GMO

[nononsensemumof2]

Morrisons, Siansburys, Co-Op and M&S have joined Tesco in allowing GMO fed chickens on their shelves.! This is the tip of the ice burg.!
There is an International protest against GMO on 25th May, I urge you all to organise to join in, if you value choice about what you eat, because if GMO is allowed into our food chain, we will have let the genie out of the bottle, forever.!
Cross contamination and patented law suits will be the order of the day, if we allow Monsanto to get a foot hold on our food supply.
Not only is this vile virus a health hazard to humans, but it is destroying our environment too, re bees, etc.
Plus it is attempting to own Mother Nature via its patented seeds, thereby selling us dangerous produce with a corporate stamp.!
We must all wake up to this onslaught against nature and our right to chose. Please get out in force and demand an end to this profit lead evil against nature now.

Thanks. Hope you can organise something on the 25th to support the International protest and ourselves.

I have to say this:

OP: if you are going to use a '!' you do not need a '.' as well.

Like this! Not like this.!

Thank you.

Ourselves? Of whom is this "ourselves" that you speak?

nononsensemumof2, out of interest are any of the major green movements or the Green party taking part in this international protest?

Claig, if a peer reviewed paper says it's wrong, eg for using the wrong rats the likelihood is, it's wrong.
FFS Empirical evidence. Evidence that cannot be disputed.

OP. Go dance outside a supermarket and stop insulting our intelligence our come up with a coherent argument backed up with a few facts.

" they are requesting facts to back up the scarmongery shite and posts about hating their kids"

If anyone does genuinely want to read some interesting papers on the potential hazards of GMOs, GM Free Cymru have quite a number of well referenced articles here.

I don't have a scientific background, but DH is a plant scientist by training, and has worked with a number of these technologies. He got out of the industry because of his view that they were potentially hazardous, and would never receive sufficient testing because of the political clout of the big companies backing them.

My view is that the precautionary principle should be very much in evidence here: the onus should be on the companies putting them forward to prove (a) that they are safe, and (b) that there are clear benefits in their adoption (beyond additional profits for said companies).

To date, all the evidence that I have seen is that they haven't achieved (b), so for example herbicide use is higher, not lower, on GM crops, counter to the initial claims.

Oh, and it's us. Not ourselves.

I will read up on it of course - on reputable website and not internet scare sites obviously

I just think if people post massively 'OMG BE SCARED' style posts and try to edumacate us all they should at least have the decency to back it up with some pesky facts - preferably without resulting to insulting people

GM watch also have an interesting report on a Danish investigation of the use of GM soya in pig feed here.

Thank you Takver. That is some sound information.

I actually know someone high up in the FDA. I'll see if she had an opinion, although I'm not sure it's her area.

"Claig, if a peer reviewed paper says it's wrong, eg for using the wrong rats the likelihood is, it's wrong."

As I understand it, the study was a peer-reviewed study which was criticised by some scientists and not others.

"I think these are very important findings," commented Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at Kings College, London, who acted as an adviser to Seralini's team.

"At the very least, what this study highlights is: firstly, the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies; and, secondly, when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient."

Yup - I'm not necessarily pro-GM, but I am pro-facts.

I like facts.

This is interesting

(www.online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/GMfree5.htm)

I think it is important to be aware that the big seed companies do have very serious political clout, both in the US and the EU.

Not specifically GMO, but on a related topic, I believe even DEFRA have been moved to complain about the presence of a seconded 'expert' from the French agribusiness lobby who was very closely involved in the recent drafting of the new seed regulations.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

You do realise that your 'evidence' includes links to more than a dozen independent scientific rebuttals of that evidence don't you?

Look up Nick Bernabe.

Oh FFS! I started copying some quotes from the OP to make some points against but lost the will to live at the preposterous ill-informed toss that is DNA is the means to test genetics. You have absolutely fuck all credibility hysteria whipping about genetics if you think that.

If it's all so evil OP why did they award a Nobel Peace Prize to Borlaug?

nononsensemum

This Nick Bernabe?

motocross.transworld.net/tag/nick-bernabe/

Is Pigletpower on this thread?

That's not helping the argument, much, is it.

no my mistake - it was another thread - the DNA confused me for a moment - as you where

"I like facts."

In that case, can I point you to some Daily Mail articles.

This is about the same peer-reviewed study on rats, I think, and how Russia reacted to it

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208452/Russia-suspends-import-use-American-GM-corn-study-revealed-cancer-risk.html

and this is not on health, but on the tragedy that befell some Indian farmers when they switched to GM seeds

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

From a methodological point of view, it is an important study. But only from the point of using 2yr studies vs 90 day studies and using agricultural formulations. But that's pretty much as far as it goes.

Without even considering the type of rats used, the 200 rats have been divided into so many groups that any statistical analysis is meaningless. Its possible that if the study was repeated with larger numbers there would be no difference between the groups.

Also, I don't think mammary tumours are that uncommon in lab rats. AFAIK its pretty much what female lab rats die of if they're not killed first.

No Endoplasmicreticulum - I think it's the High School Baseball Player

No, you can never point me to the DM. They are about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard.

gordy that's not on, no matter the thread!