MONSANTO: OUR CORN WON'T GIVE YOU CANCER. LOL LOL LOL

 

This sewing circle of "radical leftists" doesn't like GMO's either.

 

Warning. You might suffer from black humour overload if you proceed to read the following.

 

Here is more, dear Reader, on the GMO situation and the study from France.  I offer here what might be considered comic relief if it were not so pathetic. What Monsanto has done, as will be shown below, is unite people from ALL walks of life against the crimes it has committed because these crimes touch us all ~ and generations to come forever. Nothing can divide such union of the people no matter what these paid agents tell us. 

 

Make GMO’s part of the election platform, Americans! Call your officials to task on their complicity or lack thereof on this important issue. Do not leave it all to the few states with citizens brave enough to put it to the test. And for heaven’s sake, support their actions for a positive result. 

Might I add, Keith Spoor, er Kloor’s, article is more a smear campaign against Dr. Seralini in order to discredit his research than anything else. And that, we know, is the usual modus operandus of those in fear of exposure. Discredit, make a laughingstock of, etc. Only in this case, it is all a huge FAIL. 

 

To help you out, dear Readers, I am posting Mr. Kloor’s comedic and truly pathetic response below. What bothers me is that this man was once deeply involved with the Audubon Society and still is a well known environmental writer!

One can only NOT wonder where his true allegiances lie considering GMO’s are largely responsible for the disappearance of the American songbirds as well as much of the insect world including our invaluable bee population. Be forewarned, this article is one of the most shameless pro-GMO pieces ever written and violates every iota of intelligence you possess. Besides slandering Seralini and his study, every opponent of GMO’s and every argument against them, is facetiously disposed of in a fashion dismissive of all who voice reasonable concerns.

I would like to hear what he has to say to the fact that when animals are offered a choice between natural food and GMO food, they invariably shun the latter.AH, and I do love how he lumps those concerned with GMO's with the "nuts" in the anti-vaccine movement! He assumes that we are all crazy I suppose, but if this is crazy, then yours truly is a madwoman.

Rick Banfield
Activist Post 
October 1, 2012

Keith Kloor, writing at Slate, jumped in to try to stop the tidal wave of negative publicity about Monsanto set off by major study in France by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, proving Monsanto's corn causes cancers and rapid death. But Kloor made things 1000 times worse.

In his article, "GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left," Kloor goes through all kinds of breathtaking, logic-defying contortions to try to convince the left, somehow, that GMO-opponents aren't . . . themselves.

Doesn't he know the whole left detests Monsanto and what they are doing to corrupt food and democracies around the world, and there is no division about it? While he made a stab at creating a internecine battle between left and left, it was a hopeless (albeit perhaps very well-paid) task.

And the reality is there is not only unity between lefties about Monsanto. 

The entire left abhors Monsanto. 

But the right does, too, including climate skeptics.

Also the middle detests them.

Also, non-political people.

Also anarchists.

Also militias.

Also sewing circles.

Even family pets can't stand them.

Monsanto has been a gift to everyone in that way,

bringing the whole country together

as one big ticked off family.

Kloor failed in his impossible effort to divide the undividable. But he came up a winner with his subtitle, which gives Monsanto a fabulous food slogan.

Don’t worry.

Genetically modified corn isn’t going to give you cancer.

ED: Tell that to those French rats.

Kloor may not be very savvy politically but he is a PR whiz. "Monsanto's GM-corn doesn't cause cancer!" is even catchier than "pink slime," which has caught hold like glue with the public.

It's a great slogan and Monsanto could even put the images of the rats in Seralini's study on packages containing their GM-corn and say "See, no cancer!"

Or maybe Monsanto might prefer a more general slogan "Buy our food, it won't kill you!" and apply it to all their products.

Monsanto could use the rats' photos and proclaim,

"See, they're not dead!"

People would be rushing out for Monsanto's GM-corn, GM-soy, GM-canola, GM-sugar, GM-high-fructose-GM-corn-syrup, GM-papaya, GM-crook-neck squash, GM-Nutrasweet, GM-Equal, etc.

In his article, Kloor tore into Professor Seralini, but didn't bother to mention that Professor Seralini had already had to go to court to stop defamation, and HE WON. That being the case, Kloor might like to go after other scientists who are also saying there are dire consequences to GMOs.

The latest warnings are about GM-wheat which is proving itself as much of a winner as GM-corn.

Parents who eat GM-wheat could have children who die from it by the age of five. Perhaps Kloor's slogan for GM wheat could be

"GM-wheat doesn't kill your children!"

But that's jumping ahead. One catchy phrase at a time.

Thanks to Keith Kloor, left and right have been brought together; and Monsanto now has an unforgettable advertising slogan.

 .

And now, dear Readers, for your “joke of the day”:

GMO OPPONENTS 
ARE THE CLIMATE SKEPTICS OF THE LEFT

Don’t worry. 

Genetically modified corn isn’t going to give you cancer.

ED: Stop belly laughing, dear Reader, pull yourselves together and read on. Mr. Spoor writes wisely and without bias. Snort. Chortle. Chuckle. Giggle. These people are SO DESPERATE to keep the truth behind closed doors, ironclad (?!?) regulations and bullying tactics. Massive FAIL!

By Keith Kloor

Sept. 26, 2012

I used to think that nothing rivaled the misinformation spewed by climate change skeptics and spinmeisters.

Then I started paying attention to how anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods. You might be surprised at how successful they've been and who has helped them pull it off.

I’ve found that fears are stoked by prominent environmental groups, supposed food-safety watchdogs, and influential food columnists; that dodgy science is laundered by well-respected scholars and propaganda is treated credulously by legendary journalists; and that progressive media outlets, which often decry the scurrilous rhetoric that warps the climate debate, serve up a comparable agitprop when it comes to GMOs.

In short, I’ve learned that the emotionally charged, politicized discourse on GMOs is mired in the kind of fever swamps that have polluted climate science beyond recognition.

The latest audacious example of scientific distortion came last week, in the form of a controversial (but peer reviewed!) study that generated worldwide headlines. A French research team purportedly found that GMO corn fed to rats caused them to develop giant tumors and die prematurely.

Within 24 hours, the study's credibility was shredded by scores of scientists. The consensus judgment was swift and damning: The study was riddled with errors ~ serious, blatantly obvious flaws that should have been caught by peer reviewers.

Many critics pointed out that the researchers chose a strain of rodents extremely prone to tumors. Other key aspects of the study, such as its sample size and statistical analysis, have also been highly criticized. One University of Florida scientist suggests the study was "designed to frighten" the public.*

ED: The public has news for this scientist. It already knows about GMO’s and is not frightened so much as TICKED OFF and becoming more so by the hour. OK, now that the study has been smeared, let us move on to smearing the good Dr. Seralini who obviously has an axe to grind so that he can become rich and famous… according to Kloor.

That's no stretch of the imagination, considering the history of the lead author, Gilles-Eric Seralini, who, as NPR reports, "has been campaigning against GM crops since 1997," and whose research methods have been "questioned before," according to the New York Times.

The circumstances surrounding Seralini's GMO rat-tumor study range from bizarre (as a French magazine breathlessly reports, it was conducted in clandestine conditions) to dubious (funding was provided by an anti-biotechnology organization whose scientific board Seralini heads).

ED: This is rich considering Monsanto makes people sign away their rights to do research on any of their products before selling them a single grain of their poisoned seed.

Another big red flag: Seralini and his co-authors manipulated some members of the media to prevent outside scrutiny of their study. (The strategy appears to have worked like a charm in Europe.)

Some reporters allowed themselves to be stenographers by signing nondisclosure agreements stipulating they not solicit independent expert opinion before the paper was released. That has riled up science journalists such as Carl Zimmer, who wrote on his Discover magazine blog:

"This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science. It speaks badly for the scientists involved, but we journalists have to grant that it speaks badly to our profession, too. ... If someone hands you confidentiality agreements to sign, so that you will have no choice but to produce a one-sided article, WALK AWAY. Otherwise, you are being played."

ED: Yep Seralini did all this research to sell books! See it says so below. And of course Kloor only tells us the truth as he rushes to defend the biotech industry and its crimes.

Speaking of being played, have I mentioned yet that Seralini's book on GMOs, All Guinea Pigs! is being published (in French) this week? Oh, and there's also a documentary based on his book coming out simultaneously. You can get details on both at the website of the anti-biotetch organization that sponsored his study. The site features gross-out pictures of those GMO corn-fed rats with ping-pong-ball-size tumors.

ED: “Gross out” because they show actual results of the poisons on these hapless test rats?

It's all very convenient, isn't it?

None of this seems to bother Tom Philpott, the popular food blogger for Mother Jones, who writes that Seralini's results "shine a harsh light on the ag-biotech industry's mantra that GMOs have indisputably proven safe to eat."

Philpott often trumpets the ecological and public-health dangers posed by genetically modified crops. But such concerns about GMOs, which are regularly echoed at other left-leaning media outlets, have little merit. As Pamela Ronald, a UC-Davis plant geneticist pointed out last year in Scientific American:

"There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops."

So what explains the lingering suspicions that some people (even those who aren’t Monsanto-hating, organic-food-only eaters) still harbor?

Some of these folks are worried about new genes being introduced into plant and animal species. But humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals pretty much since we moved out of caves, manipulating their genes all the while. The process was just slower before biotechnology came along.

ED: DEAR LORD this argument is beyond flawed to the max. Right here the man shows his idiocy. There is a HUGE difference between farmers selectively breeding their grains over the years naturally and playing directly with genetic structures as these bioscientists have been doing! There is no comparison!

Still, being uneasy about a powerful, new technology doesn’t make you a wild-eyed paranoid. The precautionary principle is a worthy one to live by. But people should know that GMOs are tightly regulated (some scientists say in an overly burdensome manner).

ED: If that was not such a falsehood it would be a humorous, indeed a laughable statement considering the connections between the FDA and Monsanto, let alone the fixed short term studies produced to prove the goods safe. As stated before, 90 days is NOT long enough to test these things and seems to have been established as a cutoff date before the true results of these foods could be noted.

Many environmentalists are concerned that genetically modified animals such as “Franken-salmon” could get loose in the wild and out-compete their non-engineered cousins, or lead to breeding problems for the wild members of the species.

But even the scientist on whose research the “Trojan gene” hypothesis is based says the risk to wild salmon is “low” and that his work has been misrepresented by GMO opponents.

ED: My part of the world has a rich history thousands of years old with wild salmon. Now we are riddled with frankensalmon farms that have escaped (usually due to our wild winter storms) but the main result so far has been the spread of diseases to the wild stock.

Another big concern that has been widely reported is the “rapid growth of tenacious super weeds” that now defy Monsanto’s trademark Roundup herbicide. That has led farmers to spray their fields with an increasing amount of the chemical weed-killer. Additionally, some research suggests that other pests are evolving a resistance to GMO crops. But these problems are not unique to genetic engineering. The history of agriculture is one of a never-ending battle between humans and pests.

ED: Once again, this ignoramus is proving his ridiculous bias against what has become a big problem, a well studied and proven fact, in his attempt to debunk Dr. Seralini’s work. Minimalizing this superweed problem is proof of his ignorance.

On balance, the positives of GM crops seem to vastly outweigh the negatives. A recent 20-year study published in Nature found that GM crops helped a beneficial insect ecosystem to thrive and migrate into surrounding fields.

ED: Read the above comment and apply to the comment on how GMO’s benefit the insect ecosystem and please, try not to laugh too hard.

For an overview of the benefits (and enduring concerns) of GM crops, see this recent post by Pamela Ronald.

The bottom line for people worried about GMO ingredients in their food is that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs pose a health risk.

ED: Kloor DARES to say that with a straight face!

Even Philpott, in his charitable take on the Seralini study, admits that, "no one has ever dropped dead from drinking, say, a Coke sweetened with high-fructose syrup from GMO corn."

In the next breath, though, he wonders: "But what about 'chronic' effects, ones that come on gradually and can't be easily tied to any one thing? Here we are eating in the dark."

Despite the study being a train wreck, Philpott's takeaway is that it "provides a disturbing hint that all might not be right with our food ~and shows beyond a doubt that further study is needed."

What's beyond a doubt here is Philpott's unwillingness to call bullshit when it's staring him in the face.

ED: What is beyond a doubt here is that Kloor is on someone’s pay roll to promote the biotech industry! A losing argument I might add.

I single out Philpott not to pick on him, but because he represents the most reasonable, level-headed voice of the anti-GMO brigade (whose most extreme adherents don white hazmat suits and destroy research plots). The same goes for Grist, which calls the French study "important" and says "it's worth paying attention to what Seralini has done.”

Such acceptance by lefties of what everyone else in the reality-based science community derides as patently bad science is “just plain depressing,” writes a medical researcher who blogs under the name Orac. He compares the misuse of science and scare tactics by GMO opponents to the behavior of the anti-vaccine movement.

The anti-GM bias also reveals a glaring intellectual inconsistency of the eco-concerned media. When it comes to climate science, for example, Grist and Mother Jones are quick to call out the denialism of pundits and politicians. But when it comes to the science of genetic engineering, writers at these same outlets are quick to seize on pseudoscientific claims, based on the flimsiest of evidence, of cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting, ecosystem-killing GMOs.

This brand of fear-mongering is what I've come to expect from environmental groups, anti-GMO activists, and their most shamelessly exploitive soul travelers.

This is what agenda-driven ideologues do. The Seralini study has already been seized on by supporters of California's Proposition 37, a voter initiative that, if successful in November, would require most foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such in the state.

What's disconcerting is when big media outlets and influential thought leaders legitimize pseudoscience and perpetuate some of the most outrageous tabloid myths, which have been given fresh currency by a slanted 2011 documentary that is taken at face value at places like the Huffington Post.

In a recent commentary for Nature, Yale University's Dan Kahan lamented the "polluted science communication environment" that has deeply polarized the climate debate. He writes:

“People acquire their scientific knowledge by consulting others who share their values and whom they therefore trust and understand.”

ED: How dismissive is THAT COMMENT? Feel insulted. Feel very very insulted. Then laugh because you know this attitude is the result of fear, fear of exposure, fear of loss of profits, fear of the failure of this aspect of global genocide.

This means that lefties in the media and prominent scholars and food advocates who truly care about the planet are information brokers. So they have a choice to make: On the GMO issue, they can be scrupulous in their analysis of facts and risks, or they can continue to pollute the science communication environment.