GMO conspiracy theories

Can a patent be put on anything that is not modified in some way? You can't patent something that just exists without some kind of innovation. If they modify or find a unique use for something, patents shouldn't be an issue. It won't stop you using the unmodified natural version freely will it?

The Federal Government has patented the use of the main ingredient in Cannabis (pot, marijuana)
Now they plan to issue pieces of it, specific uses for specific diseases.
So even though plants can't be patented, the use of the ingredients can.

Federal Cannabinoid Patent #6630507

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

Already being awarded to Pharma companies:
Cannabinoid Patent Exclusivity Only Applies To One Condition
Monday, December 19, 2011 at 8:00 pm

The exclusive rights to apply the cannabinoids found in marijuana as therapeutic agents awarded by the U.S. federal government to the firm KannaLife only apply to one specific medical condition, KannaLife's CEO told Toke of the Town Monday night.

Dean Petkanas, chief executive officer at KannaLife Sciences, told us that the exclusivity applies only for the development and sale of cannabinoid based therapeutics as antioxidants and neuroprotectants for use in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy...MORE>>

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/12/cannabinoid_patent_exclusivity_only_applies_to_one.php

While the Feds were raiding legal dispensaries, they were patenting the use of the main ingredient in pot. And there is no conspiracy or secrecy needed. They just did it.
 
Very few folks know that most apples are cultivars, they don't breed true. Some varieties are natural mutants.
 
I was being facetious. Just making the point, that making it a political or anti-capitalist fight against 'big business' doesn't change the current evidence that GMOs are safe to eat. Since the CTers can't fight the science they fight who is developing it and then transfer that fear of 'big business' into fear of the science or products.

If after reading this you somehow get back to the 'GMO safety' thing, I'll know you're just running in circles for the sake of trying to make heads spin.
And here we are.
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...=can-genetically-modified-crops-feed-09-04-16
A study from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that genetically engineered crops do not produce larger harvests. Crop yield increases in recent years have almost entirely been due to improved farming or traditional plant breeding, despite more than 3,000 field trials of GM crops.

Of course, farmers have typically planted, say, GM corn, because it can tolerate high doses of weed-killer. And the Biotechnology Industry Organization argues that GM crops can boost yields in developing countries where there are limited resources for pesticides.

But it appears that, to date, traditional plant breeding boosts crop yields better than genetic modification. Those old farmers were on to something.
Content from External Source
http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html
. A press release from the New Soil Association released in April, 2008 shows that genetically modified crops do not result in higher yields than non-genetically modified crops. Realistically, however, most genetically modified crops (including Roundup Ready) are developed to be pesticide and herbicide resistant, rather than directly increase the yield of a given crop.

[h=4]Seed Contamination[/h] Another concern with genetically engineered crops, and Roundup Ready specifically, is seed contamination. Through a variety of means, Roundup Ready genes have been introduced into the food supply. For example, as stated in a Greenpeace report (link), it has become virtually impossible for farmers to grow non-genetically engineered Canola in Canada. Read more about this case on the players page (link). Concrete evidence of seed contamination has been discussed in the Union of Concerned Scientist's report called Gone to Seed. Read more about Gone to Seed here.

Content from External Source
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

Content from External Source
http://www.world-crisis.net/food-crisis.html

Between early 2006 and 2008, the average world price for rice rose by 217%, wheat by 136%, maize by 125% and soybeans by 107%. In late April 2008, rice prices hit 24 cents a pound, twice the price that it was seven months earlier.

Various factors contributed to the rising food prices. Analysts attributed the food price rises to a perfect storm of poor harvests in various parts of the world, increasing biofuel usage, lower food reserves, the US Federal Reserve decreasing interest rates so that money is no longer a means to preserve wealth over the long term, as a result people invest in food commodities which causes an increase in demand and therefore price, growing consumer demand in Asia, oil price rises, and changes in the world economy. Agricultural subsidies in developed nations are another long-term factor contributing to high global food prices.

Content from External Source
 
I have never been impressed by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM). The research they push is often of poor quality and not well peer reviewed.

I would like to see where they get their figures. If anything has contributed to the diagnosis of chronic illnesses it is the internet.

Where is this decline in life span showing up?

And what does the latter post have to do with GM crops?
 
Can a patent be put on anything that is not modified in some way? You can't patent something that just exists without some kind of innovation. If they modify or find a unique use for something, patents shouldn't be an issue. It won't stop you using the unmodified natural version freely will it?

That does appear to be the case. It is extended into human genes. They are preventing others from experimenting on the genes. The genes were originally found by sequencing involving very many companies and Countries efforts using mostly public money. Myriad Genetics, appear to be hijacking the work.

Example of Public Funded Research hijacked by Myriad

http://www.genome.gov/10000940
In 1995 scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) discovered that a particular alteration in the breast cancer gene called BRCA1 was present in 1 percent of the general Jewish population. The researchers did a follow-up study in 1996 to estimate the cancer risk associated with this alteration as well as two other alterations subsequently reported to be present in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. The following questions and answers serve as background information for the follow-up study published in the May 15, 1997 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rig...rty/todays-day-challenging-human-gene-patents

Today, we're headed to the U.S. Supreme Court for oral argument in our challenge to human gene patents.

The Court will decide this central question: are our genes – the basic elements of human biology and the blueprint for our cells, organs, and bodies – patentable? Or does patenting genes extend private property rights over products and laws of nature, in violation of the law?


According to Myriad Genetics, which controls the patents on two genes related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, the genes become its "invention" once they are "isolated," or removed from the cell. It does not matter whether the genes come from you, me, or any of the other millions of Americans. The implications of the argument are breathtaking – what would prevent patents on a kidney removed from the body, or a leaf snapped from a tree? Myriad's attorney went so far as to say that elements of the periodic table, such as lithium, could also be patented once isolated. Myriad's lead scientist said patenting the genes was just like patenting the iPod.

We couldn't disagree more. Through its patents, Myriad has the right to stop anyone from using these genes for clinical or research purposes. It has therefore locked up a building block of human life.

Other laboratories cannot provide second opinions, and they cannot include the BRCA genes when offering testing of the multiple genes that are now associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk. Gene patents also have a chilling effect on research. Researchers must either obtain permission from the patentholder, or run the risk of being sued
Content from External Source
http://globalnews.ca/news/565546/ca...g-dna-is-at-the-centre-of-us-law-controversy/

TORONTO – Can a company own the rights to testing whether you carry mutated genes that increase your risk of breast cancer by 70 per cent?

The blood test that helped Angelina Jolie decide to have a double mastectomy is conducted by only one American company in the U.S. This is because the company claims to own a patent on the two genes that offer valuable insight into a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer.
The simple blood test costs $3,430 in the United States. Myriad Genetics is the only company in America handling the testing.
The company told Global News the patent extends into Canada and Europe.

Myriad Genetics confirmed that the patent extends into Canada but did not respond to questions regarding how the patent is enforced in Canada.

Content from External Source
Hopefully, this issue may be included in the 'Speaking Up Works' thread, if the decision goes ACLU's way.
 
Cant find anything but a repeat of the article on that site. So the statements were never made?

The article was written by Sorcha Faal and thus the veracity of any of the information in the article is extremely dubious.
 
Sorcha Faal is such a bad source that even on Above Top Secret any posts based on articles by him/her are automatically sent to "Hoax" with no argument!!

Rational Wiki has an article on Sorcha Faal that explains more and you can do more research with the info it contains.
 
Small scale farming really could feed the world, if more of the impoverished or underdeveloped countries get their act together and implement a type of sustainable and small scale intensive farming system. Even if it required government intervention, or help from developed countries, I would be all for it. I grew up on an organic farm, and I can attest that it WORKS, as long as the soil is managed correctly and you do enough work to keep the weeds out. Also, small scale intensive grazing operations for livestock seem to work in most areas.

http://naturalsociety.com/factory-farms-the-only-way-to-‘feed-the-world’-not-so-argues-science-paper/

http://naturalsociety.com/russians-prove-small-scale-organic-can-feed-world/
 
Your farm isn't organic if you're growing gmo corn.

It is quite common for farmers to register part of their farm as organic and still grow conventional crops on parts of their farm. Farmers follow the regulations, not your idealized concept of what "organic" should be.
 
Ok that is 2 studies that need to be looked at.

Of course there are these also


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/glyphosate.cfm


http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/glyphosa.htm



Rob Wager, Nanaimo News Bulletin June 1, 2011

To the Editor, Re: Chemicals do much more than kill weeds, Letters, May 28.

There is little doubt chemophobia is rampant in today’s society. That does not mean the fears are justified. The letter by Christel Martin is an excellent example of fear run amok. She starts her letter claiming all matters of ills from glyphosate (Roundup is a trade name).

I suspect the writer has never looked up the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classification of glyphosate. It is level four, the lowest level of toxicity the EPA has for chemicals.

The story of blinding is pure fantasy, likely from some website that does not like Monsanto. This particular agricultural compound has decades of research and safe use. It has replaced the use of far more toxic compounds. It does not persist in the soil and its breakdown products are non-toxic.
Content from External Source

The claim that “that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects” relates to research performed by Carrasco and colleagues (Paganelli et al., 2010) in systems involving immersion of 2-cell frog embyos in a glyphosate- based formulation and the injection of glyphosate into one or both cells of the frog embryos and a glyphosate-based formulation into chicken eggs. There are many issues with the quality and interpretability of this work, which was rejected by the German regulatory authority and which has been the subject of published criticism

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx200077h http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx100452k http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx200086y

While Carrasco et al. attempts to extrapolate from these in-vitro systems to effects in mammalian species and to link this hypothesis to a purported increase in birth defects in humans, these allegations are not supported by the evidence. First, glyphosate data from six sets of reproductive and developmental toxicity studies have been submitted by multiple registrants for review by authorities and there were no teratogenic effects in the animal studies, and second, there is no evidence provided to support the allegations of increased birth defects in humans.
Content from External Source

http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=3063

My, my they managed to get genetic defects when they injected directly into chicken eggs! I wonder what injecting common things like vinegar or milk or orange juice would do?
 
Why the need for the mention of Monsanto in a glyphosate study? I understand there are over 400 generic brands of the stuff. Gets one thinking there is a conspiracy against the company.
 
Why the need for the mention of Monsanto in a glyphosate study? I understand there are over 400 generic brands of the stuff. Gets one thinking there is a conspiracy against the company.

It would be interesting to see how this movement against Monsanto developed and what individuals and companies (ie... Infowars, Natural News) are responsible for incessantly pushing the agenda, which we have seen in these forums has been based on flawed studies and misinformation.
 
It would be interesting to see how this movement against Monsanto developed and what individuals and companies (ie... Infowars, Natural News) are responsible for incessantly pushing the agenda, which we have seen in these forums has been based on flawed studies and misinformation.

I do find it interesting. I am only usually interested in the situation with GM crops in the UK and usually anything Monsanto related will make the news in some way. I came across this article about rice in the US from a few years back.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100122123/

I recall no mention of it in the UK (outside of Greenpeace) at the time but maybe that is because it involved Aventis, and later Bayer Crop Science, rather than Monsanto.
 
This website is run by a woman who is a biotechnologist whose husband is an organic farmer.
Lots of common sense on the issues here:
http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/

What I found that year was that my first planting yielded ears about like usual, but with no worms. My second planting the ears were better, and the third planting, into July, temps got up to the 100 degree mark, and I watered like crazy. I kid you not the corn unhusked was 3" in diameter. We went up on the price to $1/ear and after a try people came back and we sold every one.

This was actually a Syngenta product, not a monsanto.
There seems to be such a stigma against monsanto I call it monsantodevil.
In the end, look towards asia who are fast racing the west into biotechnology.

Have a gander at this red fleshed GMO apple, with 5000 x more anthocyanins than the Royal gala:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Wab851PDI

Anthocyanins are antioxidant flavonoids which give the dark berries their color and a nutritional wallop.
On my farm we specialized in growing colorful or varieties otherwise known for high nutrient value.

examples:
'dinosaur' kale- dark almost black leaves with highest lutein content of any green
many of my customes had macular degeneration
specialty carots with high beta carotene
ditto above
Special tomatoes with high lycopene

I resent GMO hysteria. I want to be able to purchase more nutritious food.

Corn worms have got to be the biggest ugh in plant pests, since they sometimes are revealed in their ugliness as you are about to cook corn on the cob. We need JPG memes with closeups of corn worms to combat the stupid Monsanto is Evil JPGs.
 
I resent GMO hysteria. I want to be able to purchase more nutritious food.
I haven't seen a single reference to a GMO product that, under study, proved more nutritious than a non-gmo counterpart. Have an example?
 
[h=1]GM Soybean with Omega-3 Lacks Only One Approval Prior to Release[/h] Monsanto is lacking only one approval from the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration for Soymega™, the genetically modified soybean that produces heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Many are speculating that the approval will be granted this year.
Soymega can be added to a broad variety of food products which include cereals and baked goods. Once approved, this will provide more sources of omega-3, instead of just getting it from fish.
According to Dr. Gilbert Ross, Executive Director and Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), Soymega could be a beneficial, genetically improved product. "The future of genetic modification for both agricultural products and pharmaceuticals (biopharming) is unpredictable but obviously vast," he added.
The original article is available at http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2536/news_detail.asp. Know more about Soymega at http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/soymega-soybeans.aspx.
 
I haven't seen a single reference to a GMO product that, under study, proved more nutritious than a non-gmo counterpart. Have an example?

This is the future, and how GE will bring new crops to the world. I have several books on tropical fruits and vegetables which have been red cover-to-cover many times. The array of underutilized food crops to be found in our world is incredible. The vast majority have faults of one kind or another which even millennia of selection has been unable to overcome. GE has the potential to breach these limitations and ring some real winners to the table.

Number one would be cassava/manioc. A crop which is quite undemanding for water and nutrients, yields up to 45 tons/acre but which is limited by cyanide compounds, perishability and low nutritional value. A crop eaten by poor people in poor countries. Mark my words, one day GE improved cassava will be eaten by everyone just like potatoes.
 
I haven't seen a single reference to a GMO product that, under study, proved more nutritious than a non-gmo counterpart. Have an example?

This is the future, and how GE will bring new crops to the world. I have several books on tropical fruits and vegetables which have been red cover-to-cover many times. The array of underutilized food crops to be found in our world is incredible. The vast majority have faults of one kind or another which even millennia of selection has been unable to overcome. GE has the potential to breach these limitations and ring some real winners to the table.

Number one would be cassava/manioc. A crop which is quite undemanding for water and nutrients, yields up to 45 tons/acre but which is limited by cyanide compounds, perishability and low nutritional value. A crop eaten by poor people in poor countries. Mark my words, one day GE improved cassava will be eaten by everyone just like potatoes.

This will happen as soon as sufficient status is accorded to GM crops as has already been given to GM medicines, and is hindered by reactionary hysteria brought on by the anti-GMO folks. The driving force behind it will be through national institutions within the third world who are sending their children to US universities in droves for education in biology. Having toured several universities recently I've seen this with my own eyes.

Essentially, the Luddite activists are preventing worldwide progress in food security for the whole world, and perhaps most especially for the poorest who need it the most. It's easy to protest against foods when your belly is full, isn't it?
 
It would be interesting to see how this movement against Monsanto developed and what individuals and companies (ie... Infowars, Natural News) are responsible for incessantly pushing the agenda, which we have seen in these forums has been based on flawed studies and misinformation.

You can probably trace much of the groundwork to Patrick Mooney's RAFI group. Ralph Nader had a hand and much of it followed the anti-globalization/eco crowd.

