Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

[echelon1k1]

Because just as here, the politics of emotion work. GM has been tarred with the brush of negative media review, and the voters in Europe have by and large uncritically accepted GM as being anti-eco, which is political death over there. Bottom line: they are so without sound reason. Jmo. cn

Try again bear, that might be what the media tells you in the states, but it's doesn't hold water when talking to everyday folks in Europe, that rely on farming to sustain their families...

 

[Ninjabowler]

If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. That’s the way you do it via the international standard.

I don’t demand anything from you, since I’ve proven you’re totally full of shit and just love the sound of your own voice blissfully unaware of the notion your ignorant ramblings don’t amount to jack and shit.

I’ve put up enough info showing the effects of this shit, not to mention anyone with half a brain would realise you don’t want this shit around you, especially on and/or in the food you ingest.

It’s quite obvious you’ve been exposed to Glyphosphates as your mind is mush, you crap on like a dying pig hoping your inbred squeals don’t fall on deaf ears.

If you had been exposed to an adequate education you’d realise, quickly I might add, that the references I posted contain everything you need to locate the documents and/or pages.

Are you that demented you cannot read? You state “no link. copy/paste from an unnamed source“ again, with the intelligence, you imply you have, you couldn’t deduce the reference actually names the source? Yet you claim to have read nearly all the papers…

Ie. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Glyphosate. R.E.D. Facts, EPA-738-F-93-011, EPA, Washington

No wonder an unskilled ESL illegal immigrant from Palestine “teek errr jerrrb”…. You’re not even qualified to read…

Bahahahahahaaaaaa!! He does have half a brain, it looks like this.....

 

[echelon1k1]

you didnt answer the question where did you get that quote from?

Don't cherry pick... Why did you not include the abstract? Big words too much for you?

The development of modern gene technologies allows for the expression of recombinant proteins in
non-native hosts. Diversity in translational and post-translational modification pathways between
species could potentially lead to discrete changes in the molecular architecture of the expressed
protein and subsequent cellular function and antigenicity. Here, we show that transgenic expression
of a plant protein (R-amylase inhibitor-1 from the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv.
Tendergreen)) in a non-native host (transgenic pea (Pisum sativum L.)) led to the synthesis of a
structurally modified form of this inhibitor. Employing models of inflammation, we demonstrated in
mice that consumption of the modified RAI and not the native form predisposed to antigen-specific
CD4+ Th2-type inflammation. Furthermore, consumption of the modified RAI concurrently with other
heterogeneous proteins promoted immunological cross priming, which then elicited specific immunoreactivity
of these proteins. Thus, transgenic expression of non-native proteins in plants may lead to
the synthesis of structural variants possessing altered immunogenicity

 

[ginjawarrior]

Did the tumors grow on their own lol, do you think that they just found tumors lying around and surgicaly implanted them into the rats?? No, they fed the rats monsanto products and they got huge tumors or died. Debunked or not that was the study and thats what happened to the rats. Put your head in the sand again. Youll be safe there.

you've been provided with plenty of links from differeng sources explaining it to you yet your incapable of understanding

i would explain the intricacies of it to you but seeing as how you couldnt get your head round 2 different companies producing 2 different styles of tomato and neither of them being sold now i dont think you have the slightest chance of understanding what im talking about

for anybody else reading this heres some reading material reposted

the top link is most in depth analysis

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

Update:

Six French scientific academies issued a statement on 19 October, saying the Séralini study could not reverse previous conclusions that this and other GM crops are safe, because of problems with the experimental design, statistical analysis and animals used, and inadequate data. Meanwhile the European Food Safety Authority declared the study "of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment". As promised, the organisation invited Séralini "to share key additional information". That invitation was made on 4 October, and repeated on 19 October. Today, EFSA announced it had (again) made all the data it used to approve the GM maize available to Séralini.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html

Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/

French GM Corn Study Not Scientifically Valid
By Dan Flynn | October 8, 2012

Last month’s study out of France that said genetically modified corn and a related herbicide caused organ damage, tumors, and early death among rats broke too many rules and should be dismissed as “of insufficient scientific quality,” the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/french-gm-corn-study-not-scientifically-valid/#.UQmzH_IauM0

 

[ginjawarrior]

Don't cherry pick... Why did you not include the abstract? Big words too much for you?

