14-Year Old Activist DESTROYS TV Host on Monsanto, GMO Labeling [VIDEO] - Brad Blog

[Bill USA]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10184

This 14-year old Canadian girl, Rachel Parent, is tremendous. Watch her clean the clock of the TV host who bad-mouthed opponents of Monsanto and their GMOs and those who support the "Right to Know" campaign to require genetically modified foods to be labelled as such.

She's just fantastic. My favorite part (and there were many), was when the jackass host accuses her of being a "shill" for "extremists"...just moments after he basically accused her of wanting to kill millions of children with her advocacy.

Color me very impressed with this young lady...

[seabeyond]

1. what was really really irritating is each time she answered same way. you want to stop and people

die.

no, label. and yet he refused to accept her answer. gave her the answer he made up. and repeatedly asked. she consistently said, label.

very frustrating.

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R

MONSANTO GMO's NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOL STANDARDS

"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.

link

[center][/center]

[Overseas]

10. I didn't know how poor the testing had been. Thanks for this.

[DeSwiss]

15. De nada.

[Bill USA]

14. thanks for this comment. I didn't know how egregious were the errors in Monsanto's testing.

OF course, I NEVER HEARD ANY of what you described in an M$M treatment of GMOs! Ah, the joys of Corporate media disinformation.

I seem to remember the proposition that liberals doubt science too: " 'liberals' don't trust science" (as a retort to the obvious hostility to scientific analysis of the natural world by Conservatives - in fact it's a fundamental part of what being a Conservative is all about) and giving the distrust of GMOs as supposedly an example of irrational rejection of science-based knowledge...

Your comment establishes that there is nothing scientific about the testing of GMOs - at least as far as Monsanto's concerned.

I have always wondered how could you test a modified plant's interactions with the natural world. I mean the number of variables is enormous. Also, how many generations of exposed animals is enough to prove that there has not been some genetic impact on the animals? How do they know what number of generations of a given animal is enough to be sure there is no genetic impact? Genes can lay dormant for a variable number of generations and then all of a sudden, they become active. I don't think there is any way to tell when you can be assured there is no genetic impact. (also, there is the epigenetic aspect too, about which we are only just beginning to eke out some understanding).

[DeSwiss]

16. It's not just their ''so-called'' testing, or lack thereof.

This in an international criminal organization who are bribing and colluding with corrupt government officials -- in every country on the planet, especially and including the United States of America. It's Congress. It's the Judiciary. It's the White House. All of them, corrupt as hell and in the pockets of them and their bankers on Wall Street who fund it all, and enrich themselves from the results.

- No matter who dies.

[stlsaxman]

3. Recc'ed for that young womans gumption!

[guss]

4. What a dink

He kept going back that she was a shrill against Monsanto. and he kept going to talking points that his overlords to take her down. The Talking point allot of poor kids your age would of starved to death if they stop eating the stuff. she should of said if old bastards like u only ate it as a sole food source, would u have all the nutrition to live longer on? no on both. all filler and no substance. She Did a great job keep going

[HatTrick]

5. O'Leary is being very dishonest in his arguments

O'Leary is being very dishonest in his arguments talking about the advantages of GMO's saving asian's from going blink.

Rachel is only asking for testing and labeling, and O'Leary implies that that would prevent GMO's from saving peoples lives.

Excuse me, but I have a hard time believing Mr 'Shark Tank' O'Leary cares much at all about asians or anyone human going blind unless he can make a buck off it.

I O'Leary really cared about other people, then lets talk about income inequality.

Rachel Parent is amazing, and one of if not the most well spoken informed 14 years olds I've ever seen.

[quakerboy]

13. yup

That was frustrating.

Asians going blind? Lets talk about ways to provide a food supply that will counter that vitamin deficiency... Lots of plants out there that provide the necessary elements, without being GMO. We dont need a new plant, we have plants that do that!

Less fortunate people dying? Lets do something about that! start by getting rid of trademarked seed that they are not legally allowed to save and replant. Maybe if they didnt have to pay for new seed each year, they might have more resources and not be as likely to starve!

Want to talk shills? "shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization." I'm guessing the young lady doesnt have any "undisclosed relationship" with big anti-ag. Since there really isnt a big anti-ag to be tied to. But one might wonder what relationship mr O'Leary has to monsanto, or what ties his broadcasters have to them, that have not been disclosed?

[W T F]

6. A counter accusation of being a "Shill" for Monsanto would have been an appropriate response.

[Overseas]

8. I agree.

[proverbialwisdom]

7. Recommended.

http://www.gmwatch.org

[Overseas]

9. K&R. She's great.

[Ezlivin]

11. I want to punch that shill

You know which one was the shill, right?

Damn.

Monsanto has to be scared witless over little girls like this.