Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Study:Tumors in Rats Fed Monsanto GM Corn


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#16    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 20 September 2012 - 03:06 PM

Quote

Growing plain old crops can save billions of lives. There's no reason for it to be modified,at all .Explain why these modified seeds ,are any better ,than heirloom seeds ?

Drought resistance: Areas that previously yielded low food supplies can grow more food.
Pest resistance: Crops can be grown that do NOT require the use of pesticides if they are designed to be unpalatable to their common insect pests
PH soil adaptation: Crops that usually only thrive in more acidic soil can be modified to grow in more PH neutral or basic soil, increasing the potential yield
These are just three that come to mind immediately.

A rice that can be grown in less wet areas could save BILLIONS. One is in the works and close to being perfected, I hear, but is being held back by nonsense of the type illustrated in this thread. So, thank you for contributing to the death of real human beings while you entertain yourself with unfounded conspiracy theories.

Quote

Again,why are no gmo foods whatsoever,served in cafeterias of Monsanto facilities . Why won't they eat,what they are FORCING ,us to eat ?

I suspect this is a a bit of misinformation that conspiracy theorists bandy about without ever questioning.


Quote

And the herbicides are in everything we eat too so giving them water with it ,is pretty much reproducing what the average American invests daily .,

That's fine. But then it is misleading to write articles and make posts claiming that it is the genetically modified food. It also is completely disregarding the fact that people wash their fruits and vegetables. And if corn is not washed of the roundup before cattle eat it, and we eat the cattle, that's two digestion cycles that the chemicals have been through by the time we get it. Hardly the equivalent of feeding rats roundup in their water.



Quote

The round up is what's killing are bees btw,but before you even say it,yeah yeah,conspiracy theory .

There has been no evidence to support that.

I would not be surprised if there was some evidence to support that idea, but to date, there is none.


Quote

Correlation =/= Causation

Ah, a voice of reason.

I find it amusing how, not only does the data show LESS cancer, but everyone that chooses to ignore that has their own pet theory about what causes cancer. Depending on your brand of irrationality, you could pick:

computers
cell phones
genetically modified foods
pesticides
herbacides
factory farming
meat
television
radio waves
fracking
synthetic fabrics
preservatives
sugar
artificial sweeteners

etc. etc.

I do not doubt that one or more of the above might be, or are known to be, carcinogens. But, as pointed out, correlation does not equate to causation.


#17    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:32 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 20 September 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Drought resistance: Areas that previously yielded low food supplies can grow more food.
Pest resistance: Crops can be grown that do NOT require the use of pesticides if they are designed to be unpalatable to their common insect pests
PH soil adaptation: Crops that usually only thrive in more acidic soil can be modified to grow in more PH neutral or basic soil, increasing the potential yield
These are just three that come to mind immediately.

A rice that can be grown in less wet areas could save BILLIONS. One is in the works and close to being perfected, I hear, but is being held back by nonsense of the type illustrated in this thread. So, thank you for contributing to the death of real human beings while you entertain yourself with unfounded conspiracy theories.



I suspect this is a a bit of misinformation that conspiracy theorists bandy about without ever questioning.




That's fine. But then it is misleading to write articles and make posts claiming that it is the genetically modified food. It also is completely disregarding the fact that people wash their fruits and vegetables. And if corn is not washed of the roundup before cattle eat it, and we eat the cattle, that's two digestion cycles that the chemicals have been through by the time we get it. Hardly the equivalent of feeding rats roundup in their water.





There has been no evidence to support that.

I would not be surprised if there was some evidence to support that idea, but to date, there is none.




Ah, a voice of reason.

I find it amusing how, not only does the data show LESS cancer, but everyone that chooses to ignore that has their own pet theory about what causes cancer. Depending on your brand of irrationality, you could pick:

computers
cell phones
genetically modified foods
pesticides
herbacides
factory farming
meat
television
radio waves
fracking
synthetic fabrics
preservatives
sugar
artificial sweeteners

etc. etc.

I do not doubt that one or more of the above might be, or are known to be, carcinogens. But, as pointed out, correlation does not equate to causation.

Do you believe that both the physical and environmental effects of GM food have been tested enough to be sure that they are safe?

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#18    bmk1245

bmk1245

    puny village idiot

  • Member
  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vilnius, Lithuania

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:01 PM

View Postjugoso, on 20 September 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Do you believe that both the physical and environmental effects of GM food have been tested enough to be sure that they are safe?
One question: what do you consider "safe". You eat apples, do you care what breed they are? If not, why?

Arguing with fool is like playing chess with pigeon: he will scatter pieces, peck King's crown, crap on bishop, and fly away bragging how he won the game... (heard once, author unknown).
Zhoom! What was that? That was your life, Mate! Oh, that was quick. Do I get another? Sorry, Mate. That's your lot... Basil Fawlty (John Cleese).
If yesterday you would have stood up proud. Then why tonight have you thrown in with the stoning crowd? (Cradle of Filth)

I'm dead drunk and heave' hanging upside down... (good ol' AC/DC).

#19    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:01 PM

Quote

Do you believe that both the physical and environmental effects of GM food have been tested enough to be sure that they are safe?

First off, this depends, of course, on the modification.

Don't forget that nature does its share of modification in the form of naturally occurring mutations anyway.

And man has done a fair amount of selective breeding up to this point as well.

The term "genetically modified" is extremely broad, and intentionally frightening.

Any time man messes with the ecosystem, there's  a potential for disaster. But in this case, the potential is also for massive amounts of human lives saved.

So, the answer to your question is not a simple "yes" or "no."  It depends on the modification, and the intention. A company has a modified rice grain that can grow in damp soil, and doesn't require flooded rice paddies... GO FOR IT. That will save MILLIONS of lives, and, IMO, is worth the risk of the plant "getting out" and overtaking the native flora.

A company has a corn seed that is resistant to pests, that might be viable too, as then we wouldn't have to use as much pesticide. We already KNOW how bad pesticides are for us.

A company just wants to make a corn modification that will allow corn to resist frost and will germinate early enough for there to be two harvests in a single season? Nah, we have more than enough corn in this country that we don't need such a modification.


Unfortunately, GM has been made into a huge boogeyman, and people have a lot of unrealistic misconceptions about it.


#20    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:07 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 20 September 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

First off, this depends, of course, on the modification.

Don't forget that nature does its share of modification in the form of naturally occurring mutations anyway.

And man has done a fair amount of selective breeding up to this point as well.

The term "genetically modified" is extremely broad, and intentionally frightening.

Any time man messes with the ecosystem, there's  a potential for disaster. But in this case, the potential is also for massive amounts of human lives saved.

So, the answer to your question is not a simple "yes" or "no."  It depends on the modification, and the intention. A company has a modified rice grain that can grow in damp soil, and doesn't require flooded rice paddies... GO FOR IT. That will save MILLIONS of lives, and, IMO, is worth the risk of the plant "getting out" and overtaking the native flora.

A company has a corn seed that is resistant to pests, that might be viable too, as then we wouldn't have to use as much pesticide. We already KNOW how bad pesticides are for us.

A company just wants to make a corn modification that will allow corn to resist frost and will germinate early enough for there to be two harvests in a single season? Nah, we have more than enough corn in this country that we don't need such a modification.


Unfortunately, GM has been made into a huge boogeyman, and people have a lot of unrealistic misconceptions about it.

I agree with many of the points you make. To be clear, I´m not talking about selective-breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulation. Now, if the gene you are inserting produces a toxin as in the case of Monsanto mon 810, I strongly believe that this must be thoroughly tested and proven to cause no adverse physical or environmental effects for the simple reason that there is no turning back the clock. If the gene(s) you are inserting can no way hurt people or the environment and will increase yield then i would be in support of it.
    It has taken mother-nature millions of years to achieve some sort of  ecological balance. I am concerned that we are moving to quickly and using technology that has yet to be proven "safe".
   And correct me if I´m wrong but Monsanto is not only creating foods resistant to pests but also resistant to their pesticide, specifically Round Up.

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#21    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:12 PM

View Postbmk1245, on 20 September 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

One question: what do you consider "safe". You eat apples, do you care what breed they are? If not, why?
Safe for me means that they won´t cause irreversible damage to an individual or the environment. Yes I care what type of apples I eat.....I like Granny Smith because they are sour. :yes:

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#22    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:32 PM

a

Quote

gree with many of the points you make. To be clear, I´m not talking about selective-breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulation. Now, if the gene you are inserting produces a toxin as in the case of Monsanto mon 810, I strongly believe that this must be thoroughly tested and proven to cause no adverse physical or environmental effects for the simple reason that there is no turning back the clock. If the gene(s) you are inserting can no way hurt people or the environment and will increase yield then i would be in support of it.
It has taken mother-nature millions of years to achieve some sort of  ecological balance. I am concerned that we are moving to quickly and using technology that has yet to be proven "safe".
   And correct me if I´m wrong but Monsanto is not only creating foods resistant to pests but also resistant to their pesticide, specifically Round Up.

That is a rational position, and I find nothing wrong with it.

Except for the fact that mother nature always is in prefect balance.... but I get your point.


I'm in favor of genetic modifications that increase yield and help plants grow in less hospitable environments. I'm not really behind genetically modifying plants to increase a company's sales of a particular product, though.


#23    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 September 2012 - 07:40 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 20 September 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

I'm in favor of genetic modifications that increase yield and help plants grow in less hospitable environments. I'm not really behind genetically modifying plants to increase a company's sales of a particular product, though.
that is the problem though. how much is actual reality and how much is corporate marketing spin. the spin does not match reality.


#24    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 September 2012 - 08:05 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 20 September 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

It's the ROUNDUP, people. NOT the corn.
I think you may have misunderstood the study.
"Not only has the consumption of a genetically modified food crop now been shown to cause tumor growth and accelerated mortality, but so has the primary herbicide these plants have been engineered to withstand exposure to: Roundup.

GMO plants actually incorporate glyphosate directly into themselves, with the herbicide residues and their metabolites persisting there, making dual exposure to transgenes and herbicide inevitable, and the synergistic amplification of their toxicities likely."
http://www.activistp...nd-roundup.html

so it's not one or the other, its both.

Edited by Little Fish, 20 September 2012 - 08:05 PM.


#25    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 20 September 2012 - 08:14 PM

Quote

I think you may have misunderstood the study.
"Not only has the consumption of a genetically modified food crop now been shown to cause tumor growth and accelerated mortality, but so has the primary herbicide these plants have been engineered to withstand exposure to: Roundup.

GMO plants actually incorporate glyphosate directly into themselves, with the herbicide residues and their metabolites persisting there, making dual exposure to transgenes and herbicide inevitable, and the synergistic amplification of their toxicities likely."

they invalidate any conclusions about the food if they give the test rats roundup in their drinking water.

The methodology, as well as the conclusion, of these tests are very flawed.


As is the very wording of this thread title. And people are going to die because of it.

Quote

GMO plants actually incorporate glyphosate directly into themselves

THIS particular seed might do that. But it is not what all genetically modified foods do.

Edited by Neognosis, 20 September 2012 - 08:21 PM.


#26    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 September 2012 - 08:33 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 20 September 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

they invalidate any conclusions about the food if they give the test rats roundup in their drinking water.

The methodology, as well as the conclusion, of these tests are very flawed.

As is the very wording of this thread title. And people are going to die because of it.

THIS particular seed might do that. But it is not what all genetically modified foods do.
I have not had chance to look at all the details of the study and whether these rats were grouped and analysed seperately (i think they were but not sure) and I assume these groups were used to test synergistic effects. you might be thinking that the rats were overdosed on roundup, but the roundup was given in water at 0.1 parts per billion, that sounds pretty dilute to me probably less than what you'd get from eating the corn grown with roundup. your statement that people are "going to die" seems a little hysterical, I don't follow how people will die because of this study. it seems to me this study is easily and quickly reproducible, and hopefully other researchers will either confirm or falsify the study fairly quickly.

edit - from the original article - "rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumours and multiple organ damage." - which is saying roundup or gmo causes cancer meaning either one on its own will cause cancer (in rats).

listen carefully to the first guy and pay attention to the guys intonation

"rats fed gmo OR roundup OR a combination of both"



Edited by Little Fish, 20 September 2012 - 08:54 PM.


#27    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:05 PM

here is the study

http://www.iatp.org/...icityreport.pdf


#28    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:33 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 20 September 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Come on people, be CRITICAL and don't just accept what you believe supports your preconceived notions.
ok.
so the quote you used below. did you think critically about it?
"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted"
the study used controls. from the study "all treated groups died 23 times more than controls, and more rapidly."
so your quote would seem to be Bothersome Stuff given that the controls would have been fed the same quantities of ordinary food and the controls did not get disease, so "strain of rat" would appear to be propaganda nonsense.



#29    SlippySlug

SlippySlug

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 85 posts
  • Joined:09 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:58 PM

When planted, does the seed variety NK603 pass on the roundup ready gene?  I don't know, but I would assume not.  Unless for some crazy reason people are buying NK603 seeds for direct consumption, they should be feeding the rats the end product.

Edited by SlippySlug, 20 September 2012 - 10:06 PM.

Know what I mean?

#30    Hippycrite

Hippycrite

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 109 posts
  • Joined:04 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:kansas

  • even the President of the United States must sometimes have to stand naked-Bob Dylan

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:08 PM

Whatever happened to the good ol' days when you just threw a batch of random chemical compounds into the cement-mixer, formed it into froot-loops, and served it up to the kids!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users