Who has Marched Against Monsanto? Who will March Against Monsanto? May 24th will you be at one of many protests? Monsanto and other GMO companies need to be stopped! The more people we inform the less money and support will be going to Monsanto and other GMO companies. For those of you who do not know what GMOs are or stand for let me tell you. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organisms. ITS NOT REAL FOOD! it's cancer In can, death in a package, illness In a bottle. Scientist have tested their foods on lab rats and the rats became mutated and "bloated" as if they were consuming radiation. Now if it alters and disforms rats why would Obama and the FDA still say they're okay to consume and sell to the people? Another funny question is why doesn't the news cover this? They're all paid by Monsanto and other GMO companies to keep their mouth shuts. So the people don't become awake. This May 24th will be my first MAM(March Against Monsanto) if anyone has or is planning to also March I figured we should post news, thoughts, and just discuss GMOs here.
Good luck with that. Like trying to put out a forest fire with a spray bottle Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
It has been discussed, many times. Yawn. Use the search function. Stetson called, your tin foil hat is ready, Oswald will deliver it tomorrow. Enjoy!
Yep. Here is one: http://forum.grasscity.com/pandoras-box/1207726-all-pro-gmo-people-out-there.html There are others. Several others.
oh okay cool thanks mon. I'll check this one out and stuff. It's a big topic too that's prolly why there's so many threads about them.
I don't think tin foil will provide resistance to health problems related to GMO's. We need better solutions...
a highly ineffective solution to a nonexistent problem. even if you think theres an issue protesting has almost no effect on a multinational corporation
There are flaws in your arguments, son. They are rehashed many times, and you probably won't change any minds. But, tilt away, I guess.
Yeah, if you want I can personally link you to threads where catut and others had their asses handed to them. Til this day unrebutted, laughter is ensued. [Edit] Catut already links to one; thanks. Perhaps Catut can tell us why Momsanto can lobby their GMO's onto the market, yet won't eat the shit themselves. I mean who wants to eat Purina Human Chow?
Ok...whatever. Clearly, "asses handed to them" means something different in your world. The reason I ultimately abandoned that argument is because nobody was interested in reading objectively. Most of us entered the fray with our minds firmly made up. That's fine, but to debate it endlessly, especially as I was entering my busy season, was ultimately pointless. I saw flaws on the other side, they saw flaws in mine. No opinions were changed, because there isn't an ultimate authority we can point to that we all trust. And I don't know how to fix that. I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but damned if I know how to quantify that truth in a way everyone can agree with.
Yes, I also debate with facts not conjecture. You know, it's how you felt that need to belittle the OP, which also demonstrates how you subconsciously have reached the same conclusion thus lash out in a discriminatory manner. Well one thing we can do is stop Monsanto from lobbying against independent research.
Dude there has been so much research done that concludes current GMO products don't cause harm to humans. So much. It's just that peeps like you slap all research that disagrees with you as corporate shilling even if there's no indication that that is so. Meanwhile, you take scientific manure like the Sarelini study as gospel. That's the study OP referenced. It's widely cited, and so poorly conducted that it's conclusions are absolutely meaningless.
You may want to change horses, you've officially beaten this one into a pulp BG. If anyone wants any actual research done on GMO's they should sign this petition. Welcome To The Revolving Door \t\t \t\t\tThe "revolving door" - the interplay of personnel that assists the industrial alignment of public service and regulatory authorities - has led to key figures at both the US's FDA and EPA having held important positions at Monsanto, or else doing so shortly after their biotech related regulatory work for the government agency.\t\t\t \t\t\tAn article in The Ecologist's famous 'Monsanto Files' by Jennifer Ferrara, 'Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators', looked in detail at this issue.\t\t\t \t\t\tAs an instance, Ferrara noted the FDA's approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered cattle drug rBGH which failed to gain approval in either Europe or Canada despite intense lobbying and accusations of malpractice:\t\t\t \t\t\t"Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH. To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone.\t\t\t \t\t\tIn March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug.\t\t\t \t\t\tTaylor wasn't the only FDA official involved in rBGI-1 policy who had worked for Monsanto. Margaret Miller, deputy director of the FDA's Office of New Animal Drugs was a former Monsanto research scientist who had worked on Monsanto's rBGH safety studies up until 1989. Suzanne Sechen was a primary reviewer for rBGH in the Office of New Animal Drugs between 1988 and 1990. Before coming to the FDA, she had done research for several Monsanto-funded rBGH studies as a graduate student at Cornell University. Her professor was one of Monsanto's university consultants and a known rBGH promoter.\t\t\t \t\t\tRemarkably. the GAO determined in a 1994 investigation that these officials' former association with the Monsanto corporation did not pose a conflict of interest. But for those concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, the revolving door between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies is a serious cause for concern." http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm