PDA

View Full Version : GMO weed killer found in human urine


mhgaffney
06-13-2013, 11:20 AM
This story gets bigger each day


GMO and Monsanto: Glyphosate Weed Killer Found in Human Urine across Europe

By Friends of the Earth

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-monsanto-glyphosate-weed-killer-found-in-human-urine-across-europe/5338868

mhgaffney
06-13-2013, 11:22 AM
Why does this matter?

Because GMO corn products are in everything, beef, pork, soft drinks, coffee creamer...on and on...

And because glyphosate is a powerful carcinogen.

Rohirrim
06-13-2013, 11:49 AM
Those ****ers have to be stopped. If you're seeing this **** in human urine, you can't imagine how much is ending up in the ocean. Human beings aren't getting the big picture here. Kill the oceans and we kill ourselves.

Pony Boy
06-13-2013, 12:38 PM
My neighbor’s dog has grass killer in its urine

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 12:41 PM
Trace amounts of everything are everywhere.

Rohirrim
06-13-2013, 12:44 PM
Trace amounts of everything are everywhere.

We need a head smacking emoticon for brilliant statements like this. This is right up there with Bachmann's " But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 12:50 PM
We need a head smacking emoticon for brilliant statements like this. This is right up there with Bachmann's " But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."

Trace amounts of many things aren't necessarily dangerous, and in some cases are needed for healthy life, such as radiation, so...

I chalk it up to environmentalist extremism that any amount of anything anywhere is necessarily cause to poop on the rooftops.

Rohirrim
06-13-2013, 12:53 PM
Trace amounts of many things aren't necessarily dangerous, and in some cases are needed for healthy life, such as radiation, so...

I chalk it up to environmentalist extremism that any amount of anything anywhere is necessarily cause to poop on the rooftops.

That's just fine when you're talking about naturally occurring organic compounds, like arsenic for example. We're talking about Roundup here. How many ppm of Roundup in the human body is needed for healthy life?

Requiem
06-13-2013, 01:14 PM
A couple shots of Roundup a day makes my hair grow super fast!

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 01:21 PM
That's just fine when you're talking about naturally occurring organic compounds, like arsenic for example. We're talking about Roundup here. How many ppm of Roundup in the human body is needed for healthy life?

How much is needed to harm it? That's the question.

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 01:22 PM
A couple shots of Roundup a day makes my hair grow super fast!

Great. Can we start calling you Cousin Itt?

cutthemdown
06-13-2013, 01:24 PM
Oh my god what are we going to do?

nyuk nyuk
06-13-2013, 01:42 PM
Oh my god what are we going to do?

Ban everything?

B-Large
06-13-2013, 02:48 PM
Don't buy the stuff... Don't eat meat, don't drink soda, do everything from non GMO based ingredients.. Then you don't have to worry about it, let the people who don't care take the risk....

Rohirrim
06-13-2013, 03:30 PM
Read the article. The weeds are building up an immunity to it anyway. When it no longer works and you've created a super-weed, then what do you do? For all their brains, humans are the stupidest creatures imaginable. This thread simply proves the point. It is possible to work with nature to control weeds and pests, but our arrogance and greed won't allow us to do that.

BroncoBeavis
06-13-2013, 03:33 PM
Read the article. The weeds are building up an immunity to it anyway. When it no longer works and you've created a super-weed, then what do you do?

It is possible to work with nature to control weeds and pests, but our arrogance and greed won't allow us to do that.

Question, meet answer :)

Rohirrim
06-13-2013, 03:37 PM
Question, meet answer :)

It's like antibiotics. Once you've created a super Staphylococcus bacteria, you're screwed. Why? Because you've changed the rules of the game. You have set up the conditions that caused a species to evolve into something more powerful. Now you have to deal with the new species because the old laws no longer apply. File this under Leave Well Enough Alone.

BroncoBeavis
06-13-2013, 03:44 PM
It's like antibiotics. Once you've created a super Staphylococcus bacteria, you're screwed. Why? Because you've changed the rules of the game. You have set up the conditions that caused a species to evolve into something more powerful. Now you have to deal with the new species because the old laws no longer apply. File this under Leave Well Enough Alone.

I agree with you in some ways (especially when it comes to antibiotics) But the risk of a herbicide-resistant 'super weed' doesn't necessarily mean much if your alternative is to just not use herbicides. Having herbicide resistance doesn't suddenly make them Cyborg-Weeds, immune to the laws of nature.

mhgaffney
06-13-2013, 04:01 PM
William Engdahl gives a great summary of the GMO problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWAB1K4lOsw

mhgaffney
06-13-2013, 04:14 PM
Here is a story about the recent INDEPENDENT study mentioned by Engdahl. Nyuk Nyuk should pay attention: even trace amounts caused cancer.

Check out the shocking photos of the tumors.
MHG

findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html#i xzz2W8nDVieJ

Fedaykin
06-13-2013, 04:32 PM
Here is a story about the recent INDEPENDENT study mentioned by Engdahl. Nyuk Nyuk should pay attention: even trace amounts caused cancer.

Check out the shocking photos of the tumors.
MHG

findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html#i xzz2W8nDVieJ

That "study" was shown to be total B.S. quite some time ago. horrible test design, cherry picking of data, no statistical analysis, illogical leaps, etc.

poor test design:

There is little to suggest they are. Tom Sanders, head of nutritional research at King's College London, says that the strain of rat the French team used gets breast tumours easily, especially when given unlimited food, or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance, or just allowed to age. There were no data on food intake or tests for fungus in the maize, so we don't know whether this was a factor.

...
in any case, there should be at least as many controls as test rats – there were only 20 of the former and 80 of the latter – to show how variably tumours appear. Without those additional controls, "these results are of no value", he says.

Some nice cherry picking of data:

It wasn't that rats fed GM maize or herbicide got tumours, and the control rats did not. Five of the 20 control rats – 25 per cent – got tumours and died, while 60 per cent in "some test groups" that ate GM maize died. Some other test groups, however, were healthier than the controls.


and illogical leaps:

Furthermore, the team claims to see the same toxic effects both with actual Roundup, and with the GM maize – whether or not the maize contained any actual herbicide. It is hard to imagine any way in which a herbicide could have identical toxic effects to a gene tweak that gives the maize a gene for an enzyme that actually destroys the herbicide.

...

But even more damning from a pharmacological perspective, the team found the same effect at all doses of either herbicide or GM maize. That's unusual, because nearly all toxic effects worsen as the dose increases – it is considered essential for proving that the agent causes the effect.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html?page=1#.UbpXlJx4ieY

Fedaykin
06-13-2013, 04:43 PM
Take 20 control rats, 80 test rats, all from a breed of rats known to be very prone to tumors. Say, at a 25% rate.

Feed them X for a while, then take all 20 control rats of which 25% got cancer, and then just 20 test rats (the 25% of the population that got cancer), and violà! you have a control group with a 25% chance of cancer and a 'test group' where 100% got cancer.

mhgaffney
06-13-2013, 05:05 PM
Typical knee jerk by Feydakin -- who always assumes that industry -- in this case Monsanto -- got it right.

This hit piece by New Scientist is disgraceful -- and shows just how powerful Monsanto is.

According to New Scientist:

Tests like this have been done before, more rigorously, and found no effect of GM food on health. The French team claims to be the first to test for the animal's whole lifespan. But "most toxicology studies are terminated at normal lifespan – 2 years", as this one was, says Sanders. "Immortality is not an alternative." And those tests did not find this effect.

This is wrong. The tests done by Monsanto only ran for 90 days. But in the new French study which replicated the Monsanto research and ran longer -- the cancers only showed up after 4-7 months.

The French study was peer reviewed and published in a highly respected international scientific journal.

New Scientist also exposes itself by citing unnamed toxicologists. This is a dubious trashing of good science. Why is it happening? Because this new evidence threatens a too big to fail corporation -- which now has a near monopoly on food production.

Before you believe Fedaykin, check out Engdahl's analysis:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294

Fedaykin
06-13-2013, 05:50 PM
Typical knee jerk by Feydakin -- who always assumes that industry -- in this case Monsanto -- got it right.

This hit piece by New Scientist is disgraceful -- and shows just how powerful Monsanto is.

According to New Scientist:

Tests like this have been done before, more rigorously, and found no effect of GM food on health. The French team claims to be the first to test for the animal's whole lifespan. But "most toxicology studies are terminated at normal lifespan – 2 years", as this one was, says Sanders. "Immortality is not an alternative." And those tests did not find this effect.

This is wrong. The tests done by Monsanto only ran for 90 days. But in the new French study which replicated the Monsanto research and ran longer -- the cancers only showed up after 4-7 months.

The French study was peer reviewed and published in a highly respected international scientific journal.

New Scientist also exposes itself by citing unnamed toxicologists. This is a dubious trashing of good science. Why is it happening? Because this new evidence threatens a too big to fail corporation -- which now has a near monopoly on food production.

Before you believe Fedaykin, check out Engdahl's analysis:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294

As always, I point out serious flaws in your understanding of a topic, and you launch into ad hominem.

The study you cite is grossly flawed (as previously discussed), and contradicts all other studies (of which there have been dozens, including long terms studies and even multi-generational studies:


There were requests that the paper be retracted. Mark Tester, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide, noted that Seralini’s research is anomalous. Previous peer-reviewed rat feeding studies using the same products (NK603 and Roundup) have not found any negative food safety impacts. The Japanese Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology released a 52-week feeding study of GM soybeans in 2007, finding “no apparent adverse effect in rats.” Earlier this year, a team of scientists at the University of Nottingham School of Biosciences released a review of 12 long-term studies (up to two years) and 12 multi-generational studies (up to 5 generations) of GM foods, concluding there is no evidence of health hazards. - See more at: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/11/19/anti-gm-corn-study-reconsidered-seralini-finally-responds-to-torrent-of-criticism/#sthash.0lqi8VDo.dpuf

The only way to combat the abuses of corporations like Monsanto is with good, honest science not fabricated B.S.

TonyR
06-13-2013, 07:17 PM
LOL Gotta love it. The righties are enraged that the their emails aren't private, but corporations poisoning us? Who cares!

TonyR
06-13-2013, 07:19 PM
My neighbor’s dog has grass killer in its urine

LOL This is one time I side with you gun nuts. I'd love to shoot my neighbors' dogs for this very reason!

B-Large
06-14-2013, 10:39 AM
Read the article. The weeds are building up an immunity to it anyway. When it no longer works and you've created a super-weed, then what do you do? For all their brains, humans are the stupidest creatures imaginable. This thread simply proves the point. It is possible to work with nature to control weeds and pests, but our arrogance and greed won't allow us to do that.

We believe we can in perpituity use technolgy and engineering to get our way... for the most part, we can... but in the end, Mother Nature always wins.... I rue the day when we are set straight.

mhgaffney
06-14-2013, 01:54 PM
As always, I point out serious flaws in your understanding of a topic, and you launch into ad hominem.

The study you cite is grossly flawed (as previously discussed), and contradicts all other studies (of which there have been dozens, including long terms studies and even multi-generational studies:

The only way to combat the abuses of corporations like Monsanto is with good, honest science not fabricated B.S.

Based on what? The opinions of toxicologists that New Scientist will not name?

I would not be surprised to learn that those toxicologists work for guess who -- Monsanto.

Where is your skepticism for Monsanto's research on this -- which found no ill effects?

The initial studies should have not have been done by Monsanto -- but by independent laboratories.

Even if the new results are in question, as William Engdahl points out, the precautionary principle ought to apply here. In other words, Monsanto's GMO corn seeds should be banned until a follow up study by an independent lab is completed.

But I guess the health of the people is not something that matters to you. Well, it matters to me.

MHG

mhgaffney
06-14-2013, 01:55 PM
Money buys everything today, politicians, judges, and yes, even scientists.

mhgaffney
06-18-2013, 05:54 PM
Attention Feydakin.

Of course there are certain scientists (usually with links to the agro-industry) who always seem to be strident in calling for peer-reviewed evidence when people are critical of the biotech sector, but then rubbish it and smear or intimidate the scientists involved when that occurs, as has been the case with Dr Arsad Pusztai in the UK or Professor Seralini in France. It is therefore quite revealing that most of the data pertaining to glyphosate safety came from industry studies, not from peer-reviewed science, and the original data are not available for independent scrutiny.


For the rest...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-roundup-glyphosate-weedkiller-in-our-food-and-water/5339244