FOOD GMO madness update: GM Salmon, Corn devoid of nutrients, Apples w/extra RNA, Toxic Corn

[milkydoo]

Four articles coming. I'll post them separately. See links for pics, charts and graphs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tists-press-ahead-despite-public-outrage.html

GM meat and fish set to go on sale: Scientists to press ahead despite public outrage

• Aquabounty salmon set to granted approval in the U.S.
• Move alarms critics battling to stop expansion of GM crops

By Sean Poulter
PUBLISHED: 19:07 EST, 15 April 2013 | UPDATED: 04:35 EST, 16 April 2013


The first genetically modified meat and fish could be approved this summer.

Authorities in the US are expected to grant approval to Aquabounty salmon, which has been modified to grow twice as fast as normal salmon.

And experts trying to combat world hunger are calling on the British Government to back the use of GM farm animals on the dinner table here.

The push into GM meat could see the production of giant pigs, hens that have only female chicks and cattle made disease resistant using genes from baboons.

But the move will alarm critics of the use of GM technology who are still battling to block the expansion of genetically modified crops.

Professor Helen Sang, GM animal expert at the Roslin Institute – where Dolly the sheep was cloned – insisted fears surrounding ‘Frankenstein’ foods can be overcome.

Roslin scientists yesterday called on the Government to support the spread of GM into farm animals but admit there will need to be a change in attitude among British families and retailers.

They say a new technique of gene editing allows precise changes to be made in animals destined to be eaten.

Professor Sang said: ‘This is a very exciting time. We have GM animals that have qualities you can’t achieve through conventional animal breeding.

‘The problem with GM is that it is seen as mumbo jumbo magic. But if people can understand what the aims are and what we are trying to achieve then they are much more comfortable.

‘It is an issue for us that the supermarkets decided many years ago not to sell GM food. They will have to change what they do, which will be a challenge for them. Food production is an international business and so GM animals may become acceptable in other countries before it is accepted here.’

The US is expected to approve Aquabounty salmon in the next few weeks. It is produced by inserting a growth hormone gene and another gene taken from the eel-like ocean pout. The fish would be sterile and raised in vast tanks on land rather than in sea cages. Bruce Whitelaw, professor of animal biotechnology at Roslin, said the main priorities of animal breeding companies are to create disease-resistant animals and manipulate the gender of offspring.

But Chinese scientists are also working on creating bigger, faster-growing food animals, he said.

Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch, which campaigns to ensure any use of GM is in the public interest, warned: ‘GM fish escapes could pose a serious threat to wild salmon populations.’ An EU move to allow the use of GM animals and insects modified to help destroy crop pests ‘amounts to engineering whole ecosystems, and no one knows the consequences of this,’ she said.

Pete Riley, of the GM Freeze campaign, said: ‘We can see no advantages from GM animals in either food production, pest control or disease control.

‘We know from in-breeding using conventional methods that this causes huge genetic problems which impact on the health and welfare of farmed animals.’

 

[milkydoo]

http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/

Study reveals GMO corn to be highly toxic

Published time: April 15, 2013 18:53
Edited time: April 17, 2013 13:32

A leaked study examining genetically-modified corn reveals that the lab-made alternative to organic crops contains a startling level of toxic chemicals.

An anti-GMO website has posted the results of an education-based consulting company’s comparison of corn types, and the results reveal that genetically modified foods may be more hazardous than once thought.

The study, the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro, was published recently on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs, a group that says they wish to “raise awareness and support Moms with solutions to eat GMO Free as we demand GMO labeling locally and nationally simultaneously.” They are plotting nationwide protests scheduled for later this year.

The report, writes the website’s Zen Honeycutt, was provided by a representative for De Dell Seed Company, an Ontario-based farm that’s touted as being Canadian only non-GMO corn seed company.

“The claims that ‘There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn’ are false,” says Honeycutt, who adds she was “floored” after reading the study.

According to the analysis, GMO corn tested by Profit Pro contains a number of elements absent from traditional cord, including chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate. While those elements don’t appear naturally in corn, they were present in GMO samples to the tune of 60 ppm, 200pm and 13 ppm, respectively.

Honecutt says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) mandates that the level of glyphosate in American drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc [and] copper,” Dr. Don Huber attested during a separate GMO study recently released, adding that those elements “are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals.”

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it,” adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional benefits rampant in natural corn are almost entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the samples used during the study, non-GMO corn is alleged to have 437-times the amount of calcium in genetically modified versions, and 56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and manganese, respectively.

These studies come on the heels of a recent decision on Capitol Hill to approve an annual agriculture appropriations bill, even though a provision within the act contained a rider that frees GMO corporations such as the multi-billion-dollar Monsanto Company from liability. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” written by a lawmaker that has lobbied for the agra-giant, says biotech companies won’t need federal approval to test and plant GMO-crops, even if health risks are unknown.

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” reads a letter to the House of Representatives that was delivered to Congress last month with the signatures of dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

 

[milkydoo]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27376.cfm

Frankenapple: Bad News No Matter How You Slice It

By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, April 17, 2013

Thanks to the biotech industry’s relentless quest to control our food, McDonald’s, Burger King and even school cafeterias will soon be able to serve up apples that won’t turn brown when they’re sliced or bitten into. A new, almost entirely untested genetic modification technology, called RNA interference, or double strand RNA (dsRNA), is responsible for this new food miracle. Scientists warn that this genetic manipulation poses health risks, as the manipulated RNA gets into our digestive systems and bloodstreams. The biotech industry claims otherwise.

Of course, like any non-organic apple, the new GMO Arctic® Apple will be drenched in toxic pesticide residues, untested by the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA) and likely unlabeled. And of course these shiny new high-tech apples will be cheap, priced considerably lower than a pesticide-free, nutrient-dense, old-fashioned organic apple that turns a little brown after you slice it up.

When the Biotech Industry Organization gathers next week in Chicago for the 2013 BIO International Convention, BIOTECanada will present its “Gold Leaf Award for Early Stage Agriculture” to Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. (OSF), purveyor of the Arctic® Apple, slated for approval in the U.S. this year. We hate to upset the biotech apple cart, but a pesticide-intensive GMO apple, produced through a risky manipulation of RNA, doesn’t deserve a place on our grocery shelves, much less in the agriculture hall of fame.

That said, the Arctic “Frankenapple” is expected to be approved this year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and diseases. It does not require approval by the FDA, which is responsible for human food and animal feed.

Just one more bad apple
Apples, that is, apples that haven’t been certified organic, already are on the list of Should-Be-Forbidden fruits. They reliably top the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen list, for both the volume and the stunning array of pesticides consistently found on them. According to the Pesticide Action Network’s analysis of the most recent USDA data, apples tested positive for 42 pesticides, including organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides. Both are endocrine disruptors, both have suspected neurological effects, and both are considered especially toxic for children. (Organophosphates are the basis for nerve gases used in chemical warfare, and have been linked to the development of ADHD in kids.)

Given the grim report card of non-organic apples, some might say it really doesn’t make any difference if we start tinkering with the apple’s genetic RNA. After all, unlike the case with GMO corn or salmon, scientists aren’t injecting pesticides or genes from foreign plants or animals into the genes of apples to create the Frankenapple. While most existing genetically engineered plants are designed to make new proteins, the Arctic Apple is engineered to produce a form of genetic information called double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). The new dsRNA alters the way genes are expressed. The result, in the Arctic Apple’s case, is a new double strand of RNA that genetically “silences” the apple’s ability to produce polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that causes the apple to turn brown when it’s exposed to oxygen.

Harmless? The biotech industry, OSF and some scientists say yes. But others, including Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), say that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky. Recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the manipulated RNA finds its way into our digestive systems and bloodstreams, potentially damaging or silencing vital human genes.

There are indirect health consequences, too. Turns out the chemical compound that is shut off in the engineered fruit through RNA manipulation, in order to make it not oxidize or brown, is a chemical compound that also fights off plant pests. What happens when the apple’s ability to fend off insects is compromised? Growers will need to spray greater amounts, of possibly even more toxic pesticides, on a crop already saturated with at least 42 types of pesticides. Those pesticides will eventually find their way into our bodies, either because we ingested the fruit, or breathed the air or drank the water where the pesticides were sprayed.

Testing? What testing?
So what’s the trade-off? Non-organic apple growers will prosper as more moms buy more apples for more kids who will, the industry alleges, be the healthier for it. It makes for a good public relations story, but no matter how you wrap it up or slice it, taking apples that are already saturated in pesticides, and genetically engineering them for purely cosmetic purposes, does not a healthy snack make.

The pro- and anti-GMO movements will debate whether or not the GMO apple is safe for human consumption. The fact is, we’ll never know until they are properly labeled and safety-tested. As with every other GMO food ingredient or product sold in the U.S., the Arctic Apple will undergo no independent safety testing by the FDA or the USDA. Instead, the USDA will rely on OSF’s word that the apple is safe for human consumption. And without any state or federal mandatory GMO labeling laws in place, OSF will not be required to label its Frankenapple, meaning that consumers or children harmed by the dsRNA modified apple will have great difficulty identifying the mutant RNA that harmed them.

The controversy and debate surrounding dsRNA and the Arctic Apple has just begun. But there is no longer any debate about the dangers that pesticides and pesticide residues on non-organic apples pose to humans, whether we directly ingest these toxic residues by eating an apple, or whether we’re exposed to them through contaminated air and groundwater as a result of acres of orchards being sprayed to control increasingly resistant insects and diseases.

What about the argument that a kid eating a few slices of apples can’t consume enough of any one of these pesticides to cause any real risk to their health? Debunked. Recent studies reveal that during apple season, kids exhibit spikes in the level of pesticides found in their urine, spikes that exceed the U.S. government’s “safe levels.” Kids who live in apple-growing regions show even higher spikes. And those 42 varieties of pesticides? The government establishes “safe levels” for each one – but it doesn’t test for the potential effect of ingesting 42 different pesticides, all chemically interacting with each other, and ingested all at once.

From biodiversity to monoculture
How did we get to the point where it takes 42 pesticides to keep an apple crop healthy? Michael Pollan best explains it in his book Botany of Desire. Turns out that apples have an extreme tendency toward something called heterozygosity, which means genetic variability. This trait accounts for how, left to its own devices, the apple can “make itself at home in places as different from one another as New England and New Zealand, Kazakhstan and California.” Pollan writes: “Wherever the apple tree goes, its offspring propose so many different variations on what it means to be an apple – at least five per apple, several thousand per tree – that a couple of these novelties are almost bound to have whatever qualities it takes to prosper in the tree’s adopted home.”

Today, you’d have to visit the apple orchard museum in Geneva, New York, to find all the varieties of apples that used to thrive in the wild. Over time, in our quest to control the taste, texture and appearance of apples, we’ve eliminated all but a relative few varieties. We’ve gone too far, says Pollan. By relying on too few genes for too long, the apple has lost its ability to get along on its own, outdoors.

Enter the agro-chemical companies. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Agricultural Chemical Use Program, apple growers in states surveyed in 2011 applied carbaryl to 46 percent of their acreage, at an average rate of 1.566 pounds per acre for the crop year; chlorantraniliprole to 45 percent; and chlorpyrifos to 44 percent. Apple growers applied glyphosate isopropylamine salt to 25 percent of acres at an average of 1.604 pounds per acre for the crop year. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The Arctic Apple has been in development for over a decade, the company says. OSF submitted a petition for deregulation to the USDA in May 2010. The USDA, which must hold two public comment periods, concluded the first on Sept. 11, 2011. It’s expected to open the second public comment period this spring or summer, and OSF hopes the GMO apple will be approved for growing and selling in the U.S. this year.

The Organic Consumers Association will hold a press conference and set up a picket line at the Biotechnology Industry Organization Convention in Chicago, at Noon on April 23, to protest OSF’s GMO apple.

 

[milkydoo]

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/04/...mineral-and-energy-content-of-gmo-vs-non-gmo/

Comparing Vitamin, Mineral and Energy Content of GMO vs. Non-GMO
April 18, 2013 | By Dylan Charles

Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

Consumers select organic foods over genetically modified organisms (GMO) for a variety of reasons, however besides the long list of potential health implications from consuming GMO, the one thing that impacts decision making more than anything else is nutrition. There are convincing differences between organic and GMO foods in nutrient content and health benefits.

Higher antioxidant levels, lower pesticide loads, better farming practices all lead to a more nutritious end product when choosing organic over GMO foods.

For example, tomatoes grown by organic methods contain more phenolic compounds than those grown using commercial standards. That study — published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry — analysed the phenolic profiles of Daniela tomatoes grown either using ‘conventional’ or organic methods, finding that those grown under organic conditions contained significantly higher levels of phenolic compounds than those grown conventionally.

Other findings published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organically produced apples have a 15 percent higher antioxidant capacity than conventionally produced apples.

A stunning report on GMO vs. organic corn posted on Moms Across America clearly showing the nutritional value difference between GMO corn and NON GMO corn.

“The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer. People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in maganese. The list goes on and on.”

Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 — non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.

Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 — non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.

Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 — non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.

Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 — non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.

Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

nut_analysis_gmo_corn_small

comparison_GMO_vs_NONGMOcorn

“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.” Scientists must literally ‘ASK’ these corporations for PERMISSION BEFORE publishing independent research on GMO crops.” (Scientific Amerian, August 13, 2009.)

This article written by the Editors in Scientific American goes on to mention how Elson J. Shields an entomologist at Cornell University and spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists who protested against the ‘blocking’ of ‘unfavourable’ GMO research (ie. research that may not promote GMOs), actually wrote to the EPA. These protests were about the “…selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward (seed enhancement) technology.”

Most nations in the world have no GMO-Free platform to protect their citizens and although this is slowly changing, most nations are far behind places like Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Egypt, Russia and others who have GMO-Free or national bans on GMOs. Nations such as The United States, Canada, China, UK, Australia, Mexico, and most of South America, Asia and Africa who have no formal GMO-free platforms so that they continue their unrestricted and widespread use in all foods.

 

[dogmanan]

THESE COMPANIES are going to be the death of us all, but then that's what they want.

Thank's for posting.

 

[Kent]

Where to start, sigh. There is no stunning report from Moms across America. There is a comparison of nutrient values with no source given. A report needs a source with data and results you can review. There is no report I can find with the title 2012 Corn Comparison Report and the Moms website says it is from Profit Pro, which does not list it either.

A look at http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calcium-in-corn.php gives vastly different clams for non GMO corn than the "study" Moms provided.

Don Huber is the source of the glyphosate results and both him and his data are fakes.

http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/03/...iscarriages-no-scientific-data-fearmongering/


Get back to us when you have something other than propaganda from anti-GMO sites.

oh yea, RT is a Russian communist propaganda site.

 

[Kronos]

Where to start, sigh.

There is no stunning report from Moms across America.

There is a comparison of nutrient values with no source given.

A report needs a source with data and results you can review.

There is no report I can find with the title 2012 Corn Comparison Report
and the Moms website says it is from Profit Pro, which does not list it either.

A look at http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calcium-in-corn.php gives vastly different clams for non GMO corn than the "study" Moms provided.

Don Huber is the source of the glyphosate results and both him and his data are fakes.

http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/03/...iscarriages-no-scientific-data-fearmongering/


Get back to us when you have something other than propaganda from anti-GMO sites.

oh yea, RT is a Russian communist propaganda site.

"pesticidetruths.com" ... ooookay.

Get back to us when you have something other than propaganda from pro-GMO sites.

oh yea, MSM is an USSofA propaganda tool.

Here is a counterpoint site,
where pesticidetruths' mouthpiece "WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G" show up in the comments.

http://vivienveil.com/2011/11/11/pesticides-cause-cancer-go-organic/

~~~

Here's a site on a sideways topic which even U may not have issues with ~

Kent's banana
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=a_SJH7VNAE0

Now, compare 'naturally radioactive' bananas with 'vintage' fiestaware - the orange-red (worth a few shekels, oddly enuf)

...which (radioactive dinnerware) is also 'sufficiently harmless'

Geiger Counter Measuring Vintage Radioactive Red Fiestaware Dinner Plate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wluxzlMkoyw

 

[milkydoo]

Where to start, sigh. There is no stunning report from Moms across America. There is a comparison of nutrient values with no source given. A report needs a source with data and results you can review. There is no report I can find with the title 2012 Corn Comparison Report and the Moms website says it is from Profit Pro, which does not list it either.

A look at http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calcium-in-corn.php gives vastly different clams for non GMO corn than the "study" Moms provided.

Don Huber is the source of the glyphosate results and both him and his data are fakes.

http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/03/...iscarriages-no-scientific-data-fearmongering/


Get back to us when you have something other than propaganda from anti-GMO sites.

oh yea, RT is a Russian communist propaganda site.

Here is a follow up blog post with a bit more info. http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/more_info_on_2012_corn_comparison_report I also looked for a full report, which I expected to find, but did not. While I do not doubt that GMO's are deficient, I agree they should have made a full report available somewhere. I did find the newsletter from Dec. 2012 where they first mentioned it, but all they did was show the first chart with no commentary.

As for RT, virtually all 'news' and opinion sites are propaganda outlets in some form. Governments themselves are giant propaganda outlets. Politicians are for sale to the highest bidder. The best anyone can do is sift for truth as the propagandists wage their never ending wars. I would trust RT before I would Fox or CNN. At least RT reports on our loss of rights and freedoms.

Oh, btw, let us know when the gmo industry voluntarily conducts their very first long term study on their products. GMO's in use for over 20 years and the only long term study ever conducted ended up with tumor filled rats, which of course, was not an industry sponsored study.

 

[Kent]

Oh, btw, let us know when the gmo industry voluntarily conducts their very first long term study on their products. GMO's in use for over 20 years and the only long term study ever conducted ended up with tumor filled rats, which of course, was not an industry sponsored study.

You mean the fake study by Gilles Eric Séralini that keeps popping up on anti-GMO websites? According to
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...ply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/ This study is so bad that the Statistical Laboratory at the University of Cambridge notes:

I am grateful for the authors for publishing this paper, as it provides a fine case study for teaching a statistics class about poor design, analysis and reporting. I shall start using it immediately.

See also

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...es-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...es_use_scare_tactics_that_could_backfire.html

 

[Kent]

Here is a counterpoint site,
where pesticidetruths' mouthpiece "WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G" show up in the comments.

http://vivienveil.com/2011/11/11/pesticides-cause-cancer-go-organic/

Yea, I agree with you, great post they made as shown below:

Once upon a time …

Once upon a time …

… Anti-Pesticide Activists CONCOCTED THE THEORY that eventually it should be possible to PROHIBIT THE USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS in the Agriculture Industry.

Once upon a time …

… these Non-Expert Activists also ALLEGED that organic pesticide-free food was somehow a safer alternative to conventional food.

On January 29th, 2009, a review from Food Standards Agency confirmed that this ALLEGATION about Organic Food is BOGUS.

The focus of the review was the NUTRITIONAL CONTENT OF FOOD-STUFFS.

This review was PEER-REVIEWED and PUBLISHED by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The review CONFIRMED that there were NO IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES IN THE NUTRITION CONTENT, or ANY ADDITIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS, OF ORGANIC FOOD WHEN COMPARED WITH CONVENTIONALLY-PRODUCED FOOD.

The review, which took the form of a « systematic review of literature », was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ( LSHTM ), and was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency.

LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Dr. Alan Dangour, reviewed ALL PAPERS PUBLISHED OVER THE PAST FIFTY YEARS that related to the NUTRIENT CONTENT and HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL FOOD.

This systematic review was THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE STUDY in this area that has been carried out to date.

Food Standards Agency commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.

This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.

According to Dr. Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the review ¯

« A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are UNLIKELY TO BE OF ANY PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE. »

More, according to Dr. Alan Dangour ¯

« Our review indicates that there is currently NO EVIDENCE to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. »

WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G

National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm the Green Space Industry ( NORAHG ).

NORAHG represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people in the Green Space Industry who are OPPOSED to Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION.

NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON PROFIT NON PARTISAN organization dedicated to reporting the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE GO TO THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE …

http://pesticidetruths.com/

 

[ainitfunny]

Also QUIT EATING "Canola" oil, which is merely a LESS TOXIC variety of quite toxic RAPESEED OIL
An oil once used as machine lubrication before they decided to have humans eat it.

 

[milkydoo]

You mean the fake study by Gilles Eric Séralini that keeps popping up on anti-GMO websites? According to
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...ply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/ This study is so bad that the Statistical Laboratory at the University of Cambridge notes:



See also

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...es-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...es_use_scare_tactics_that_could_backfire.html

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait for the pro-gmo industry to produce a long term study. It's been over twenty years....still waiting. With all of the 'hype' against gmo's, you'd think they'd have jumped on that one a long time ago, and by now we would have, should have had 20, 30, 50 long term studies proving that gmo's have no long term negative effects, completely squashing any opposition.

For some reason.....the industry does not want long term studies conducted. Why? All of the bashing of that rat study and nary a mention of the fact that there are no other long term studies, poorly done or otherwise. That, is bad journalism, and dirty science to boot.

I have no doubt that internal long term studies have been conducted, however. They probably all showed damning results, and were subsequently scuttled, otherwise, they'd have been parading them around all over the place. No, something stinks in gmo town. The natural desire of an industry to promote the safety of its' own products has been internally suppressed, for only one plausible reason.

 

[Kent]

For some reason.....the industry does not want long term studies conducted. Why? All of the bashing of that rat study and nary a mention of the fact that there are no other long term studies, poorly done or otherwise. That, is bad journalism, and dirty science to boot.

Actually, the Forbes article mentions that at the bottom of page two:

Spokesperson Stacy Malkan said the most “important and shocking part of it is that this is the first available long-term study on GMOs, which have been in the food supply for the better part of 20 years.”

 

[WalknTrot]

All I have to say is:

What the hell CAN you food kooks eat?

Your sure busy telling ME what I CAN'T eat.

 

[naturallysweet]

All I have to say is:

What the hell CAN you food kooks eat?

Your sure busy telling ME what I CAN'T eat.

I think your still allowed organic kale, picked during a full moon by a Druish,virgin, high Priestess who was raised by Monks who are sworn to a vow of silence.

 

[TerryK]

As for RT, virtually all 'news' and opinion sites are propaganda outlets in some form. Governments themselves are giant propaganda outlets. Politicians are for sale to the highest bidder. The best anyone can do is sift for truth as the propagandists wage their never ending wars. I would trust RT before I would Fox or CNN. .

Then by your own admission you too are spouting propaganda.

 

[Kronos]

The 'anti-GMO' folks are not dictating what others may eat.

That INDUSTRY has successfully evaded any requirement for LABELLING of GMO as such, is telling.

If GMO producers believe in their 'products', they should have no fear of ENABLING consumers to choose.

There is even (and has been for years) a PLU code for GMO.

Never have seen one yet.

~~~

Random grab from 'net. ~ [Google 5-digits beginning '8' for confirmation.]

Those that run PLU-universe figured that someday some retailer might want to distinguish between a GMO and a non-GMO for price or inventory purposes. So they created a convention of 5 digits starting with an 8, just in case it catches on.

But it hasn’t. No one uses that number 8 as far as we can tell.

And why would they? Most Americans say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled.

Some seed companies don’t even want gardeners to know which seed is genetically modified.

One company that sells zucchini seeds outfitted with virus genes announced that they would refuse to sell seed packets in Vermont, since the state legislature requires GM seeds to be labeled.
~~~

yay Vermont

 

[blueridge]

The 'anti-GMO' folks are not dictating what others may eat.

That INDUSTRY has successfully evaded any requirement for LABELLING of GMO as such, is telling.

If GMO producers believe in their 'products', they should have no fear of ENABLING consumers to choose....

BINGO !!!!

 

[Kronos]

As for "pesticidetruths.com" ~

Google: "WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G"

Uniformly, posts under that moniker are snarky, derisive, and devoid of honest counterpoint.

 

[Kent]

As for "pesticidetruths.com" ~

Google: "WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G"

Uniformly, posts under that moniker are snarky, derisive, and devoid of honest counterpoint.

Your favorite post from them reprinted at post 10 was full of good info.
derisive? Of course, it was full of scientific studies that contradicted the ludites.

Snarkey? Yes, kind of like post 7 on bananas.

 

[Kronos]

Your favorite post from them reprinted at post 10 was full of good info.

derisive?

Of course, it was full of scientific studies that contradicted the ludites.

KENT: "Your favorite post from them..."

ME: Ummm... wtf? That was a randomly selected post from 'them'.
ME: Admittedly, entirely TYPICAL of 'their' posts to be found in a Google.

KENT: derisive?
KENT: Of course, it was full of scientific studies that contradicted the ludites

ME: Oh?
ME: Apart from self-reference [pesticidetruths] - there were NO LINKIES.

 

[milkydoo]

Then by your own admission you too are spouting propaganda.

I said 'virtually all', not all. And I also said we have no choice but to sift through everything. You can tow the party line if you want to. That's always the easy path; believe what has been officially approved for you.