Have anyone seen this?
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Have anyone seen this?[/quote]
Would you really believe a website called natural news would be objective?
Secondly, testicular cells are very sensitive, most household chemicals would disrupt/damage them.
Glyphosate is one of the most benign herbicides on the market.
“Glyphosate is one of the most benign herbicides on the market.”
You work for Monsanto or somthin’ Dog?
You and I just read the very same article word for word, and it was discovered
that glysophate was harmful, so what part of that university finding didn’t you
understand?
Do you still cling tightly to those old doctor endorsed Cigarette ads from the 50’s
as well?
Are you smarter than the university? Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
The fuck’s the matter with you?
A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicology in Vitro Volume 26, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 269?279
Émilie Claira, b, Robin Mesnagea, b, Carine Traverta, Gilles-Éric Séralinia,
a Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, EA2608, Institute of Biology, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex, France
b Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, Risk Pole MRSH-CNRS, and CRIIGEN, 40 rue de Monceau, 75008 Paris, France
StAR suppression is a known effect of exposure to Roundup.
And it’s amazing that this study was ever even published. It’s very difficult for any researcher to undertake studies, which might result in negative outcomes/publicity for Monsanto.
[quote]Karado wrote:
“Glyphosate is one of the most benign herbicides on the market.”
You work for Monsanto or somthin’ Dog?
You and I just read the very same article word for word, and it was discovered
that glysophate was harmful, so what part of that university finding didn’t you
understand?
Do you still cling tightly to those old doctor endorsed Cigarette ads from the 50’s
as well?
Are you smarter than the university? Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
The fuck’s the matter with you?[/quote]
You must have zero critical thinking skills. So I’ll be nice, at first.
Food for thought, do you believe that every piece of scientific literature is fact? Truth is some scientists have ulterior motives and some design studies to achieve certain results.
Case in point.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-science-gm-journal-idUSBRE8AT10920121130
“Truth is some scientists have ulterior motives and some design studies to achieve certain results.”
And what exactly would those “ulterior motives” be other than maybe promoting to eat organic
and avoid “Frankenfoods” as much as possible? What OTHER “ulterior motives” would there be
other than a maybe a Davy And Goliath battle for the Natural vs. the Impostor?
We can trade off links all day, but are you really that warm, comfy, and accepting of the prevalence of Fish and Scorpion genes in Strawberries and Tomatoes, down the slippery slope to “Spider Goat” Hybrids that produce silk, etc, etc?
Where do you draw the line?..where does it stop?
Clearly you are Pro-GMO so I wont even ask, so please give us one link where GMO’s promote Health and Well Being in the human body that far surpass what Mother Nature offers.
We’re waiting.
whats wrong with having scorpion dna in a strawberry? ( not trolling I just honestly don’t know why that is a bad thing other then it being weird)
[quote]orourkei wrote:
whats wrong with having scorpion dna in a strawberry? ( not trolling I just honestly don’t know why that is a bad thing other then it being weird) [/quote]
I was just going to ask that very thing 
This is the problem I have with anti GMO arguments. They usually end up like this “Utter Rubbish, GMO will ultimately mutate and become poisonous. The Global elite have planned it this way to reduce the worlds population. Since GMO was introduced stomach and gastric health problems have increased dramatically. Its totally against the natural process of life and will eventually destroy mankind!”
I was having this conversation earlier
I have no problems per se with genetic ENGINEERING (we have genetically modified food sources via techniques such as selective breeding etc)
HOWEVER these manipulations can have cascading effects that can cause secondary problems. In order to make sure there are none of these problems thorough research needs to be done with said products proving them to be harmless before we start consuming them. As of now no such testing is being done at best the research is highly superficial because of the pressure from big money. That is the biggest problem adopting this approach, we will essentially be the guinea pigs.
Read that. GMOs by themselves I do not think are very scary, the fact we wont have a choice about them soon is. Also, kill genes in crops? Not cool. There is a lot to GMOs that is pretty ridiculous and with the law protecting them now its just getting worse. There is a reason countries have banned them.
Earlier in this discussion, two persons expressed interest in the question: What is wrong with scorpion DNA in a strawberry? This is a very astute question. Who could provide a definitive answer to this question? Nobody, including particularly the technicians/scientists inserting said DNA sequences. It’s a complete unknown! There has been no long-term safety testing of any GM foodstuff. By way of contrast, traditional, non-GMO crops have been tested in vitro, in large population samples, over the course of human history.
If a big agra corporation sent you an envelope in the mail tomorrow, containing a free “vitamin” pill, with the assurance that there had been neither short- nor long-term testing of the new ingredients, but that they had no special reason to believe that what was in the pill was unsafe, would you take it?
And here is another really good question: If there were significant consequences down the road, arising from human ingestion of these untested materials, who would be accountable? The suits at the big agra corporations? State or Federal governmental “authorities?”
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Read that. GMOs by themselves I do not think are very scary, the fact we wont have a choice about them soon is. Also, kill genes in crops? Not cool. There is a lot to GMOs that is pretty ridiculous and with the law protecting them now its just getting worse. There is a reason countries have banned them.[/quote]
The reason the terminator gene is present is in case it were to crossbreed with a wild type plant. It wouldn’t be able to reproduce, which is a good thing.
Your case is an example of a little knowledge being dangerous, and having a knee-jerk reaction to emotional writing.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Read that. GMOs by themselves I do not think are very scary, the fact we wont have a choice about them soon is. Also, kill genes in crops? Not cool. There is a lot to GMOs that is pretty ridiculous and with the law protecting them now its just getting worse. There is a reason countries have banned them.[/quote]
The reason the terminator gene is present is in case it were to crossbreed with a wild type plant. It wouldn’t be able to reproduce, which is a good thing.
Your case is an example of a little knowledge being dangerous, and having a knee-jerk reaction to emotional writing.[/quote]
the terminator gene is there to force rebuying of seeds not as a “safety net”
Bingo…the gene is there so farmers would have to would rely on Monsanto to keep buying their
product…God forbid we have Fruit and Veggie seeds we CAN’T reuse from the Foods themselves,
what an abomination that perfectly natural cycle would be…the NERVE of nature not to figure
out what Monsanto has solved.
Maybe they can figure out a way to GMO a female earlier so she won’t flow every month and get so bitchy,
think what that would do for relationships.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicology in Vitro Volume 26, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 269?279
�??milie Claira, b, Robin Mesnagea, b, Carine Traverta, Gilles-�??ric S�??�??�?�©ralinia,
a Universit�???�??�?�© de Caen Basse-Normandie, EA2608, Institute of Biology, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex, France
b Universit�???�??�?�© de Caen Basse-Normandie, Risk Pole MRSH-CNRS, and CRIIGEN, 40 rue de Monceau, 75008 Paris, France
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233311003341[/quote]
So (I have not looked into it) are people experiencing serum glyphosate levels in this range of 1 ppm or higher, or even lets say 1/10th or 1/100th that amount, from consuming foods where Roundup was used agriculturally?
Apparently ( https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VMBJSdW_WAwJ:jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/162.full.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh92mWrdNGWAxZxp1lg_m0Jh4yLFlTWtzqoAlUNguR4bxJIPTZWeiIU2JgpehinGggkP7mrVlWZwISeXzz6T3HbpH3jDJZrqIrbAJs84tXo2HmbZxXItsgYlLHY_5UhEzkpNHg9&sig=AHIEtbTRYS8ER3iQdRAkxBCdPIvk3QhrcA ) drinking 100 mL of glyphosate herbicide, not necessarily Roundup, in a suicide attempt gave a serum level of about 4400 ppm glyphosate. So the 10,000 ppm end of the study range seems a little excessive. They did however see substantial effect at 1 ppm also. On a quick check, I didn’t see evidence as to whether people are experiencing blood levels on the order of 1 ppm, or 1/100th of that, or any particular value as a result of these herbicides being used agriculturally.
An expectation that an herbicide or pesticide be completely non-toxic to humans even at concentrations far beyond what anyone would get from consuming the foods is probably unrealistic, unless wishing to accept our food supply decreasing drastically. So the question is, is the 1 ppm level, or anything like it, remotely relevant to amounts actually resulting in humans? Short of being careless with the stuff, or perhaps being exposed by aerial spraying, etc., which could be a different issue.
?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Read that. GMOs by themselves I do not think are very scary, the fact we wont have a choice about them soon is. Also, kill genes in crops? Not cool. There is a lot to GMOs that is pretty ridiculous and with the law protecting them now its just getting worse. There is a reason countries have banned them.[/quote]
The reason the terminator gene is present is in case it were to crossbreed with a wild type plant. It wouldn’t be able to reproduce, which is a good thing.
Your case is an example of a little knowledge being dangerous, and having a knee-jerk reaction to emotional writing.[/quote]
Lol. Has way more to do with having to buy new seeds… I just did a quick google search since the OP asked. I grow my own food so I’m not sweating it too much.
http://www.rodale.com/research-feed/organic-vs-monsanto-organic-farmers-lose-right-protect-crops
How about that? Monsanto can sue farmers when Monsantos seeds cross polinate? Yea- really straight forward ha
I don’t agree with most of what Monsanto does, but wrt the terminator gene, I’d much rather not have their genes going wild and doing damage.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I don’t agree with most of what Monsanto does, but wrt the terminator gene, I’d much rather not have their genes going wild and doing damage.[/quote]
Right, exactly why they shouldn’t be there in the first place.