HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Russia Suspends Use of Ge...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:40 AM

Russia Suspends Use of Genetically Modified Corn

Source: Dow Jones

LONDON--Russia's consumer rights watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, said Tuesday it has suspended the import and use of genetically modified corn made by Monsanto Co. (MON) following a study's allegations that the crop causes cancer.

Rospotrebnadzor said the country's Institute of Nutrition has been asked to assess the validity of the study, while the European Commission's Directorate General for Health & Consumers has also been contacted to explain the European Union's position.

The study, conducted by the University of Caen in France, alleged that rats fed over a two-year period with the U.S. chemical company's genetically modified NK603 corn, developed more tumors and other severe diseases than a test group fed with regular corn.

The study also alleged that rats fed with NK603 and exposed to Monsanto's Roundup weed killer suffered from more pathologies than the test group.



Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/russia-suspends-import-use-of-genetically-modified-corn-20120925-00065



Activist News http://activistnews.org/

82 replies, 12877 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply Russia Suspends Use of Genetically Modified Corn (Original post)
cory777 Sep 2012 OP
valerief Sep 2012 #1
gateley Sep 2012 #6
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12
Cha Sep 2012 #2
Trillo Sep 2012 #3
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #4
avaistheone1 Sep 2012 #5
flamingdem Sep 2012 #7
Vidar Sep 2012 #8
LiberalLovinLug Sep 2012 #9
Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #10
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #11
Berlum Sep 2012 #13
peacebird Sep 2012 #14
lunasun Sep 2012 #21
evirus Sep 2012 #15
Odin2005 Sep 2012 #16
HuckleB Sep 2012 #53
AAO Sep 2012 #17
evirus Sep 2012 #18
AAO Sep 2012 #19
evirus Sep 2012 #22
AAO Sep 2012 #28
G_j Sep 2012 #36
evirus Sep 2012 #50
arikara Sep 2012 #47
Astrad Sep 2012 #20
evirus Sep 2012 #23
Astrad Sep 2012 #25
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #27
AAO Sep 2012 #31
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #33
AAO Sep 2012 #38
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #41
AAO Sep 2012 #44
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #45
AAO Sep 2012 #48
HuckleB Sep 2012 #59
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #60
HuckleB Sep 2012 #61
nebenaube Sep 2012 #79
HuckleB Sep 2012 #58
bitchkitty Sep 2012 #32
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #34
bitchkitty Sep 2012 #54
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #56
AAO Sep 2012 #29
HuckleB Sep 2012 #52
JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #24
riverbendviewgal Sep 2012 #26
byeya Sep 2012 #30
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #35
G_j Sep 2012 #39
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #42
AAO Sep 2012 #40
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #43
AAO Sep 2012 #49
HuckleB Sep 2012 #62
AAO Sep 2012 #72
HuckleB Sep 2012 #73
AAO Sep 2012 #75
HuckleB Sep 2012 #76
AAO Sep 2012 #82
G_j Sep 2012 #37
Quantess Sep 2012 #46
JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #51
JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #65
JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #66
limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #55
HuckleB Sep 2012 #57
JackRiddler Sep 2012 #63
darkangel218 Sep 2012 #64
HuckleB Sep 2012 #70
JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #67
G_j Sep 2012 #71
Prometheus Bound Sep 2012 #80
HuckleB Sep 2012 #81
lovuian Sep 2012 #68
LanternWaste Sep 2012 #69
tama Sep 2012 #74
HuckleB Sep 2012 #77
Smickey Sep 2012 #78

Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:58 AM

1. Maybe after Somalia suspends it, the U.S. MIGHT consider suspending it, too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:49 AM

6. Really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:40 AM

12. Dream on.

Nice thought but hardly likely.

l'm wary of issues here too :

GM crop grant planted in UK: Britons wary.

UK scientists have received a US$10 million grant for research into GM crops in one of the biggest investments in the field. The British public remains skeptical of GM foods, a recent report suggesting they pose both environmental and health threats.

The multi-million investment from UK-based charity the Gates Foundation will be used to cultivate GM modified corn, wheat and rice.

>

GM crops are a bone of contention in the UK and it is currently illegal to cultivate them. Opponents of the controversial research maintain that it will be years before tests yield any practical results and then food shortages could be dealt with by cutting down on wastage.

Moreover, a study published recently in the UK by a genetic engineer from London’s King’s College of Medicine signaled that GM foods pose a more serious threat than advocates of research would have the public believe

http://rt.com/news/gm-uk-genetically-modified-claims-221/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:15 AM

2. Thank you, Russia!

That must scare the shit outta Monsanto.. a little bit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:16 AM

3. Russia has access to whether corn is GMO, or not? But U.S. citizens purchasing it don't?

Ah, such "Free Markets"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:17 AM

4. Whoa! This is fantastic & very hopeful.

I mean, wtf? Is the USofA going to sit back and allow this poison to be foisted on it
(without even labeling it so it is recognizable), until the WHOLE WORLD has already
banned it.

We should be ashamed we've waited this long. Obama needs to start by replacing that
Michael Taylor jerk he appointed to head up the FDA, who came straight from being Vice
President of Monsanto for Christ sake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:44 AM

5. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:57 AM

7. wow! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:21 AM

8. Bravo, Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:39 AM

9. the Americas

North and South

The guinea pigs of the world for GMO products

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:46 AM

10. I know I'm a broken record here

but just a reminder to Californians to vote "Yes on 37" -- the proposition to label GMO's here in CA.

Monsanto, et al have poured over $32 million into the "No on 37" campaign. The "Yes on 37" campaign has only raised about $4 million in small donations.

If you can volunteer or if you can donate the campaign could sure use it. We're fighting the big boys and big boy money. All we have here are feet on the ground.

Californians, even if you don't have time to volunteer for the campaign, maybe you can purchase a car magnet, bumper sticker, yard sign or a T-shirt. ALL the money goes to the campaign.

Here's the website:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:25 AM

11. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:12 AM

13. Free clue for Monsanto and other Republican Corps.

STOP POISONING OUR PLANET AND OUR PEOPLE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:49 AM

14. Another reason to avoid HF corn syrup, and any food or beverage that contains it

And trust me, that is not easy these days. We read every label.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:01 AM

15. How is this any different than the occasional bad study put out by climate denialists?


The study referenced is heavily flawed;

-the rats used are known for developing cancer under a wide range of conditions.

-no data was provided regarding the amount of food given or if it was treated for fungal agents which is known to contribute to cancer development in that species).

- the sample sizes are considerably low (lower than 50 rats in each group)

-inconsistent results among the multiple test groups.

-unconventional statistical analysis.

-etc
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:43 AM

16. The luddites alleady "know" that GMOs are teh evil, they are just looking for verification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to evirus (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:56 AM

17. You don't happen to work for Monsanto, do you?

 

Do we really want Monsanto to conduct these tests and tell us there are no problems seen after 3 months? I am much more inclined to believe this study over Monsanto's coverups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:02 AM

18. The lessor of two evils is still evil.

so you would support misinformation so long as it means Monsanto gets the shaft as a result?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:12 AM

19. Absolutely! Monsanto is evil. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:36 AM

22. But to blame an entire industry on the actions of a few bad examples?

That's like pointing to a democrat who's found guilty of ethics violations and saying that because of them, all democrats aren't to be trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:10 AM

28. I DON'T WANT GMO FOOD - IT RISKS GLOBAL CATASTROPHE!

 

At the very least it should be labelled as such so I can avoid it like the plague it may someday become. I can see you disagree, and that's fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:39 AM

36. you are comparing Monsanto to the Democratic party?

wow..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:21 PM

50. I'm comparing GMO to the democratic party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:01 PM

47. Truth would be preferable

and that won't happen until Monsatano and their ilk no longer control the testing and the regulatory bodies. Until then my family and I prefer not to ingest it.

And on another note, since you seem sympathetic to their cause, what's their problem with labelling anyhow. If their altered food is so good they should be proud of it. Why not label?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:15 AM

20. Tom Sanders

The scientist cited in the New Scientist article has a history of defending Monsanto.

He testified in defense of artificial sweetners saying they have health benefits while at the same time criticizing fresh fruit as being unhealthy.

"Though Sanders believes aspartame can help people live healthier lives (above), he is not so impressed by the health benefits of fresh fruit. In an article titled "The myths of fruit", Sanders was quoted as saying that drinking liquidised fresh fruit compared unfavourably to drinking Coke:

If you liquidise it into goo it's just like drinking ordinary Coke. Or worse, actually. It's still a sugary drink. A lot of people on diets don't realise that if they're drinking loads of apple juice or orange juice, it's got a lot of calories in. If you drink a litre of apple juice a day, it'll be 400 calories.

However, this claim only takes into consideration the one factor of calories - not vitamins and minerals, which are arguably a more important factor in choosing a drink. People on a diet still need their nutrients - one could say, more than those eating an unrestricted diet."

He was a 'professional consultant' to Nutrasweet which is owned by Monsanto.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Tom_Sanders

I'm surprised New Scientist would publish this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Astrad (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:43 AM

23. It's only suprising if you believe in guilt by association.

Plus is it really inconceivable that Sanders was talking specifically about sugar content in the quote given?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:18 AM

25. I don't think his association

disqualifies him from commenting or makes it impossible for him to be impartial. But it should give one pause and maybe dissuade one from using it as a basis to trash the original report as on par with the 'science' of climate denialists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Astrad (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:48 AM

27. Um . . . fruit is high in sugar

 

people tend to forget that and assume "it's a plant it must be healthy".

Which contains more calories: a glass of coke containing 200 calories of sugar or a glass of fresh OJ containing 200 calories?

/bu bu it's natural!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:17 AM

31. Coke doesn't use sugar, but HFCS.

 

And anyone that doesn't keep track (at least vaguely) of their daily calorie intake, really should be doing that. Calories, and the nutritional value derived from them, should be understood if you really want to live a healthful life.

All calories are not the same...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:20 AM

33. HFCS is sugar

 

There are many different kinds of sugar. Sucrose is the one people think of but that is far from the only one. Fructose for instance is another sugar (the F in HFCS).


And anyone that doesn't keep track (at least vaguely) of their daily calorie intake, really should be doing that. Calories, and the nutritional value derived from them, should be understood if you really want to live a healthful life.


I believe that is what he was saying in his quote that you took issue with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:44 AM

38. It is "a" sugar, but it is definatley not "sugar". n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:48 AM

41. That is scientifically inacurrate

 

Fructose is present naturally in fruits and other plants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

Sucrose (real sugar I suppose) is made up of fructose and glucose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 12:24 PM

44. You got me there. I still think GMO's should be banned. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #44)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 12:30 PM

45. Agree to disagree then.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:03 PM

48. I love to agree to disagree - I wish we could all do that! Thanks... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:35 PM

59. You are far too kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #59)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:40 PM

60. I've been told this is my only fault

 

well that and being far too humble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:42 PM

61. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #41)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:03 PM

79. It's not fructose either...

 

It is synthetic fructose, and no reaction proceeds 100% to product.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:18 AM

32. Which has more artificial coloring

and less vitamins?

And yes, fresh squeezed orange juice is about 1000 times better than a glass of coke, nutrition wise. Don't be stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:21 AM

34. Wow a 1000 times!

 

That's incredible.

As in "without credibility"

This kind of goes with what was being discussed: where people blindly assume that natural = good. It grew on a tree, those calories don't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:17 PM

54. There are more than calories

in fresh squeezed orange juice, dear. There are also vitamins and if they don't strain it out, fiber.

With Coke you have more than calories too. You have high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, caffeine, phosphoric acid - sooooooooo healthy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:22 PM

56. The actual quote we're responding to:

 

If you liquidise it into goo it's just like drinking ordinary Coke. Or worse, actually. It's still a sugary drink. A lot of people on diets don't realise that if they're drinking loads of apple juice or orange juice, it's got a lot of calories in. If you drink a litre of apple juice a day, it'll be 400 calories.


You can be overweight and getting all your necessary vitamins. Or not. Or you can be thin and not getting all your necessary vitamins.

You're equating two different things.

When discussing obesity it doesn't matter that you have plenty of vitamin C in your diet if you are consuming 3000+ calories per day. Do you understand this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Astrad (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:11 AM

29. Who drinks a litre of apple juice a day? Maybe Johnny Appleseed, but come'on! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evirus (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:14 PM

52. +1,000,000,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:57 AM

24. Scientist: GM food safety testing is “woefully inadequate”

Dr. Carman is director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Inc., a non-profit research institute based in Australia focusing on the safety of genetically modified food. She earned a doctorate degree in medicine from the University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolic regulation, nutritional biochemistry, and cancer. She has investigated outbreaks of disease for an Australian state government.

Ken Roseboro, editor of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, interviewed Dr. Carman during her recent visit to the United States.

Can you tell me a about your research on the health impacts of GM foods?
We are conducting one of the very few first long-term, independent animal feeding studies with GM foods. To date, most of these types of studies have been done by biotechnology companies or scientists associated with biotechnology companies.

Of the few independent studies being done, a study by the Austrian government recently made public found reduced fertility in mice fed GM corn. Another recent study done in Italy showed immune system problems in mice fed GM corn.

The studies done by biotechnology companies tend to show no health problems associated with eating GM food. The independent studies are finding adverse effects.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/dec08/gm_food_safey_testing_inadequate.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:20 AM

26. Not so good for Monsanto

India too is reconsidering....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:16 AM

30. All substances should be proven safe before they are allowed into the environment not

 

waiting for problems to develop, and then try to ban the substance. We are doing it backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:23 AM

35. How do you "prove" something is safe?

 

What time period does that encompass? A year? A decade? A century?

Some things only become evident as problems a long way down the line. Like say DDT. Of course in the interim no one was complaining about not dying of malaria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:44 AM

39. I guess to err on the side of safety

is an outdated concept?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:50 AM

42. Which means what in this context?

 

I have a new drug that will save lives by preventing let's say strokes.

4thlawacil. How long should it be tested before it can go on the market? What should the population size be?

The point I'm getting at is that nothing is ever "proven" safe. That's why drugs are measured in LD50s not LD1s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:45 AM

40. How about longer than 3 months? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #40)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:50 AM

43. Give me a time period.

 

Easy enough to say "longer". But time is finite. At some point that has to bump up against practicality.

Aspirin isn't proven safe. People occasionally die of it. Same with vaccines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:05 PM

49. That is for scientists to quibble about. I guess we can agree to disagree once again! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #49)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:43 PM

62. You don't accept what the scientists say now, so why you would accept something different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #62)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:06 PM

72. Monsanto scientists? No I don't trust them. They are paid by Mosanto to produce an outcome.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #72)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:34 PM

73. So, you're saying that all GE Food research is paid for by Monsanto?

Nevermind the fact that that is nothing but a red herring, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #73)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:02 PM

75. Well if you thnik it's a red herring, then the discussion is over. Agree to disagree...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #75)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:40 PM

76. You seem to be jumping from one thing to another without addressing the last points.

In other words, it doesn't appear that actual discussion is something you're trying to have here.

"Agree to disagree" is meaningless, btw. It completely ignores science and the scientific process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #76)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:17 AM

82. I disagree. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:42 AM

37. Genetic Roulette FULL Movie

&feature=share

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:13 PM

46. Poor rats!

Look at those tumors!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:32 PM

51. Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease

In 1997, a few months after he was set straight by the Monsanto Vice President at headquarters, a company scientist told him that GM Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended proteins that had likely resulted from the gene insertion process. No safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near his home, were being fed to cattle.

Azevedo “was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic.” Azevedo asked the PhD in charge of the test plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle. He argued that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows’ milk or meat could be harmful. The scientist refused.

He approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about the unknown protein, but no one was interested. “Once they understood my perspective, I was somewhat ostracized,” he said. “Once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. I lost cooperation with other team members. Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside.”

Azevedo believed that Monsanto’s irresponsible practices might devastate the health of consumers. “These Monsanto scientists are very knowledgeable about traditional products, like chemicals, herbicides, and pesticides,” he said, “but they don’t understand the possible harmful outcomes of genetic engineering.”

http://www.timos.com/timos/green/NoGMO/irtArticle.cfm?itemID=242

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #51)


Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #51)


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:19 PM

55. We have the right to know what we are eating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:32 PM

57. Looks like Russia isn't going with the consensus.

Society of Biology responds to latest GM food study
http://www.societyofbiology.org/newsandevents/news/view/467

Expert reaction to GM maize causing tumours in rats
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm\\

Under Controlled: Why the New GMO Panic Is More Sensational Than Sense
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/09/21/under-controlled-why-the-new-gmo-panic-is-more-sensational-than-sense/

GM Corn-Tumor Link Based on Poor Science
http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-corn-tumor-study-120920.html

Rats, Tumors and Critical Assessment of Science
http://kfolta.blogspot.be/2012/09/rats-tumors-and-critical-assessment-of.html

And then there's the study's author who did not want the press to be able to assess the study beforehand, and who happens to be having a book come out soon. Hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:15 PM

63. Just out of curiousity what's your reaction to the Stanford organics study?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #63)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:22 PM

64. The one where they said that there is no difference between organic and genetically modified food?

They're fool off s***( or greed ).

genetically modified /chemically contaminated food is extremely dangerous. I personally cant always afford organic, especially lately, but at least I'm aware of the dangers.

BTW, kudos to Russia for taking this step. I hope U.S. will follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #63)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:08 AM

70. Peer review and scientific consensus makes it appear to be quite sound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:46 AM

67. Scientists Under Attack (when their research shows health related problems with eating GMOs)

The insect-killing, career-ending potato

“As a scientist looking at it and actively working on the field, I find that it’s very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs.”— Arpad Pusztai, UK’s World in Action TV show

When Dr. Pusztai voiced his concerns about the health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods during a nationally televised interview in August 1998, his was not simply just another voice in a contentious debate. Pusztai was the world leader in his field, and he had received major government funding to come up with the official method for testing the safety of GM foods. His protocols were supposed to become the required tests before any new GMO entered the European market. Pusztai was an insider, and an advocate of GM foods—that is until he actually ran those tests on supposedly harmless GM potatoes.

The high-tech spuds were engineered to produce their own pesticide. “The point of the whole genetic modification experiment was to protect the potato against aphids, which are one of the major pests in Scotland,” he said. His team inserted a gene from the snowdrop plant into the potatoes, which did in fact protect the GM crop from the insects.

As part of his safety studies, he fed that insecticide producing GM potato to rats, along with a complete and balanced diet. Another group of rats ate natural potatoes. A third was fed not only the natural potatoes, but they also received a dose of the same insecticide that the GM potato produced. This way, if the insecticide was harmful, he would see the same health problems in both the group that ate the GM potatoes, and those that ate the diet spiked with the insecticide. To his surprise, only those that ate the GM potato had severe problems—in every organ and every system he looked at.

Massive health problems linked to GMOs

“After the animals were killed and dissected,” Pusztai recalled, “we found out that in comparison with the non-genetically modified potatoes, their internal organs developed differently.” The intestines and stomach lining, for example, increased in size, the liver and kidneys were smaller, and the overall rate of growth was retarded. And the immune system suffered. Pusztai emphasized, “They found in those data 36 – 36! – very highly significant differences between the GM-fed animals and the non-GM fed animals.”

snip

After the TV show aired, Pusztai was a hero at his prestigious Rowett Institute, where the director praised his work to the press, calling it world-class research. After two days of high-profile media coverage throughout Europe, however, the director received two phone calls from the UK Prime Minister’s Office.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/?p=1673

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:17 AM

71. enlightening

Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:21 PM

80. Quite an article. GM promoters aren't just anti-science, they're anti-people.

They sure know how to fight dirty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:31 PM

81. His research was debunked.

That's how science works. Calling him a victim because his research was flawed is not legitimate or helpful.

Pusztai’s Flawed Claims
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/

GM food study was 'flawed'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/346651.stm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:11 AM

68. Soon US crops won't be bought and disaster in the making

for farmers and Monsanto

the US will be revealed as bought by corporations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cory777 (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:42 AM

69. The irony is absurd.

The irony is absurd. Russia suspends use of GM corns, yet much of America still collectively engages in Soviet-style Lysenkosim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #69)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:45 PM

74. "Lamarckism" is not all dead and all wrong

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to cory777 (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:53 PM

78. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread