WikiLeaks Cables Show US Diplomats Promote Genetically Engineered Crops Worldwide

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by The Wrong Guy, Aug 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Wrong Guy Member

    Monsanto provoked the creation of super-worms?

    Published on Sep 7, 2012 by RTAmerica

    The agriculture industry giant Monsanto has changed the way food is grown around the world. The chemical company has been genetically modifying crops for decades, but now Americans have decided to wage a war to know whats in the food they eat.

    Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for Organic Consumers Association, joins us to give us an inside look on how Monsanto could cause a corn crisis and why its important to know what you are eating.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. anonysamvines Member

    thank you OP
    and thank you all (especially the anons) involved in exposing this.

    to those moonbattery scifags (who have swapped religious faith for unthinking faith in the integrity and infallibility of "science" )
    why are Montsana (and others in other areas) not following the principles, ethics and methods of scientific research? not to mention the law.

    GM foods have, on the whole, less to do with improving food and its production than on monopoly and MONEY.
    It is all about money and power.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. grebe Member

    Humans have been genetically modifying their food for thousands of years.

    The anti-GMO crowd follow the same anti-science pattern as the anti-vax crowd, the anti-global warming crowd, the anti-animal testing crowd, and the anti-pharma crowd. The common rhetoric among all these groups likely reflects some basic problem with superstitious thinking and the human brain rather than a conspiracy, but sometimes I wonder about those people who like to postulate things.


  4. anonysamvines Member

    how about saying SOME OF ....
    Extremists of ANY persuasion are GENERALLY whackjobs, it goes with the territory.

    How much have both the benefits and drawbacks been reviewed?
    Will those saying GM is good/perfectly safe and anyone who disagrees/has concerns are moonbats, even acknowledge that there could even be cause for concern? or what steps have/will be taken to address valid concerns/drawbacks? rather than dismissing them out of hand or attacking their mental health?

    If Montsana have not only the moral and scientific high ground then why do they need such heavy hitting from the Gov't? Why do they have the need to not do proper scientific studies? or even actually do what they are saying they do? and why do they need to break the law and lie about what they are doing?

    Not all scientists agree about GM foods (as spoken about here) being beneficial to anyone but the companies concerned.

    I used to live, at the time of, close to where the first public widespread tests of growing the first of these types of GM foods were done in the UK. The neighbouring farmers were told their fears of their crops being affected were stupid, ungrounded etc. Reality proved otherwise. Reality often has a habit of throwing spanners in the works.

    I love your postulation about other people's postulations btw.

    Also re your pic - nice try at emotional blackmail, How many of those suffering from starvation following drought etc will be able to afford Montsanto's one time only seeds? or do you believe Montsanto will cut them a deal? Have you even looked at the other side of whether it really will help those in need?
  5. grebe Member

    I think you can delete posts, Sam.

    Of course there are valid debates about the introduction of genetically modified organisms into our environment. Problem is wading through all the disinformation in people's heads before any meaningful debate is possible.

    One of the valid concerns, I think, has to do with intellectual property. We've developed this protection system in order to encourage innovation and investment in research. But when some company invents something everybody wants, that company can make crazy billions. That seems to go beyond reward and into the land of pwning all of us.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. anonysamvines Member

    doh on the deletions - ta for that lol

    agree on the intellectual property and on the pwnage.
    i also remember some of the many, many claims that things have been scientifically proven safe and then a few years down the line ... oops sorry about that. Remember DDT for one?

    And not everyone wants it.
    I would have more faith in GM crops IF the desire of those for it didn't automatically override the desires of those against it. If there were more research done into preventing and control of the GM crops mutating non GM crops, without that ....

    I believe in choice - as is the case with organic and not organically grown foods (there must be a better term). Personally i use both - though i prefer the uk standards to usa standards of what constitutes organically grown certification.
  7. Anonymous Member

    I would prefer the prairie in my jurisdiction to not be completely taken over by roundup-ready canola. I think the organic farmers have legitimate concern when it encroaches on their farms as any encroachment can put their organic designation at risk.

    When you poison bomb all other growing things and then monoculture the one crop resistant to the poison, you create a monster. Do not want.
  8. grebe Member

    Part of that disinformation stuff that makes debate difficult has to do with the categories we are using: GMO verses non-GMO or organic verses non-organic. There exists a large gray area between GMO and non-GMO. And organic verses non-organic is not a scientifically coherent distinction. It's more a marketing or brand distinction.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. grebe Member

    Farming is bad for the environment in general, organic or not. But people gotta eat.

    GMOs can reduce the environmental impact of farming by making the per acre yields higher, thus reducing the number of acres necessary to feed a certain population.

    ERV has some links to science blogs dealing with food tech that might help answer why GMOs are important:
  10. Anonymous Member

    And Monsanto will sample their crop and bill/sue them for using roundup-ready canola. (Instead of Monsanto having to pay to clean up the mess.)
  11. Anonymous Member

    Man does not now nor will they ever understand "cause and effect" in so many areas this just another area of ignorance.
  12. muldrake Member

    If "everybody wants" GMO crops, then why does Monsanto aggressively harass natural seed growers out of existence with bogus lawsuits? Why do they need their own Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas)? There are plenty of people who want anything but Monsanto's garbage. Monsanto is one of those companies that isn't satisfied with just having purchasers who actually want their products. They want to force you to consume their products against your will, and outlaw even putting on the label what you are actually buying.

    I'm not opposed to GMOs in general. I think we actually ought to be genetically engineering more than we are. I am, however, completely opposed to the evil business model of Monsanto, perhaps the most evil corporation on Earth.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  13. grebe Member

    The GMO issue should be discussed more generally without always linking to Monsanto, as there are many companies and universities using lab based genetic techniques
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. I agree wholeheartedly. I read in some science magazine that some scientists are looking to take some genes from cyanobacteria to make food crops more efficient, possibly even negating the need for nitrogenous fertilizer. That sounds cool to me. Roundup Ready, though, DO NOT WANT!!! Genetic engineering is not necessarily evil. In fact, it has the potential to do great good. It just has to be done responsibly, and Monsanto has a record of being less than responsible, such as that minor incident where they were fined $300 million for dumping PCBs in Alabama.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. The Wrong Guy Member

    Monsanto weedkiller and GM maize in 'shocking' cancer study | The Grocer

    19 Sep 2012 | By Elinor Zuke

    The world’s best-selling weedkiller, and a genetically modified maize resistant to it, can cause tumours, multiple organ damage and lead to premature death, new research published today reveals.

    In the first ever study to examine the long-term effects of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, or the NK603 Roundup-resistant GM maize also developed by Monsanto, scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females, compared with 23 and 14 months respectively for a control group.

    “This research shows an extraordinary number of tumours developing earlier and more aggressively - particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts,” said Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist at King’s College London, and a member of CRIIGEN, the independent scientific council which supported the research.

    GM crops have been approved for human consumption on the basis of 90-day animal feeding trials. But three months is the equivalent of late adolescence in rats, who can live for almost two years (700 days), and there have long been calls to study the effects over the course of a lifetime.

    The peer-reviewed study, conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Caen, found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup resistant GM maize, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water, over a two-year period, died significantly earlier than rats fed on a standard diet.

    Up to half the male rats and 70% of females died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group. Across both sexes the researchers found that rats fed Roundup in their water or NK603 developed two to three times more large tumours than the control group. By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80% of females in all treated groups had developed large tumours, with up to three per animal. By contrast, only 30% of the control group were affected. Scientists reported the tumours “were deleterious to health due to [their] very large size,” making it difficult for the rats to breathe, [and] causing problems with their digestion which resulted in haemorrhaging.

    The paper, published in the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today, concluded that NK603 and Roundup caused similar damage to the rats’ health, whether they were consumed together or on their own. The team also found that even the lowest doses of Roundup, which fall well within authorised limits in drinking tap water, were associated with severe health problems.

    Watch the video: experts discuss the significance of the findings

    More at
    • Like Like x 1
  16. anonysamvines Member

    and do i believe the initial pro gm tests actually were only done to 90 days? Only if they already had reason to believe they would get negative results beyond this. Personally I believe they at least started testing further. Too much evidence in too many instances of, at best, bad experimental practise and at worst, outright fraud and deception for me to believe otherwise.
    Why would they stop testing at 90 days otherwise? Why wouldn't they actively want to be able to reassure further on the safety of the products?

    where are all the "it's gotta be ok and a good thing cos science said so" iswappedrelionforsciencemoonbatteryfags now?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    Monsanto are the devil. This shit has been sold wholesale to third world crop farmers.

    You think they're now gonna stop selling it to them?

    Fuck all the Monsanto bosses. They should have their gardens and water supplies sprayed with this shit, daily.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. kgstinthorys Member

    It really does show what the bottom line is; in any corporation, profit.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  20. Interesting, but has this been replicated in multiple controlled studies from neutral, unaffiliated laboratories? One study does not count as "proof". It counts as a lead.
  21. Anonymous Member

    Greta, are you playing Bush? A pig can be the president if it has all the absolute proofs. For normal people they play judge. You decide to give the benefit of the doubt to. The rest of the world either ban GMO, enforce labelling, or simple allow food manufacturer to label their product.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Grebe, you are brain washed. Horse mix donkey become mule. It's dysfunctional but safe because it cannot reproduce. The modifications are hybrids on two evolution tested entities for millions of years. If there's something wrong, nature have a chance to make the hybridization fail. Manipulating genes from far away species at the gene level are totally different things. 3rd world farmers are forced to buy seeds from them year after year, and more and more roundups. It doesn't work at the end. Can you read?
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  23. grebe Member

    Clearly Mr. Frankenfood, I must surrender to your superior understanding of this topic.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. Anonymous Member

    I can't claim that. But you are repeating the #1 and #2 of GMO's argument that got the world into trouble. Like a broken record. I assume you have no other understanding.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  25. I'm not playing Bush. You are being a moron. There is a difference. I'm neither defending Roundup Ready nor condemning them, yet. In accordance with the scientific method, I am demanding that the experiment be repeatable before deciding the hypothesis in question, that Roundup Ready is horribly unsafe, is true. For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to GMOs in general, but given Monsanto's history, Roundup Ready is not something I can support. When we have more evidence, this current view will either be confirmed or refuted. I follow the science, not alarmism, not speculation, nor any other form of bullshit.

