http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...32603.article#

"Farm1" wrote in message
...
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...32603.article#


I have seen this report elsewhere and it does seem to be flawed. Although I
would avoid GM food and would like all GM food labelled as such I feel that
all research should be genuine and not skewed to get the results desired.

Mike

In article ,
"Bloke Down The Pub" wrote:

"Farm1" wrote in message
...
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...monsanto-weedk
iller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article#


I have seen this report elsewhere and it does seem to be flawed. Although I
would avoid GM food and would like all GM food labelled as such I feel that
all research should be genuine and not skewed to get the results desired.

Mike

Where is the flaw? How is it skewed? Who would want to skew it? What
facts give you doubt?

--
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

In article ,
Derald wrote:

In message , Farm1 wrote:

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/te...onsanto-weedki
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/...SBRE88I0L02012
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.

--
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

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:32:27 PM UTC-6, 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...onsanto-weedki

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/...SBRE88I0L02012

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.

Glyphosate is not the problem. The problem is the "Round-Up resistant weeds" that develop that are even harder to control than before.

Monsanto has created a "monster" problem so they had better develop a new
super killer for these resistant weeds. On and on she goes, and nobody
knows when and where it will end. Tinker too much with 'mother nature'
and she will smite you.

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

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:32:27 PM UTC-6, 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...ain/monsanto-w
eedki

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/...y-idUSBRE88I0L
02012

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.

Glyphosate is not the problem. The problem is the "Round-Up resistant weeds"
that develop that are even harder to control than before.

Monsanto has created a "monster" problem so they had better develop a new
super killer for these resistant weeds. On and on she goes, and nobody
knows when and where it will end. Tinker too much with 'mother nature'
and she will smite you.

Agreed, but that isn't the issue here.

--
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

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.

In article ,
Roy wrote:

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.

You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your
anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of
honor.

No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None.
We don't know what it can do.
We are the Guinea pigs.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai

--
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

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



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.



You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your

anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of

honor.



No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None.

We don't know what it can do.

We are the Guinea pigs.



http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php



http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai



--

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

You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.

As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:35:37 PM UTC-6, Roy wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:

In article ,



Roy wrote:







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.







You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your



anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of



honor.







No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None.



We don't know what it can do.



We are the Guinea pigs.







http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php







http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai







--



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



You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.



As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian

thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or

early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great

product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant

varieties, I question.

I meant "throw" instead of "through" in my reply. Just a wee bit of an
error. May Gawd forgive me.

"Roy" wrote in message
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



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.



You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your

anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of

honor.



No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None.

We don't know what it can do.

We are the Guinea pigs.



http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php



http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai



--

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

You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.

As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a
'lifetime feeding study'.

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



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.



You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your

anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of

honor.



No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None.

We don't know what it can do.

We are the Guinea pigs.



http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php



http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai



--

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/2012/7/1...l_stein_runnin
g

You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.

When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of
cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can
expect to be consigned to a playpen.

Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.

As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and
it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit, but
in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which
in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops. Presently,
it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie
of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more
than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.
Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor
intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.

--
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

Billy wrote:
In article ,
You obviously have done little reading, which only burnishes your
anti-rationalism and ignorance, which you seem to think is a badge of
honor.

No lifetime feeding studies were done on glypho$ate. None.
We don't know what it can do.
We are the Guinea pigs.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai

Wow! Someone in this group can actually edit postings in their response.

In article , times says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect
the application by farmers of Roundup.