Holy Eff! Monsanto really crossed the line!!

I am really confused why you push this so hard when a true skeptic would admit time and study are needed considering the conflict of interest that is seen in the money in biotech

 

You need to do more research than just reading a single opinion piece from Huffpost.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi...-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/

There are a lot of good reasons why that study was rejected, but this is the most important point:

"Séralini is president of the scientific board of a self-described anti-genetic engineering NGO which apparently is hosted by his laboratory; he has a long and sordid history of anti-genetic engineering and anti-agricultural chemicals activism; and his research is funded by two large, “GM-free” French supermarket chains, purveyors of organic and homeopathic products, and perhaps by other undisclosed parties who stand to profit from the smear campaign against genetically engineered foods."

 

There is money in everything, but every chemical (organic or inorganic) must go through a series of rigorous toxicity studies through independent groups. I went through that every day while I worked for a petrochemical company. If you are going to prove something is harmful, you better have clean scientific methods and do it without funding from groups that exist to destroy the product being studied. I also never said I don't believe in further studies of GMO. I said that there is existing data, and that anyone can study it. How else would the rat experiment have been able to be completed. By the way, that Forbes piece was written by a scientist, while the Huffpost article was written by a food journalist.

 

We're in agreement then, by "pay" meaning there is nothing meaningful done that will give them any incentive to prevent it from happening again.

Agreed. Again, money money money.

Do we need to feed the world? Just playing Devil's advocate, but doesn't feeding the world enable population explosion?

So hard these days to sift through and find out what's really going on. The fringe on both sides shouts the loudest and has no problem using every trick in the book to influence people. Even a 10 minute trip down the links you posted resulted in lots of he said/she said. So and so is funded by this trust that's funded by this guy, etc. etc...

Its a dirty dirty world. Screw it, I'm going surfing. Going down to p/u my new board Sat eve, just in time for it to go completely flat. Sigh. I'll be out Sunday regardless, even if I do nothing but paddle around in circles playing shark bait.

 

point taken BE, but then why the big push against labeling food? at the very least let the customer decide with his/her wallet, EVEN if s/he is 'wasting' his/her money by buying organic GMO free peanut butter for 7.99 instead of 2.99 for GMO

the customer should be able to make an informed choice....why do the companies want to take way the information? something is clearly fishy

 

We can agree that the push against food labeling is due to the money. The GMO companies do have a leg to stand on in that fight. The labeling will cause them a loss in profit, as sales of GMO containing products could end up reduced with no real data to back the need for labeling. However, it is my personal opinion that the population of consumers should get to decide what is put on the labels. If everyone wants it, then it should happen. I also have no money invested, so it doesn't hurt my pocket either way.

 

What about the monopoly? The article you posted be even said they have never lost a case in court. If you don't use their seeds you'll get sued by them. They control the market and the price. Even if their product were great, which in my opinion it is not, having one company who makes the seeds and the herbicide gives them way too much power. I did read your article and it sounded like a p.r. fluff piece.

 

Um, I posted multiple articles. A couple were from Forbes, one was from a agricultural publication, and another article was from a scientific study. All the articles were neutral, and some seem to almost justify a bit of the hate.
Monsanto has competitors. If you think they are the only name in the game, then you haven't really researched the topic much. http://financials.morningstar.com/competitors/industry-peer.action?t=MON

 

This supposed "scientist" Henry I Miller has been used on ads trying to debunk the links between tobacco and cancer. He was on all the say no to prop. 37. He is basically no better than the french guy. I don't think he should be your major support of your beliefs. Maybe you should do a little research be. This guy has been bought and paid for many times. Who was it you work for again?

 

Oh please. I have stated I work in the automotive industry, and for the Germans, many times on here. The old bullsh1t argument that since I am skeptical of the pseudo-science crap on the internet, I must be paid off, is a pure strawman tactic from people that can't present an opposing intellectual argument. So, you are going to ignore the numerous issues with the one study, just because one of the people writing about it is pro-GMO. That is fine, here are more articles about it:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...esponds-to-torrent-of-criticism/#.U2PKAcjOuSo
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...os-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
http://www-1sciencedirect-1com-1sci...sch.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007843
http://www-1sciencedirect-1com-1sci...sch.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007880
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17657996

There is no way to hide bad scientific process if you are allowing peer review.

 

Hey brew, look into a funding a study that addresses the shortcomings (sample size, animal cruelty, etc) of the french study and see what program will allow you to do it...Not happening at UH, the talent factory for Dupont/Pioneer, Monsanto, et al

 

Which is funny, because there are a number of studies using similar methods already. Did you not click any links I posted? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17657996

Look, I am not saying we shouldn't continue to monitor and study these things. I am just saying there is no evidence that they are harmful so far, and that there is no way there is a global conspiracy to pay off all scientists currently researching it.

 

Read some creepy sh!t today about what they put on apples to avoid brown spots on the skin...not GMO related, just creepy. I guess our apples are banned in Europe now.

 

Sounds similar to the spraying of tomatoes to make them turn red. I used to hate tomatoes, then I finally tried a garden ripened one. Changed my life. Now I crave the little bastards. Same thing happens with citrus fruit, which is why I have fruit trees.

 

You're kidding bro. Tell me you're kidding...

We just sent a dozen apple pies via DHL packed in dry ice to the good brahs over at MSW.