Proof Monsanto is evil

[FON]

I'm sorta skeptical. Proof that Monsanto are a bunch of shit cunts that live up to their malicious hype on the internet? Are their bans in Europe and shit justified?

[Obbe]

Evil isn't objective.   How do you prove something that isn't objective?

[equanimity]

http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

[Obbe]

From the above link:

“In females, all treated groups died two to three times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in three male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second-most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…”

Interesting.

[aldra]

most of it actually is hype.

GURTS-type seeds were never actually produced outside of testing and were never sold, the lawsuits of farmers claiming GM seeds blew on to their properties and were subsequently sued by monsanto were frivolous, and monsanto actually warned the US government about toxicity and long-term side-effects of agent orange... which they promptly ignored.

[aldra]

http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

RT's always been decidedly anti-west, so it's a good idea to properly research anything they publish in that regard, especially editorials and opinion pieces.

it was ruled inconclusive because of a small sample size combined with the breed of rat used - the part that RT doesn't mention is the reason that's relevant is that particular breed of rat is highly predisposed to tumours to begin with. given that the study was performed and funded under CRIIGEN, a decidedly anti-GM group, it's hinted that it's possible the strain was specifically chosen to skew results, though there's no evidence of deliberate fraud. keep in mind that in that piece, only anti-GM groups were interviewed.

Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.
Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.

I don't actually know how relevant or valid the study is given that I don't have a login to read the full text, but there was good reason to review and potentially withdraw it.

[FON]

Evil isn't objective.   How do you prove something that isn't objective?

Yes, use your mental illness to fret over my use of the term evil instead of actually comprehending the OP and coming up with a decent response.

http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

Hmm, it doesn't appear that the study has been improved in any way, it's just been republished in an open access journal. I await further poof.

[Obbe]

Evil isn't objective.   How do you prove something that isn't objective?

Yes, use your mental illness to fret over my use of the term evil instead of actually comprehending the OP and coming up with a decent response.

http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

Hmm, it doesn't appear that the study has been improved in any way, it's just been republished in an open access journal. I await further poof.

I'm not fretting anything.  There is no way to prove what you're asking.  What in your mind qualifies as evil? What in your mind justifies a ban?

[aldra]

I'm not fretting anything.  There is no way to prove what you're asking.  What in your mind qualifies as evil? What in your mind justifies a ban?

I'm sure you know what he's talking about, but regardless:

popular sentiment, especially with the anti-GM crowd is that Monsanto willfully and knowingly sells unsafe and unhealthy food products, and actively engages in anti-competitive and otherwise corrupt behaviour.

I used to believe it myself, but the more I've read about it the less it seems to hold true, at least compared to many other large companies.

[Obbe]

I'm not fretting anything.  There is no way to prove what you're asking.  What in your mind qualifies as evil? What in your mind justifies a ban?

I'm sure you know what he's talking about, but regardless:

popular sentiment, especially with the anti-GM crowd is that Monsanto willfully and knowingly sells unsafe and unhealthy food products, and actively engages in anti-competitive and otherwise corrupt behaviour.

I used to believe it myself, but the more I've read about it the less it seems to hold true, at least compared to many other large companies.

Thank you for being more concise than the OP.  I don't know enough about this company to have an opinion on that but at least what you say can be demonstrated one way or the other.  So why has this company been banned in certain countries?

[aldra]

I wasn't aware that Monsanto was banned from operating in certain countries, but I do know that much of Europe has banned GM foods. it started similarly to what's going on in the US now - anti-GM advocates campaigning for mandatory labeling laws indicating which foods have been genetically modified (which is fundamentally meaningless because it's no secret to anyone who looks for information, and the mandatory labels make no mention of WHAT modifications have been applied), followed by boycotts and nonstop scare campaigns.

the main problem I have with the push against GM produce is that campaigners think all GM foods are the same - even if some items on the market were to cause tumors or cancers, which I've never seen reliable evidence for anyway, it doesn't mean that all GM foods are dangerous.

without GM crops, specifically drought-resistant, many, many people who are alive today would have starved. some items' potential safety issues or the industry at large's poor business ethics don't warrant the complete shutdown of GM food science.

[Obbe]

I wasn't aware that Monsanto was banned from operating in certain countries, but I do know that much of Europe has banned GM foods. it started similarly to what's going on in the US now - anti-GM advocates campaigning for mandatory labeling laws indicating which foods have been genetically modified (which is fundamentally meaningless because it's no secret to anyone who looks for information, and the mandatory labels make no mention of WHAT modifications have been applied), followed by boycotts and nonstop scare campaigns.

the main problem I have with the push against GM produce is that campaigners think all GM foods are the same - even if some items on the market were to cause tumors or cancers, which I've never seen reliable evidence for anyway, it doesn't mean that all GM foods are dangerous.

without GM crops, specifically drought-resistant, many, many people who are alive today would have starved. some items' potential safety issues or the industry at large's poor business ethics don't warrant the complete shutdown of GM food science.

You're very informative, thanks!

[RisiR]

It's a long read and 4 years old but if you smoke weed and are interested in its GMO future and demise, read this.

http://community.kpfz.org/node/17

George Soros ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros ) has bought Uruguay to work on their GMO cannabis together with DEA puppet, GW Pharmaceuticals CEO and patent troll David Watson aka Sam Skunkman.

I know, it sounds fucking crazy.

http://hemp.org/news/content/gmo-weed-connections-alleged-between-uruguay-marijuana-legalization-monsanto-and-soros

[FON]

I'm not fretting anything.  There is no way to prove what you're asking.  What in your mind qualifies as evil? What in your mind justifies a ban?

I'm sure you know what he's talking about, but regardless:

popular sentiment, especially with the anti-GM crowd is that Monsanto willfully and knowingly sells unsafe and unhealthy food products, and actively engages in anti-competitive and otherwise corrupt behaviour.

I used to believe it myself, but the more I've read about it the less it seems to hold true, at least compared to many other large companies.

Thanks for explaining that to Obbe. I thought it was incredibly obvious what I was talking about but Obbe isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and he has a history of letting his butthurt cloud his reason.

lol at "what in your mind justifies a ban". Seriously? How are you not a failed abortion?

[starvingniglet]

No mention of 'terminator' seeds?  That seems pretty evil to me.  What if there is some unforseen effect from making such organisms widely commercially available?  If there is such a thing as 'evil', I would say that potentially unraveling the delicate balance of the natural world for the sake of profit would pretty much qualify.