FDA Says GMO produced "Frankenfish" Salmon are "No Threat" to human consumption.

Run_to_da_hills

We were also told that GMO pest resistant maze corn was also "No Threat" although it produced massive tumors on live lab test rats.

As was mentioned in this video, those in power will try to poison and dumb down the masses with what ever they can do and try and get away with it without scientific documentation or labeling. We know this by the recent defeat of Prop 37 and the way the Obama has broken his promises on GMO labeling. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6nV5uLR6M

GMO produced salmon seems like a good idea, in a controlled farm environment they can produce to full size in almost half the time of a normal wild salmon. Sounds good, what if several of these gets into the wild? Can we afford to fcuk about with nature in this one too?

"Genetically modified salmon could soon be found on supermarket fish counters after the U.S. food safety watchdog ruled it posed no environmental risks, it emerged today.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it could find no valid scientific reasons to ban production of Atlantic salmon engineered with extra genes from two other fish species.

If it is now given final approval, the fish will be the first GM animal to hit supermarket shelves anywhere in the world - and in the U.S. they may not even be labelled as modified."


GM fish set for supermarket shelves after U.S. watchdog rules 'Frankenfish' is safe for environment

FDA Says Giant, Genetically Modified Salmon Is Environmentally Safe.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We were also told that GMO pest resistant maze corn was also "No Threat"

That's because it isn't.
Shitty studies with cherry picked data don't become true just because you want them to.

And from this one lie you keep peddling, the rest of your post stems.
Without a honest base, your post is worthless.

The polite thing to do would be to withdraw it and apologise.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

That's because it isn't.
Shitty studies with cherry picked data don't become true just because you want them to.

And from this one lie you keep peddling, the rest of your post stems.
Without a honest base, your post is worthless.

The polite thing to do would be to withdraw it and apologise.

OHHHH so GMO is ok then?, your the scientits, I'm the layman, please explain how GMO has no adverse effects on human

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

OHHHH so GMO is ok then?, your the scientits, I'm the layman, please explain how GMO has no adverse effects on human

The study RTDH has been whoring around boards has been shown to be very shoddy, at best, and therefore is a poor base to be making the kind of claims he has been
This is not news to him, this has been demonstrated to him before.
Yet, he continues to peddle this lie.

Your list of demands are irrelevant, as they don't have anything to do with the point being made, so I don't see any point in entertaining them.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

The study RTDH has been whoring around boards has been shown to be very shoddy, at best, and therefore is a poor base to be making the kind of claims he has been
This is not news to him, this has been demonstrated to him before.
Yet, he continues to peddle this lie.

Your list of demands are irrelevant, as they don't have anything to do with the point being made, so I don't see any point in entertaining them.

Well you could at least try, it's safe or not for human consumption?????

stuar

Come-on I'm starving and have some GMO fish for breakfast and don't know should I eat it or not, please help!

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

The study RTDH has been whoring around boards has been shown to be very shoddy, at best, and therefore is a poor base to be making the kind of claims he has been
This is not news to him, this has been demonstrated to him before.
Yet, he continues to peddle this lie.

Going back to Prop 37, why was it defeated?

Because the multinational corporations behind GMO production were the ones with the clout, they can afford to pay off governments and media in bribes and back hander's to suppress the truth about the long term implications of GMO products.

Whats easier than issuing government warning labels concerning the possible king term harmful effects of a genetically poisoned food product?

Answer, don't let the people know the difference between which product are genetically contaminated or not.

stuar

I'm after waking from the night/morning before and that GMO fish is still there eyeballing me, should I eat it or not jonny?, I heard a little rumour before but not sure what to do, eat or not?, I'm confused...........ohh and george bush is on life support, maybe we give him some to make him better.....wait till the light goes out there georgie boy, hell awaits your return.

Bradidup

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Going back to Prop 37, why was it defeated?

Because the multinational corporations behind GMO production were the ones with the clout, they can afford to pay off governments and media in bribes and back hander's to suppress the truth about the long term implications of GMO products.

Whats easier than issuing government warning labels concerning the possible king term harmful effects of a genetically poisoned food product?

Answer, don't let the people know the difference between which product are genetically contaminated or not.

I think that just about hits the nail on the head.

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Going back to Prop 37, why was it defeated?

Because the multinational corporations behind GMO production were the ones with the clout, they can afford to pay off governments and media in bribes and back hander's to suppress the truth about the long term implications of GMO products.

Whats easier than issuing government warning labels concerning the possible king term harmful effects of a genetically poisoned food product?

Answer, don't let the people know the difference between which product are genetically contaminated or not.

Well which is more likely: GM producers are trying to kill people and so forced government policy, or GM producers stood to lose a fortune in profits because of scaremongering by people who don't understand how science works?

barney 20v

Bradidup wrote: »

I think that just about hits the nail on the head.

Holy f##k.....

FISMA

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

FDA Says Giant, Genetically Modified Salmon Is Environmentally Safe.

Kind of scary.

It appears that these fish could have their DNA altered to such an extent that the engineers or company that own them could patent them.

If they are superior breeders or otherwise cause the wild salmon populations to demise, I wonder if they could enforce their patent? That is, every salmon caught would owe them a royalty?

Outkast_IRE

In all honestly, i dont think GM animal/plants should be allowed where they are in a postion to mix with wild animals/plants, before we know it companies could have wild animals with their pateneted genes in them...........

Also if something was on the supermarket shelf and marked as GM i wouldnt buy it, mostly just because i believe its ultimately going to end in disaster messing around with genetics like this.

gibraltar

stuar wrote: »

I'm after waking from the night/morning before and that GMO fish is still there eyeballing me, should I eat it or not jonny?, I heard a little rumour before but not sure what to do, eat or not?, I'm confused...........ohh and george bush is on life support, maybe we give him some to make him better.....wait till the light goes out there georgie boy, hell awaits your return.

Maybe you should take a break from the Internet, go outside, its a nice day.

Torakx

FISMA wrote: »

Kind of scary.

It appears that these fish could have their DNA altered to such an extent that the engineers or company that own them could patent them.

If they are superior breeders or otherwise cause the wild salmon populations to demise, I wonder if they could enforce their patent? That is, every salmon caught would owe them a royalty?

Now that sounds like a CT in the making.
I was going to say in a joking fashion, that maybe someone should introduce these GM salmon to the atlantic and use the issue to ban GM goods.
Thats what the ones ruling government would do.
I guess it would fail without a propoganda machine lol

But your idea there, i could see being a possibility,considering Monsanto already have been doing this for years with seeds.
Should we call that move a "monsanto"? Or is it named already?

Torakx

gibraltar wrote: »

Maybe you should take a break from the Internet, go outside, its a nice day.

Fook that, did you see the chemtrails this morning?

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

Well you could at least try, it's safe or not for human consumption?????

I'm not here to deal with your disingenuous nonsense.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm not here to deal with your disingenuous nonsense.

What are you here for?, is GMO good or not mister scientist above us all, say it is and I'll pull you down with known facts and links and anything else thats required...............

I am stating that GMO is dangerous, if anybody disputes it I think I can just about rip it to pieces....fact

Run_to_da_hills

This came out on 27th.

While you were likely resting or enjoying time with friends and family over the Christmas break, the United States Food and Drug Administration was hard at work ramming through genetically modified salmon towards the final acceptance process. Despite the frankenfish actually being blocked by Congress last year over serious health and environmental concerns, the FDA is making a massive push to release the genetically modified salmon into the world as the FDA-backed biotech giant and creator of the fish AquaAdvantage screams for profits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BO6JttHMd0

These fish of course threaten the very genetic integrity of the food chain when considering the fact that they will ultimately be unleashed into waters with other salmon and likely even the ocean at large. The AquaAdvantage genetically modified salmon have been engineered through genetic manipulation to grow double the size and weight of the average salmon. Hitting 24 inches instead of 13 and weighing in at 6.6 pounds instead of 2.8, the GM fish contains both a gene from another salmon known as the Pacific Chinook as well as an eel-like fish.

This unnatural genetic infusion allows the fish to generate a growth hormone 24/7, making it a massively mutated ball of growth hormones and disease.

To put all this in a nutshell, these guys are seriously fcuking about with nature. All it takes is a couple of these to be released into the wild and God knows what could happen if these start mutating.

http://naturalsociety.com/fda-pushes-genetically-modified-salmon-over-holiday-break/

stuar

You Know What RTDH's, fcuk them, they'll be taken care of, "Their plans will come to NOTHING"

We have nothing to fear!, Selah!!!

EDIT:

Just throw a youtube in there for good measure........Selah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlDUkp1Ts8A

stuar

stuar wrote: »

What are you here for?, is GMO good or not mister scientist above us all, say it is and I'll pull you down with known facts and links and anything else thats required...............

I am stating that GMO is dangerous, if anybody disputes it I think I can just about rip it to pieces....fact

Why not just post the well conducted studies you are referring to?
(Assuming that they are actually studies and not just the same ignorant scaremongering anti science crap that Rtdhs likes to post.)

shedweller

I recall saying something recently about dodgy goings on while we were busy with the Christmas festivities etc. Well, my paranoia was well founded in this instance wasn't it?
How could anyone NOT be suspicious when something so important gets pushed through at this time of year when nobody is looking. I suppose the shills will be on in a minute to point out how we really were looking at gm fish getting ever closer to being let out in the wild.
This'll bite us in the a$$ one day.

humanji

Am I the only person here who realises that it's a safe bet that nobody here has ever eaten anything that wasn't genetically modified? It's been happening for centuries.

Torakx

humanji wrote: »

Am I the only person here who realises that it's a safe bet that nobody here has ever eaten anything that wasn't genetically modified? It's been happening for centuries.

Are you talking about the cross breeding of plants/animals?

Besides all the advantages that there may be, i think that the GM solution to the upcoming world food crisis, is just a bandaid for a much bigger issue.

If the USA had focused on food supply instead of weapons, they may have been able to trade peacefully for oil and save millions from dying of hunger at the same time.
That money could have went to setting up farming in the countries that have resources they need.
Its a shame to see people considering the alteration of our natural enviornment, as a quick effective solution.
Supporting this is like supporting nuclear energy...

weisses

humanji wrote: »

Am I the only person here who realises that it's a safe bet that nobody here has ever eaten anything that wasn't genetically modified? It's been happening for centuries.

Please explain ?

I thought the first GM food that came into the market was a Tomato species in 1994 (US)

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

What are you here for?,

Do you imagine I owe you something?
You are mistaken.

stuar wrote: »

is GMO good or not mister scientist above us all,

Are you quite done, or am I to expect more of this passive aggressive childish nonsense?

stuar wrote: »

say it is and I'll pull you down with known facts and links and anything else thats required...............

I am stating that GMO is dangerous, if anybody disputes it I think I can just about rip it to pieces....fact

If you think that you can make the case with such ease, why are you waiting?
feel free to show your knowledge.

Torakx wrote: »

Supporting this is like supporting nuclear energy...

so, it's a good thing then.

Torakx

It speaks for itself.

humanji

Torakx wrote: »

Are you talking about the cross breeding of plants/animals?

Exactly. Humans have been modifying the genetics of plants and animals to suit themselves for a long, long time. Just because it's now done in a lab, doesn't make it new. It only means that it's more reliable. That's not to say that it's perfect or won't be abused. But those claiming that all GM food is deadly simply don't know what they're talking about.

Besides all the advantages that there may be, i think that the GM solution to the upcoming world food crisis, is just a bandaid for a much bigger issue.

If the USA had focused on food supply instead of weapons, they may have been able to trade peacefully for oil and save millions from dying of hunger at the same time.
That money could have went to setting up farming in the countries that have resources they need.
Its a shame to see people considering the alteration of our natural enviornment, as a quick effective solution.
Supporting this is like supporting nuclear energy...

Well in fairness, if the US spent military money on any other item, Humanity would be a hell of a lot better off with the advances, but that's paranoia for you.

We're never going to see a Utopia. It's not in human nature to achieve that goal. And the way we're going now, we'll soon be struggling to get enough food to feed everyone. GM food is one way to assure a good crop, or a healthy supply of livestock. As you say, it's more of a bandaid that a solution, but since no solutions are forthcoming, there's no much of a choice.

weisses

humanji wrote: »

Exactly. Humans have been modifying the genetics of plants and animals to suit themselves for a long, long time. Just because it's now done in a lab, doesn't make it new. It only means that it's more reliable. That's not to say that it's perfect or won't be abused. But those claiming that all GM food is deadly simply don't know what they're talking about.

I suggest you do your research as well ...

There is a huge difference, in regular cross pollination and GMO,In cross pollination the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like. and that is only done from 1994 if I'm correct

There is plenty more material available that explains the difference between cross pollination and GMO

And no one knows the long term affects of GM foods

Biggest worry for me is the Monopoly of the likes of monsanto

Run_to_da_hills

weisses wrote: »

And no one knows the long term affects of GM foods

Biggest worry for me is the Monopoly of the likes of Monsanto

That is a worry considering the majority of food manufacturers are controlled by just a handful of corporates.

How do we know if the likes of Obama backed Monsanto has a vested interest in these GM salmon producing corporates?

For all we know Monsanto could be behind the development of all this since they are now renowned experts in fcuking about with nature.

We have seen a massive merge in major food producing players over the recent years to just a handful of 10 mega corporations. (All of whom are heavily users of Monsanto GM seed products.) These would be the same corporations that would have carried the huge propaganda lobby to defeat Prop 37.

All these players are heavy users of GM products, they don't want their poisonous and contaminated products labeled. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these giant multinational corporations are involved in this latest thing.

humanji

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you do your research as well ...

There is a huge difference, in regular cross pollination and GMO,In cross pollination the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like. and that is only done from 1994 if I'm correct

There is plenty more material available that explains the difference between cross pollination and GMO

The difference is that now science allows for a wider spectrum of cross breeding and the ability to lower the chances of a failed process. Claiming evolution has anything to do with it when it's humans that are responsible, is misleading to say the least. Pretty much every action humans take on this planet is against evolution.

And no one knows the long term affects of GM foods

And that's why proper studies should be done instead cherry-picked half-observations that are then slapped into a badly written document which is then claimed to be peer-reviewed.

Biggest worry for me is the Monopoly of the likes of monsanto

This is my biggest worry about them as well. It's sad that only countries like India, which don't exactly have a great record in looking after low-wage workers, are standing up to them, while the rest of the nations let Monsanto do what they want without little return.

Run_to_da_hills

Why was this approval held back until after the presidential election?

Fast-growing salmon have cleared another hurdle in an upstream battle to be the first genetically modified animal approved for human consumption. After a long and possibly politically motivated delay, federal regulators have released preliminary documents declaring the fish safe to eat and environmentally harmless.

Since 1995, a company called AquaBounty, based in Maynard, Massachusetts, has been seeking approval from the US government to sell its AquAdvantage fish. These Pacific salmon have been modified with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon, which causes them to grow twice as fast as normal fish.

Rather than releasing the fish into the wild, the company plans to engineer its eggs in highly secure tanks in Canada, then ship them to Panama to mature. As a precaution, the fish are all female and contain three copies of each chromosome rather than two, rendering them sterile.


This is where it gets interesting: Delayed release

The timing of the release has sparked suspicion of political interference, as it came hours after a non-profit organisation called the Genetic Literacy Project published FDA documents showing that the assessment had been complete since April and should have been released immediately. The organisation's investigation suggests that the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), concerned over the issue's sensitivity, had blocked the documents' release until after the presidential election.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23035-approval-for-genemodified-salmon-spawns-controversy.html

stuar

humanji wrote: »

Am I the only person here who realises that it's a safe bet that nobody here has ever eaten anything that wasn't genetically modified? It's been happening for centuries.

No it hasn't, crossbreeding and pulling genes from DNA and implanting them into a foreign body/DNA are not the same thing, it's ignorant to pretend it's the same thing.

stuar

humanji wrote: »

The difference is that now science allows for a wider spectrum of cross breeding and the ability to lower the chances of a failed process. Claiming evolution has anything to do with it when it's humans that are responsible, is misleading to say the least. Pretty much every action humans take on this planet is against evolution.


And that's why proper studies should be done instead cherry-picked half-observations that are then slapped into a badly written document which is then claimed to be peer-reviewed.


This is my biggest worry about them as well. It's sad that only countries like India, which don't exactly have a great record in looking after low-wage workers, are standing up to them, while the rest of the nations let Monsanto do what they want without little return.

When has a dog ever pissed on a plant and made a new species?, or a rose pollinated a cabbage, jack russell cross elephant, half fish / half tree, it's not the same.

Look into GMO before making stupid referrences to the way it's always been except faster, bollox!

humanji

It's artificially creating a compliment strain. It's modifying the genetics. It is genetic modification. Please have a go at reading my posts and you may possibly understand what I said, instead of glancing at it, seeing a few key words, ignoring them and then coming up with possibly the worst strawman every created.

stuar

humanji wrote: »

It's artificially creating a compliment strain. It's modifying the genetics. It is genetic modification. Please have a go at reading my posts and you may possibly understand what I said, instead of glancing at it, seeing a few key words, ignoring them and then coming up with possibly the worst strawman every created.

I apologise, now having fully read your post I realise you didn't say what I thought you did, I jumped the gun, yes genetics can be altered inter species, and yes always have been such as dog, horse, general animal breeding, also in marijuana, different strains can be cross pollinated to produce a new genetically different more potent strain which has used one strain to cross pollinate another strain and produce a new strain/genetically altered.

But just for the record its a total different ball game than GMO, animal and plant genes are being switched.

Cross breeding is not the same as GMO.

I'm sorry for half reading and assuming the worse.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, every human being has also been genetically modified coming into life, x and y cromosones make up a human, 50% each from parents, this is natural genetic modification, it's when alien genes are introduced such as animal that the GMO I'm talking about becomes un natural.

Aquarius34

LOL@people advocating GMO foods on this thread. I can't even believe me eyes at to what I have just read.

These type of news feeds thread's are not even conspiracy orientated and don't even belong on a conspiracy discussion. This is a mainstream topic that a lot of people are discussing all around the place and anywhere on the internet when it comes to GMO and the handling of the global food industry.

This thread is just diabolical. It's actually to the point that you have to laugh at it. I can't even believe I read half of the sh**e about people trying to defend GMO type food as a safe alternative to eating wholesome natural food.


Bottom-line. This is about MONEY and always been about trying to get the monopoly and keep the masses in control. We are literally fed like a bunch of cattle in today's society.

It's all about PROFIT and the the world food organisation doesn't give a damn about the health of the people because all world businesses have one goal in mind and that is $$$. Nothing else, nothing more. Just like Mcdonalds make their foods as cheap as they possibly can and hope people don't realise just how poisonous their food actually is, just as long as people keep eating it (and killing them)

Thankfully, now we live in a world, where awareness and knowledge is shaking the world up, so most people are aware of what is going on and what is happening etc. Just as well, as now people know that a lot of food chains and food production industries sell and make food that is practically poison and cancerous.

Just outright shocking this thread is.

jh79

Aquarius34 wrote: »

LOL@people advocating GMO foods on this thread. I can't even believe me eyes at to what I have just read.

These type of news feeds thread's are not even conspiracy orientated and don't even belong on a conspiracy discussion. This is a mainstream topic that a lot of people are discussing all around the place and anywhere on the internet when it comes to GMO and the handling of the global food industry.

This thread is just diabolical. It's actually to the point that you have to laugh at it. I can't even believe I read half of the sh**e about people trying to defend GMO type food as a safe alternative to eating wholesome natural food.


Bottom-line. This is about MONEY and always been about trying to get the monopoly and keep the masses in control. We are literally fed like a bunch of cattle in today's society.

It's all about PROFIT and the the world food organisation doesn't give a damn about the health of the people because all world businesses have one goal in mind and that is $$$. Nothing else, nothing more. Just like Mcdonalds make their foods as cheap as they possibly can and hope people don't realise just how poisonous their food actually is, just as long as people keep eating it (and killing them)

Thankfully, now we live in a world, where awareness and knowledge is shaking the world up, so most people are aware of what is going on and what is happening etc. Just as well, as now people know that a lot of food chains and food production industries sell and make food that is practically poison and cancerous.

Just outright shocking this thread is.

Your basing this opinion on what evidence exactly, apart from the old "its not natural so it must be bad for you" crap

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Your basing this opinion on what evidence exactly, apart from the old "its not natural so it must be bad for you" crap

What is your opinion about the the likes of monsanto ??

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What is your opinion about the the likes of monsanto ??

Monsanto as a company and GM food as a science are two sperate issues. Their is no reason to view GM food as a threat to human health based on current evidence.

I have no clue about Monsanto.

jh79

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Bottom-line. This is about MONEY and always been about trying to get the monopoly and keep the masses in control. We are literally fed like a bunch of cattle in today's society.

