Featured The "frankenfood" myth

Then you haven't been reading my posts. His main points are all based on the studies conducted by either the giant biotech companies themselves or from researchers who's careers depend on staying in the good graces of those same giant biotech companies.

In other words $$ compromised $$ sources of information.

 

Poncho, I almost posted my "cows with guns" video just for fun and to lighten the mood, but it has a cuss word in it. (though it's in the KJV!) Talk about bovine growth hormone...and revolting against the powers that be. HA!

 

Might be a good idea at this point to have a little comic relief break. :smilewinkgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw0riLqQBj0

 

No I've already shown independent studies are not allowed by the giant biotech companies and they have a whole army of PR specialists including media executives that depend on their advertising dollars to demonize and marginalize any person or group engaging in an independent study of GMOs not of by and for the giant biotech companies.

They spend a great deal of time and money to convince us their GMO products are safe and effective and just as much time and money attempting to portray those that question their studies, advertising and motives as "moonbats".

The giant biotech companies deal with anyone who questions them by resorting to the same tactics. Demonize, marginalize and threaten with legal action and damage to the questioner's careers.

One might think if one were to actually think critically for a moment that these actions are not the actions of reputable companies with nothing to hide.

Again "if the giant biotech companies have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear" so why won't they allow independent research into their GMO creations?

 

Well, I have no dog in this fight, but one note of consideration, (not politicking for/against), re: the GM foods.
Saying that God created all things good is true, BUT, since that time the fall has taken it's toll and what may have been perfect in the beginning, just maybe could stand some selective improvement today.
Having said all that, I'm personally convinced that the majority of our health (physical & some mental) problems are due to the excessive chemicals we ingest in our daily diets that don't belong in our bodies.
I'm primarily thinking about preservatives here, tho' certainly not the only culprit.

Just saying--------!!

 

Someone without a stated side! Let's all put down our bats and sharpened toothpicks to stop and stare at the stranger!

*stare*

*poke*

What do you think it eats?

:laugh:

 

Non-GM successes: Introduction

Does mention of allergen-free peanuts, striga-resistant cowpeas, salt-resistant wheat, beta-carotene rich sweet potatoes, and virus-resistant cassavas make you think of GM?

If so, you've missed the great unpublished story – all the non-GM breakthroughs solving precisely the kind of problems (drought-resistance, salt-resistance, biofortification etc.) that GM proponents claim only genetic modification can provide the answer to.

While often speculative claims of potential GM "miracles" win vast amounts of column inches, the non-GM success stories generally get minimal if any reporting in the popular media. Without GM's often exaggerated crisis narratives and claimed silver bullet solutions, it seems there is no story!

The biotechnology industry and its PR people are keen to keep it that way, particularly because the non-GM solutions are often way ahead of the work on GM. They also bring none of the uncertainties that surround GM.

All of this makes keeping track of the many non-GM success stories especially important.

The GM breakthroughs that never were

Another reason it's important is because – thanks to the lack of success with GM "solutions" – non-GM success stories can end up being claimed as GM breakthroughs!

A classic instance is provided by the UK Government's former chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, who has repeatedly used non-GM breakthroughs as evidence of why we need to embrace GM. In one case, King claimed a big crop yield increase in Africa was due to GM, when it did not involve the use of any GM technology at all. On another occasion, King claimed a big success for GM flood resistant rice when what he was referring to was in reality a non-GM crop!

In both cases King was under pressure to provide compelling examples of why GM crops were needed. But far from King's examples showing why we need to embrace GM, they show the exact opposite, i.e. that we need to stop being distracted by GM and to get the funding and support behind the non-GM solutions to the problems we so badly need to address.

If you look at the menu on the top right it gives links to just some of the many non-GM successes we have come across. It's worth noting, incidentally, that some of this progress is being made with the help of biotechnological approaches, like marker assisted selection, that do not involve the same kind of risks and uncertainties as GM, and which are in fact making GM obsolete.

You can read more about this here.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/articles/non-gm-successes

What the biotech industry doesn't want you to know about GM "improved" crops

There's another way in which crops touted as GM breakthroughs are not always what they seem – and it's the best-kept secret of the biotech industry. Most of the crops that are touted as GM breakthroughs are nothing of the sort.

In summer 2010 Monsanto bought out part of a West Australian cereal breeding company, Intergrain. An Intergrain spokesman explained Monsanto's interest like this: "A really important concept is that biotech traits by themselves are absolutely useless unless they can be put into the very best germplasm."

The process operates like this. The biotech company raids the germplasm of natural crop varieties that have been developed by farmers and breeders over centuries for the desired traits. It uses conventional breeding and sometimes marker assisted selection – not GM – to get the plant it wants. Its own proprietary genes are added primarily so that it can patent and own the seed and resulting crop.

This GM tweak often adds nothing to the agronomic performance of the crop but is usually either a Bt toxin to kill insects or a herbicide-resistance gene that allows it to be drenched in herbicide. But it has one magical effect – on the biotech company's profit margins.

This process is never disclosed in the industry's hyping of its new crop varieties to the media. The questions we should all be asking are these: which natural parent variety or varieties did the company pirate for its GM variety? How much improvement was made in the parent variety by conventional breeding and marker assisted breeding, aside from the GM tweak? How do the natural parent variety, the non-GM improved variety, and the final GM variety compare with each other with regard to the desired trait in side-by-side field trials?

In other words, how much value was added by the GM manipulation?

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/articles/non-gm-successes

19 Biotech Studies Reviewed.

Purpose
We reviewed 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized genetically modified soybean and maize which represent, per trait and plant, more than 80% of all environmental genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated on a large scale, after they were modified to tolerate or produce a pesticide. We have also obtained the raw data of 90-day-long rat tests following court actions or official requests. The data obtained include biochemical blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs with numerous organ weights and histopathology findings.

Methods
We have thoroughly reviewed these tests from a statistical and a biological point of view. Some of these tests used controversial protocols which are discussed and statistically significant results that were considered as not being biologically meaningful by regulatory authorities, thus raising the question of their interpretations.

Results
Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters).

Conclusions
The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

 

Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audience.

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

In this case I don't think the audience is being deceived by the constant use of such literary devices.


GM Firms

The GM firms present themselves as operating out of futuristic laboratories and hi-tech greenhouses in order to provide farmers with innovative crops with valuable new traits. But in reality, all the leading GM firms developed out of the chemical industry and they remain the world's biggest manufacturers of agrochemicals. The leading GM corporations together control nearly 75% of the global pesticide market.

Syngenta, for instance, is not only the world's third largest seed company, it's also the world's second largest agrochemical manufacturer. Monsanto, the world's biggest seed company, is the world's fifth largest agrochemical company. That is why around 80% of GM seeds have been engineered to be resistant to weed killers (herbicides). Monsanto's main GM product is crops resistant to glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), creating a near-monopoly for Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, which is now off patent.

Having operated for many decades as major chemical corporations, and in the last 20 years additionally as biotechnology companies, the leading GM firms have a significant historical legacy. This makes it possible to examine their records when it comes to issues of public and employee safety and protection, regulatory compliance, customer care, etc.

This is particularly relevant to the regulation of GM crops, as it is almost entirely dependent on trust, with regulators normally basing their assessments of environmental risk and food safety on data from unpublished studies provided to them in confidence by the GM firms that developed the crop.

Below we look at the corporate character and record to date of the major GM firms.

Monsanto: a history

How one of the top 10 US chemical companies used the world's biggest selling pesticide to turn itself into a GM giant in order to try and escape its past.

Read more... http://gmwatch.org/articles/gm-firms/monsanto-a-history

Monsanto: resources

Key websites, films, books, articles and other resources

Read more... http://gmwatch.org/articles/gm-firms/monsanto-resources

Bayer: a history

How a chemical and pharmaceutical giant with an appalling record of corporate crimes became a key player in the development, commercialization and sale of GM crops.

Read more... http://gmwatch.org/articles/gm-firms/bayer-a-history

Bayer: resources

Key websites, films, books, articles and other resources

Read more... http://gmwatch.org/articles/gm-firms/bayer-resources

 

Knock it off Poncho. Monsanto is very philanthropic and only wants to find a way to help farmers feed the world. Why else would they patent seeds and sue if people saved seeds from crops or replicated them? DUH!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0
You know that control over the food supply by genetically altering seeds and then patenting them is a good thing. If they end up doing this with all key crops, then we won't have to worry about anything. We'll live in a safe world, because they'll only use this power of food control for our own good, right? Of course right.
Now let's all lay our logic and reasoning aside.

Repeat after me:
GMO is the way to go
GMO makes a good potato
GMO makes a rockin' seed
GMO for our every need
Monsanto gives us crops to hoe
GMO is the way to go!
YAY Frankenfoooooods!

Are you there yet? No? Then repeat it. Still no there? Oh. Well don't worry, neither am I and I wrote it. :laugh:

 

I'm sorry TND, could you repeat that last one? I couldn't hear you over the irony of everything you say in comparison to the bible verse you choose to quote at the bottom of all your posts.

 

Reported in no uncertain terms. Aside from the insult, I am sick of you accusing me of being double. This is the second person you have done that to me with.

 

No I'm still repeating "if the giant biotech companies have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".

Let's keep this between us moonbats Gina so don't tell TND what I am about to tell you okay?

Let him find out months or years from now when the corporate media finally decides it's safe to report on this . . . TND and his friends are quickly becoming "the fringe" element of society they're always accusing others of belonging to.

Yep that's right. Because . . . Activism Is Destroying Monsanto & Other Corrupt Mega Corps.

In just the past few weeks and months, we have generated powerful traction in the fight against corrupt mega corporations like Monsanto and others — and it all comes down to consumers refusing to purchase additive-loaded food products, deposit cash with banks that are spying on them, or tune into the latest propaganda news hour on MSNBC.

Ultimately, we are all no longer ‘consumers’ but ‘activists’ in the sense that we can no longer sit by and watch as our food supply and freedoms are tarnished at the same time by a merger of corporate and government corruption. A merger that is historically fatal to the heartbeat of any nation that allows itself to be swallowed by the bloodthirsty psychopaths who currently hold many high level positions in both of these sectors.

And our activism is paying off.

On the food freedom front, we have already seen major corporations like Kraft and Subway make a 180 degree shift towards removing toxic substances from their food following major outcry from activist consumers. In fact, Kraft’s act to remove artificial preservatives from their highly popular ‘cheese singles’ signifies the reality that these corporations know that they are quickly going to lose their entire customer base if they do not start removing the synthetic garbage from their food.

Even larger in scope, it was Subway that announced it would be removing a rubber chemical from its bread just 24 hours after the issue was brought up on The Alex Jones Show with a food activist.

And that is just on the food front.

We have been contacted by legislators who have revealed that thanks to exclusive information leaked via Storyleak, such as the reality that Bank of America is actually spying on ‘anti-government’ protesters for the feds, legislation has been launched to protect our privacy in an entirely new way on statewide levels — and it’s expected to pass. We have seen the same sentiments in exclusive interviews regarding anti-drone spying legislation, which is yet another reminder of how simple it can be to spring real action from truth.

This is how real change is made, and this is how reality is broadcast around the world through the domination of media headlines. Altogether, 2014 is shaping up to be a true year of reality, and in just a few short months we have already been highly successful in enhancing the message of reality through resisting corporations like Monsanto and Bank of America. As long as we continue the proverbial charge, nothing can stop a calvary rush of truth.

http://naturalsociety.com/activism-destroying-monsanto-corrupt-mega-corps/

While TND and company busy themselves here with calling us names and trying to figure out which evil to vote for in the upcoming production of election theater we're out there voting with our dollars and spreading the truth.

And we're winning. :thumbs:

 

Yeah, I'd say you've definitely proven that TND!

 

I'll keep it under my hat, Poncho!

But if there is to be any celebrating over any victories, remember not to use glitter. Some government officials call out the hounds and arrest people, charging them with "terrorism hoax" when they see glitter. It's apparently very scary stuff.

Or maybe I'll celebrate by getting a "Fishy Fleet" style car. Get a customized license plate, first three letters will be "TND." :saint: