08-04-2014, 10:14 AM
Republished and once again peer reviewed study that has gone through three peer reviews. http://www.gmoseralini.org/republication...ce-speaks/
|
Leilani Bronson-Crelly Endorsed by GMO Free Hawaii
|
08-04-2014, 10:20 AM
quote: Much of the country runs on coal power. If any factory, packaging facility, offices at organic food companies, etc. use coal power, then coal and all the problems with it are tied to those food products. It is absurd to demand labeling for products produced using coal and there is no doubt by anyone except the coal industry that it is polluting and a major contributor to greenhouse gasses. I find it equally absurd that something relatively harmless or completely harmless like current GM approved crops warrants a label, and even more ridiculous that a state with 0.3% of the nation's population would consider demanding that all products using GM crops should be labeled in order to be sold in this one state. This is especially true when labeling laws have generally ignored that the majority of GM crops are either not eaten or go to animal feed, and yet they aren't demanding that GM labels go on anything that has animal products in it where the animal ever ate a GM crop. So even the GM laws that many have proposed don't even address the majority of GM foods. So an otherwise organic cracker using a trace of GM corn oil gets slapped with a GM label, while a hamburger from a cow that was fed hundreds of times that amount of GM corn gets no label. This is the kind of nonsense that comes out of an anti-science movement. Calling for a coal label, while ludicrous, makes far more sense than a GM label. I'm also guessing Leilani eats meat, or at least milk derived ingredients, as do virtually all anti-GM folks, completely ignoring that their eating habits account for virtually all of the GM crops used in the US. With every bite they are lining the pockets of Monsanto more than a vegan that eats only GM corn. The ignorance and sheer hypocrisy of the people in this movement render it absurd. None of these companies testing out GM crops in Hawaii has over proposed doing anything in her district, so how does being anti-GM affect her district? Why not demand a law that all resorts, golf courses, sides of roads, etc. be not allowed to use glyphosphate? Far more of it is used in such places than all of the GM companies in Hawaii combined. Yet this issue is ignored. If you don't like Monsanto, there are far more ways to impact them than requiring a GM label. Science minded people get fed up with this ignorance. Really what is one to do when a scientist testifies about GM facts, and someone like Brenda Ford replies that they don't agree with them. It would be like a scientist explaining why 2 + 2 =4, and she says she doesn't agree with them. When you cannot reason with people because they are so blinded by their views based on willful ignorance, who is being arrogant? I would say the person demanding something based on willful ignorance is arrogant, especially if they are proposing that those growing GM papaya be imprisoned as she did! I have no respect for people like her though I agree she should be able to receive free mental health treatment as anyone should who is so delusional that it impacts their job performance. I have never said take my word for it. Take the word of objective scientists and public health officials, all of who would be up for the Nobel Prize if they could find clear proof of overwhelming harm from GM crops that are currently approved. Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to know. If it's labeled organic, it isn't GM. Why use the example of eating a soybean when you are consuming your GM soybeans in far greater quantities through anything that contains any amount of beef, dairy, or derived ingredients. You throw in "Monsanto" for good measure. If Leilani is a GM moderate, why isn't she explicitly stating that there is nothing wrong with GM papaya whatsoever? Anyway, I wrote her off when she listed working on the Ruderman campaign, just like I would if she listed she worked on Pat Robertson's presidential campaign. I actually voted for Joy, who it seems is dancing around the issue and saying she supports labeling. I think if in office this issue won't be on her radar at all, and she is quite intelligently saying what she needs to knowing that their is overwhelming approval for GM labeling. I imagine if she took he time to study it, she'd reach the same conclusions and agree to the scientific consensus about the issue. I would have preferred if she had taken a clear "no problems with GM" stance, but just like being an atheist in the South, that would make one unelectable.
08-04-2014, 10:55 AM
quote: quote: quote: Wow. I was just advocating for a candidate and now all this suddenly feels personal. Okay... There is a discussion because there seems to be disagreement. On the one hand, apparently, there is all of you. Those who are correct. And on the other, according to all of you, there is an "anti GMO crowd" that behaves with one voice. One big, dumb, apparently drunken, science-hating voice. And they are whacky. And illogical. And they don't care about feeding the hungry. I have to be all-in and never dare to disagree with any part of this pro-GMO agenda or I am, in your collective eyes, tossed on the heap of "the anti GMO crowd"... because there really can only be two sides to any discussion, is that right? Yer either with us or yer against us? I think a great way to begin to attack the business model of Monsanto would be to force them to slap labels on their products. Force them to publish their tests, and force them to test for longer periods than they do. Peer review the raw data and share testing methods so independent labs with no financial ties to the original patent holder can verify every finding. You know, like scientists do. Then we can all take a breath and look again at the results. Any product that passes with flying colors, I'll be the first in line to praise it. Let's do that with all recombination efforts, and I'm sure we will find that MOST of them are harmless and quite helpful and ought to be fully supported. But why would we ever stop testing? Fundamental questions of science are continually challenged by experiment. If the time component of any given prediction is constantly increasing, its not the same test over and over again. You're learning something new. If it's all good, then we've purchased a renewed confidence in the recombination under scrutiny. But if we learn now that what we thought was a golden goose turns out to be a lead-lined casket, then we can avoid doing harm in the long term. We can ban DDTs. We can remove lead from our gasoline. We can search for a better solution. I've said that about a million times, but Rob writes like he's still accusing me of attacking the science of recombination. Because I'm just whacky. I don't know how to argue with folks like that. When one clearly says what one means and then all that is promptly ignored and the same old tropes get trotted out, and y'all just chuckle amongst yourselves at the whacky "anti GMO type..." I don't know what to say to you anymore. I understand Monsanto's motivation in all this, but I don't understand those here who just refuse to engage in any kind of discussion at all. I'm willing to concede rational points, I'm willing to stand with you and defend fundamental science all day long, but somehow, unless I sign up for the Monsanto Fan Club, you guys just all shrug and smirk at each other and chuckle at the "anti GMO dude" over there in the corner.
08-04-2014, 11:43 AM
Responding to Robguz but there is no need to quote his entire post, it's right there above my last bit...
I am only advocating for Leilani, so I can't speak to her inner motivations. I can however, tell you about mine: I got all that about your reductio argument. I just don't think its fair. You draw lines that make it seem as though those with concerns about GMO products care nothing about climate change. Because if they did, where is the hue and cry for coal labeling? Right. Except many of these folks care about both. And the specific concerns about the Monsanto products being forced into our markets anonymously have given rise to a rather spontaneous grass-roots effort across the nation to at least check the steamroller for a minute and... well that's the question. Then what? I don't disagree with you that Brenda Ford owed her guest more respect than she showed him. He is an expert. He is a scientist. You and I agree on the notion that he deserved to have his expert testimony be accepted with gravity and respect. I also don't begrudge you the right to get fed up with folks who do not listen to clearly presented evidence, regardless of the topic. And I concede your points about meat products and dairy products. They ought to be included in this identification, specifically with regard to the Bt corn product Monsanto has created. To be honest, that is the product that I have the biggest issue with. I don't feel like Monsanto is allowing independent testing of Bt corn. I'd like to see a wide open field, as I mention above. If Bt corn passed testing like that, ongoing testing, I would be surprised, but I would also be first in line to defend the evidence, and the product. I feel, however, that the meat and dairy exemptions in the labeling laws you referred to fall into the same category as Joy's dancing around the issue, or an atheist keeping her mouth shut in Alabama. It is, as you say, shrewd politics. I think those who wish to check the influence of Monsanto would like to just get a flag in the ground somewhere. At least, that is why I support these efforts, flawed though they may be. Once checked, Monsanto can be corralled. At least that is the fiction I tell myself. I get angry when I hear about the hundreds of midwestern farmers who tried to stand up to Monsanto and were ruined. Not corporate farmers. Men like my grandfathers and grand uncles, who worked the soil themselves. I don't like it when lawyers push people like that around. I think Leilani is in fact in favor of protecting the existing GMO papaya, although I have not directly asked her. I can tell you that I am definitely in favor of that. Last year, I would have told you that I support GMO insulin, but I am now noticing studies emerging that suggest GMO insulin therapy might be causing type 1 diabetes in type 2 diabetes patients. Would you suggest that we not study this and see if it is true or not? There are recombinations that would clearly not be an issue, like any intra-specific recombination... create a new apple by crossing two different apples that just wouldn't graft. Stuff like that. I don't think many people would oppose that. I wouldn't. I am mostly worried about corporate oversight. Monsanto would use patent law to prevent the release of negative studies, claiming they are trade secrets. I know its just food. But the science rises to the level of scrutiny that was once reserved for drugs. And yet biotech companies thrive. We can find a happy medium, but I think the government needs to play a more active role in the corporate oversight that threatens to darken this entire branch of science. Finally, I would reiterate that Leilani is representing those who are concerned about this issue, and there is merit in that, I think. To cast those folks aside and call them "the anti GMO nutters" or whatever is not very respectful in its own right. No, they are not scientists. Yes, it must be frustrating to try to persuade them when they seem not to listen to scientific evidence. It must begin to feel like you are talking to Creationists. But a representative, a leader, cannot simply dismiss them. They are citizens. They deserve to be heard. They deserve respect also. That was my larger point. I'd like to finish by thanking you for your post. I railed in the post above that nobody was engaging me, they seemed to relegate me to the corner wearing a dunce cap. You didn't. Thanks for that. Agree to disagree.
08-04-2014, 12:01 PM
I love it when they jump to the "Oh, you must be Anti-Science" label. Like there's no "Bad science" or scientific failures. Remember thalidomine? Some good science there, right? Pregnant mothers were the lab rats with horrific results.
The studies aren't done yet. The data hasn't been sufficient to reach a conclusion. Which study is more valid? The one funded by the Chemical industry, or the one funded by the watchdog organizations? Do we just blindly move forward without knowing? That's why I favor labeling. Let consumers decide what they want to eat and the market will adjust itself. I know there are people here that think eating pesticide free food is a marketing scam, and they have every right to their beliefs. Let them have that choice, and let me have mine. I used to buy "white bread", because I had a hard time justifying paying three times as much for organic, whole grain, locally produced loaves. It was my wife that convinced me that it's better to eat real food and pay, rather than a cheap, processed food imitation and pay later.
08-04-2014, 12:05 PM
quote: Quoted from the link: "Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London, commented, “Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers." “If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself." To be clear, this is that "discredited" study that shows severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603. Compared to inconclusive testing done by Monsanto but never allowed to exceed 90 days. Thanks for this link, Wao nahele kane (even though you called my candidate a drunken sailor...)  
08-04-2014, 01:56 PM
DaVinci... the drunken sailor comment was NOT aimed at your candidate. There was a bad assumption just prior to my post, re-read the post above mine. :-)
08-04-2014, 02:10 PM
No problem DaVinci and it was nice to see the study had been re-validated. I saw no junk science in the original study, though there were many arrogant self interest claims to the contrary. The study validates the FDA's and CDC's original concerns before receiving presidential orders to accept GMO without question.
Eta - If one takes the times to sift back through the historical record they will note the study is a duplication of a Monsanto study and its same methodology and results drew concern by CDC when their review was called for by the FDA. This is why the Monsanto wagon came unhinged when the duplicated study and findings were published. This was all to be swept under the carpet some 20 plus years ago after they rustled up a presidential order for acceptance of their products. Follow the rabbit hole. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)