It's all about PROFIT and the the world food organisation doesn't give a damn about the health of the people because all world businesses have one goal in mind and that is $$$. Nothing else, nothing more. Just like Mcdonalds make their foods as cheap as they possibly can and hope people don't realise just how poisonous their food actually is, just as long as people keep eating it (and killing them)

Thankfully, now we live in a world, where awareness and knowledge is shaking the world up, so most people are aware of what is going on and what is happening etc. Just as well, as now people know that a lot of food chains and food production industries sell and make food that is practically poison and cancerous.

Just outright shocking this thread is.

Why would you kill your customers if it is all about $?

hooradiation

Aquarius34 wrote: »

LOL@people advocating GMO foods on this thread. I can't even believe me eyes at to what I have just read.

These type of news feeds thread's are not even conspiracy orientated and don't even belong on a conspiracy discussion. This is a mainstream topic that a lot of people are discussing all around the place and anywhere on the internet when it comes to GMO and the handling of the global food industry.

This thread is just diabolical. It's actually to the point that you have to laugh at it. I can't even believe I read half of the sh**e about people trying to defend GMO type food as a safe alternative to eating wholesome natural food.


Bottom-line. This is about MONEY and always been about trying to get the monopoly and keep the masses in control. We are literally fed like a bunch of cattle in today's society.

It's all about PROFIT and the the world food organisation doesn't give a damn about the health of the people because all world businesses have one goal in mind and that is $$$. Nothing else, nothing more. Just like Mcdonalds make their foods as cheap as they possibly can and hope people don't realise just how poisonous their food actually is, just as long as people keep eating it (and killing them)

Thankfully, now we live in a world, where awareness and knowledge is shaking the world up, so most people are aware of what is going on and what is happening etc. Just as well, as now people know that a lot of food chains and food production industries sell and make food that is practically poison and cancerous.

Just outright shocking this thread is.

Not as shocking as the seven paragraphs worth of the naturalistic fallacy you've just shown us.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Monsanto as a company and GM food as a science are two sperate issues. Their is no reason to view GM food as a threat to human health based on current evidence.

I have no clue about Monsanto.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/22/superbugs-destruct-food-supply.aspx#_edn1

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14225

Interesting read

jh79

weisses wrote: »

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/22/superbugs-destruct-food-supply.aspx#_edn1

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14225

Interesting read

Tend to avoid propaganda websites. That mercola website is only scare mongering so it can sell crap like probiotics.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Tend to avoid propaganda websites. That mercola website is only scare mongering so it can sell crap like probiotics.

And where do you base your opinion about the whole GMO on ?

Propaganda is used by both sides .. Usually the big guys have the money to put a science label on their spin

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Monsanto as a company and GM food as a science are two sperate issues.

Nope

Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983, and was among the first to conduct field trials of genetically modified crops, which it did in 1987

hooradiation

weisses wrote: »

Nope

Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983, and was among the first to conduct field trials of genetically modified crops, which it did in 1987

Yep.

Monsanto might be current leaders but they don't own the idea of genetically modifying crops (they can own patents on atomic forms of modification) any more than ford owns the car.

The idea that genetic modification is Monsanto is fundamentally dishonest one.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

And where do you base your opinion about the whole GMO on ?

Propaganda is used by both sides .. Usually the big guys have the money to put a science label on their spin

The other side is well funded too, naive to think other wise. The lack of any credible papers that show issues with toxicity. That "paper" was designed quite succesfully to get into the tabloids. Not taken seriously anywhere else.

Be honest, you don't like the idea of GM food. It is not a stance you came too from reading all the scientific literature out there.

Those websites follow a narrative, why not research it through pubmed or sciencedirect or google scholar?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nope

Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983, and was among the first to conduct field trials of genetically modified crops, which it did in 1987

Yes and Bayer (i think?) were the first to relase aspirin, has no bearing on analgesiacs as a science.

weisses

hooradiation wrote: »

Yep.

Monsanto might be current leaders but they don't own the idea of genetically modifying crops (they can own patents on atomic forms of modification) any more than ford owns the car.

The idea that genetic modification is Monsanto is fundamentally dishonest one.

So Monsanto as a company and GM as a science are two separate issues ?

Who said that The idea that genetic modification is Monsanto ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Yes and Bayer (i think?) were the first to relase aspirin, has no bearing on analgesiacs as a science.

So why do you say that Monsanto as a company and GM as a science are two separate issues.

When .. Monsanto scientists became the first to genetically modify a plant cell in 1982(announced in 83). And five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops