GMOs: This is World War III- It Just Isn't Labeled

[Cosmic Yak]

. Even though GMOs have only been around 20 years, there is still this conservatism with people, where they will eat them without even looking into it because they are told to do so by their television sets. The TV declares the system, and you blindly follow it.

This has been bothering me since it was posted.
My viewing included The Strain; The Whispers; River Monsters: C.S.I.; Manhunt with Joel Lambert; Chopped, and Iron Chef.
Not one of these programmes has instructed me to eat GMOs. pappamundi: When you eventually get round to answering your critics, could you please include a list of the GMO propaganda programmes you have discovered?

 

[papamundi]

Unsafe At Any Seed: GMOs and Thug Science

Oh my god!!!! Monsanto is turning people into plants

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/g1gjZgX.jpg[/qimg]

Apparently, vegetables...

Well, you guys certainly are hateful...but, you love your GMOs. And I bet I know why. Under-education.

Have fun and educate yourselves now using Google https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...HfjY#hl=en&authuser=0&tbm=isch&q=gmo+fed+rats

Follow any picture to an article about the study done by French scientist GILLES-ERIC SERALINI, done in 2012. He concluded that GMOs are unsafe, as have many other reputable scientists. Also, witness the banning of GMOs by the Scottish government. But certainly the wise guys (gals) on this site are infinitely more wise than those French scientists or Scottish officials.

Bet you guys would look at these rats and say, "I'll have what they're having."
That's because you are so clever! So highly intellectual. Certainly more than myself, as you are quick to point out.

But the plot thickens. Seralini's peer reviewed paper was booted out of its first scientific journal! Oh no! That means you guys are now vindicated? But wait, even though the thug scientists and lawyers of Monsanto were able to hound this actual scientist, he still had a bunch of other actual scientists come to his aid by writing and signing a document decrying the abuse of scientists and their true scientific findings by corporate interests:

The Authors: Susan Bardocz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); Ann Clark (University of Guelph, ret.); Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital); Michael Hansen (Consumers Union); Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury); Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project); Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); David Schubert (The Salk Institute); Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project)

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with rule 4. Please follow the link supplied by the poster for the full list of signatories

But I am sure you guys (or maybe gals) are all smarter than all these people.

So just keep on eating your GMOs.
But don't make me eat them unlabeled. I have things to live for.

Peter Valentino

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/

 

[GlennB]

Follow any picture to an article about the study done by French scientist GILLES-ERIC SERALINI, done in 2012. He concluded that GMOs are unsafe, as have many other reputable scientists.

It was a poor experiment, rightly criticised by many peers.

"Many said that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high risk of cancer over their lifespan (one study concluded that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females developed cancer under normal conditions). The Séralini experiment covered the normal lifespan of these rats."

 

[Slowvehicle]

This has been bothering me since it was posted.
My viewing included The Strain; The Whispers; River Monsters: C.S.I.; Manhunt with Joel Lambert; Chopped, and Iron Chef.
Not one of these programmes has instructed me to eat GMOs. pappamundi: When you eventually get round to answering your critics, could you please include a list of the GMO propaganda programmes you have discovered?

For that matter, explain how they reach out and affect those of us who do not own television sets, or watch, television...

 

[Slowvehicle]

,snip of roll call for focus>

But I am sure you guys (or maybe gals) are all smarter than all these people.

So just keep on eating your GMOs.
But don't make me eat them unlabeled . I have things to live for.

Peter Valentino

My Dear Mr. Valentino:

No one is doing what you claim . You can, with a modicum of careful shopping (not more than needed, say, to avoid processed sugars or artificial colors) fill your shopping cart with "organic", "certified organic" and "GMO-free" (or whatever other woo! du jour to which you pledge allegiance) by reading labels from producers who voluntarily (nay, even evangelically) so label their wares.

What you want is what (for instance) the opponents of marriage equality wanted--that is, you want to enforce your opinions, your standards, your hobby-horses, upon others; even though theyu do not force theirs upon you.

I repeat: you can, in fact, eat "GMO-free" (been to Chipotle's, recenty?), or Atkins-friendly, or paleo, as you choose. Why, one wonders, is that not enough for you?

 

[mikado]

I have just sat through a marathon reading of this.
it's a great example of the total futility of attempting to reason with a conspiracy theorist using logic and facts. they are the only things the CT ISNT interested in...

I don't think that the internet helps many people with mental health issues,

 

[Cosmic Yak]

For that matter, explain how they reach out and affect those of us who do not own television sets, or watch, television...

Mind control, man, mind control.....

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Apparently, vegetables...

