On Saturday, September 22, 2012 10:59:30 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Rick wrote:



On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:13:21 -0700, Billy

wrote:



In article ,

Derald wrote:



In message , Farm1 wrote:



http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...n/monsanto-wee

dki

ller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article#



Oooooh; masterfully done, hon: Just the right bait, just the right

depth and just the right speed. Um, um, um.

Here is a less ideologically slavish report of the same "study"

from an actual news source:



You know what people say about opinions. What have the above

insinuations to do with the article?



the article says,"Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's

College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London

briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in

two-year lifelong studies".



Duh. That there have been no feeding studies done on GMO crops has been

a complaint since they were introduced. You are the Guinea pig.



Then there is the misstatement, "The study is also likely to create

friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered

foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food

supply."



Prop 37 in California would only require labeling of GMO food stuffs,

not banning them.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/



Makes you wonder what other errors there are in the article.



In my opinion, you would be less incoherent, if you didn't drink your

"single malt" before you post.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...idUSBRE88I0L02

012

0919

Consider this assessment, pulled from the Reuters item:

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's

College London, noted that

Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were

given

to eat, or what their growth rates

were.



"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when

food

intake is not restricted," he said.

"The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the

authors have gone on a statistical

fishing trip."



or



Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant

Functional Genomics at the University of

Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no

previous

studies have flagged up similar

concerns.



"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is

relevant

to humans, why aren't the North

Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a

decade over there - and longevity

continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.

GMO foods are so ubiquitous that the only practical way to avoid

them is to go ahead and die now. Also, one must consider the certainty

that thought, logic, and reason play no part in religious conviction.





Daith based science

France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's

commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for

an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import

authorizations of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and

that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he

said in a statement.



Finally shows we are right...



There are a lot of similar studies in more relavent models- yes

including the hhuman model- that show glyphosate is safe.



Let them eat cake.



That's what Monsanto $ays.



--

Welcome to the New America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

or

E Pluribus Unum

Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

Tiny doses of a lot of products increase your risk of cancer. Big deal
....sunlight will do the same thing and I'm not staying inside my cave
and not venture forth.
Roundup IS relatively safe from ALL that I have read.
If small amounts increase the chance of cancer in rats then DON'T
FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.