Monsanto gmos found to be killing babies in the womb

[United Marxist Nations]

Fucking Silent Spring.
It may not be the birthplace of hyper-fearmongering "environmentalism" which gave rise to the GMO-phobia and other such nonsense, but it's damn close.

Seriously, fuck that book. I know it gave birth to the modern environmental movement, but the modern environmental movement is far from ideal for those of us who actually care about both the environment and the well-being of humanity.

At least this kind of hyper-paranoid nonsense wasn't as prevalent during the Green Revolution. If so they would have the blood of literally billions of lives on their hands...

I've never even heard of that book.

[Alouite]

GMO's are nasty things, but then again, so is much of the food we buy. Money prevails over safety of the product to consumers, we saw it in the 1900-1920's we see it again today.

[The Republic of Llamas]

I say we take the bloody company, seize its assets, take all the information found to be used in a criminal case for everything they've done wrong, and then repay the share/stockholders for their losses if they are found to be innocent of wrongdoing.

[Sabara]

That's obviously an extremely biased article...

But still, Monsanto. *shudders*

[Regnum Dominae]

If you some how read that last source, from the scientific journal of "Reproductive Toxicology" and didn't realize that it was a scientific study, you are by all means blind.

Otherwise, you simply didn't read it.

I read it, I also read the articles citing it in that knifty little bar on the side. That study has been panned for it's horrible methodology.

Huh, I just found this. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/i ... music.html
Very interesting.

Of course the authors of that "study" and the people who have mindlessly propagated it fail to mention that one of the "toxins" (which is a horribly misused term - if someone starts complaining about "toxins" in the context of health and/or medicine it is probably safe to stop taking them seriously) is a "natural pesticide" that is used in - you guessed it - organic farming.

[Des-Bal]

I've never even heard of that book.

It was a massive indictment of pesticide spraying and pushed the green movement to demonize DDT.

[Regnum Dominae]

GMO's are nasty things, but then again, so is much of the food we buy. Money prevails over safety of the product to consumers, we saw it in the 1900-1920's we see it again today.

No, they're not. They're wonderful things.

[Regnum Dominae]

I say we take the bloody company, seize its assets, take all the information found to be used in a criminal case for everything they've done wrong, and then repay the share/stockholders for their losses if they are found to be innocent of wrongdoing.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty...?

[United Marxist Nations]

I've never even heard of that book.

It was a massive indictment of pesticide spraying and pushed the green movement to demonize DDT.

Oh. We gotta bring the DDT back.

[Geilinor]

I'm not sure, but if true, it just shows the importance of scientific literacy.

It kind of reminds me of when Indonesia(?) outlawed the use of DDT in the 1970's(?), and the cases of malaria jumped from double digits to over a million.

There were many problems due to DDT as well. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636426/

[Occupied Deutschland]

GMO's are nasty things, but then again, so is much of the food we buy. Money prevails over safety of the product to consumers, we saw it in the 1900-1920's we see it again today.

Educate yoself.

[Regnum Dominae]

It kind of reminds me of when Indonesia(?) outlawed the use of DDT in the 1970's(?), and the cases of malaria jumped from double digits to over a million.

There were many problems due to DDT as well. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636426/

I'd say that countless millions of malaria deaths prevented are far more important than some environmental effects which are quite moderate compared to what people would have you think.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Awe...Marxist, you did respond to my organic joke :|

[Geilinor]

I say we take the bloody company, seize its assets, take all the information found to be used in a criminal case for everything they've done wrong, and then repay the share/stockholders for their losses if they are found to be innocent of wrongdoing.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty...?

Not when they're filthy lying evil capitalist GMO companies! Down with them! Down!

[Des-Bal]

Huh, I just found this. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/i ... music.html
Very interesting.

Of course the authors of that "study" and the people who have mindlessly propagated it fail to mention that one of the "toxins" (which is a horribly misused term - if someone starts complaining about "toxins" in the context of health and/or medicine it is probably safe to stop taking them seriously) is a "natural pesticide" that is used in - you guessed it - organic farming.

BT is short for Baccilius Thuringiensis, the naturally occurring bacteria that produces it. The GM crops produce the compound themselves with one key difference, the toxin they produce doesn't effect all insects. It's designed to be slightly less dangerous than the natural stuff.

[Regnum Dominae]

GMO's are nasty things, but then again, so is much of the food we buy. Money prevails over safety of the product to consumers, we saw it in the 1900-1920's we see it again today.

Educate yoself.

And before anyone even tries to complain about "monsanto/agri shills" here is a database of over 100 INDEPENDENT studies: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/stud ... t-funding/

[Shaggai]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty...?

Not when they're filthy lying evil capitalist GMO companies! Down with them! Down!

On the other hand, they have definitely done bad things. The problem is that said bad things are at least mostly legal.

[Sabara]

I'm more worried about AquAdvantage salmon...

[Regnum Dominae]

I'm more worried about AquAdvantage salmon...

Which is bad because...?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Well, Splenda is a chemical sugar substitute, while coffee and cows are selectively bred to impressive lengths.
They're certainly not natural and all interfered with, if not necessarily produce of GM.

Ding ding ding.

To be honest, I don't consume synthetic sugar if I have a choice.
As far as coffee is concerned, I am attempting to cut back.

And cream is just... just wonderful.

I have an eggnogg addiction in the winter, and that needs to stop.
I'm with OP that we should be aware of what is in our foods and drinks.
But his paranoia is off the charts. If you, personally, don't want to consume something, that's fine.
I don't judge OP for not eating GMO. It's the irrational fear that gets me.

I don't use synthetic sugar because there are varying reports on it's link to cancer.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... sweeteners
The site says it's safe enough, but it's obvious enough that regular sugar is healthier (in general amounts).

I want to cut back on coffee and caffeine in general. It's just a little much, always being "buzzed" on caffeine.

I'd like to think I have perfectly normal reasons for why I do or don't consume certain things.
I think if OP calmed down and looked at the situation from a more neutral point of view, he'd be better off.

I concur.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty...?

Not when they're filthy lying evil capitalist GMO companies! Down with them! Down!

Libertarian socialism für alles!

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm more worried about AquAdvantage salmon...

Which is bad because...?

Because it reminds me of Aquaman.

[Alouite]

GMO's are nasty things, but then again, so is much of the food we buy. Money prevails over safety of the product to consumers, we saw it in the 1900-1920's we see it again today.

No, they're not. They're wonderful things.

Obviously you don't know much about them. Here you go:

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/negative.htm

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975000000331

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5#page-1

http://permaculturenews.org/2013/07/23/why-gmos-can-never-be-safe/

So, you were saying?

[Des-Bal]

I'm more worried about AquAdvantage salmon...

I'm not. But that got me thinking, Salmon populations are declining how bad of an idea would it be to purposely release hyperresiliant salmon? Instead of fixing the problems we cause (we won't. Seriously we just won't.) why not fix the animals?

[Tekania]

Unfortunately it's hard to find "peer reviewed" "studies" that haven't been deliberately manipulated by the monsanto-funded establishment to suppress dissenting views and the false consensus propped up by their flimsy house of cards.

How convenient for you. I'm not interested in your New York Bridge, nor that land in the Everglades.

[Sabara]

I'm more worried about AquAdvantage salmon...

Which is bad because...?

The environmental affect. If they're breed in aquaculture ponds by the ocean - and escape - it won't be pretty. They're a more competitive species than the Atlantic Salmon (which is endangered), and could wipe out the population.

And also, the FDA study on the product was extremely poor.