Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Massive Tumors in Rats Fed Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Corn
55 views
Skip to first unread message
Anonymous
Sep 24, 2012, 3:39:39 PM9/24/12
to
The results are in from the first-ever peer-reviewed long-term
health study of the most common type of genetically engineered
corn – and they are worrying. For two years, researchers fed
rats a diet of genetically engineered corn that is common in the
US food supply, and found massive mammary tumors, kidney and
liver damage, and premature death. The study was published in
the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Read the "Summary of Findings" from the researchers here.
This research adds to the growing body of peer-reviewed research
that links genetically engineered foods to allergies, organ
toxicity and other illnesses.
These findings underscore the importance of giving California
families the right to know whether our food has been genetically
engineered in a laboratory.
Proposition 37 – which would label genetically engineered foods
in California – is the answer for everyone who wants the right
to know what’s in their food. And it is the best recourse
available for those of us who do not wish to be subjects in a
giant science experiment conducted by Monsanto and the other
pesticide giants bankrolling the No on 37 campaign. (Recent
contributions have topped $32 million, more than half from
Monsanto and the big pesticide companies.)
Join the California Right to Know campaign -- Yes on
Proposition 37
Genetically engineered foods have not been adequately studied
and have not been proven safe. By requiring simple labels on
these GMO’s, Prop 37 would give Californians the ability to
choose whether to expose our families and children to any
potential health risks. That’s why 50 countries around the
world already require such labeling.
This new study is destined to raise more questions than it
answers. But at this point, a few things are clear. It is
outrageous and shocking that this is the first long-term feeding
study, even though this genetically engineered corn has been on
the market for nearly 20 years.
The reason we have been denied such critical information is that
biotech companies like Monsanto have controlled and suppressed
such research (because of patent restrictions on GMOs). As the
editorial board at Scientific American wrote, “Scientists must
ask corporations for permission before publishing independent
research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must
end.”
We need, and deserve, more independent research in this area.
How much evidence of health risks posed by GMOs has been
suppressed? What documents does Monsanto and the other
agrichemical giants have in their vaults that may shed further
light on the findings of this peer-reviewed study?
We are calling on the agrichemical industry to immediately
release any and all internal documents linking their products to
health problems -- especially tumors, kidney and liver damage,
and premature death.
In the meantime, let’s demand our right to know and our right to
decide for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. Vote yes
on Proposition 37.
For more information about this historic campaign:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/
Gary Ruskin is the campaign manager for the Yes on Proposition
37 California Right to Know Campaign.
http://www.carighttoknow.org/tumors?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medi
um=content&utm_campaign=tumors
health study of the most common type of genetically engineered
corn – and they are worrying. For two years, researchers fed
rats a diet of genetically engineered corn that is common in the
US food supply, and found massive mammary tumors, kidney and
liver damage, and premature death. The study was published in
the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Read the "Summary of Findings" from the researchers here.
This research adds to the growing body of peer-reviewed research
that links genetically engineered foods to allergies, organ
toxicity and other illnesses.
These findings underscore the importance of giving California
families the right to know whether our food has been genetically
engineered in a laboratory.
Proposition 37 – which would label genetically engineered foods
in California – is the answer for everyone who wants the right
to know what’s in their food. And it is the best recourse
available for those of us who do not wish to be subjects in a
giant science experiment conducted by Monsanto and the other
pesticide giants bankrolling the No on 37 campaign. (Recent
contributions have topped $32 million, more than half from
Monsanto and the big pesticide companies.)
Join the California Right to Know campaign -- Yes on
Proposition 37
Genetically engineered foods have not been adequately studied
and have not been proven safe. By requiring simple labels on
these GMO’s, Prop 37 would give Californians the ability to
choose whether to expose our families and children to any
potential health risks. That’s why 50 countries around the
world already require such labeling.
This new study is destined to raise more questions than it
answers. But at this point, a few things are clear. It is
outrageous and shocking that this is the first long-term feeding
study, even though this genetically engineered corn has been on
the market for nearly 20 years.
The reason we have been denied such critical information is that
biotech companies like Monsanto have controlled and suppressed
such research (because of patent restrictions on GMOs). As the
editorial board at Scientific American wrote, “Scientists must
ask corporations for permission before publishing independent
research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must
end.”
We need, and deserve, more independent research in this area.
How much evidence of health risks posed by GMOs has been
suppressed? What documents does Monsanto and the other
agrichemical giants have in their vaults that may shed further
light on the findings of this peer-reviewed study?
We are calling on the agrichemical industry to immediately
release any and all internal documents linking their products to
health problems -- especially tumors, kidney and liver damage,
and premature death.
In the meantime, let’s demand our right to know and our right to
decide for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. Vote yes
on Proposition 37.
For more information about this historic campaign:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/
Gary Ruskin is the campaign manager for the Yes on Proposition
37 California Right to Know Campaign.
http://www.carighttoknow.org/tumors?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medi
um=content&utm_campaign=tumors
Frank
Sep 24, 2012, 3:49:06 PM9/24/12
to
The paper:
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
One study usually doesn't cut it and more probably needed.
Best I know, rats and mice most commonly die from cancer and are chosen
as genetically predisposed to help study.
Also, thank God or I would be dead, their response to toxic or
carcinogenic materials can be significantly different from that in humans.
Certainly demands study and I'd try to keep away from gm food but also
suspect problems would be showing up or have shown up in food lot
animals fed it by now.
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
One study usually doesn't cut it and more probably needed.
Best I know, rats and mice most commonly die from cancer and are chosen
as genetically predisposed to help study.
Also, thank God or I would be dead, their response to toxic or
carcinogenic materials can be significantly different from that in humans.
Certainly demands study and I'd try to keep away from gm food but also
suspect problems would be showing up or have shown up in food lot
animals fed it by now.
Why are people so cruel
Sep 24, 2012, 4:59:28 PM9/24/12
to
>
> Certainly demands study and I'd try to keep away from gm food but also
> suspect problems would be showing up or have shown up in food lot
> animals fed it by now.
>
Hosts of problems with feed lot animals - anti biotic resistance in humans
> Certainly demands study and I'd try to keep away from gm food but also
> suspect problems would be showing up or have shown up in food lot
> animals fed it by now.
>
fed beef fattened on grain which is not the natural food of cattle and have
to be given anti biotics so they can digest the grain.
High cholesterol in humans can be attributed to the removal of linseeds
from the bread making process - Roundup Ready wheat - linseeds
being the natural anti cholesterol drug.
Homogenised milk and type 2 diabetes which overloads the body's
ability to process milk fats.
Richard
Sep 24, 2012, 10:09:18 PM9/24/12
to
And non-modified corn, when fed to lab rats in massive quantities?
What does that do?
What does that do?
Michael A. Terrell
Sep 24, 2012, 10:29:48 PM9/24/12
to
Richard wrote:
>
> And non-modified corn, when fed to lab rats in massive quantities?
> What does that do?
Richard
Sep 25, 2012, 5:02:19 AM9/25/12
to
Gunner
Sep 25, 2012, 6:56:14 AM9/25/12
to
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Michael A. Terrell
Sep 25, 2012, 7:34:11 AM9/25/12
to
Gunner wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:29:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Richard wrote:
> >>
> >> And non-modified corn, when fed to lab rats in massive quantities?
> >> What does that do?
> >
> >
> > Turns them into liberals...
>
> Ayup. Causes serious long term brain damage.
Frank
Sep 25, 2012, 7:35:32 AM9/25/12
to
On 9/24/2012 10:09 PM, Richard wrote:
> And non-modified corn, when fed to lab rats in massive quantities?
> What does that do?
I assume that is the control group.
> And non-modified corn, when fed to lab rats in massive quantities?
> What does that do?
I know a bit about toxicology but am not a toxicologist.
I read an interesting book review about scientists recently and zeal to
get recognition. They are not always dispassionate logical thinkers as
often attributed to them. Paper says they have no conflict of interest.
What does that mean? They do acknowledge support, but what about the
supporting groups inclination? Just one small reason that further study
is needed.
Again, I'm not saying you should not watch what you eat. Personally I
tend to avoid new stuff in my diet until it passes the test of time.
Richard
Sep 25, 2012, 2:22:03 PM9/25/12
to
Michael A. Terrell
Sep 25, 2012, 2:28:49 PM9/25/12
to
shop, I'd be tempted to cut off my bloody lower left leg. Five + years
of open wounds will tend to piss you off.
Anonymous
Sep 25, 2012, 11:57:02 PM9/25/12
to
In article <v7mdnUP0a6K67vzN...@earthlink.com>
There's a guy here named TMT who likes to yawn near men's
zippers too. Do you two know each other?
zippers too. Do you two know each other?
Richard
Sep 26, 2012, 12:51:08 AM9/26/12
to
0 new messages