Total Ban On GM Corn in France Follows Popular Opposition
Source: Common Dreams
Published on Monday, May 5, 2014 by Common Dreams
Total Ban On GM Corn in France Follows Popular Opposition
Prohibition applies to all current and future varieties of GM corn
- Sarah Lazare, staff writer
The French government on Monday officially banned any strain of genetically modified corn from growing in its soil.
The prohibition is effective immediately and comes as France's top court upheld and the Senate confirmed an existing ban on all current and future varieties.
As Agence France-Presse reports:
With Paris having twice put temporary bans on GM crops -- in 2011 and 2013 -- [lobbyists for the biotech industry] said Monday's verdicts were "not a surprise".
The agriculture ministry banned MON810 -- the only insect-resistant GM corn allowed to be grown in the European Union -- in March.
Its authorisation is currently under review by the EU as part of a wider look at the use of GM crops, but member states have the right to ban them regardless of rulings from Brussels.
France is pushing to cut Brussels out of the process entirely, with future GM authorisations taken only at the national level.
Read more: Link to source
= new reply since forum marked as read
- In this country they turn us against each other so they don't have problems like united opposition. And we stupidly go along with it.
Over and over and over and over......
When someone can show me Monsanto's laboratory tests that meet these, I might form a different opinion. Otherwise all this crying and gnashing of teeth is so much malarkey. The EU has scientific standards they enforce, and we don't. It's as simple as that. When someone can show me how Monsanto's ''GMO experimentation'' has been duplicated by an outside non-interesed third-party who has found no adverse impact on human health, then maybe I'd relent. But they haven't found such data, and they won't because it doesn't exist.
I've seen countless people speaking here at DU about Seralinni's lab tests as if they themselves conducted them. Fine. But why does no one wants to address the perfidy and outright corruption within the FDA which has allowed this Monsanto shit to happen? And if there's no problem with it, then why not be proud of it and label it?
Why no discussion of Seralinni's primary argument -- Monsanto's shit doesn't meet minimum scientific testing protocols!!!! Never mind. My questions are obviously rhetorical since no one, and I mean absolutely NO ONE has an answer for it.
- You know, whenever people start holding up science in this way to protect bullshit, all they end up doing is giving science another black-eye. And its got plenty of those already.
"
"
Studies funded by American Agri-biz and the compromised American government don't impress me--No they don't, you are right about that.
You did not address my points--typical. You guys really need some new material.
and the value of them. How they can be skewed and selected to confirm certain desired results. How funding is everything. Science is not as objective as you like to portray it. It is always debatable when it comes to new technologies being beta-tested. The French and Canadians are smarter than Americans--they don't want to find out the negatives long after the horse is out of the barn. They are rightly cautious.
I do not see evidence of any long term studies on humans-- there aren't even any long term studies on rats and pigs apparently--can you point me to a few? Show me a GMO trial longer than 90 days?
WE ARE the long term human trials. (Refute that anyone?) Any biostatisticians around here?
I don't expect you to address this point because you haven't addressed any of my points.
Not gonna write an essay in reply to you here. Your mind is closed. Any scientist who doesn't acknowledge that the jury is out on GMOs--is not really worth my time. I'm interested in discussion, not clamping down debate and playing the game of one-upmanship.
carry on with your campaign 
- GMO's not being the cancer-riddled crap that we all know it is, is based on what science? The ''burden of proof'' goes in the other direction, I should say.
Rational people realize that GMO's weren't created to feed the starving people of the world as these asshats would have everyone believe.
GMO's were created to increase corporate profits by using genetic methods to enhance their poisons which kill all the little critters and save their crop!
The result: profits for Big Chemical AND Big Agri AND Big Pharma AND Big Medicine (especially the cancer-curing industry)
All of them multi-billion dollar worldwide industries -- and they have no intention of stopping what they're doing.
[font size=5]They'll have to be stopped!!!![/font]
I prefer to listen to those without a vested interest. Bought-and-paid-for scientists, not included.
Attacking a person instead of their ideas and statements is standard fair and operating procedure the mundane, mediocre and/or ignorant company man while they try to hang as best they can to their plateaus and baubles as their tenuous hold onto the unthinking masses slips ever further.
However, one of the oddest aspect in all this, is that no one has ever challenged the fact that what Seralini also argued was that Monsanto that has never complied with the minimum requirements for the Standards of Scientific Testing Protocols.
And they won't. Because they can't. And you know it. They slap some 90-day rat tests together, and everyone's supposed to be impressed. Seralini wasn't and neither am I.
- You, on the other hand, may have all my GMO portions for the duration. You're welcome.
(
) --the FDA completely knuckles under to Monsanto.
The rest of their cohorts are ensconced into various other government institutions, agencies, and bureaus (their Supreme Court appointment of Clarence Thomas is still the jewel-in-the-crown, tho) all having to do with their profit margins, and who are there to solely to insure that company policy is carried out as efficiently as our tax dollars can possibly muster.
- Oh,and btw the way, I hope you don't take generics. Because the FDA's looking out for you again.......
FDA lets drugs approved on fraudulent research stay on market
when it comes to the morality of inflicting an experimental product on third world countries and attempting to monopolize world agricultural practices.
Sorry the "Vitamin A" argument --while good in theory if you like GMOs, doesn't really convince a lot of people. The Philippines for example doesn't need it so much for that reason and yet it's being rammed down that country's throat also.
Marketing golden rice as "humanitarian" is the most egregious aspect of this. It is immoral.
Of course Monsanto is pushing back as hard as possible. That's what they do. 
---because this is really an expanded clinical trial on humans and the data is not freely disseminated to the public. We can't even get effective labeling. That in itself tells you something. Monsanto loves doing this in the US where there are no effective consumer or environmental protections.
2. Someone brought up golden rice as a "non-commercial GMO product"--that's how the rice came into this thread. If you want to discuss corn only, why did you jump in on rice?
GMO corn. GMO rice. Must be related somehow ...
you would need to follow the children well into adulthood. And where's the control group matched for age, occupation and diet? Nobody's done a longitudinal study I'm sure. They've only done the kind of studies where they say, OK so nobody vomited.
The fact that we can't even get the results of studies-- or consumer-oriented GMO labeling--really that tells you what we are up against...
Also there must be some good scientists in France.
You have fun being the industry spokesperson in this thread
that you have no understanding of knock-out gene modification to claim that it's identical to selective breeding or evolution.
You're just full of industry spin
. This remains a highly controversial issue among scientists. Here's something from the other side --I know you'll jump all over it --but at least it's an alternative to your
rabid diatribes and personal attacks. We aren't going to solve this issue here, so go ahead and refute the following assertion of a Canadian scientist who dares to speak out against the avalanche of industry lies and spin:
-------
May 11, 2013
Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
"I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat. There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.
--------
The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely. These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.
Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.
The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic."
— Thierry Vrain, Innisfree Farm
"I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc. This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.
GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds. Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.
In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it."
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/
---I guess he turned this little chat over to you after he wrote his definitive essay and didn't want to reply to the report at the link I posted.
And so you will trot out your industry propaganda...........
Moving on...
You guys are either invested in this as employees or scientists involved in GMO research, or you have financial investments in the industry. Or you're a Monsanto CEO with a laptop on a vacation island and you're bored with counting your money and checking your stocks.
(Or you've got acres of GMO soy and corn--but I doubt farmers would be defending this so hard).
Being in the health field I'm not invested in the GMO issue for any sort of financial gain. But you are, or have been, amirite? I haven't seen such purple apoplexy and foaming at the mouth since the last NSA/Snowden thread...
One thing I KNOW the industry is scared of is the use of GMO products in BODY PRODUCTS and COSMETICS. This is as big as the corporate control of food substances. GMO corn IS currently being used in a large number of "organic" and "natural" body products. Stuff you smear in your face, hair and armpits.
You, know --Zemea Maize. (Even if it's less harmful than eating it who wants to support the GMO industry?)
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 
This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.
Social Issues Research Centre
The Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) is a UK-based think tank arm of the public relations firm MCM Research
SIRC claims to be "an independent, non-profit organisation founded to conduct research on social and lifestyle issues, monitor and assess global sociocultural trends and provide new insights on human behaviour and social relations".
Its primary act as an organisation has been the formulation of a Code of Practice on Science and Health Communication. In this, the SIRC has worked closely with the British goverment, the Royal Society, and the Royal Institute.
The SIRC also produces and circulates literature criticising the environmentalist agenda (mainly GM, junk food), and alcohol-related topics (see sponsors, below).
It provides funding for Sense about Science.
<snip>
According to SIRC, journalists were too sceptical of reporting commercially funded studies. <snip> Certainly, the SIRC itself saw no problem in producing a report on the benefits of HRT for a group funded by the pharmaceutical industry, without indicating the funding sources (see "Jubilee Report", below).
<snip>
On its website SIRC states that funding for its work on the reporting guidelines "is provided by sponsors who share SIRC's basic interest in promoting better understanding of health and social issues. SIRC maintains complete freedom to conduct and publish research in pursuit of these aims, and does not promote the products, brands or commercial interests of sponsors". However it does not disclose who has funding the project but explained that it is "seeking funding for the support measures". These measure are "the development of resources for journalists such as an independent expert-contacts database, and a series of workshops bringing together doctors, scientists and journalists to discuss ways of improving communication on health and science issues'.
<snip>
MCM Research
According the the SIRC, MCM Research is a "sister organisation".
MCM Research claims to apply "social science" to solving the problems of its clients, which includes major companies in the food, liquor and restaurant industries.
"Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives?" asked MCM's website in a straightforward boast of its ability to deceive the public. "MCM conducts social/psychological research on the positive aspects of your business," the website continued. "The results do not read like PR literature, or like market research data. Our reports are credible, interesting and entertaining in their own right. This is why they capture the imagination of the media and your customers." [ADD REFERENCE]
However, writing in the British Medical Journal, Annabel Ferriman queried the role of SIRC given its overlap with MCM Research. "Both organisations are based at 28 St Clements, Oxford, and both have social anthropologist Kate Fox and psychologist Dr Peter Marsh as directors, and Joe McCann as a research and training manager," Ferriman wrote.
Asked by Ferriman whether they considered there was a conflict of interest given the overlap of the two organisations, Fox disagreed: "No, I don't think so. The kinds of work we have done at MCM have been fairly worthy things like designing management training programmes to reduce violence in pubs. They are fairly uncontroversial." [3]
<snip>
Jubilee Report
While SIRC was busy developing guidelines for reporting potentially controversial science issues, they were also undertaking work for a group established in 2000 called HRT Aware. Jocalyn Clark, writing in the British Medical Journal, HRT Aware hired the London-based PR company, RED consultancy to promote the benefits of hormone replacement therapy.
"What is not so well known is that HRT Aware was an industry group comprised of oestrogen product manufacturers Janssen-Cilag, Wyeth, Solvay, Servier, Organon, and Novo Nordisk," she wrote. [4].
"HRT Aware also commissioned the Social Issues Research Centre to produce a Jubilee Report (named to coincide with the Queen's Jubilee celebrations), which last month won a Communiqué award from the magazine Pharmaceutical Marketing in the public relations and medical education category. SIRC's research linked the improved lives of modern day postmenopausal women to HRT. It introduced a new elite group of 50+ women, dubbed the "HRHs" (hormone-rich and happy), who were said to have better careers, relationships, health, wellbeing, and sex lives than those not taking HRT. The Jubilee Report received widespread--and supportive--media coverage in the UK, virtually none of which mentioned that the pharmaceutical industry fashioned the campaign", Clark wrote.
Funding
According to the SIRC website the group is a non-profit organisation, "funded partly by income from our sister organisation MCM Research, which specialises in applying social science to problems faced in both the commercial and public sectors". [5]
<snip>
"Lobby Watch is a regular column that looks at people and organisations who have an influence on public health and on how health care is delivered. It is put together with the help of the public interest research team at Strathclyde University and those who work on the Spin Profiles website (www.spinprofiles.org)."
Lobby Watch
The Social Issues Research Centre
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c484 (Published 3 March 2010)
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c484
David Miller, professor of sociology1,
Marisa De Andrade, doctoral candidate1, visiting affiliate2
Author Affiliations
Correspondence to: D Miller davidmiller@strath.ac.uk
The Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) is an “independent, non-profit organisation”1 that says it carries out “balanced, calm and thoughtful”2 research on lifestyle issues such as drinking, diet, and pharmaceuticals. However, it may be perceived that the company acts more like a public relations agency for the corporations that fund its activities. These include Diageo, Flora, Coca-Cola, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche, among others.3 Although SIRC does publish this partial list of funders, it is not immediately apparent which company has sponsored which study. And in some instances this information is not included in media reports.4
SIRC has produced guidelines for journalists on the reporting of science and health issues,5 but the guidelines include little on transparency or avoiding conflicts of interest.6 SIRC is not always transparent about its own funding. For example, it was commissioned by HRT Aware to produce a report that concluded that “well-informed women” taking hormone replacement therapy are “benefiting” and feeling happier, healthier, and sexier.7 The research received widespread coverage in the broadsheet, tabloid, and broadcast media.8 Neither the press nor SIRC mentioned that HRT Aware was funded by drug companies, including Janssen-Cilag, Wyeth, Solvay, Servier, Organon, and Novo Nordisk.9 SIRC mentioned, on the back cover of the report, only that HRT Aware was “industry supported.”7
SIRC’s science reporting guidelines focus on the exaggeration of risk by the media but have little to say about risks that may be underplayed by the media. SIRC is sceptical that there is such a thing as an obesity “epidemic,”10 11 which may fit well with the interests of funders such as Coca-Cola, Cadbury Schweppes, Masterfoods, and the Sugar Bureau. It has coined the term “riskfactorphobia” to suggest that we are too averse to risk,12 which fits the interests of the food companies as well as the raft of alcohol firms for which SIRC works. None of the reports mentioned in the foregoing paragraph contain information about the source of funding, so it is difficult to tell how “clients” feed into particular activities.
In some cases SIRC does say which corporation has sponsored its reports. Ebay funded a report on the “ebay generation”13; Tio Pepe, a drinks company, funded one on dinner parties14; the Prudential, an insurance company, one on risk15; and pub chain owner Greene King on “the local.”16
Although SIRC’s publicity material regularly uses the term “social scientists” to refer to its own staff,2 17 it uses the same personnel and office as a commercial market research company, MCM Research. SIRC’s codirectors, Peter Marsh and Kate Fox, work for both organisations.18 The MCM website used to ask: “Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives? MCM conducts social/psychological research on the positive aspects of your business. The results do not read like PR literature, or like market research data. Our reports are credible, interesting and entertaining in their own right. This is why they capture the imagination of the media and your customers.”18
Recently, however, MCM has taken a lower profile. Its website now redirects to the SIRC one, and visitors are informed that the centre “has now taken over the task of hosting and publishing reports and materials conducted under the MCM Research name.”19
Still, SIRC is taken seriously by some in government. It was recently commissioned to produce two independent reviews for an investigation by the Department for Children, Schools and Families of the commercialisation of childhood. The reports, published in late 2009, oppose a public health approach that is based on population level measures, including the restriction of advertising or marketing. The conclusion that SIRC reached is that “the issues involved are very much more complex”20—a position consistent with that advanced by elements of the food and advertising industries.
Notes
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c484
Footnotes
Lobby Watch is a regular column that looks at people and organisations who have an influence on public health and on how health care is delivered. It is put together with the help of the public interest research team at Strathclyde University and those who work on the Spin Profiles website (www.spinprofiles.org).
The authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: (1) no financial support for the submitted work from anyone other than their employer; (2) no financial relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (3) no spouses, partners, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; and (4) MDA edits the Pharma Portal on www.spinprofiles.org, and DM is an (unpaid) director of the non-profit company Public Interest Investigations, which runs spinwatch.org and spinprofiles.org (whose income comes from trusts and donations and not from corporations).
References
?
Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC). Welcome. www.sirc.org/index.html. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. About SIRC. www.sirc.org/about/about.html. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. SIRC’s sources of income. www.sirc.org/about/funding.html. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. SIRC in the news. www.sirc.org/news/sirc_in_the_news.html. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. Guidelines for scientists on communicating with the media. www.sirc.org/messenger/. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. Response to guidelines on science and health communication from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. www.sirc.org/news/cspi_comments.shtml. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. Jubilee women: fiftysomething women—lifestyle and attitudes now and fifty years ago. www.sirc.org/publik/jubilee_women.pdf. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. SIRC in the news: press coverage from 2002. www.sirc.org/news/sirc_in_the_news_2002.html. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
Clark J. A hot flush for Big Pharma. BMJ2003;327:400.
FREE Full Text
?
Marsh P. An epidemic of confusion. www.sirc.org/obesity/epidemic_of_confusion.shtml. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. Obesity and the facts: new study questions true prevalence of childhood obesity. www.sirc.org/obesity/obesity_and_the_facts.shtml. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. Scaremongers: the new threat to children’s health. www.sirc.org/articles/scaremongers_bulletin2.html. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
Fox K, SIRC. Coming of age in the eBay generation: life-shopping and the new life skills in the age of eBay. www.sirc.org/publik/Yeppies.pdf. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. The Tio Pepe eating-in study. www.sirc.org/publik/Tio_Pepe_Eating-In_Report.pdf. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. Risk! www.sirc.org/publik/risk.shtml. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. The enduring appeal of the local. www.sirc.org/publik/the_local.shtml. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. SIRC guide to flirting. www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
Ferriman A. An end to health scares? BMJ1999;319
16.
FREE Full Text
?
SIRC. MCM Portal. www.sirc.org/MCM_portal.shtml. Accessed 17 December 2009.
?
SIRC. The impact of the commercial world on children’s wellbeing: report of an independent assessment. www.sirc.org/publik/impact_of_the_commercial_world.shtml. Accessed 31 December 2009.
GMO Golden rice to GMO corn. And both are in the experimental stage. Health effects over time have yet to be evaluated. And the fact that you're so hepped up about it tells me the truth of that statement.
"Anti-humanitarian?" That this is humanitarian is the BIGGEST lie that has been promoted about it. The initial intent might have been honorable, but it has become something that many people (MANY) do NOT want. So how is that honorable? There is no flexibility, no turning back once big bucks have been spent. Money drives the science now. What corporate wants trumps everything. And you know that is true.
You have to look at the morality of inflicting something like this on an entire population instead of using safer methods. I am just as concerned about what has been done to American consumers as I am about Asian populations. What is being done to Americans is anti-humanitarian. Let's talk about that abomination if you want to hang onto that warm fuzzy picture of Golden Rice as saving starving people in Asia. Let's talk about America. But you don't want to do that.
Enjoy your poutrage.
I'm SURE you supported Greenpeace 
like who?
I am also scientifically literate and care about the environment and that's why I support Greenpeace and the French scientists on this issue.
Exactly it. Thank you. 
- We've allowed our corrupt government (FDA) to permit this poison to be sold as ''food'' in the marketplace without having even met the minimum laboratory standards for testing protocols. The Europeans wouldn't let them, and they haven't let them, and they won't let them. They won't be guinea pigs for Capitalist tools.
That's our job......
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
[center]America's premier POISON MAKERS.
[/center]
As for the Seralini ''debunking'' that's a lot of corporate bullshit issued by ''bought-and-paid-for'' corrupt scientists who have no integrity. And likewise I expect Monsanto and their ilk will keep enough minders out there to monitor social media boards and the like to try and shame and/or coerce others into compliance. Like they tried with Seralini. He didn't flinch either.
I don't represent anyone but myself. Not the right, not the left and not the center.
- I pursue the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.
...has been proffered by the same type of people.
Cranks and frauds. So it's a wash.
That's the whole point.
That's why they've been trying to use their muscle to make the EU accept this GMO shit.
That's why they tried (and failed) to coerce the scientists who did this analysis, of Monsanto's so-called ''lab tests'' to remove their findings from the IJBS.
That's their problem. They're really criminals only posing as scientists.
This GMO shit is cancer and DNA-wrecking poison.
Only the ignorant will eat the shit voluntarily.
- The Europeans aren't ignorant about GMOs, while alternately most Americans are ignorant about pretty much everything....
A lot of people are eating the shit involuntarily in America. It's in everything.
"
"
In 1999, Monsanto defined an “extreme level” of its Roundup herbicide as 5.6 milligrams per kilogram of plant weight.
So imagine how alarmed scientists were to find, on average, nine milligrams of Roundup per kilogram on 70 percent of the genetically engineered soy plants they recently tested. (At least 85 percent of all soy grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered).
The scientists studied 31 different soybean plants on Iowa farms. They compared the accumulation of pesticides and herbicides on plants in three categories: genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" soy, conventionally produced (non-GMO) soy, and soy cultivated using organic practices.
And the results were extremely disturbing.
The study will be published in June, in Food Chemistry, but it’s available now online.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob422.html#article6
and that is only one of the reasons I prefer organic ...
many other people do not have that choice and Monsanto and others are willfully poisoning them and will pay dearly in the near future for there greed ...
and I do not use pesticides or herbicides in my organic farming ...
so your borrowed analogy is just wrong ...
Pretty soon, we will be hunted by the men in black ...
+++++++++++++++ 
Bravo to France!
