this research more seriously than those. That said, the now emerging criticisms of the study shouldn´t be dismissed either: don´t make this about Ideology. I raised an eyebrow when I saw the particular breed of rats they used (which were initially developed to research cancer treatments, making them -heavily- predisposed to getting cancers of every imaginable type).

With a more valid (ie, non-genetically predisposed organism) research organism, as well as test studies of other institutions without the political-ideological connections of the scientist who worked on the linked study to confirm the results, I would feel much more comfortable in accepting this.

Right now, it is scaremongery in the face of a misinformed public, and someone is going to suffer, sooner or later. (Again, this has nothing to do with the tactics of Monsato & co, which are deplorable. Another good example is the united fruit co., which went as far as bribing the US government into overthrowing a foreign government that was acting against their business interests.)

Not the research or the product should be limited in terms of regulation, bar establishment of how dangerous they actually are compared to conventional products. What should be regulated is the way these companies act abroad, to whatever degree international relations permit. One reason these companies can do as they please is because if they were cut short by the US/EU governments, companies from other places in the world with a more real-political approach would spring into the gap, with the same practices, and push the now harnessed western companies out of business.

Unless there is some sort of unified regulatory and functional enforcing body, this will be hard to curb, outside of public relations work.

Edit: And realize, Monsanto is under pressure from governments (germany, many other european countries, and the US as well I think) to prevent their products from ever "contaminating" the conventional crops. One reason why they are curbstomping anyone cross-breeding their crops in asia, and trying to make what they sell sterile, because under EU legislation every mixed crop is a legal liabillity.

As long as we prosecute the "contamination" of "conventional" produce with "GM" produce, this problem will persist. Obviously another incentive for Monsanto is to protect their product, but to say that this is the entire cause for their actions is untrue. Assigning malice to everything a company does just because they´re a large and powerful corporation is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm wondering if you have actually watched the documentary above. If not . . . I would suggest you to do so. Do you think Europe has banned this shit by law just for fun. I understand the scientific side of it. But as long as the end product has only a tiny percent of chance to be harmful to the end consumer than it can be allowed period.

In case you have watched the documentary than you are completely missing the point here. There's no excuse whatsoever for what Monsanto is doing. Wake up man!!!!!

[walker 0]

Hi all

All this opinion is interesting but it is just that opinion. The Only people to actually do the science were the Scientists who published their experiment in Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal: Actual Scientific Paper

Why Monsanto failed to conduct a long term study into their own product is very odd. As any one with an ounce of education realizes; cancers, if triggered, can often only become apparent some time after exposure. I am not saying Monsanto carried out the experiment and then suppressed the evidence; nor am I saying Monsanto deliberately only performed a trial for too short a period. It is however very odd that a multi billion dollar company did not perform the science required to ensure public safety.

Relative Life Span

Rats are chosen as the basis for this type of study precisely because they have a short life span and over the time they live they show up cancers more quickly than would occur in the longer a human life time, thus they give humans a warning.

Correspondingly that odd statement in some of the press that “Humans have been eating it for 10 years why are they not dropping like flies?†shows a terrible appreciation of basic science, so probably sourced from a PR Flack, but I dare say it will fool some of the people, some of the time.

So first up you need to know when cancers appeared in the rats, work out what that is in terms of proportion of the rats life span; then apply the same proportion to a human life span. Of course there are additional factors, the rat may go through adolescence proportionally earlier in its life span, ditto the menopause in rats may be proportionally latter, the other questions are to do with babies in the womb etc. Which have not yet been answered. If cancers show up after say a 1/3rd of the rats life time after exposure then for a human with a life time of say 70 years the cancer the rat experiments would start to show 25 years after exposure;

Confusing the call for proper science, with being against science

By the way I am not against GM science. I to think it is important and could improve life. The attempt by others to smear those in favour of true science with their being anti GM is clearly a giant attempt at a straw man trick, and not helpful for either science or debate on the forum.

As I say Monsanto's failure to carry out full life time experiments, on the effect of GM Maize modified to tolerate massive increases in the spraying of Roundup, in order counter the natural immunity weeds develop to Roundup, were clearly a major blunder on on Monsanto's part, it looks short sighted and possibly even deliberately evasive.

Clearly now the experiment needs repeating, Monsanto should put a pot of money aside, outside its control, to fund this being done independently, that Monsanto did not do this science in the first place and took short cuts is shocking.

It may be worth while, under the precautionary principle, to ban both Roundup and Monsanto's GM Maze world wide until then.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 22, 2012 by walker
Grammar spelling clarity

[oxmox 73]

In the meanwhile I find these gen manipulated seeds a disgusting business concept, years before my opinion about it was devided. But the reason is not just the question if these product can harm human health, it is a business concept which displaces our natural and original plants & seeds and with a high danger to contaminate exsisting none gen manipulated fields aswell seed supply.

I saw reports/documentaries on TV where former manager from Pioneer (another big corporation who deals with gen manipulated seeds) did explain that the quality and here especially the flavour of gen manipulated food is lower than from original plants. He did warn that children from the next generation may not know how an apple tastes if gen manipulated plants production advance. Here in Europe we have more restrictions yet, but for example the country Romania has a large gen manipulated cultivation. They use huge fields which reminds on former collective farms.

I didnt read all answers here and repeat probably some points, but this kind of business concept is actually a great and subtle concept when it comes to profit. It is one of those where you make masses dependant on your product i.e. one of the first one big in business was Standard Oil with its Oil lamps and only their special Standard Oil for it or nowadays the coffee capsules, Steam for games and so on...

The business with gen manipulated seeds is quite ruthless, Farmers are depandant on the seeds and need to buy them each year from the company. Because the fruits dont deliver any seeds anymore which can be used for cultivation. In addition to that, there are gen manipulated plants which are resistant against certain bugs or deseases which works in combination with special chemicals, you need to buy them from these corporates.

Just imagine that corporates tried to get patent for animals so everyone has to pay fees for each birth....this is insane. Questionable is aswell the business with our basic rights i.e. privatisizing of water, you will find issues around the world already.

Iam all for market economy but sometimes it should have it limits like our freedom has its limits aswell, some business concepts should be restricted by government laws, a wild west type of economical where only profit counts without looking on the consequences is just questionable and not a model.

Here is one really interesting documentary called "We feed the World" (with english subs), really worth to watch.

They report about gen manipulated cultivation in Romania/Europe, starts at 39:14 min. The infos given to the journalists is from a former top manger of Pioneer itself who was in charge in Romania, he got fired after these interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daxZBAOviCg

Edited September 22, 2012 by oxmox

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Walker, did you read through any of the links I provided?

Also, this was linked to in one of them, I think. It's the reaction of somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm

Edited September 22, 2012 by Darkhorse 1-6

[hellfire257 3]

The Only people to actually do the science were the Scientists who published their experiment in Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal: Actual Scientific Paper

That is the problem. Let's have these conclusions confirmed by another independent team before we take this research as gospel.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Also, to quote from the "Actual Scientific Paper" link...

In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly.

Re-read that a couple times. They resurrected dead rats? Zombie rats that didn't get shot in the head? ????? *facepalm*

lol.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think until Monsanto can get an independent Full Life Study of the effects of GM Maize and Roundup done, to counter the only existing science on the matter, the precautionary principle must apply and GM Maize its products and Roundup should be banned.

This Full Life Study is the only real science on the matter. I am sorry Darkhorse 1-6 but all you are quotting is opinion, as informed as it may be, it is only opinion.

To counter the only existing Full Life research Monsanto have to cough up for indendent groups to do the real science of a Full Life Study.

The failure and the all too apparant danger shown really is down to Monsanto.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 22, 2012 by walker

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

The opinion of the people who know more of the subject than you or me is that the study is, essentially, shit. Many, it seems, are surprised it was even accepted for publication. It was not done to the standards that are normally applied to such things, and it's being applied to all genes in an attempt to to cause panic or damage.

Prof Mark Tester, Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide, said:

"The first thing that leaps to my mind is why has nothing emerged from epidemiological studies in the countries where so much GM has been in the food chain for so long? If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?! GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there – and longevity continues to increase inexorably!

"And if the effects are as big as claimed, why have none of the previous 100+ plus studies by reputable scientists, in refereed journals, noticed anything at all?

"Finally, of course, this was a study of one event with one gene. To then extrapolate to all genetically modified crops is absurd. Even if it eventuates that there is an issue with this one event, or even this one gene, there is no reason at all for other genes introduced using GM to carry the same burden of risk. GM is an adaptation of a natural process that occurs all the time all over the planet – it is “only†a technology, a technique. It is how it is used that is more important. Generalisations about the risk of the technology per se are absurd."

Further comments from other scientists:

"Other issues that have come up:

• ‘All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here’ – this is a quote from the paper.

• Small sample size

• Maize was minimum 11% of the diet – not balanced

• No non-maize control?

• No results given for non-gm maize

• For nearly 20 years, billions of animals in the EU have been fed soy products produced from genetically modified soybean, mainly from Latin America. No problems have been reported by the hundreds of thousands of farmers, officials, vets and so on.

• The same journal publishes a paper showing no adverse health effects in rats of consuming gm maize (though this is a shorter 90-day study)

• Statistical significance vs relative frequencies.

• We also have to ask why the rats were kept alive for so long – for humane reasons this study would not have been given approval in the UK.

• In Fig.2, I assume the bars with a zero is for the non-maize control. Those bars don’t looks significantly different from the bars indicating 11, 22, and 33% of GM maize in the diet? Have the authors done stats on their data?"

[Sealife 22]

Prof Mark Tester, Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide, said:

Hardly independent , which is whats required i think in this topic.

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/mark.tester

His commercial acumen is clear from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont. He is a Director of Australia’s largest wheat breeding company, Australian Grains Technologies.

why do i Highlight Bayer ?

well just to add its not just one company breeding herbicide resistant corn ,soy etc .

http://www.ehow.com/list_6617582_side-effects-finale-weed-killer.html

Finale Like Roundup is another Very common herbicide used in the Horticultural trade.

If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?!

Not Just Americans but gobaly Cancer is increasing, who knows whats causing it ?

or to quote somebody from the url below which is rather apt i think :

Sure, detection and treatment have improved BUT, what about the causes?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2034746/Global-cancer-cases-rise-20-cent-decade.html

Edited September 23, 2012 by Thromp

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

I'd guess according to you this study is also shit, am I right Darkhorse?

http://www.naturalnews.com/035135_Roundup_herbicide_testosterone.html#ixzz1oBbzRyxt

[hellfire257 3]

Not Just Americans but gobaly Cancer is increasing, who knows whats causing it ?

Easy. Population increase coupled with people assuming a less healthy diet/life.

[spooky lynx 73]

The opposition to GM products is a 1st world fad, where people can afford having such opinions. The larger part of the world, however, cannot afford such a stance in the face of persistent problems with feeding their people. This is especially true for large parts of africa, as well as the poor people in many other countries that can hardly afford expensive imported-grain based products.

Not breeding out of hand like rabbits isn't an option? Only constant growing of population no matter of food and water shortage?