Act Today Or Kiss Your Organics Goodbye!

[dobyblue]

Rogue Agency Chooses "Business as Usual" over Sound Science

The Center for Food Safety criticized the announcement today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that it will once again allow unlimited, nation-wide commercial planting of Monsanto’s genetically- engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers USDA acknowledged in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). On a call today with stakeholders, Secretary Vilsack reiterated the concerns surrounding purity and access to non-GE seed, yet the Agency’s decision still places the entire burden for preventing contamination on non-GE farmers, with no protections for food producers, consumers and exporters.

“We’re disappointed with USDA’s decision and we will be back in court representing the interest of farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment.”

On Monday, the Center sent an open letter to Secretary Vilsack calling on USDA to base its decision on sound science and the interests of farmers, and to avoid rushing the process to meet the marketing timelines or sales targets of Monsanto, Forage Genetics or other entities.

CFS also addressed several key points that were not properly assessed in the FEIS, among them were:

• Liability, Implementation and Oversight — Citing over 200 past contamination episodes that have cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, CFS demands that liability for financial losses incurred by farmers due to transgenic contamination be assigned to the crop developers. CFS also calls on USDA to take a more active oversight role to ensure that any stewardship plans are properly implemented and enforced.
• Roundup Ready alfalfa will substantially increase herbicide use – USDA’s assessment misrepresented conventional alfalfa as utilizing more herbicides than it does, which in turn provided a false rationale for introducing herbicide-promoting Roundup Ready alfalfa. In fact, USDA’s own data shows that just 7% of alfalfa hay acres are treated with herbicides. USDA’s projections in the FEIS show that substantial adoption of Roundup Ready alfalfa would trigger large increases in herbicide use of up to 23 million lbs. per year.

Interjection - guess who stands to profit from that massive increase in herbicide use?

• Harms from glyphosate-resistant weeds – USDA’s sloppy and unscientific treatment of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds ignored the significant contribution that RR alfalfa could make to their rapid evolution. USDA failed to analyze how GR weeds fostered by currently grown RR crops are increasing herbicide use; spurring more use of soil- eroding tillage; and reducing farmer income through increased weed control costs, an essential baseline analysis.
“We in the farm sector are dissatisfied but not surprised at the lack of courage from USDA to stop Roundup Ready alfalfa and defend family farmers,” said Pat Trask, conventional alfalfa grower and plaintiff in the alfalfa litigation.

The FEIS comes in response to a 2007 lawsuit brought by CFS, in which a federal court ruled that the USDA’s approval of GE alfalfa violated environmental laws by failing to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and increased use of glyphosate herbicide, sold by Monsanto as Roundup. The Court banned new plantings of GE alfalfa until USDA completed a more comprehensive assessment of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on GE alfalfa planting. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs.

“Last spring more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the USDA highly critical of the substance and conclusions of its Draft EIS on GE Alfalfa,” said Kimbrell. “Clearly the USDA was not listening to the public or farmers but rather to just a handful of corporations.”

[seekupchuck]

Originally Posted by AJF_41

google.com

you should check it out. just make sure to look at both sides of a story, not just one.

Why such resistence to the overwhelming facts regarding Monsanto?

WHat is the other side of the Monsanto story? They are a persecuted company just trying to feed the worlds poor? Me thinks not.

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by seekupchuck

WHat is the other side of the Monsanto story?

I think they are a highly innovative company that produce a superior product to the competition. At the end of the day their goal is to help farmers get more out of their land. More importantly they are trying to do it by using less resources than we currently use. Over 2/3rds of the world's water use is from agriculture. Their focus is sustainable agriculture.

MON has and is working on different seeds that are drought tolerant or need less water. They also have seeds that will need less potash, phosphate and nitrogen. Should we have a quick discussion of the companies that supply farmers with those inputs? They raised their prices almost 500% in the last agriculture upturn capturing as much of the pricing power as they could. MON didn't raise their prices nearly as much (many 50% over the cycle). Yes, the idea of using biotechnology is very scary in this market. Keep in mind that almost 40% of this "crazy corn" goes into the gasoline/ethanol market (not your belly). Much of the rest goes into feeding cattle...then to us. Yes, the soybeans are crushed and used in many of the products we eat. Let's talk about that for a second. Evil Monsanto is working on seeds now that can maximize the protein content and limit the fat content that comes out of their end product for the farmer. How is that bad? Scary, yes. Bad, no. The problem here isn't that Monsanto is working on it, it's that our food manufactures are not willing to pay for it. Why don't you direct a little bit of your anger at them.

Does it suck that they (along with 3-4 of their competitors) bought up many of the small seed producers? Sure. But don't act like this sort of thing doesn't happen in every other industry. Evil Microsoft! Evil Comcast! Evil Exxon! Evil tobacco! Evil Boeing! Evil accounting firms! Evil toothpaste market! Evil Coke and Pepsi! .................

(All of this said, I think the company is overvalued right now - more interested closer to $55).

[bonzo48280]

Originally Posted by AJF_41

I think they are a highly innovative company that produce a superior product to the competition. At the end of the day their goal is to help farmers get more out of their land. More importantly they are trying to do it by using less resources than we currently use. Over 2/3rds of the world's water use is from agriculture. Their focus is sustainable agriculture.

MON has and is working on different seeds that are drought tolerant or need less water. They also have seeds that will need less potash, phosphate and nitrogen. Should we have a quick discussion of the companies that supply farmers with those inputs? They raised their prices almost 500% in the last agriculture upturn capturing as much of the pricing power as they could. MON didn't raise their prices nearly as much (many 50% over the cycle). Yes, the idea of using biotechnology is very scary in this market. Keep in mind that almost 40% of this "crazy corn" goes into the gasoline/ethanol market (not your belly). Much of the rest goes into feeding cattle...then to us. Yes, the soybeans are crushed and used in many of the products we eat. Let's talk about that for a second. Evil Monsanto is working on seeds now that can maximize the protein content and limit the fat content that comes out of their end product for the farmer. How is that bad? Scary, yes. Bad, no. The problem here isn't that Monsanto is working on it, it's that our food manufactures are not willing to pay for it. Why don't you direct a little bit of your anger at them.

Does it suck that they (along with 3-4 of their competitors) bought up many of the small seed producers? Sure. But don't act like this sort of thing doesn't happen in every other industry. Evil Microsoft! Evil Comcast! Evil Exxon! Evil tobacco! Evil Boeing! Evil accounting firms! Evil toothpaste market! Evil Coke and Pepsi! .................

(All of this said, I think the company is overvalued right now - more interested closer to $55).

Those are all pretty evil companies. Monsanto is just the king of it all.

[AJF_41]

Good input. Keep up the good work.

[TapNorris]

Originally Posted by bonzo48280

Those are all pretty evil companies. Monsanto is just the king of it all.

This "evil corporation" logic just kills me! What corporation isn't evil in your minds? Is a corporation striving to develop newer and better products to increase profits always going to be seen as greedy, therefore that corporation deemed evil? You people crazy!

[AJF_41]

Agreed Tap...

[bonzo48280]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...?currentPage=1

There are about a million and a half articles just like that.

[TapNorris]

Originally Posted by bonzo48280

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...?currentPage=1

There are about a million and a half articles just like that.

Forgive me for not believing that Vanity Fair is an unbiased source.

[dobyblue]

Speaking of evil Microsoft, the Gates foundation bought 500,000 shares of Monsanto.

Originally Posted by AJF_41

At the end of the day their goal is to help farmers get more out of their land.

You have GOT to be involved with them in some way, shape or form? At the START of the day that's their goal, at the end of the day their goal is to ensure as much control over all food sources as possible and to make as much profit as possible doing it with no regard to the consequences on people's livelihoods or the continued existance of this planet and it's abillity to sustain human life. They don't care about the farmers getting more out of their land, all they care about is that farmers be strongarmed into using their patented products and their pesticides and herbicides. The facts and the science don't lie.

Originally Posted by TapNorris

Is a corporation striving to develop newer and better products to increase profits always going to be seen as greedy, therefore that corporation deemed evil? You people crazy!

Absolutely not, but how do you define "better"? Is a car that has less emmissions and better gas mileage better? Is a plasma TV that uses 20% of the electricity than the previous year's model better?

Are these the kind of better products Monsanto is responsible for? Nope, Monsanto's products haven't gotten better, they've gotten worse. In fact Monsanto's best product from a safety perspective was its first product, saccharin.

Originally Posted by TapNorris

Forgive me for not believing that Vanity Fair is an unbiased source.

Good point. The following studies on Glyphosate would suggest their products are not better and these should much better fit the definition of an unbiased source:

• Datnoff, L.E., Elmer, W.H., Huber, D.M., 2007. Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.
  
• Dodds, D.M., Hickman, M.V., Huber, D.M., 2002a. Micronutrient uptake by isogenic glyphosate tolerant and normal corn. Proc. Proc.Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 42, 2.
  
• Dodds, D.M., Huber, D.M., Hickman,M.V., 2002b.Micronutrient levels in normal and glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Proc. NC-Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 57, 107.
  
• Dodds, D.M., Huber, D.M., Hickman, M.V., Shaw, D.R., 2002c. Hybrid and glyphosate application effects on nutrient uptake in corn. Proc.Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 43, 4.
  
• Eker, S., Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Erenoglu, B., Romheld, V., Cakmak, I., 2006. Foliarapplied glyphosate substantially reduced uptake and transport of iron and manganese in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54, 10019–10025.
  
• Englehard, A.W. (Ed.), 1989. Management of Diseases with Macro and Microelements. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.
  
• Evans, I.R., Solberg, E., Huber, D.M., 2007. Copper and plant disease. In: Datnoff, L.E., Elmer,W.H., Huber, D.M. (Eds.), Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease. APS Press, St. Paul, MN, pp. 177–188 (Chapter 12).
  
• Gordon, B., 2006. Manganese nutrition of glyphosate-resistant and conventional soybeans. Better Crops 91, 12–13.
  
• Hickman, M.V., Dodds, D.M., Huber, D.M., 2002. Micronutrient interactions reduce glyphosate efficacy on tall fescue. Proc.Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 42, 18.
  
• Huber, D.M., Graham, R.D., 1999. The role of nutrition in crop resistance and tolerance to diseases. In: Rengel, Z. (Ed.), Mineral Nutrition of Crops: Fundamental Mechanisms and Implications. Food Products Press, London, pp. 169–204.
  
• Huber, D.M., Leuck, J.D., Smith,W.C., Christmas, E.P., 2004. Induced manganese deficiency in GM soybeans. In: Northcentral Fert. Extension Conf., Des Moines, IA, November 2004.
  
• Huber,D.M., Cheng,M.W.,Winsor, B.A., 2005. Association of severe Corynespora root rot of soybean with glyphosate-killed giant ragweed. Phytopathology 95, S45.
  
• Johal, G.S., Rahe, J.E., 1984. Effect of soilborne plant-pathogenic fungi on the herbicidal action of glyphosate on bean seedlings. Phytopathology 74, 950–955.
  
• G.S. Johal, D.M. Huber, Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants, Europ. J. Agronomy 31 (2009) 144–152
  
• Kremer, R.J., Donald, P.A., Keaster, A.J.,Minor, H.C., 2000. Herbicide impact on Fusarium spp. and soybean cyst nematode in glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Agron. Abstr., p257.
  
• Kremer, R.J.,Means, N.E., Kim, S.-J., 2005. Glyphosate affects soybean root exudation
• and rhizosphere microorganisms. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 85, 1165–1174.
  
• Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E., 2009. Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms. Eur. J. Agron. 31, 153–161.
  
• Larson,R.L.,Hill,A.L., Fenwick,A.,Kniss,A.R.,Hanson, L.E.,Miller, S.D., 2006. Influence
• of glyphosate on Rhizoctonia and Fusarium root rot in sugar beet. Pest Manag. Sci. 62, 182–192.
  
• Levesque, C.A., Rahe, J.E., et al., 1987. Effects of glyphosate on Fusarium spp.: its influence on root colonization of weeds, propagule density in the soil, and on crop emergence. Can. J. Microbiol. 33, 354–360.
  
• Levesque, C.A., Rahe, J.E., 1992. Herbicide interactions with fungal root pathogens, with special reference to glyphosate. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 30, 579–602.152 G.S. Johal, D.M. Huber / Europ. J. Agronomy 31 (2009) 144–152
  
• Levesque, C.A., Rahe, J.E., Eaves,D.M., 1993. Fungal colonization of glyphosate treated seedlings using a new root plating technique. Mycol. Res. 97, 299–306.
  
