Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post Reply
Fantozzi
Posts: 3709
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:30 pm

Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post by Fantozzi » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:02 pm

Sorry for machine translation

[url=https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/monsanto.com t=_blank]https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/monsanto.com[/url]
[url=http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db/127.docu.html t=_blank]MON810 Maize is safe as conventional maize according to EFSA scientific opinion.[/url]
[url=http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/12/06/2013/139481/survey-results-what-farmers-really-think-about-gm.htm#.UcQaMpw09I6 t=_blank]Survey results: What farmers really think about GM[/url]

Major attacks on GMOs began in 1998, when British scientist Arpad Pusztai in live television said the sensational results of their research. Rats, which he fed genetically modified potatoes containing a lectin protein, had a number of serious health problems. As a result, it was concluded that the danger of transgenic food. Statement bombshell. Quickly there was a whole army of opponents of GMOs, who supported the conclusions of Pusztai. A little later, his work has been published in the prestigious scientific journal «The Lancet», but in custody have been identified much more modest conclusions. Natural response of the scientific community on this precedent were independent attempts to repeat the experiment, but the results Pusztai, no matter how trying the researchers were not reproduced. A team of specialists in this field to thoroughly investigate the scheme of the experiment, resulting revealed that the work of the scientist has a lot of bad mistakes, because he misread the data. Specific guidance on the mentioned errors were published in the same journal later, the debate joined hundreds of researchers. Simultaneously, the event scientists were accused of conspiracy, organized in order to disguise the negative impact of GMOs on human and animal health. First of all GMO opponents have argued (they continue to argue to this day) that all the experts were bribed by the manufacturer, and Arpad Pusztai broke his career (he was fired 2 days after a loud statement).

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering 25 years of research and conducted with the participation of more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, as such, are no more dangerous than, for example , traditional plant breeding technologies.

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.[2][4][7]

«Highly Unethical Agricultural Biotechnology Corporation destroying our planet with crap such as Genetically Modified Crops see
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/ »
«Scumbag company with no morals or ethics buying politicians, exploiting farmers and poisoning consumers. They are nothing more than Nazi's under a corporate name.»
«extremely bad they also have monsatan registered because they are devil lovers»
[img]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18m4yh4azv8d2jpg/original.jpg[/img]

—————————-
1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

2. American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods.
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

3. World Health Organization. Food safety: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Accessed December 22, 2012.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

4. United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text . National Academies Press. See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc

5. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010. p. 16. doi:10.2777/97784 . ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

6. Other sources:
— Winter CK and Gallegos LK (2006). Safety of Genetically Engineered Food. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications, Publication 8180.
— Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security" . Genetics 188 (1): 11–20.
— Miller, Henry (2009). "A golden opportunity, squandered" . Trends in biotechnology 27 (3): 129–130.
— Bett, Charles; Ouma, James Okuro; Groote, Hugo De (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy 35 (4): 332–340. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003 .
— Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef" . Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2 (2): 1–16.
— Dr. Christopher Preston, AgBioWorld 2011. Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods.

7. Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (June 2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health" . J R Soc Med 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372 . PMC 2408621 . PMID 18515776 .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621

Guest

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:11 am

A deep red rating for Monsanto is highly deserved imo.

Fantozzi
Posts: 3709
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:30 pm

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post by Fantozzi » Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:46 am

<quote user="issviews">
A deep red rating for Monsanto is highly deserved imo.
[/quote]

Why?

OctoberInTheChair
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:35 am

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust - - - Not

Post by OctoberInTheChair » Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:49 am

<quote user="issviews">
A deep red rating for Monsanto is highly deserved imo.
[/quote]

I second that. They're putting patents on living things. That alone should raise red flags, and not just on Wot. And that's only the tip of Monsanto's iceberg!

@Fantozzi I think you got the title of this thread mixed up. I think you meant: "Monsanto is shame for all of humanity".


Guest

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:53 am

People should be aware of what GM crops and make their own decisions, an informed consumer is extremely important

There are other scientists that disagree, with the idea of genetically engineered crops

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/rissler.html

We need to answer a simple question, what is the worst that could happen?

Before we end up repeating the same mistakes from Чорнобильська катастрофа or the Chernobyl disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

To the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Playing God has been a lousy attempt by humans

Monsanto is being irresponsible and if we get it wrong once again, we could end up, with a global famine, from the Urals to the Andes

Imagine gm crop hit by, a new pathogen not recognized by this crop or our pollinators - Bees in particular - being wiped out, due to our new engineered crops that not affected by today's viruses, but could weaken the immune system of these vital pollinators

We have little knowledge to answer that question,, as it is we are having problems that

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/04/26/bayer-pesticide-p

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/01/bee-killing-pesticides-not-just-corn-fields

And by the way, Bayer is working with Monsanto

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/monsanto-bayer-seek-answers-bee-losses-6C9996526

We need to find a solution to hunger in the world and soon, but GM needs to be studied more in-depth before implementing it or we may end up with the biggest man- made disaster, in all history

I also expect that a clear definition between GM vs non GM food stuff, be available to all consumers that, they could make their decision, something that Monsanto and Bayer, appears not to want

But at the end, the opinion is what rules at WOT , and I respect them, agree or not


The fact that they took the time to get involved, something that is needed noways

Is not a shame, but a privilege to express our opinion, is what freedom is all about

Thank you

Due to the poor way of Monsanto of dealing , with the consumers , I am rating it red full red

Fantozzi
Posts: 3709
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:30 pm

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust - - - Not

Post by Fantozzi » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:13 am

<quote user="octoberinthechair">
I second that. They're putting patents on living things. That alone should raise red flags, and not just on Wot. And that's only the tip of Monsanto's iceberg!

@Fantozzi I think you got the title of this thread mixed up. I think you meant: "Monsanto is shame for all of humanity".
[/quote]

I don't see problems here.
They patent that they created.
It fairly and corresponds to laws.

Fantozzi
Posts: 3709
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:30 pm

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post by Fantozzi » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:32 am

<quote user="superhero58">
People should be aware of what GM crops and make their own decisions, an informed consumer is extremely important

There are other scientists that disagree, with the idea of genetically engineered crops

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/rissler.html

We need to answer a simple question, what is the worst that could happen?

Before we end up repeating the same mistakes from Чорнобильська катастрофа or the Chernobyl disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

To the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Playing God has been a lousy attempt by humans

Monsanto is being irresponsible and if we get it wrong once again, we could end up, with a global famine, from the Urals to the Andes

Imagine gm crop hit by, a new pathogen not recognized by this crop or our pollinators - Bees in particular - being wiped out, due to our new engineered crops that not affected by today's viruses, but could weaken the immune system of these vital pollinators

We have little knowledge to answer that question,, as it is we are having problems that

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/04/26/bayer-pesticide-p

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/01/bee-killing-pesticides-not-just-corn-fields

And by the way, Bayer is working with Monsanto

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/monsanto-bayer-seek-answers-bee-losses-6C9996526

We need to find a solution to hunger in the world and soon, but GM needs to be studied more in-depth before implementing it or we may end up with the biggest man- made disaster, in all history

I also expect that a clear definition between GM vs non GM food stuff, be available to all consumers that, they could make their decision, something that Monsanto and Bayer, appears not to want



The fact that they took the time to get involved, something that is needed noways

Is not a shame, but a privilege to express our opinion, is what freedom is all about

Thank you

Due to the poor way of Monsanto of dealing , with the consumers , I am rating it red full red
[/quote]

GMOs are safe. It is the scientific fact, result of consensus of authoritative experts. "Other scientists" could make experiments and prove his marginal opinion by means of publications in scientific magazines. Why they don't do it?

I don't understand, what relation to our subject Fukushima and Chernobyl have. Are you the opponent of science and live in the wood? If you are ill, you silently die or "you play god" by means of drugs?

Guest

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:08 pm

I don't understand, what relation to our subject Fukushima and Chernobyl have.
In both cases, the experts were sure that, it was a fact that they were safe .............. they were wrong!
Are you the opponent of science and live in the wood?
No, but Science is not wisdom and we cannot afford another Chernobyl or Fujiyama, the world cannot be a playground for Monsanto and Bayer
If you are ill, you silently die or "you play god" by means of drugs?
But you have proved my point, you have offended me and violated the guidelines of WOT, instead of using reason

If you cannot carry a conversation without insulting others, then where is your wisdom?

I don't live in the woods or do drugs and yes I am a christian

To close this wasted opportunity for a conversation, a member can rate a site in their opinion and not you or anyone, can prevent that user from doing so, much less to call it a shame, quite the opposite is an honor

Thank you and goodby

Guest

@ Gentlemen

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:28 pm

<quote user="superhero58">


But you have proved my point, you have offended me and violated the guidelines of WOT, instead of using reason
[/quote]

Gentlemen

I'm sure that Fantozzi didn't mean to offend anyone since it is clear to me he was speaking in general, he was just harzarding a guess.
Fantozzi had to use an online translator: misunderstandings are on the agenda.

May I ask you to avoid potential flame wars?

Thank you in advance ^wink^


Guest

RE: Red rating monsanto.com is shame for Web of Trust

Post by Guest » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:04 pm

<quote user="fantozzi">
Why?
[/quote]

If I have to tell you why then you really are naive. How about asking yourself why they are banned in the EU and many other countries from growing GM crops. That should tell you something.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests