Rational does not mean informed. You can seek to discredit the messenger all you like, but that is not going to change the fact that the evidence against the safety and integrity of GMO's is very strong. ... Did you happen to read the example of the Russian study that I posted below here or the information about the environmental impact of gmo's from the 'Union of Concerned Scientists', or the "Press release from the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility regarding the 129 scientists who are expressing concern about the safety of gmo's? ....
None of this even begins to address the corruption that can be cited against the industry and the research it has and does fund. I could post pages about it here. Of course the fact that our FDA is presently headed up by an Obama appointed former top Monsanto executive seems right in sync with what's become of scientific research at this point. ..... Gee, do you think the fact that when Obama first took office, as reported in the Wall St Journal, a group of scientists from the FDA went and pleaded with him to please clean up the agency because it was/is so corrupt that they were/are unable to produce honest and accurate work. Of course good old Obama, who campaigned on the promise that GMO's would be labeled, ... did absolutely nothing and instead placed the industry at the helm of the FDA.
Just one example of the evidence of GMO's being harmful;
'REGNUM'; - "Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies";
" ... Thus, according to these results, the abnormally high level of posterity death has been detected at the posterity of the female species with GM-soy added to their food. And 36% percent of born rats weighed less than 20 grams that is an evidence of their extremely weak condition."
“The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained very disturbing,” said Irina Ermakova to NAGS press office. According to NAGS Vice-president Aleksey Kulikov, the data received by Dr.Ermakova confirm the necessity of full scale tests of GM-products influence over living creatures."
http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html View Comment
Article from; "European Network Of Scientists For Social And Environmental Responsibility"
"297 Scientists And Experts Agree GMOs Not Proven Safe";
"Press release, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, 10 Dec 2013
The number of scientists and experts who have signed a joint statement saying that GM foods have not been proven safe and that existing research raises concerns has climbed to 297 since the statement was released on 21 October.
Dr Angelika Hilbeck, chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, said, “We’re surprised and pleased by the strong support for the statement. It seems to have tapped into a deep concern in the global scientific community that the name of science is being misused to make misleading claims about the safety of GM technology.”
The statement indirectly challenges claims by EU chief science adviser Anne Glover that there is no evidence that GM foods are any riskier than non-GM foods.
Dr Rosa Binimelis Adell, board member of ENSSER, said, “It seems that Anne Glover chooses to listen to one side of the scientific community only – the circle of GMO producers and their allied scientists – and ignores the other. Thus she is giving biased advice to the EU Commission. For a science adviser, this is irresponsible and unethical.”
New signatories to the statement include Dr Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University and adjunct professor in the department of public health and family medicine at the Tufts School of Medicine. Dr Krimsky said: ..."
http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/ View Comment
Hardly emotion based. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine for one, would disagree with you;
"... There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11
Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6
Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11
Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans. ..."
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html View Comment
What you claim to be so regarding there being no evidence that GMO's are harmful in any way is simply blatantly wrong. You are uninformed. Of course it doesn't help that just as is the case where pharmaceutical research is concerned, most scientific research on GMO's is industry funded and is rampant with corrupt reporting in favor of industry. But for starters just consider the environmental effects of GMO crops ...
Quote from an article on "The Union Of Concerned Scientists";
" ... At the same time, in the countries that have used these technologies the longest, big problems are emerging. Weeds resistant to the herbicide used on Monsanto’s crops have reached epidemic proportions in the U.S., reportedly infesting about 60 million acres and increasing rapidly. This has increased herbicide use by hundreds of millions of pounds above where it probably would have been had these crops not existed."
"And now insects resistant to Bt are emerging around the world. I was at the University of Illinois recently, where I heard a respected corn entomologist bemoaning the intention of corn farmers to return to the use of chemical insecticides to control rootworms that have developed resistance to Monsanto’s Bt gene for controlling that important pest."
"On top of that, USDA does not even count the over 90 percent of corn seed—that’s close to 90 million acres—that is treated with neonicotinoid insecticides that are implicated in seriously harming bees and other beneficial organisms. One of the major producers of these insecticides is Chilton’s company, Syngenta."
"The point is that the static and narrowly focused economic analyses that have touted the (limited) benefits of GE do not take into account that these products have been developed for use in monoculture agriculture systems, where their nominal value is very temporary (the industry’s solution is more of the same, e.g. new herbicide-resistant crops that will further increase herbicide use)."
"Add to this the questions raised about monopoly control of the seed supply via intellectual property (patents), weak-kneed regulators, and the challenge of using GE successfully for developing genetically and physiologically complex traits like drought tolerance, and the successes of this technology as applied so far are seen to be meager, and substantially outweighed by its faults. ..."
http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-world-food-prize-sells-out-to-monsanto-163 View Comment
I posted this video link in another thread here but it just disappeared for some reason as did a couple of my other posts. It seems of some value for folks to see how to stop an attacking dog when it is holding a bite on someone. This seems a pretty good instruction on it. (2 min video). You may have to copy and paste the link;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ebR37K8hDg View Comment
I have very truthfully done that many times and I spent a lot of time with a number of different pits and never found the behavior of the ones I interacted with to be different from the average dog. I have to say however that I was a bit disturbed by how unusually powerful they are physically. This was when I determined how dangerous it would be to be attacked by one. They are solid rock hard muscle, and a lot of it. ... and an important portion of that muscle is in their head and jaw. ... I have seen the same type of physical strength in the body of many doberman's and certainly a bull terrier, but pits are a larger dog and some of them are certainly significantly larger than others. To me the issue is largely their physical power and how in the hands of the wrong handler they can become a very dangerous animal and there are a hell of a lot of the wrong handlers/owners out there. This is one of the reasons why so many pits wind up in animal shelters. People just abandon them a lot. View Comment
That's a good post BR. You make some excellent points. As much as owners of pits may like to deny it, the breed is bred to have an extremely powerful body and bite. I have read that the bite is even superior to that of a timber wolf, and that is saying a lot. Of course from what I have learned a rottweiller has the most powerful bite of all breeds. I'm not sure why we don't hear more about them. It seems the pitt has become more popular these days. Perhaps because there seems to be more fear in the world today and just as more and more folks are owning guns, more and more folks are owning dogs which can provide the means for protection. Owning a particularly powerful breed of dog which has the potential to do great harm if not owned responsibly and well controlled might be compared to owning a gun. In the wrong hands it can be deadly, and unfortunately for responsible owners, there are a significant amount of "wrong hands" out there. View Comment
Tell me about it. I would have to add that I've been driving in the tri state area for the past 41 years and it is remarkable just how putrid the average driver is on the road these days. Not only do people run red lights all the time, (I've almost been creamed more than once), they change lanes at a whim without any signaling. Many people sit in and block the inside passing lane when they should be driving in the outside slow lane etc. It's amazing to me that there aren't more accidents than there are. ... I have a sense that this is all a reflection of a combination of things like overcrowding, higher pressure living and just plain ignorance about traffic laws. ... View Comment