"If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. That’s the way you do it via the international standard."

your own words are they not?

so you going to correctly source where you dug up that added fraudulent conclusion?


what exactly am i supposed to be answering about that study?

that mice predisposed to allergies get allergic reactions when given food known to contain the thing they are allergic too?

 

[echelon1k1]

"If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. That’s the way you do it via the international standard."

your own words are they not?

so you going to correctly source where you dug up that added fraudulent conclusion?


what exactly am i supposed to be answering about that study?

that mice predisposed to allergies get allergic reactions when given food known to contain the thing they are allergic too?

I sourced the paper. If you don't understand the abstract, I can't help you. I shortend the abstract into a format you can understand.

What's so hard to understand about

Employing models of inflammation, we demonstrated in
mice that consumption of the modified RAI and not the native form predisposed to antigen-specific
CD4+ Th2-type inflammation. Furthermore, consumption of the modified RAI concurrently with other
heterogeneous proteins promoted immunological cross priming, which then elicited specific immunoreactivity
of these proteins. Thus, transgenic expression of non-native proteins in plants may lead to
the synthesis of structural variants possessing altered immunogenicity

 

[ginjawarrior]

I sourced the paper. If you don't understand the abstract, I can't help you. I shortend the abstract into a format you can understand.

What's so hard to understand about

they weren't your own word i know that much, whats so difficult for you to source the bit you tried to sneak in along side? it?


without any accompanying text you havent given a question to answer?

you trying to suggest GMO foods are not tested before going to market?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15813800

Abstract

In recent years, significant attention has been paid to the use of biotechnology to improve the quality and quantity of the food supply due in part to the projected growth in the world population, plus limited options available for increasing the amount of land under cultivation. Alterations in the food supply induced by classical breeding and selection methods typically involve the movement of large portions of genomic DNA between different plant varieties to obtain the desired trait. This is in contrast to techniques of genetic engineering which allows the selection and transfers specific genes from one species to another. The primary allergy risk to consumers from genetically modified crops may be placed into one of three categories. The first represents the highest risk to the allergic consumer is the transfer of known allergen or cross-reacting allergen into a food crop. The second category, representing an intermediate risk to the consumer, is the potential for replacing the endogenous allergenicity of a genetically-modified crop. The last category involves expression of novel proteins that may become allergens in man and generally represents a relatively low risk to the consumer, although this possibility has received attention of late. In order to mitigate the three categories of potential allergy risk associated with biotech crops, all genes introduced into food crops undergo a series of tests designed to determine if the biotech protein exhibits properties of known food allergens. The result of this risk assessment process to date is that no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions. These results indicate that the current assessment process is robust, although as science of allergy and allergens evolves, new information and new technology should help further the assessment process for potential allergenicity.

edited to add full article :http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00704.x/full

 

[echelon1k1]

they weren't your own word i know that much, whats so difficult for you to source the bit you tried to sneak in along side? it?


without any accompanying text you havent given a question to answer?

you trying to suggest GMO foods are not tested before going to market?
[h=3]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15813800

You can't understand the abstract yet you claim to know they ain't my words? try again elmo.

And yes I'm STATING GM crops are not independently tested before entering the market. If you consider the FDA taking the word of the bioTech companies as testing well you've got other issues altogether and again, there's no cure for dumb. So I can't help you out.

Futhermore, Obama had promiced to cease the revolving door between corporate & government which he has cleary not done. How can you take the word of the FDA when half of the people on their payroll are former Monsanto or BioTech employees, most of whom, will go back to working for Monsanto when their contracts expire.

 

[Ninjabowler]

So ginga warrior care to enlighten us as to why you have such a hard on for discrediting anti monsanto media?

 

[ginjawarrior]

for the idea that people with allergies are goint to have reastions to GMO food has no one seen the world we live in atm?

not giving people an allergic reaction is taken to extreme lengths

 

[echelon1k1]

GMO is well tested before it hits the markets and you have shown nothing to disprove that

Thanks for the study though, I will have a read...


The FDA Doesn’t Even TEST the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods

And here's monsantos views on FDA testing;

Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job

– Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications

So Monanto say safety testing is the FDA responsibility and the FDA defer to monsantos studies... And you don't see anything wrong with this?

 

[Dr Kynes]

If you had gone to college you fucking retard you'd know how to correctly source/cite an article. That’s the way you do it via the international standard.

I don’t demand anything from you, since I’ve proven you’re totally full of shit and just love the sound of your own voice blissfully unaware of the notion your ignorant ramblings don’t amount to jack and shit.

I’ve put up enough info showing the effects of this shit, not to mention anyone with half a brain would realise you don’t want this shit around you, especially on and/or in the food you ingest.

It’s quite obvious you’ve been exposed to Glyphosphates as your mind is mush, you crap on like a dying pig hoping your inbred squeals don’t fall on deaf ears.

If you had been exposed to an adequate education you’d realise, quickly I might add, that the references I posted contain everything you need to locate the documents and/or pages.

Are you that demented you cannot read? You state “no link. copy/paste from an unnamed source“ again, with the intelligence, you imply you have, you couldn’t deduce the reference actually names the source? Yet you claim to have read nearly all the papers…

Ie. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Glyphosate. R.E.D. Facts, EPA-738-F-93-011, EPA, Washington

No wonder an unskilled ESL illegal immigrant from Palestine “teek errr jerrrb”…. You’re not even qualified to read…

but youre not trying to "source/cite" any articel. you went to some UNNAMED article written by somebody else, (what that article says is a mystery) and you popped to the back page, and copy/pasted THEIR attributions, which THEY may have read (but you obviously have not) since im familiar with several of those reports, and those i have read do NOT say what you allege, and many of them have nothing to do with glyphosate at all. many of those "attributions and citations" refer to opinion pages from news websites, government reports which are CONTRARY to your opinion that glyphosate is highly toxic, and many of those sources in fact say youre 100% wrong.

example:

you copy/pasted this kink: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0209e/a0209e0d.htm

reading this link one finds that the report comes to the following conclusion:

DIETARY RISK ASSESSMENT
Short-term intake
The 2004 JMPR concluded that it was unnecessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate. The Meeting therefore concluded that short-term dietary intake of glyphosate residues is unlikely to present a risk to consumers.
Long-term intake
The evaluation of glyphosate has resulted in recommendations for MRLs and STMRs for raw and processed commodities. Consumption data was available for 32 food commodities and were used in the dietary intake calculation. The results are shown in Annex 3.
The International Estimated Daily Intakes for the 5 GEMS/Food regional diets, based on estimated STMRs were in the range 0-1% of the maximum ADI of 1 mg/kg bw for the sum of glyphosate and AMPA (Annex 3). The Meeting concluded that the long-term intake of residues of glyphosate and AMPA from uses that have been considered by the JMPR is unlikely to present a public health concern.


in other words. this repoort you cited as "proof" says the opposite to what you claim. but then, YOU didnt read it, did you.

you lazy uneducated intellectual snob.

you posted this one too: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Relyea-Monsanto-Roundup1apr05.htm
but this reports deals with glyphosate and AMHIBIANS, and in fact this report is a rebuttal to a report that would have supported your claims,
but you didnt post THAT report, you posted THIS ONE. and THIS ONE says YOURE WRONG, you mindless buffoon.

your Gish Gallop may fool other dolts who like yourself wouldnt bother to read the links, but rather assume "Theres so many words! He must be really smart!" but i like to read. eventually i may finish reading the remaining citations you have dumped from somebody else's work, you plagiaristic catamite, but i wont be reading the ones from "Voice of Russia" "Organic-center dot org" or "Carrasco, A. 2010. Interview with journalist Dario Aranda, August." dude,, seriously, thats the whole "citation". an interview with a journalist in august, 2010. what did that journalist tell you?

ohh yeah i forgot, you were just plagiarizing sombody else's shit. not even the report, you just wanted the citations page. to make yourself look knowledgeable. you pathetic feeble purple hued malt-worm.

Edit:

and the EPA considers glyphosate safe for the environment and for people when used as directed. you didnt even read the report you specifically used to try and claim you know something.

from the RED report YOU cited in sprecific despite having not read it (found Here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TPVkrJ2MkJ0J:www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/glyphosate.pdf+epa+report+on+glyphosate+safety&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi8qCYH1C3xaOiw_2yFMSH9lKMuWXsJG5SkJ4u0d9wkW-fwAPs3yZ_B7f83NVrNC9yOuFsDj1g6ml4uoOX4a5JX0OyW5CS_KsPfcBHiHnJr963fLmf-IFjCnsqx7VyvmDm5OmZc&sig=AHIEtbT58pu8z58E0ilReOpgyoXWY1XOvA )

"The use of currently registered pesticide products containing the isoproopylamine and sodium salts of glyphosate in accordance with the labeling specified in this RED will not pose an unreasonable risk or adverse effects to humans or the environment, therefore all uses of these products are eligible for re-registration. "

so youre actually getting Stupider as you continue.

 

[Figong]

youre just jealous. bitch do you even riu??

Not at all, I have no idea as to what you speak of.. only Riu I know of is in Aruba, it's a hotel. As for being jealous, why would I be jealous of one that's probably a minor, who feels as if they have something to prove while they act retarded, and pretty much prove it without saying it? Not going to happen. The only bitch here is the one who is clearly acting like one.. and that's precisely why you're being treated like one - and getting dismissed like the joke you are. You're not even the beginnings of a troll, you should practice on a forum where you have a chance of survival, as well.

 

[UncleBuck]

youre just jealous. bitch do you even riu??

i'm better at RIU than you're.

 

[UncleBuck]

i think trunclebuckles makes some good points.

 

[potpimp]

I've enjoyed all of this I intend to. This is a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Hasta banana ameatloafs.

 

[Ninjabowler]

when i see stupid people like you rolling about in pigshit i cannot help but point and laugh at you and the shit you roll in

I call bullshit, sorry bud, nobody in their right mind sits on a computer all day arguing in favor of GMOs. Unless you have some motive behind this contant battle nobody would spend as much time as you and monsanto hitler do on this thread. You two wake up every morning and battle it out with people trying to make the point that GMOs are safe. Why? Either you two have absoulutely no lives to attend to and dont get out of the house evaaaar, or you have a reason. Are you two scientists that work in the field, employees of monsanto, stock holders, whats the deal? Nobody gets that much gratification from pointing and laughing to make it worth the amount of time you and monsanto hitler spend on this thread. Real story please, yours has been debunked

 

[DiverseSanctuary]

SEVEN posts to respond to ONE post and all you provided was a single link to a veterinary website with information on ACTUAL PREGNANCY IN COWS.

not a single thing to do with false pregnencies
nothing to do with GMO's
nothing to support yet another false claim of harm from GMO's

you keep throwing out nonsense as if it supports your claims and declaring victory.

heres some links that PROVE GMO's are not only safe, but healtheir for you than organic foods.:

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab1.htm
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/home.html
http://archive.org/stream/militiaasorganiz00unitrich/militiaasorganiz00unitrich_djvu.txt
http://tomclothier.hort.net/index.html

yep. all these links prove im right.
but only by the rules YOU have established.
sorry sweetie, no take-backs.

I thought maybe if I fed you small bites it might digest. I see it didn't work. yet, it has been proven gmo's interfere with digestion. yes the proof has been posted here already! Unfortunately people only read what they want to in it all.

 

[DiverseSanctuary]

Weed is already genetically modified.

They call it selective breeding.

not quite the same thing sorry. unless it is being cross bread with other plant species or animals........

 

[DiverseSanctuary]

is that the best you can come up with. No one was ever pulling my strings http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf

a link it seems was ignored completely. Go figure!!!