Well, you guys certainly are hateful...but, you love your GMOs. And I bet I know why. Under-education.

Have fun and educate yourselves now using Google https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...HfjY#hl=en&authuser=0&tbm=isch&q=gmo+fed+rats

Follow any picture to an article about the study done by French scientist GILLES-ERIC SERALINI, done in 2012. He concluded that GMOs are unsafe, as have many other reputable scientists. Also, witness the banning of GMOs by the Scottish government. But certainly the wise guys (gals) on this site are infinitely more wise than those French scientists or Scottish officials.

No, he didn't. From the petition you seem so keen on:

Dr Hayes wrote:

"The data are inconclusive, therefore the claim (ie, conclusion) that Roundup Ready maize NK603 and/or the Roundup herbicide have a link to cancer is unreliable… it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted."

However, this is a misrepresentation of Séralini’s paper. The authors do not claim that the GM maize NK603 and/or Roundup herbicide have a "definitive link" to "cancer". Moreover, the authors specify in their introduction that the study is not a carcinogenicity study.

http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement#.VpXOPvmUeSo

Bet you guys would look at these rats and say, "I'll have what they're having."
That's because you are so clever! So highly intellectual. Certainly more than myself, as you are quick to point out.

But the plot thickens. Seralini's peer reviewed paper was booted out of its first scientific journal! Oh no! That means you guys are now vindicated? But wait, even though the thug scientists and lawyers of Monsanto were able to hound this actual scientist, he still had a bunch of other actual scientists come to his aid by writing and signing a document decrying the abuse of scientists and their true scientific findings by corporate interests:

The Authors: Susan Bardocz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); Ann Clark (University of Guelph, ret.); Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital); Michael Hansen (Consumers Union); Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury); Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project); Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); David Schubert (The Salk Institute); Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project)

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with rule 4. Please follow the link supplied by the poster for the full list of signatories

But I am sure you guys (or maybe gals) are all smarter than all these people.

So just keep on eating your GMOs.
But don't make me eat them unlabeled. I have things to live for.

Peter Valentino

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/

The petition, had you actually read it, is caling for Seralini to be allowed to publish his data, so that it can be used for further research. It does not mean that all these scientists are saying that GMOs are unsafe.
Moreover, not everyone in the scientific community agrees with this petition:
http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/04/s...-reinstate-it-is-misleading-and-contradictory

Finally, could you please quote any post I have made where I have disagreed with you because I think I'm more intelligent than you? I have no idea how intelligent you are, so I have not commented nor formed an opinion. I can, and have, formed an opinion on your level of education, research and clear thinking ability, but that is a separate matter. I have no interest in intellectual one-upmanship: this is about truth and facts, not about IQ. Feel free to quote me saying anything else and I will gladly apologise. Otherwise, I think you should withdraw that statement.

 

[marplots]

While I am not at liberty to discuss specifics, eating copious amounts of GMOs has given me what could be described as super-powers. Surprisingly though, I have no desire to fight crime.

 

[catsmate]

Follow any picture to an article about the study done by French scientist GILLES-ERIC SERALINI, done in 2012. He concluded that GMOs are unsafe, as have many other reputable scientists.

That paper has been long since debunked, a fact that's easily discovered. We've covered it here before.

But the plot thickens. Seralini's peer reviewed paper was booted out of its first scientific journal!

Quite rightly, given that a panel of experts showed his paper was rubbish. You could, assuming you were interested in actual facts rather than your unsupported opinions, examine the criticisms made by the European Food Safety Authority, the French High Council of Biotechnologies and the Food Standards agencies of Australia and New Zealand.

But then they contradict your opinions...

I note that you fail to mention his links to a supermarket chain (Carrefour) who profited from the anti-GMO hysteria, his book (sales improved by the manufactroversy) and his Sevene Pharma consultancy.

Oh no! That means you guys are now vindicated?

Yes. Actual science shows that Séralini was completely wrong.

You haven't mentioned that Séralini has refused to release his actual data, a major red flag in real science.

 

[KwamiFabu]

Look at the bright side: one day GMOs will eliminate the need for vaccines and cure autism.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You haven't mentioned that Séralini has refused to release his actual data, a major red flag in real science.

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is what the petition is about. Those who signed want the data released so further research can be done. They are not saying that Seralini was correct.

 

[catsmate]

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is what the petition is about. Those who signed want the data released so further research can be done. They are not saying that Seralini was correct.

Exactly. But the loons who bring up Séralini conveniently ignore this detail and misattribute the petition to support their nonsense.

 

[portlandatheist]

Apparently, vegetables...

Well, you guys certainly are hateful...but, you love your GMOs. And I bet I know why. Under-education.

Have fun and educate yourselves now using Google https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...HfjY#hl=en&authuser=0&tbm=isch&q=gmo+fed+rats

Follow any picture to an article about the study done by French scientist GILLES-ERIC SERALINI, done in 2012. He concluded that GMOs are unsafe, as have many other reputable scientists. Also, witness the banning of GMOs by the Scottish government. But certainly the wise guys (gals) on this site are infinitely more wise than those French scientists or Scottish officials.

Bet you guys would look at these rats and say, "I'll have what they're having."
That's because you are so clever! So highly intellectual. Certainly more than myself, as you are quick to point out.

But the plot thickens. Seralini's peer reviewed paper was booted out of its first scientific journal! Oh no! That means you guys are now vindicated? But wait, even though the thug scientists and lawyers of Monsanto were able to hound this actual scientist, he still had a bunch of other actual scientists come to his aid by writing and signing a document decrying the abuse of scientists and their true scientific findings by corporate interests:

The Authors: Susan Bardocz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); Ann Clark (University of Guelph, ret.); Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital); Michael Hansen (Consumers Union); Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury); Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project); Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); David Schubert (The Salk Institute); Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project)

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with rule 4. Please follow the link supplied by the poster for the full list of signatories

But I am sure you guys (or maybe gals) are all smarter than all these people.

So just keep on eating your GMOs.
But don't make me eat them unlabeled. I have things to live for.

Peter Valentino

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/

I could waste my time debunking the Seralini study but it isn't import to debunk it. What is important to debunk, is the notion that anti GMOer has an actual concern with peer reviewed science or scientific consensus.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Look at the bright side: one day GMOs will eliminate the need for vaccines flashlights and cure autism colorblindness.

Equally useful prediction.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Actually as it applies to the topic of this thread...ethics.....there is an ethical issue surrounding the Seralini affair, and it has nothing to do with the results of his study (which were inconclusive) Starting with the bully tactics on the behest of Monsanto that included but were not limited to libel, fraud, and conflicts of interest.

Victory for Seralini: Scientist who published research against GMOs wins defamation lawsuit in Paris

Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO

The Seralini affair: degeneration of Science to Re-Science?

ETA Not entirely sure how that happened. Guessing a post on my thread was moved and merged here (rightfully so if that's true) Not really meaning to enter the GMO conspiracy debate though. Too much BS from both sides of the "WWIII".

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
Not entirely sure how that happened. Guessing a post on my thread was moved and merged here (rightfully so if that's true) Not really meaning to enter the GMO conspiracy debate though. Too much BS from both sides of the "WWIII".

A symbolic €1 in damages? Not that that in any way alters Séralini's dubious science or his 'interesting' links to companies that profited from his scaremongering.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

A symbolic €1 in damages? Not that that in any way alters Séralini's dubious science or his 'interesting' links to companies that profited from his scaremongering.

Well when accusations of unethical activity like fraud and libel are being thrown about from both sides like so much excrement, it is important to determine which side actually is engaging in fraud and libel. And it wasn't Seralini.

 

[catsmate]

Well when accusations of unethical activity like fraud and libel are being thrown about from both sides like so much excrement, it is important to determine which side actually is engaging in fraud and libel. And it wasn't Seralini.

And yet his garbage science was still retracted due to his (deliberately) falwed methodology and bias.

...[the study] was inadequate for evaluation because the number of animals per group was small, the histopathological description of tumours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual animals were not provided.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And yet his garbage science was still retracted due to his (deliberately) falwed methodology and bias.

...[the study] was inadequate for evaluation because the number of animals per group was small, the histopathological description of tumours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual animals were not provided.

actually it wasn't a cancer study and it was well known and admitted by all that the numbers of animals was small and inadequate to be conclusive for a cancer study. But of course the ethical thing to do (and I believe in this case legal requirement as well, but I am not a lawyer so let lawyers decide that) when doing a toxicological study and finding an inconclusive emergent result of potential cancer causing agents, is to publically call for further studies specifically designed for cancer and following a cancer protocol. (which varies from a toxicological protocol)

The study was designed as a toxicological study, not as a carcinogenesis study. Therefore, the tumor incidence and mortality results were reported, according to OECD guidelines for chronic toxicity studies [6], as secondary observations requiring follow-up using a study design intended to systematically assess carcinogenesis.[1]

ETA: I would also like to point out that in fact you are arguing on the unethical side of this "WWIII battle", the side that has been proven in a court of law to be using libel and fraud to support their position. AND you too appear to me (again I am not a lawyer) to be perilously close to crossing that ethical boundary yourself.