GMO cannabis

Bdog said:

Anyone see this. them bastards are going to kill all the bees, poison our food and taint and patent the meds.

here is the link.

http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine....tically-modified-marijuana-brand-uruguay.html

Click to expand...

oldnewfarmer said:

Wonder which seed company will be the first to do a collab with monsanto?

Click to expand...

It is quite possible that Marijuana could be the next major GMO crop.

Click to expand...

gmo causes cancer in all mammals that consume it

Click to expand...

Ready® corn, or maize, to rats for two years, and reported that both females and males developed cancer and died at higher rates than controls.

This is very surprising. If GM corn causes cancer, why aren’t Americans “dropping like flies,“ as one scientist asked? We’ve been eating Monsanto‘s Roundup Ready® corn for over a decade, even if most of us aren’t aware of it. But our rates of cancer haven’t increased more than Europeans, who eat far less GM corn. Maybe the effect is limited to rats – in which case we should also have seen dramatic increases in cancer in lab rats. But we haven’t seen that either.

So what’s wrong? The best way to find out is to read the paper, which I did. It turns out to be a very badly designed study, and the report itself omits many crucial details that may (and probably do) completely invalidate the findings. The scientists leading the study have a strongly biased agenda and a conflict of interest, which they failed to reveal. I’ll explain below, but meanwhile this study has already been taken up by politicians as proof (proof!) that GMO crops are harmful. As Forbes blogger Tim Worstall explained, this paper is more politics than science.

Click to expand...

The recent report claiming that gmo,s are causally associated with cancer development in rats has been debunked by informed opinion: genetically tumour prone rats were used; a spurious construct and research protocol was followed; and the statistical approach used did not satisfy confounding factors. The publication was apparently not subject to satisfactory objective refereeing, and certain tainted financial interests were also operative. All the foregoing factors skewed the results, rendering them invalid and not significant.

Click to expand...

Still, it is telling that some people are most worried about cancer-causing GMOs –a fear likely stoked by anti-GMO campaigning and the notorious 2012 study of GMO corn by French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini. Seralini and his research team also published photographs of rats with gigantic, scary tumours. But scientists worldwide debunked the research because the team used rats that were genetically predisposed to have cancer, cherry-picked the data and used sloppy methodology. The paper was retracted last November.

Yet that hasn’t stopped anti-GMO activist groups from continuing to promote the discredited research as ‘proof’ that GMOs cause cancer. For example, NaturalNews.com’s list of Top 10 most unhealthy, cancer-causing foods – never eat these again! cites GMOs as the number one cancer-causing food with Seralini’s retracted study as the only evidence.

Click to expand...

Are the findings reliable?
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.

But didn't the treated rats get sicker than the untreated rats?
Some did, but that's not the full story. 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.

Toxicologists do a standard mathematical test, called the standard deviation, on such data to see whether the difference is what you might expect from random variation, or can be considered significant. The French team did not present these tests in their paper. They used a complicated and unconventional analysis that Sanders calls "a statistical fishing trip".

Click to expand...

foomar said:

As its posted on a notorious natural medicine site than asserts amongst other unproven claims that wheatgrass and magnets cure cancer , is equally probable that it will not.

Would not believe much on the Huffington post either , the rest of that article is alarmist shite.




The evidence claiming that is mainly a flawed and biased French study from2012 that has since been withdrawn , scary pictures of tumours and no science.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevens...ly-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3615871/




http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...consumers-want-answered-do-gmos-cause-cancer/




http://www.newscientist.com/article...uestioned.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

I do not have a problem with GM food if labelled so that people can make an informed choice , transgenic manipulation is potentially more dangerous and needs a lot more research to validate its safety for consumption.

I don't work for Monsanto or the illuminati , I just do research before I jump on a bandwagon.

Click to expand...

gaiusmarius said:

even here we have monsantos arguments being presented as fact and all others being dismissed. quite funny really.

why don't you research super weeds if you don't give a damn about your own health. vast swathes of land are being slowly but surely overtaken by super resistant weeds that will not die from herbicides anymore. this is thanks to gmo roundup ready crops that caused farmers to spray round up everywhere and after a few years bam! the weeds don't die anymore from round up, now you need something stronger or a cocktail of poison, but that only works for 2 seasons and now you need something even stronger, alas nothing stronger is legal and now your fields are lost. not only do the yields not go up over time, they go down, but worse those gmo crops all take lots of ferts and poisons to even have a chance of making a profit.

so not only are the US gov telling us that GMO crops are exactly the same as non gmo crops, but now they are trying to force the rest of the world to accept that argument and sign treaties that will allow monsanto and its ilk to sue a gov if it makes laws that might possibly lose the company money. if you don't see the harm in that, maybe check out the Indian farmers driven to suicide because of gmo crops, or look at the family farmers all over the US that got sued because some gmo pollen contaminated their gmo free crops. how can a company with such evil practices and activities be trusted with something like gmo crops. no matter which side you study there is nothing positive about gmo crops, nothing at all. the farmers that went with it are all regretting it, but their soil is now so poisonous that it won't grow anything else, at least till the super weeds show up. the first few years the farmer really has a good harvest, but it doesn't last and ends up making them worse off then before, but now they are contractually obligated to buy the gmo seeds and all the poison and chems they sell to get them to grow.

Click to expand...

SativaBreather said:

was always gonna happen despite Sams protestations
gmo causes cancer in all mammals that consume it

so the big joke will be all the med patients fucking themselves up worse

nice one Rockefeller p.o.s

Click to expand...

if gmo is good for you why did david cameron ban it fromm the parliaments kitchen, just after the bilderberg meeting to...organic produce only! i smell a rat!

Click to expand...

A lot of people like glyphosate. That’s why it has been used exclusively for so long, and why in some areas we’re now seeing glyphosate-resistant weeds. Clearly, we can’t keep using glyphosate alone season after season without creating a serious problem for food production.

If people like glyphosate, the surest way to preserve its effectiveness long-term is to bring in other herbicide modes of action (the physiological mechanism by which an herbicide acts upon a plant) to support it. Weeds facing several modes of action will have to try to develop resistance to each of these products. In essence it forces the weeds to win the lottery multiple times in order to survive and stacks the odds against them.

These complementary herbicides used with glyphosate are not “harsher.” They have met the same stringent U.S. regulatory standards and have been through the same thorough health, safety and environmental evaluations as glyphosate. In fact, U.S. EPA is prohibited by federal law from authorizing any herbicide for any food-related use unless scientific evidence shows “a reasonably certainty of no harm.” Regulators must also determine based on the best available scientific evidence that use will not pose “unreasonable adverse” environmental effects.

Using glyphosate with other herbicides having different modes of action is clearly the responsible choice.

Click to expand...

Claiming that the connection between GM crops and farmer suicides is simply false, Abid notes that the rise of farmer suicides in 1995 was seven years before Monsanto introduced BT cotton to India in 2002. Correspondingly, one of the authors of the study, Prabhat Jha, urges a shift in focus from farmers to the major victims: “The main story of suicide in India is not of farmers, it is of young people, between the ages of 15 to 29, who are taking their lives. So the dominant headline I think really is, why are so many young Indians killing themselves?”

Click to expand...

Predicated on the removal of the State from the economic sphere, these policies abolished agricultural subsidies. At the same time, the Indian market was opened to multinational corporations, who retained domestic subsidies and were thus able to set artificially low prices, with which Indian farmers could not compete. “Removal of four hundred billion dollars in subsidies combined with the forced removal of import restriction is a ready-made recipe for farmer suicide,”

Click to expand...

Andrea Roberto Sonnino, chief of research at the U.N. food agency, said total food production at present is enough to feed the entire global population. The problem is uneven distribution, leaving 870 million suffering from hunger. He said world food production will need to increase by 60 percent to meet the demands of 9 billion by 2050. This must be achieved by increasing yields, he added, because there is little room to expand cultivated land used for agriculture.

Genetically modified foods, in some instances, can help if the individual product has been assessed as safe, he said. "It's an opportunity that we cannot just miss."

Click to expand...

theJointedOne said:

illegal to study effects of gmo's on humans or any other mammal in the usa

Click to expand...