• Liu, L., Punja, Z.K., Rahe, J.E., 1997. Altered root exudation and suppression of induced lignification as mechanisms of predisposition by glyphosate of beanroots (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to colonization by Pythium spp. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 51,111–127.
  
• McCay-Buis, T.S., 1998. Ramifications of microbial interactions conditioning take-all of wheat. Ph.D. Thesis. Purdue University,West Lafayette, Indiana.
  
• Mekwatanakarn, P., Sivasithamparam, K., 1987. Effect of certain herbicides on soil
• microbial populations and their influence on saprophytic growth in soil and pathogenicity of the take-all fungus. Biol. Fertil. Soils 5, 175–180.
  
• Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Eker, S., Gokmen, O., Romheld, V., Cakmak, I., 2008. Glyphosate inhibition of ferric reductase activity in iron deficient sunflower roots. New Phytol. 177, 899–906.
  
• Rahe, J.E., Levesque, C.A., Johal, G.S., 1990. Synergistic role of soil fungi in the herbicidal efficacy of glyphosate. In: Hoagland, R.E. (Ed.), Biological Weed Control Using Microbes and Microbial Products as Herbicides. Symposium, April 9–14, 1989. American Chemical Society,Washington, DC, pp. 260–275.
  
• Reichenberger, L., 2007. Missing micronutrients: using glyphosate is complicating the uptake of some minor nutrients. In: The Furrow, pp. 22–23.
  
• Sanogo, S., Yang, X.B., Scherm, H., 2000. Effects of herbicides on Fusarium solani f. sp. glycines and development of sudden death syndrome in glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Phytopathology 90, 57–66.
  
• Sanogo, S., Yang, X.B., Lundeen, P., 2001. Field response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean to herbicides and sudden death syndrome. Plant Dis. 85, 773–779.
  
• Schafer, J.R., A.M. Westhoven, G.R. Kruger, V.M. Davis, S.G. Hallett and W.G. Johnson, 2009. Effect of growth media on common lambsquarters and giant ragweed biotypes response to glyphosate. 2009 North Central Weed Science Society Proceedings 64: 102.
  
• Smiley, R.W., Ogg, A.G., Cook, R.J., 1992. Influence of glyphosate on Rhizoctonia root rot, growth, and yield of barley. Plant Dis. 76, 937–942.
  
• Thompson, I.A., Huber, D.M., 2007. Manganese and plant disease. In: Datnoff, L.E., Elmer,W.H., Huber, D.M. (Eds.), Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease. APS Press, St. Paul, MN, pp. 139–153 (Chapter 10).
  
• Thompson, I.A., Guest, C.A., Schulze, D.G., Huber, D.M., 1998. Manganese reduction and uptake in wheat rhizospheres as influenced by manganese reducing and oxidizing bacteria. Phytopathology 88, S118.
  
• Thompson, I.A., Huber, D.M., Schulze, D.G., 2000. In situ oxidation and accumulation of manganese by the causal agent of the take-all disease on wheat (Gaeumannomyces graminis). Phytopathology 90, S77.
  
• Thompson, I.A., Huber, D.M., Guest, C.A., Sculze, D.G., 2005. Fungal manganese oxidation in a reduced soil. Environ. Microbiol. 7, 1480–1487.
  
• Zobiole, L.H.S., deOliveira, R.S., Huber, D.M., Constantin, J., Castro, C, deOliveira, F.A.,de Oliveira, A., 2009. Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Plant Soil (In Press).
  
• L.H.S. Zobiole, R.J. Kremer, R.S. Oliveira Jr, and J. Constantin, Glyphosate affects micro-organisms in rhizospheres of glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Journal of Applied Microbiology, Volume 110, Issue 1, pages 118–127, January 2011

Originally Posted by AJF_41

But don't act like this sort of thing doesn't happen in every other industry. Evil Microsoft! Evil Comcast! Evil Exxon! Evil tobacco! Evil Boeing! Evil accounting firms! Evil toothpaste market! Evil Coke and Pepsi! .................

Who acts like Monsanto alone does bad things? (misdirection)

http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/sh...4&postcount=99

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Looks like the FCC just fucked the American people in the ass (just like they did last month with their bullshit fake Net Neutrality rules) by approving the merger of Comcast with NBC-Universal.

4~1

Only member that voted against was Michael J. Copps. In a statement, Copps wrote that the merger "reaches into virtually every corner of our media and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land... All the majority's efforts — diligent though they were — to ameliorate these harms cannot mask the truth that this Comcast-NBCU joint venture grievously fails the public interest."

Net Neutrality principles will be violated, but not sure how the effect on the planet and human beings can even be compared to what Monsanto is doing.

Coke and Pepsi use Monsanto products to aritificially sweeten their diet drinks. I am on them all the time about that through e-mails and through their FB pages. They pushed through their own versions of Stevia (PureVia and TrueVia) despite the FDA previously banning it in 1991 at the behest of Monsanto who were making a billion dollars from aspartame. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1995 forced the FDA to approve Stevia but they only did so as a dietary supplement. All of a sudden in 2008 when Pepsi and Coke are ready to introduce their version of Stevia it flies through the FDA in record time. Monsanto are okay with it, because aspartame sales are way down. Unfortunately people are now using sucralose which is no good for you either. Funnily enough, saccharin which was Monsanto's first product in 1902, is the safest product they've ever made. Saccharin is not absorbed by the human digestive tract and is not an excitotoxin.

Big Tobacco - absolutely, cigarettes are deadly, full of carcinogens. To make the playing field even let's force Monsanto to label all their products that are harmful to our race like we do with big tobacco, wouldn't that be fair?

Exxon - doesn't compare. Yes, they and BP have had environmental disasters, but they knew what they were. You don't like the price of gas, buy a hybrid, look into other methods of transport that help the environment, build a monorail, .

Microsoft - Gates has 500,000 shares in Monsanto, but Microsoft as a company doesn't compare.

Who does compare? The one industry that I would put right up there with Monsanto? Big Pharma. A 2 TRILLION dollar a year industry designed to benefit when people are sick. With the exception of some childhood leukemias, some lymphomas and testicular cancer chemo and radiation brings in countless millions of dollars and is relatively ineffective, cancer is often misdiagnosed (see Valley Fever) and oncologists get kickbacks from Big Pharma companies for prescribing new drugs, never ever uttering the words "cure" but rather "manage". Medical schools are heavily funded by big pharma, students are taught to diagnose and prescribe, it's all about drugs.

When was the last time you were told by your doctor to take vitamin c, d3 and a calcium magnesium supplement and to exercise and eat alkaline foods 60% of the time or more? Why woudl you do that, you're supposed to get sick.

However none of these companies are doing to the planet what Monsanto is doing on a regular basis, that's simple fact. Big Pharma is doing to PEOPLE what Monsanto is doing to both people and the planet, they get 2nd place easily.

The unfortunate thing is that the groups we are supposed to have in place to keep Monsanto in check, like the USDA and FDA in America, are already controlled by Monsanto. Money can do amazing things. The head of the USDA has a history of being pro-biotech.

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

You have GOT to be involved with them in some way, shape or form?

You are right, I am.

I'm short their stock right now.

[dobyblue]

http://www.mexico.vg/businesses/mexi...t-project/2494

Mexico says no to “Monsanto” for an expansion of its pilot project in the planting of genetically modified Corn

The Mexican authorities rejected a request from Monsanto Co. nursery consortium to expand its pilot project in the planting of genetically modified Corn in northern Mexico, because more information and tests are needed to be done, said the head of the regulator in that sector on Wednesday.

Mexico is the birthplace of corn. Scientists and activists fear that genetically modified species may contaminate or displace native varieties Whose genetic content could be valuable in the future for the production of hybrids.

GMOs are linked to a host of animal and human health problems as well, including rapid aging, organ dysfunction, infertility, autoimmune disorders, gastrointestinal problems, and altered insulin regulation, among other conditions. In fact, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called for a moratorium on GMOs back in 2009, and warned the public to avoid them

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031295_Me...#ixzz1DfInu8KM

[AJF_41]

USDA Ok's GMO sugar beets in US a few days ago
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb...-beet-20110204

[dobyblue]

Fortunately the courts should be able to stop them.

[AJF_41]

doby. check this out.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...N+/+World+News)

[Tiduwho]

Monsanto is corporate lobbyist power at its finest.

[AJF_41]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by AJF_41

doby. check this out.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...N+/+World+News)

This really isn't suprising. Chemicals made to kill living things kill living things. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

[jwehaeDMB]

Originally Posted by trautwein.m

Just keep in mind that you were touring their corporate headquarters. Hardly an unbiased source of 'scientific' information.

If you toured over at Budweiser, they don't tell you that slamming down bud lights causes alcoholism, drunk driving accidents, and worse, makes you sleep with fatties.

[Benny003]

Originally Posted by AJF_41

doby. check this out.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...N+/+World+News)

I really don't have any interest in this topic, but I did want to point this out in the article:

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said in an emailed comment.

So who knows. I'm not arguing either way.

[dobyblue]

Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.

"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.

That's funny because I heard that in the US (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...e93924fe98eb2&) this is the first generation of children born that have lowered life expectancy than their parents. Wonder how many $'s in grants the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide has received from the biotech industry.

As for "no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns" I guess Mr. Tester, now that's a funny surname for a research professor, has ignored much of the science in the recent report GMO Myths and Truths - http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

I see Tom Sanders comments as well but if this is a control group then they you would think they would be fed the same. I'd be interested in independent peer-review of Seralini's findings but they are no surprise considering the team's earlier conclusions from their 2010 meta analysis - http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10/ (Mr. Tested missed that one too!). Notice Mr. Tester didn't link to any figures to suggest that instances of breast cancer have remained the same since GMO's entered the food chain, or declined. As well we have no idea yet what effect GE food will have on children eating it from infancy, which this generation is now doing because most infant formulas are GMO unless you buy organic. GMO's have been in the food chain for over a decade it's true, but 10 years ago we saw perhaps 10% of processed non-organic food was GMO and 10% of corn and soy were GMO, now it's 90%. That's a pretty big difference.

Good find Adam.

[dobyblue]

CBAN released a good article today written by E. Ann Clark, Discussion of reaction to Seralini's GM corn study such as the use of "red herring arguments".

Here's one part:

Red Herring argument:

Tom Saunders, Head of Diabetes & Nutritional Sciences Division, Kings College, London UK : “This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted”

Rebuttal – The Sprague-Dawley rats used by Seralini et al. (2012) were used in most industry studies (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007). In these and other industry studies (e.g. Malley et al. 2007) feed intake was consistently free choice – unrestricted.

Thus…If there are concerns with this breed of rat or method of feeding, would they not invalidate industry-conducted as well as independently-funded research? The key point is that industry studies ran only 90 days. The tumors found by Seralini et al. (2012) occurred after 90 days – underscoring the need for longer term testing for chronic exposure – a point which appears to have been lost in the distraction.

http://www.cban.ca/content/view/full/1342

[hulupputree]

Californians, make sure to vote YES on prop 37! This would be a huge blow to Monsanto and pave the way for other states. There are a surprising number of organic companies fighting this proposition, along with Monsanto.

[BIG Eyed <><]

Weren't our organics supposed to be gone by now?

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by hulupputree

Californians, make sure to vote YES on prop 37! This would be a huge blow to Monsanto and pave the way for other states. There are a surprising number of organic companies fighting this proposition, along with Monsanto.

I think you mean parent companies of companies that once upon a time were independent companies. Silk's Soy, Almond, Hemp and Coconut milk products for example are certified Non-GMO by the Non-GMO Project but the parent company Dare Foods contributes to the fund. Kashi has some organic products but they're owned by Kelloggs.

Companies that are still independent like Nature's Path are contributing to the YES campaign, not the no campaign. Here's a good graphic to illustrate:

http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content...37-poster.jpeg

[bonzo48280]

Prop 37 won't pass because this country was bought, sold, and paid for a long time ago.

[TwoStep2888]

I miss the Prompter every day but at least I can read this thread + get my Daily Dose of Doby + smile

[bonzo48280]

Originally Posted by TwoStep2888

I miss the Prompter every day but at least I can read this thread + smile

you're beating teh systemz!

[TwoStep2888]

Happy birthday TO THE GROUND

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by TwoStep2888

Happy birthday TO THE GROUND

Hahahhahaha