You might try searching usenet archives from the 1990's for the keyword monsanto and see what comes up.
 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130619

And the anti GM folks are hitting it hot and heady. I have already been attacked there and called a Monsanto employee. I posted the list of over 600 studies. So far the Serali study and the pig stomach study have been referenced multiple times. Several comments about GM crops killing bees, also and one of the Indian farmer suicides. And lots of labeling comments.

I have posted a link to here a couple of times
 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130619

And the anti GM folks are hitting it hot and heady. I have already been attacked there and called a Monsanto employee. I posted the list of over 600 studies. So far the Serali study and the pig stomach study have been referenced multiple times. Several comments about GM crops killing bees, also and one of the Indian farmer suicides. And lots of labeling comments.

I have posted a link to here a couple of times
 
A conservative radio host Michael Savage opinion on GMO and why its good for the world ? Im stunned ?
 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130619

And the anti GM folks are hitting it hot and heady. I have already been attacked there and called a Monsanto employee. I posted the list of over 600 studies. So far the Serali study and the pig stomach study have been referenced multiple times. Several comments about GM crops killing bees, also and one of the Indian farmer suicides. And lots of labeling comments.

I have posted a link to here a couple of times

I get accused of being pro-Monsanto when all I am is anti bullshit.

Anyway GM will be getting more news time in the coming months. It looks like the government is going to make a push for restrictions to be lifted http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22967571

However I noticed a comment by the Soil Association

Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said that GM would make it harder, not easier, to feed the world.

"The British Government constantly claim that GM crops are just one tool in the toolbox for the future of farming. In fact GM is the cuckoo in the nest. It drives out and destroys the systems that international scientists agree we need to feed the world.


"We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits," he added.]
Content from External Source
Straight away it is an attack on the big GM companies, which may or may not be valid, but a little disingenuous when the Soil Association obviously has its members interests to look out for. The inference immediately is that it is only the big seed companies doing research or will benefit when in the UK a great deal of research is public funded with an aim of open source seed. The article does mention the John Innes Centre http://www.jic.ac.uk/corporate/research/index.htm and I have mentioned Rothamsted http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/ on a number of occasions.

As to GM safety all we need is more transparency and reliability in testing but at the end of the day I think that irrespective of the result some people will be suspect. It does make me laugh as apparently there are far more dangerous foods out there for us. There have been a few articles on a link between cancer and processed meats like baconhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/07/processed-meat-scare-bacon-sandwich-health There have been calls by some for people to take it, and meats like salami, out of their diet entirely

So is it time to cut out processed meat entirely? Privately, some experts and health campaigners admit that only the fear of being seen as completely out of touch prevents them from agreeing publicly with the WCRF, who do say that. They preach moderation, not abstinence, for pragmatic reasons. But all the while the evidence is gradually stacking up that processed meat is risky – and perhaps not a risk worth taking.
Content from External Source
Now bacon has been in our diet since Roman times, 1500BC according to Bacon Wiki http://bacon.wikia.com/wiki/Bacon_History , and the Mediterranean diet is seen as one of the most healthy in the World so what are we supposed to believe?
 
Grilled burgers is another big no-no. The grilling causes cancer causing chemicals to form

Eating charred, well-done meat on a regular basis may increase your risk of pancreatic cancer by up to 60%, according to findings from a University of Minnesota study presented this week at the annual American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) meeting in Denver, Colorado
Content from External Source
That sounds like a HUGE increase but
"Based on rates from 2008-2010, 1.49% of men and women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas at some time during their lifetime.
Content from External Source
Percentages can be deceiving.
 
The Grist article about the pig study is still getting posts.

This one was addressed to me today



The fact that The former CEO of Monsanto RUNS the FDA these days ought to be enough for you to question EVERYTHING they do,not just GMO's. Monsanto also now owns Bayer pharmaceuticals,and has contracted for services with Blackwater.

If their only goal is to help"Feed the starving masses",then WTF do they need with a pharmaceutical Company& Military mercenaries hmm?No fooling me here,I've WORKED on the inside of the GMO Beast,and NONE of it is safe&they damn well KNOW it.It's why I no longer work for it,never will again&will fight it till the day I die.

You can keep shilling for it all you want,but understand every time you do,you help kill another Human.Every EIGHT hours,a farmer is committing suicide in India after Monsanto puts them in the hole of debt they can never get out of&their families & livestock are all sickened by GMO Induced Illness.They kill themselves by DRINKING Roundup,as a final eff You to Monsanto because they have NOTHING left..

That's their game,control ALL World food supplies,force everyone to come to them or starve,put them in Merciless debt&destroy them when they try to fight back,allll the time KNOWING their products KILL.

Nestle is in with them as well,buying up water supplies worldwide as we speak&it's CEO has just come out&said that access to clean drinking water is NOT a human Right,it should be paid for&those who can't die.THAT is who you are standing up for by continually shilling this crap.Congrats on being such a great soldier for the Death squad.

I am ALL for science Improving our lives,but when those who have VERY nefarious plans use same said science for terrible,terrible things,it MUST be stopped&NOW.
Content from External Source
I managed to debunk most of those in less than 5 min.
 
The Grist article about the pig study is still getting posts.

This one was addressed to me today



The fact that The former CEO of Monsanto RUNS the FDA these days ought to be enough for you to question EVERYTHING they do,not just GMO's. Monsanto also now owns Bayer pharmaceuticals,and has contracted for services with Blackwater.

If their only goal is to help"Feed the starving masses",then WTF do they need with a pharmaceutical Company& Military mercenaries hmm?No fooling me here,I've WORKED on the inside of the GMO Beast,and NONE of it is safe&they damn well KNOW it.It's why I no longer work for it,never will again&will fight it till the day I die.

You can keep shilling for it all you want,but understand every time you do,you help kill another Human.Every EIGHT hours,a farmer is committing suicide in India after Monsanto puts them in the hole of debt they can never get out of&their families & livestock are all sickened by GMO Induced Illness.They kill themselves by DRINKING Roundup,as a final eff You to Monsanto because they have NOTHING left..

That's their game,control ALL World food supplies,force everyone to come to them or starve,put them in Merciless debt&destroy them when they try to fight back,allll the time KNOWING their products KILL.

Nestle is in with them as well,buying up water supplies worldwide as we speak&it's CEO has just come out&said that access to clean drinking water is NOT a human Right,it should be paid for&those who can't die.THAT is who you are standing up for by continually shilling this crap.Congrats on being such a great soldier for the Death squad.

I am ALL for science Improving our lives,but when those who have VERY nefarious plans use same said science for terrible,terrible things,it MUST be stopped&NOW.
Content from External Source
I managed to debunk most of those in less than 5 min.

I reckon some of the debunking of particular studies here should be broken out into their own threads. This is a hot topic for people in my social media world at the moment too.
 
The downside of GMO conspiracy theories and specifically the fixation upon Monsanto is that it has encouraged an atmosphere in which destruction of fields of crop seed needed next season by farmers has begun to take place.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2013/06/genetically_engineered_sugar_b.html

Oregon Department of Agriculture Director Katy Coba issued a statement about the sabotage.

“To my knowledge, this is the first time someone has deliberately taken the cowardly step of uprooting high value plants growing in our state. Regardless of how one feels about biotechnology, there is no justification for committing these crimes and it is not the kind of behavior we expect to see in Oregon agriculture,” Coba said.

More than decade ago, environmental saboteurs vandalized experimental crops across the country in a revolt against high-tech agriculture.

Foes of genetic engineering also struck in 2000, when members of the Earth Liberation Front, with roots in Oregon, set fire to agriculture offices at Michigan State University. ELF's position was that genetic engineering was "one of the many threats to the natural world as we know it."

Have information about the destruction? Ring the local offices of the FBI at (541) 773-2942 during normal business hours or call the FBI in Portland anytime at (503) 224-4181

Tips may also be emailed to portland@ic.fbi.gov.
 
Back
Top