GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food in Humans

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-gmo

Sign the petition, reaching goal 50,000 signatures.

Ban GMO from our planet, now!

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=25335

Say no to monsanto's dirty money.

@lookatmypix.... please consider the source of material like this..

nowhere in the article did anyone claim any results of any testing which could show danger or damage from long-term exposure to GMO seeds, corn or other crops.

it's all speculation based on fear and paranoia.

the fact that some huge number of farmers and agribusinsesses HAVE planted the GMO crops, even after signing the nondisclosures, IS, in itself, a potentially good experiment....

if they were not satisfied with their net profit on the GMO crops, ie, if the GMO seeds didn't really give them higher yield per acre and more money in their pockets at the end of the season, they'd stop buying it because it would be in their economic best interests to buy and plant what makes them the most profit.

and the Tata car example is equally false. while an auto company could surely try to get Consumer's Union to not test their cars,..... well, shit... they can't.

CU buys their cars on the open market, and once you own the car, it's yours and i don't think any judge in america would let that kind of contract stand up in their court.

if nothing else, you could create a raffle for a dozen of the cars from any manufacturer, where nobody would drive one home, but the tickets would pay for the purchase, after which all of the cars would be given to Consumer's Union for testing. How could any company stop you from selling their cars to a third party?

great paranoia, but it just doesn't stand up to even this much scrutiny.

you'd do better to wonder WHERE THIS STARTED, where nobody trusts ANYTHING that ANY big company does, and uses this kind of faulty "logic" to "prove their case."

c'mon...

@lookatmypix, re: "Plusaf it is very obvious to me, from your statements above, that you lack a gigantic amount of information on this topic.
I suggest to inform your self about monsanto and GMO before drawing quick and shockingly erroneous conclusions.
I truly hope you will take my advice."

it's obvious to ME that from everything that i've ever seen linked here at current.com on this subject, that the testimonies you pin your views, decisions and conclusions on are testimonies of fear and i have not seen ANY that show any rigorous scientific cause-and-effect experimentation and logic behind the "conclusions" that are drawn.

most "arguments" are: "it's GMO and therefore it's dangerous; it's GMO and therefore we should be afraid of it; it's GMO and therefore it will cause damage to humans," even without a shred of scientific proof.

most GMO haters hate the GMO manufacturers because they make lots of money and want to protect their investments through patents on their ideas and products.

just like most of the same crowd hates Exxon/Mobil because it makes 40B$US a year in profit, and for no other logical reason. they hate anything "free market" where people can patent things and sell them under any contracts they can get anyone else to sign before buying.

you have not addressed any of my arguments that i've put forth here, just insulted me and told me to go read more and then i'll understand.

the reverse is also true, but like most "believers," you won't evaluate any of my statements from a scientific, experimental or logical point of view, as you ignored everything in my post above this one in your answer.

the experiments that "showed" damage to rats or mice fed GM seeds are irrelevant, unless you're a farmer worried about mice getting sick from stealing and eating the seed corn you've planted. NONE of the experiments or testimonies have said ANYTHING about how the grain actually gets to market.... the seed grain is planted and GMO corn grows. only if you feed the RESULTNG CORN kernels to the rodents and THEN check them for abnormalities can you make any logical claim of potential danger.

and on and on and on....

feel free to send me any links that i can't shoot scientific, experimental, logical holes through and you've got a chance of bringing me to your side.

i've even acknowledged, and even on my web site, a nasty possible effect of climate change... increased acidity of the oceans...... looks real to me, and the science appears sound and logical.

but then the "solutions" are still one-sided.... stop all co2 production and return to the bronze age, or the equivalent.

never a middle ground.

no data => lousy conclusions.

This was posted here and known months ago.

@lookatmypix, why do you need me to answer questions about what i know or what my sources are before you can provide statements that refute my "claims" above?

i don't understand.

@ReVOfx .... well, thank you! i never did that well in the genetics part of biology, but that sounds accurate!

so....... it's the pesticide ABSORBED BY THE CORN that's the hazard, NOT the fact that it's GMO in, of, and by itself...

got it!

so, what are the toxicity levels for BT and how much GM AND BT-SPRAYED CORN do i need to eat to reach a toxic level?

NOW we're getting somewhere!

THANK you!

Plusaf I explained why already.

You tell me what you think and know about monsanto and gmo food.
You started the argument by saying this is all paranoia and fear, great, you expressed your opinion, but how exactly did you get to this conclusion?

Answer to the questions above.
Please do so in a precise and concise manner if you want this debate.
I am here, not for the sake of the argument but for the sake of challenging your views and hopefully you'll see the truth.

This is a great subject but that whole article was like a sneaky attack on the GMOs. They spoke alot about the companys and alot about the lack of tests. Lack of tests should have been the end of the article. A lack of evidence does not mean it is negative it is still open. And are we not genetically modified creations of our parents?

Plusaf this is not a game to me.
I am not playing with you.
I wouldn't say "your source is a liar" unless I would have something to back me up and even then we both would put that to scrutiny.
I do not particularly want data from you, like I said previously all I wanted was an overview of monsanto and gmo in your opinion and knowledge.
You are the one that made the claim: "it's all fear and paranoia", you should back it up.
What is gmo?
How does it work?
Where is the research that proves it safe?
When was it done?
How many?
How was that conducted in all details that reach this conclusion and makes you agree with that?
What are the effects of gmo on our nature?

Anyway, it's all right with me if you decide to not investigate this topic further and answer to all these questions, but you are the one that invited me to challenge your views.
Don't say it then if you do not mean it.

Forget about data then, we can still find a debate from a logical and ethical point of view about it.
I think you are aware of what is happening in India because of gmo crops and that's reality.
125,000 suicide farmers driven to debt because of gm crop failure, bt cotton farmers getting ill (rushes,skin infections), livestock dying after grazing over these particular crops etc, these are all examples of the reality of gmo.
What do you think of that?

So, now I recall when you said:
"if they were not satisfied with their net profit on the GMO crops, ie, if the GMO seeds didn't really give them higher yield per acre and more money in their pockets at the end of the season, they'd stop buying it because it would be in their economic best interests to buy and plant what makes them the most profit."

Does that sound correct to you after reading about the 125,000 suicide farmers above?

That is not laboratory data, that is happening right now as we speak.
Tragically sad.
I hope you will change your mind.
I am here if you do.