On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:37:13 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:
"Moosh:}" wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:17:07 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:
Have you got ANY evidence of any problems?
Here's a start:
http://www.purefood.org/ge/btcomments.cfm
"Possible Human Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Bt Crops"
^^^^^^^^^
If you had bothered to read past the first line,
I did, but didn't quote all I read. I underlined the first word of the
title. That's the clincher. There is NO demonstrated damage, just
POSSIBLE scenarios.
you would have noticed
that it documents case after case where biotech blind presumptions and
conventional wisdom on which their safety arguments are based were
proven wrong, and it cites peer-reviewed evidence that consuming
genetically modified food harms mammals.
One instance of harm, from a GE product's GE difference, thanks
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/exhibit%20r.htm
Milk from cows given rBGH is no different from milk from cows given
any other BGH. Whether we should treat cows at all ia the point here.
Not a GE matter.
What is your evidence there is no difference?
No difference to the consumer. There IS to the farmer.
If there is no difference how did Monsanto get a patent and trademark on it?
See above.
Where are cows being fed non-GMO BGH and what are the methodologies
and results of comparative studies of their health and the health of animals
who eat their milk products?
Ask a dairy farmer. Cows produce their own BGH, you realise, I hope.
Where is the proof there were no byproducts or contaminants, as occurred
with GE tryptophan?
GE'd bacteria produced tryptophan is fine if you quality control and
remove any contaminants, like *any* manufacturing process. There was
no problem from it being from GE'd bugs per se.
http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm
Propaganda site about rBGH milk again.
So it's your position that the New England Journal of Medicine is
"propaganda". Very interesting.
Read the site. It is written by psrast, not NEJM. You keep confusing
propaganda sites with the references they cite. You are very
vulnerable if you do this.
http://www.preventcancer.com/press/july8,98.htm
More propaganda about "Monsanto milk"
So now the Lancet is "propaganda" too.
Again, wanna buy a bridge?
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/cancer091302.cfm
More milk and hormone treatment of cows.
http://www.factoryfarm.org/docs/rBGH-Hudson.doc
http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm
http://www.egroups.com/message/corp-ethics/1104
http://www.biotech-info.net/beneficials2.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/070903_ge.cfm
http://www.bwf.org/gedebate.html#5
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/frankenfish.cfm
http://www.psrast.org/superwee.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Superweed-Canola-Canada.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/pate...nger090401.cfm
http://www.psrast.org/soilfertfact.htm
http://www.idiom.com/~for7gen/i/gecatast.htm and links therein, especially
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php
http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/gmo_failure.htm
http://www.psrast.org/prhortra.htm
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php
http://www.i-sis.org/CaMV.shtml
http://www.i-sis.org/camv-mehd.shtml
http://www.i-sis.org/terminsects-pr.shtml
http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/risks_...nd_science.htm
http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm
I've looked at the first five and not found any evidence of damage
from GE. Have you actually got any? I really don't want to blow my
download allocation on more empty URLs 
An attention span of longer than 5 seconds is needed to grasp these issues.
Well I tried the first five and found NO evidence of damage. It is
reasonable to assume that the others probably don't. Could you point
to one or two that definitely DO have evidence of GE damage?
It is rather ineffective to give many examples of things that don't
have evidence of what you claim.