So the World Health Organization has come out and said glyphosate probably causes cancer.
Glyphosate producers tell us that it doesn't affect humans because we don't have the shikimate pathway. Hur dur, our gut bacteria do however.
The Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases recently published a paper linking Bt-toxin related GMOs to anemia and leukemia.
"According to Greenmedinfo, the new study shows thatBt toxincan target mammalian cells in particular red blood cells lineage resulting in significant damage and abnormality in red blood cells known as anemia. Additionally, Bt toxin can suppress bone marrow proliferation creating abnormal lymphocyte pattern similar to what’s known as leukemia.
Let's all talk about how safe all GMOs and pesticides are, and how anyone who even pauses to consider their safety are dumb! Bonus points if you cite studies funded by private industries who have nothing to gain from proving these farming practices are healthy and totally don't give you cancer or tumors.
Monsanto shills, put that donut down and get in here! You have work to do! They don't pay you for nothing!
>The strangest thing about the rush by OCA and other anti-GMO folks to call this the latest “GMO” scandal is that the study didn’t test Bt toxins expressed by biotech crops. It didn’t even test the Bt toxins expressed in bacteria then purified. Instead, the paper says they used “spore-crystals Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac and Cry2Aa from B. thuringiensis var. kurstaki were obtained in lyophilized form”. Some Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria can go dormant, forming a spore, and form crystals around the outside of the bacteria to protect themselves.
>In other words, this study used the whole bacteria – the exact same thing that is used in organic Bt sprays. According to Organic Consumers Association, Bt sprays are used by “at least 57 percent of organic farmers” and “does not have detrimental effects on mammals, birds or non-target insect species and microorganisms. In addition, Bt sprays leave no poisonous residue on crops or trees and are readily degraded into the environment.” Yet somehow the exact same active ingredient, when expressed in a transgenic plant, lasts a long time in the environment and is now toxic to everything, according to OCA et al (despite the pesky science that says it doesn’t).
>Anyway, the authors resuspended the whole bacteria in water, then orally administered them to the mice in incredibly high concentrations: 27, 136, and 270 mg of bacteria per kg of body weight.
I'm really out of the loop here, but how is pesticide related to GMO's being harmful? Don't normal crops use pesticide? If anything GMO's require less pesticide due to being, well, GMO's.
anti-GMO people have no idea how GMOs, farming, pesticides , or anything else related to how food is produced works. They just know the food contains chemicals, which natural food does not.
Oooh, and then lets talk about that one study by Séralini which found that rats grew tumors after being fed two Monsanto products, the NK603 GM maize and its associated herbicide Roundup, and how shortly after that study was published, Richard Goodman, a former Monsanto employee, was appointed to the editorial board of that journal, and eventually that paper was retracted. There's definitely no conflict of interest or revolving door or any reason to be the slightest bit skeptical of Goodman's role.
They re-published the paper and said there was no scientific grounds for the paper to be retracted so they published it again.
Not to mention seralini is not the only research there is
So roundup is the worst of the worst? In what quantity is it used compared to those used in ' normal crops'? What about organic(no pesticide) GMO crops? Are they harmful as well? Why did you turn this into anti-GMO thing, when the use of the pesticide in normal and GMO crops are harmful to everyone? Aren't those chemicals the real issue here?
As much as I would love that we don't eat natural. Everything contains pesticides. That's the real issues here. It's bad for us, it's bad for the environment. We've been struggling with this issue for decade's.
>What about organic(no pesticide)
"Organic" does not mean "no pesticides".
It means "none of the pesticides that we think are spooky." See:>>7797497
It's common practice for organic farmers to spray their crops with Bt toxin. It kills pest insects, so it's a pesticide. However, because it's derived from natural soil bacteria that are everywhere in nature, it counts as organic.
Had I said biological, you would have been right. It's kind of a marketing ploy(look up the difference between organic and biological foods). When people see biological on their products they assume it's natural. However, as you mentioned some pesticides are derived from bacteria, which is also biological. Organic means, or at with the definition that I am familiar with, that no pesticide were used. It means that it's grown completely natural, which explains why they are a buttload more expensive. The trouble is that there is no one governmental body overseeing the production of these crops so some farmers can lable it as they want. There are some organizations that issue organic certificates, and you should look for those when trying to buy natural food.
I notice that not one of these posts mentions dose.
Glyphosate is dangerous in high doses, that's why people spraying them wear suits. By the time it reaches the market, there is literally negligible amounts of Glyphosate. This is an FDA regulation - if the food has a level of glyphosate that can be measured, it's illegal.
Stop spreading misinformation.
If you want these things to be on the market, It should be a regulation that people brand their products with GMO and Roundup labels and print the infographics for the lethal effects of roundups like smoking companies print on their packages.
>Bottled water should be labeled with drowning warnings.
>Lighters should be labeled with death-by-fire statistics
>Any heavy object should be labeled with blunt trauma warnings.
>Cars should have traffic death warnings on the doors
And you should have a painful stupidity warning label tatooed into your forehead.
Agreed. These things should at least be labelled. Let's say someone has gastrointestinal issues and they want to avoid glyphosate for a period of time to see if that helps. At this moment in time, it wouldn't be possible because we don't have labels.
There is nothing wrong with wanting labels that show what is inside. Especially if a certain additive might be harmful or a lot of people want to avoid it due to ethical (or religious) reasons (think of pork or meat in general). He never said they should be warnings.
These are stupid arguments and you know it.
>Lighters should be labeled with death-by-fire statistics
Lighters do have warning labels on them.
As for cars and other stuff, it is clearly recognizable what these objects are capable of and you have to have a license to drive a car.
The public generally has no way to determine what chemicals are in your food, how they affect your body, etc. We put warning labels on alcohol because it can affect your health and impair your ability to drive. Why not put (at a minimum) a label saying which chemicals have been artificially added to food, especially ones like glyphosate which potentially causes cancer. We put that on cigarettes.
>Why not put (at a minimum) a label saying which chemicals have been artificially added to food,
In fact, we already have a similar requirement - food has to list its ingredients. What would be so bad about a label that says - this product derived from genetically modified seeds or this product contains trace amounts of glyphosate?
>establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide glyphosate N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine in or on the raw agricultural commodity teff, forage and teff, hay at 100 parts per million (ppm) and oilseed crops, group 20 at 40 ppm. The petition also requested amendments to the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 as follows: Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet, from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 0.2 ppm tovegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.2 ppm; okra at 0.5 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.1 ppm to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.1 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.5 ppm to fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.2 ppm to fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.2 ppm; cranberry, grape, juneberry, kiwifruit, lingonberry, salal, strawberry, and berry group 13 at 0.2 ppm to berry and small fruit, group 13-07 at 0.2 ppm.
Think that's too high?
>FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.”
If you want the information individual companies can post the information on their products. The FDA's regulations make the doses have no measurable effect on the population. It's ridiculous to have a label that has no measurable effect. Stop fear mongering.
>Organic means, or at with the definition that I am familiar with, that no pesticide were used.
The definition you're familiar with is wrong.
>Spinosad, for example, comes from the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa. It can fatally scramble the nervous systems of insects. It's also poisonous to mollusks.
>Other potent natural extracts that have been approved for use as pesticides include pyrethrin, derived from chrysanthemums, and azadirachtin, from the Asian neem tree, which was also detected on some samples of organic lettuce.
>All three ... are considered slightly toxic by the EPA.
>Bt is the most widely used pesticide, accounting for 90 percent of the organic pest control market.
>Spinosad, an insecticide derived from soil bacteria (and can cause some irritation and redness with direct contact ...)
>Lime sulfur also has been used as a fungicide on organic crops. However, the EPA restricted its used in 2008 so that only professional pesticide appliers could use it. ... It was too caustic, capable of causing burns.
>the list itself
Do you think we should label crops that have induced mutations? Where they x-ray them to increase the natural mutation rate?
Then we should label organic food
Do you think we should label artificial cross hybrids? Plants that should never exist except by human interference?
Then we should ban strawberries.
When will these "muh natural" freaks leave.
>mfw it's most likely going to be legislated that CRISPR modified crops won't legally count as genetically modified organisms as long as less than seven bases are modified and the Cas9 transgene is crossed out.
Muh natural people will never leave. Because people naturally want to eat natural food. It's you freaks who try to force your cancerous mutated dogshit on people.
People figured out what to eat and what not to eat over decades so we know not to consume unhealthy stuff. If we do, we label them so people know the risks. GMOs are highly controversial and are banned from many countries.
You should just fuck off and stop shilling your mutated shit.
>Cars should have traffic death warnings on the doors
Ever check the inside of a sun visor?
Yeah, we should remove all the warnings. We should remove the traffic lights as well who needs them ? We should remove the ingradients on food labels, it's really unnecessary, I mean it costs nothing to print an infographic that tells people what they're consuming but since you don't think it's necessary, then it's not necessary right ?
The kind of breeding we've been doing for millenia changes more of a plant's DNA, in a less-precise way, than modern GM techniques. All agricultural products have been bred in this way.
agriculture alone is a far more destructive force to the ecosystem than any GM crop
it destroys biodiversity, ruins soil, eliminates broad swathes of natural habitats, and pollutes waterways causing fish kills and poisonous lakes
Yeah and a millenium from now ecosystems will be adapted to whatever plant hybrids we create today. How does this argument not apply to anything we've done since then? Every "organic" vegetable you eat has mutations and was created less than a millenium ago. You fucking hypocrite. You literally have no coherent argument other than "GMOs must be bad".
Yes and we should label organic food as causing autism. Because obviously people deserve the right to know if their food is unhealthy. Oh you want proof that it causes autism? You must be a shill who wants to feed people food that causes autism.
> people have been eating organic food since the beginning of time
> completely irrelevant autism chart
> argentina allowed roundup sprayed crops
> 1 year later their tumor an cancer rates quadrupled
You can't even use that meme argument in the right context. now fuck off and take your mutated garbage out of here
Here's a classic. Typical GMO shill getting chickenshit scared when he's asked to drink his """%100 safe scientifically proven""" poison
>people have been eating organic food since the beginning of time
Not the organic food you're eating, fucking idiot. All the food you eat has MUTATIONS that didn't exist until recently in human history. They also contain MUTATIONS that are novel to each individual fruit.
> look guis im captain obvious
no shit sherlock. do you think all mutations are the same ?
they ranked it as a class 2B carcinogen, possibly carcinogenic. this is WHO's lowest rank for a carcinogen.
this is the same category as their ranking of low frequency electromagnetic sources. ie Wifi, cellphones, and current carrying wires. to put this into perspective red meat is in category 2A, 'likely carcinogenic'. and Alcohol is in group 1 'Carcinogen'.
the toxicological risk of organophosphates is likely very low, and in the doses consumed by people likely below the NOAEL (no adverse affect level).
don't worry about the uninformed journalists just trying to write a story. toxicology is an interesting field, I recommend you learn more about it.
> roundup is safe
> oh no i won't drink roundup i'm not stupid
You're retarded for failing to make such a basic comparison. Just drink a glass of roundup please so the world can get rid of one more idiot.
Actually they ranked it 2A
>The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans.
As you said
>Monsanto said in its statement, “IARC has classified numerous everyday items in Category 2 including coffee, cell phones, aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables, as well as professions such as a barber and fry cook.”
Thanks for the info anon, I didnt know it was upgraded to 2A. with WHOs finding Californias EPA wants to add it to their carcinogen list, forcing all products like roundup to have a carcinogen warning in addition to all the acute toxiticity warnings.
This sounds interesting
>The US Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a formal review of the safety of glyphosate (which it does not consider carcinogenic in humans) and said that it would give “full consideration” to the IARC study.