15 Comments

  1. Thanks for posting this. It’s so important that people at least consider what’s been done to the food we eat. And the possible consequences.

  2. blank Undecider says:

    GMO is a simply this: a “slow kill” biological and chemical weapon to be consumed by the unwitting population.

  3. fyi if you want to convince anyone use reliable evidence, this rat study has been proven to be a manipulated study. htere are much more studies that have been done and i would advise you to do better research before writing biased articles unbacked by scientifically reliable facts

    1. The article describes how you’ve become brainwashed. Read it again and reflect.

  4. blank el Gallinazo says:

    “GMO is a simply this: a “slow kill” biological and chemical weapon to be consumed by the unwitting population”
    Unfortunately, due to political influence and massive fraud, including much of the so-called organic food industry, this crap is also being consumed by the witting population. I would label the objective as “the slower kill” policy rather than the “soft kill” policy. Nothing soft about dying from cancer. Personally, I would rather take one of the DHS’s two billion 0.40 manshredder hollow points to the head.

  5. The comments by Don Lotter are intriguing, but I don’t buy the risk without data. I have tried to make bacteria accept plasmids with inserted genes before, and from first-hand experience, it is extremely difficult (even with bacteria selected to do this work, like DH5alpha E. coli competent cells). When bacteria don’t want to keep something around, they will kick it out. So, with having CaMV promoters floating around in our guts, it would be nearly impossible to stably get them into our gut flora. But, I would love to see some of his data.

    1. And meanwhile you’re blithely eating food products containing GM ingredients?

    2. Check out the Newcastle University’s UK research into horizontal gene transfer if you want to be educated about the real risks to human health. There is a lot of controversy about this subject and even when the risk appears to be small as in 2-3%, or 2 or 3 people per hundred it is still a large number when you consider the total population of any developed country as being in the many millions. Try healing that many victims of some nasty illness that is caused by something that those in power ‘claim’ is safe.
      I think I’d rather avoid the stuff. Besides we already grow sufficient food to feed almost twice the global population. Why do we need to use unwanted and untested novel ideas to do what we are already doing except to give someone a massive profit at the expense of our health?
      I’ll leave that with you.

  6. When you hear about an (alleged) consensus on the safety of GM food products refer them to this for a clearer picture than any one person, invested or not. There IS a consensus, but not the one the GM food industry wants to hear: The consensus of 230 science people is that there is no consensus on the safety of GMO consumption.
    These are the signatories to the statement “There Is No Scientific Consensus On GMO Safety”, all two hundred and thirty — 230 international, experienced, medical and science professionals – MDs, PhDs, DVMs:
    http://tinyurl.com/puew4wb
    A nice writeup on the statement:
    http://tinyurl.com/krss2wr
    The statement:
    http://tinyurl.com/lurpml2
    ENNSSER is European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
    Outline of Statement (each point is explicated at the link above):
    1. There is no consensus on GM food safety
    2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health
    3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate
    4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety
    5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety
    6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops
    7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops

  7. EFSA did not validate the study design. You should actually read the protocol. He did not use enough animals. Look at the original paper and run some simple stats on the limited data in Table 2, or pull the survival numbers from the graphs as M. Festing did and you will find NO significance. Sorry the study was politically motivated, you have been dipped again….

  8. blank not happy says:

    so what is the difference of GMO to the gassing in Syria? One thing I see is GMO is slow kill.

  9. blank Abolish Holders OftheLight says:

    F**K YOU MONSANTO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *