 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
   
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | BARRELHORSE USA - 2017-07-30 11:33 PM Monsanto and others have been caught designing their research on GMOs and Roundup to hide problems, and they distort or deny adverse findings when they do arise. In truth, numerous animal feeding studies show evidence of harm, including cancer, organ damage, accelerated signs of aging, immune system problems, hormone imbalance, reproductive and developmental problems, and premature death. “The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects…” - Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (A. Dona and I.S. Arvanitoyannis) Thousands of Physicians say No to GMOs Although the industry claims that no humans have been hurt by consuming GMOs, there has been no scientific monitoring of human health reactions. Furthermore, thousands of healthcare practitioners advise their patients to stop eating GMOs, and many report that doing so has resulted in significant improvements in digestive disorders, obesity, diabetes, allergies, kidney disease, infertility, fatigue, chronic pain, inflammation, and autism. “Over half of American children now have a chronic health disorder and this number is likely to rise. Intestinal dysfunction is evident in nearly all patients seen in my clinic. A significant number of them get better simply by switching to an organic diet. It’s that simple.” - Michelle Perro, MD, Pediatrician Experts Reject GMOs as Solution to World Hunger We are continually told that we need genetically engineered crops to feed the world, but experts dismiss this as public relations fiction. The IAASTD Report, the most comprehensive report on the future of food and agriculture (sponsored by the World Bank and the UN, written by over 400 scientists and endorsed by 59 countries), did not endorse GMOs as a solution to world hunger. In fact, genetic engineering has not significantly increased U.S. crop yields, according to the USDA and controlled comparative studies. Some GMOs have lower yields than non-GMO crops. High-Risk GMOs Should Not Be In Our Food or Fields Once you examine the scientific references, read reports from doctors, learn how corporations spin and suppress findings, and look at the repeated warnings by FDA scientists, you will likely conclude that these high-risk foods should never have been introduced. While rising disease rates alone don’t prove causation, when you examine the published charts of more than 20 disorders skyrocketing in parallel with the introduction and increased use of GMOs and glyphosate, the potential magnitude of what these products may be doing to us begins to dawn. And when you realize that contamination of the gene pool is irreversible and that the biotech industry is preparing to introduce GMO versions of virtually all commercial seeds, as well as livestock, fish, trees, grass, flowers, and pets, you will then understand that our generation faces a pivotal decision that affects the future of all living beings on this planet.
Dude, your information is garbage. A trillion meals. One. Trillion. Meals. Consumed by humans. Not one adverse effect. Because GE is not an ingredient. It's a breeding method a lot more precise and less dangerous than mutagenesis, an organically approved plant engineering process. Bt and Roundup Ready crops of corn, soy, eggplant and cotton allow for less of less toxic pesticides to be used during the growing process and not the 800% greater likelihood of exposure to a deadly pathogen like e.coli, novovirus or salmonella, common due to the use of manure and composting. Below is a report from the European academies science advisory council. This report has THE BACKING OF ALL 28 EU MEMBER STATES SCIENCE ACADEMIES. They estimate about 90% of the studies from which the report is based are non industry funded studies. - "There is now a significant volume of information from environmental and socio-economic indicators to characterise the impact of the first generation of GM crops, revealing a range of benefits. Therefore, it is critically important to ensure that the adoption of GM crops is given due consideration, based on the scientific evidence, within well-characterised good agricultural practice, and alongside attention to other multiple societal challenges associated with marginalisation and inequity. According to the aggregate evidence, GM has no greater adverse impact than any other technology used in plant breeding." " In aggregate, the conclusion from the scientific literature is that there is no validated evidence to associate the first generation of GM crops, that have been cultivated for more than 15 years worldwide (and commercialisation was dependent on more than 20 years of prior art in plant sciences), with higher risks to the environment or for food and feed safety compared with conventional varieties of the same crop" "EU GM legislation was formulated when there was not yet sufficient data to substantiate these conclusions, but now there is. Given the experience gained, the legislation, data requirements and level of scrutiny need to be revisited and recalibrated." EU funded research "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." Led by Alessandro Nicolia, an applied biologist at the University of Perugia in Italy, the team collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took 12 months to complete. The records covered all aspects of GM crop safety, from how the crops interact with the environment, to how they could potentially affect the humans and animals who consume them." "Nicolia's team couldn't find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods engender detrimental effects in those that consume them." Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” Health Canada: “Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods.” World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” Further, Organic produce is no more nutritious and likely takes more energy and nearly twice the land of conventional farming.
|
Folks on-line