    In the future, please note that legitimate skepticism is a virtue, not a vice. The climate change deniers have long since crossed the line from legitimate skepticism to moonbattery. I assume that's what you meant when you falsely accused me of "playing Bush".
  26. Anonymous Member

    Not allowing people to label GMO on the first day is way past moonbattery.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  27. The Wrong Guy Member

    Is Monsanto Evil?

    Published on Sep 22, 2012 by TheYoungTurks

    Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller Roundup suffered tumours and multiple organ damage, according to a French study published on Wednesday. Although the lead researcher's past record as a critic of the industry may make other experts wary of drawing hasty conclusions, the finding will stoke controversy about the safety of GM crops. In an unusual move, the research group did not allow reporters to seek outside comment on their paper before its publication in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presentation at a news conference in London.

    Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur break it down on The Young Turks.

    Here's the entire documentary:

    The World According to Monsanto - GMO Documentary
  28. Where is there a regulation against labeling something as a GMO? I'm unaware of any. That is, after all, what you meant by saying "Not allowing people to label GMO on the first day..." Or perhaps you're not fluent in English, either because another language is your native tongue, or because you're a fucking dipshit. Your comment points to the latter. Have you eaten papaya from Hawaii or corn grown in the United States in the last year or two? Have you ever consumed canola oil, or have you consumed US-grown soybeans or cottonseed oil in the last few years? Have you eaten any processed food in the United States in the last year? Congratulations. You've very likely eaten a GMO. If scientific research shows these are potentially harmful to human health in repeated experiments that are undertaken with proper controls, I will support removing the product or products from the food chain. Until then, I will lump you into those William Butler Yeats warned us about in The Second Coming: "...the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."
  29. Anonymous Member

    Greta, you are the 0.1% who has your head under a pillow for the last decade. I'm speechless.
  30. grebe Member

    So which part is the bad part, the Roundup or the GMO corn?

    I am guessing the RoundUp might be the problem. RoundUp has surfactants --detergents-- that help get its herbicide past the waxy coating on plant leaves. We know that surfactants can cause tumors in some animals in high enough doses.

    Genes code for proteins which are not absorbed from the gut until they are broken down into 22 different amino acids. Eat rice and beans or eat a steak, still the same 22 amino acids although there will be different percentages between those two meals. So if GMO corn causes tumors, I can't imagine the mechanism.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    What I cannot imagine is what is the end effect of genetically modified anything as the human species does not even understand their own DNA, neither do our scientists. Mankind has Never understood Cause & Effect you screw with one part of our environment what will be the end effect on other variants on this planet?

    The human species will bring about it's own destruction it's only a matter of how long it takes, genetically modified products in my opinion only speed up the process.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  32. Anonymous Member

    GMO plants have their structure altered for some use. Can they be digested the same way? Effect us in the same way? It's like the altered adenoviruses, they serve a purpose but they don't always "obey'.
  33. Kilia Member

  34. grebe Member

    22 beads. That's all you get to make a protein. Arrange them in different ways and you get different proteins. Stick those proteins in your tummy and you get back 22 beads, same as when you started.

    An amino acid has no way of remembering whether it came from a protein coded by a gene modified by humans or a gene modified by random natural events.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. grebe Member

  36. Gottabrain Member

    Grebe, you're joking, right?

    My biggest problem with them is that they do not regenerate like normal plants. This not only traps farmers into a purchase cycle, it starves bees and kills off the natural, regenerating flowers, fruits and veges.

    Also, there has been very little study or even interest into the long-term or even mid-range effects on local ecosystems, insects and animals. (I won't even talk about HUMAN here...)

    I know that animals can somehow smell or taste the difference in a food that is microwaved and they WON'T eat it (maybe you can get away with 20 seconds or so, but that's it).

    We DON'T KNOW what the animals think of these and I truly hate the idea of starving off or killing off natural vegetation and replacing it with non-generating seeds controlled by whore corporation patents,

    ...and that's just for starters...
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

    Grebe and others - do moar research into Monsanto.

    They are evil and they need dismantling.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Enzymes in the stomach break down food into sugars, small peptides and amino acids (those 22 beads of which you speak), and fatty acids. If the substrates are different the enzymes won't "recognize" the substrates and won't work.
    Therefore stomach enzymes don't break down food in the correct ratio to the correct substrates.
  39. grebe Member

    No I'm not joking.

    Ask yourself why this debate is primarily happening among people poorly informed on the Internet rather than among the tens of thousands of academic agricultural biologists all around the globe.

    Just go hang out on ERV's blog for a while. She talks just like Anonymous so I think y'all will feel at home. Plus she is working on a cure for AIDs and is generally awesome.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. grebe Member

    So tell me exactly what "substrates" are different in GMO corn verses other corn.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins