Monsanto GM corn gave cancer to rats
Offline "In a study published September 2012 by scientists at France's Caen University led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, the strain called NK603 maize (corn) made my Monsanto gave GMO-ingesting rats cancerous tumors in four to seven months."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294
"Seralini’s group based their experiment on the same protocol as the Monsanto study but, critically, were testing more parameters more frequently. And the rats were studied for much longer—their full two year average life-time instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long time span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared 4 to7 months into the study. In industry’s earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike. It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful."
"Significantly, following a long but finally successful legal battle to force Monsanto to release the details of its own study of the safety of its own NK603 maize (corn), Seralini and colleagues reproduced a 2004 Monsanto study published in the same journal and used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its 2009 positive evaluation of NK603."
"Seralini’s group based their experiment on the same protocol as the Monsanto study but, critically, were testing more parameters more frequently. And the rats were studied for much longer—their full two year average life-time instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study."
"Suspiciously enough, Monsanto had repeatedly refused scientific requests to publish the exact chemicals used in its Roundup aside from one—glyphosate. They argued that it was a “trade secret.”
This cannot be! Even if they don't want to go public with their formulas and studies fine. But give them to Independent and credible institutions and Universities for an independent verification. This is actually how science is done! Independent verification and referees! Peer reviewed studies! Not corporation studies! These research institutions can sign a non disclosure data of patented data. This comment from Monsanto is just an excuse. Delivering toxic food to the market is unacceptable and beyond any trade secret.
This is why I support enforced regulations. Sometimes it is better to prevent bad people to do bad things than to play with chance and remedy evil by penalizing when harm as been done. Even if it costs a tiny bit on freedom.
If you have nothing to fear than you should welcome inspections and not have an allergic reaction to them. Plus by paying taxes to support regulations, you are actually safeguarding your legitimate business from less scrupulous activities that can also harm you. This on a business point of view. (last comment is specially for Beyond Saving) 
- Login to post comments
i admit shady shit was done here and should be rightfully condemned. what i don't like is that willfully irresponsible groups like greenpeace are going to use this to paint yet more unbelievably broad strokes in their anti-gmo crusade, keeping life-saving food from starving people. honestly, if my belly was distended and a bowl of genetically modified rice was within reach, i'm pretty sure i'd gladly take the cancer risk (not that gmos automatically have a high cancer risk, i'm just using this story as an example).
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Re :: . .if you've never heard of "Vandana Shiva" before, no big deal.
On the board the user by the name of "Manageri" suspected PETA sympathizer (joke), is the one who'd like to chime in on this, but nobody has seen him in a long while I'm afraid.
When you can, anybody is welcome, to follow this Link for pre-Introduction; if you've never heard of "Vandana Shiva" before, no big deal. Personally I havent been Updated on her endeavors in a good year or so, I dont know.
Url Link :
http://www.wilderutopia.com/health/vandana-shiva-maintaining-biodiversity-seeds-of-freedom/
American televised program entitled Special: David vs. Monsanto | Link TV http://www.linktv.org/programs/david-vs-monsanto Honestly I'd be lying to say I am this passionate, the Misc Upload.
How does this possibly lead to the conclusion that we should rely on government? The conspiracy theory is that the government regulators were bought off by Monsanto & Co. Which isn't really a surprise, when your business relies on getting government approval for your product you are going to spend a lot of money on the government officials responsible for making that decision. You want them to like you, trust you and approve your products. Since being a government official bears no relation to your actual knowledge or scientific ability, government agencies almost always rely on the scientists who are being funded by the companies.
How was Seralini funded? Through an organization that subsists solely on private donations, CRIIGEN. This particular study was funded by Auchan, a supermarket chain which doesn't stock any GMOs and hence, has a financial interest in scaring people from GMOs.
If anything, it is proof that we don't need some nanny state government with regulations to get scientific studies. So why do we need them? If the accusations are true, then obviously government has failed to keep a dangerous food item out of stores. If they are false, then we are now facing a situation where the government might ban a perfectly safe food product because of a political uproar. Shockingly, government often acts out of political interest rather than reality.
So far, the governments reaction has been to look busy and pretend to be studying the issue. If the corn really is dangerous, then you can't rely on government because by the time it acts you will have already eaten a bunch of the corn and worse, the government provided a false sense of security and legitimacy to the dangerous product. You can sue the company if you can prove actual damages, but you can't sue the government when it goes along. If it is not dangerous, then government is just wasting a bunch of money tilting at windmills.
As it turns out, this particular study has been relentlessly attacked in a number of scientific journals for flaws in its methodology. Which has quickly led to a mudslinging war of who is funding what and who is biased etc. It has been rather controversial and when it hits the media it tends to be far more about the politics and who is funding it rather than the science.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007995
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n5/full/nbt.2578.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33000/title/Further-Dismissal-of-GM-Corn-Study/
The good news, is that science is repeatable. So if the results Seralini had were accurate, it should be repeatable with another study that makes some changes in methodology to take care of the legitimate criticisms. With the amount of money flying around on both sides of the GMO argument, it is likely that scientists will have no problem getting funding for studies.
Personally, I'm not going to worry about GMO corn too much. I'm pretty sure the cigars will give me cancer long before the corn chips get me. If you are concerned about it, I suggest you shop at Auchan or some other store that has decided there is too much concern over the safety of GMOs to sell them to their customers. (or that there is more profit in serving the niche of people who are concerned) I think you are far better suited to determining what is an acceptable risk for you. Government doesn't give a shit about your safety, they want Monsanto's money and your vote.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X