Are we eating GMO food that long term causes cancer to control overpopulation?

[justin4pack]

Just had a question.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Just had a question.

It takes years and years to die of cancer a lot of the time and the uninsured are draining billions from the economy every year while dying in the hospital.

Seems counter productive. You could secretly sterilize the population in a single generation and this would also allow you to select and isolate the genetics desired to create the new Human.

 

[Greenman]

Yes. The Illuminati decide how many people they want on the planet, and take whatever steps necessary maintain that number.

 

[sm625]

The short answer is yes.

It takes a long time to untangle all the roots of eugenics. Here is a way to get started:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39500143/...ion-of-Eugenics-John-Cavanaugh-O-Keefe#scribd

https://martinkeerns.files.wordpres...and-the-damage-done-martin-p-keerns-20132.pdf

 

[OverVolt]

I just figured its the regular reasons, like unlucky genetics, and eating terrible. Eating terrible is so common place that nobody even notices anymore. I don't think anybody younger than 30 knows how to cook at home anymore.

 

[C1]

And why do you think "19 EU Nations Seek GMO Opt-Ou" ?

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/05/tp-19-eu-nations-seek-gmo-opt-out/


PS: Russia will have no part of any NWO global corporate oligarchy agricultural destroying GMO

 

[JEDIYoda]

Just had a question.

The short answer is NO!!

 

[sandorski]

Are we eating GMO food that long term prevents cancer to control Medical Spending?

Equally valid question with equal amount of evidence to support it.

I suspect that the truth behind what has motivated GMO is basically the reasons given for support of it. Things like, making crops less vulnerable to Pests, give greater Crop Yields, expand the Crops growing regions, etc.

Could there be some negative consequences to certain GMO products? Ya, quite possibly, there have been some already. However, none of them have to do with Health.

 

[Brainonska511]

No. That question is conspiracy mumbo jumbo that's integrated into the notion that cancer rates are increasing (those rates are more likely remaining flat).

There have been long-term studies on the consumption of GMO foods in animals - trillions of meals. No ill-effects observed. This is just one of them: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25184846.
In fact, GMO-foods are probably some of the most well-tested on the market. If you breed through any other method, like chemical mutagenesis, radiation mutagenesis, or hybridization, you can just bring your crop to market without much oversight, as it is generally presumed to be safe (there have been some notable slipups over the years: the poison potato, celery that burns workers that harvest it ("One conventional celery variety caused chemical burns on the arms of farm workers as they harvested it (Berkley et al., 1986), and grocery workers have also suffered chemical burns from exposure to conventional celery varieties (Seligman et al., 1987; Fleming, 1990; Finkelstein et al., 1994).") and I'm sure there is more, but don't quite feel like digging right now).

Could there be some negative consequences to certain GMO products? Ya, quite possibly, there have been some already. However, none of them have to do with Health.

And what ill effects are those?

And why do you think "19 EU Nations Seek GMO Opt-Ou" ?

Bad public policy, folding to scientific ignorance, and trade protectionism.

Edit:
I should add, that the world is may not really be heading towards overpopulation. As the global population becomes more educated and better economically, people will have less children. However, there will still be a lot of people to feed, so it will be important to be able to feed them using the arable land we have without clear-cutting more land to farm. GMOs (and there are many varieties, not all on the market, from pest resistant, to pesticide resistant, to more nutritious food, etc...) are just one tool in that box to squeeze more food out per acre.

 

[C1]

There are lots of indicators about food health.

- The switch to GMO's result in their products tasting & behaving like trying to eat cardboard. (look at people's gut size); compare the bodies of people on a beach in a 1940/50s movie to those of today. (Gut leakage.)

- Throw food out and status what animals in the wild prefer or will not touch (unless they are desperate). Think about it, if "pests" wont eat it, why would wild animals desire it? (They sense the built in systemic hazard.)

- Check dietary support websites like DIVITA to see the dietary ingredient recommendations/lists associated with food preparation.

- Talk to dieticians & homeopathic consultants about food ingredient selection/choices for health. Interview their experiences with diet ingredients on client health.

- Do your own taste tests, mood & health analysis. (Compare your blood test levels for a GMO versus non-GMO diet).

There are enough discussions about the issues associated with GMOs'

Typical:

Public interest attorney Steven M. Druker ( http://alteredgenestwistedtruth.com/ ), as executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. In the first half, he discussed what he considers to be the biggest scientific fraud of our age - how politically appointed administrators have covered up the warnings of their own scientists about the risks of GMO foods, and the lack of rigorous testing. When you look at all the evidence, from the FDA's own scientists, and many other scientists, it's clear that "genetically engineered foods entail a higher level of risk than conventional foods. That level of risk is unacceptable...No consumer should have ever have been subjected to that new amount of risk without very careful safety testing," he remarked, adding that "it's outrageous that a whole slew of these foods was allowed onto the marketplace in the United States in flagrant violation of federal food safety laws."

As far back as 2001, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada released a report that faulted the then current regulatory system, noting that it's scientifically unjustified to say that genetically engineered foods are safe, and the default presumption should be that unintended side effects can occur, and there has to be careful testing to rule out negative consequences. This report was ignored in the US, Druker pointed out, "and the mainstream scientific establishment tries to pretend...that every respected scientific organization has concluded these foods are safe." That's not true-- the Royal Society, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Academy for Environmental Medicine, and editors of the esteemed medical journal, The Lancet, have all questioned the safety of GMO foods, he cited.

=================================

And why do you think "19 EU Nations Seek GMO Opt-Out" ?

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/05/tp-19-eu-nations-seek-gmo-opt-out/


PS: Russia will have no part of any NWO global corporate oligarchy agricultural destroying GMO

 

[nakedfrog]

There are lots of indicators about food health.

- The switch to GMO's result in their products tasting & behaving like trying to eat cardboard. (look at people's gut size); compare the bodies of people on a beach in a 1940/50s movie to those of today. (Gut leakage.)

And you're going to pretend the ONLY thing that's changed since then is GMO foods? I think of all the potential causes for this, GMO is so low on the scale as to be insignificant. I doubt you could tell the difference between GMO and non-GMO food in a blind taste test.

- Throw food out and status what animals in the wild prefer or will not touch (unless they are desperate). Think about it, if "pests" wont eat it, why would wild animals desire it? (They sense the built in systemic hazard.)

Are we counting raccoons here? They still seem to enjoy digging through the garbage.

- Do your own taste tests, mood & health analysis. (Compare your blood test levels for a GMO versus non-GMO diet).

Given that I make absolutely no effort to avoid GMOs and my blood test levels were all excellent earlier this year, do I still need to partake of this one? Or are you proposing that my numbers will shift from excellent to amazing?

 

[C1]

Hey, if GMOes are so great then why the need or bother to ask the original question?

"Are we eating GMO food that long term causes cancer to control overpopulation?"

(Somebody suspects something isnt right.)

 

[Brainonska511]

Hey, if GMOes are so great then why the need or bother to ask the original question?

"Are we eating GMO food that long term causes cancer to control overpopulation?"

(Somebody suspects something isnt right.)

Paranoia? Low signal/noise on general scientific knowledge due to the humongous campaign of misinformation? General ignorance of the issues at play?

 

[sandorski]

And what ill effects are those?

.

Didn't say "ill effects", but "negative consequences". Those being GMO's pushing out many other varieties, largely Monopolizing certain foods, added financial burdens on certain Crop Growers, and other such things.

 

[Brainonska511]

Didn't say "ill effects", but "negative consequences". Those being GMO's pushing out many other varieties, largely Monopolizing certain foods, added financial burdens on certain Crop Growers, and other such things.

Farmers choose GMO crops be it makes them more through higher yields. No one forces them to use GMO plants.

Once a gene is deregulated, it can be incorporated into a variety of the species. There isn't some singular entity of 'corn'. And growers are still free to grow open source or off patent seeds. Some forms of GMO soy recently fell off patent.

 

[OverVolt]

There are lots of indicators about food health.

- The switch to GMO's result in their products tasting & behaving like trying to eat cardboard. (look at people's gut size); compare the bodies of people on a beach in a 1940/50s movie to those of today. (Gut leakage.)

- Throw food out and status what animals in the wild prefer or will not touch (unless they are desperate). Think about it, if "pests" wont eat it, why would wild animals desire it? (They sense the built in systemic hazard.)

- Check dietary support websites like DIVITA to see the dietary ingredient recommendations/lists associated with food preparation.

- Talk to dieticians & homeopathic consultants about food ingredient selection/choices for health. Interview their experiences with diet ingredients on client health.

- Do your own taste tests, mood & health analysis. (Compare your blood test levels for a GMO versus non-GMO diet).

There are enough discussions about the issues associated with GMOs'

Typical:

Public interest attorney Steven M. Druker ( http://alteredgenestwistedtruth.com/ ), as executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. In the first half, he discussed what he considers to be the biggest scientific fraud of our age - how politically appointed administrators have covered up the warnings of their own scientists about the risks of GMO foods, and the lack of rigorous testing. When you look at all the evidence, from the FDA's own scientists, and many other scientists, it's clear that "genetically engineered foods entail a higher level of risk than conventional foods. That level of risk is unacceptable...No consumer should have ever have been subjected to that new amount of risk without very careful safety testing," he remarked, adding that "it's outrageous that a whole slew of these foods was allowed onto the marketplace in the United States in flagrant violation of federal food safety laws."

As far back as 2001, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada released a report that faulted the then current regulatory system, noting that it's scientifically unjustified to say that genetically engineered foods are safe, and the default presumption should be that unintended side effects can occur, and there has to be careful testing to rule out negative consequences. This report was ignored in the US, Druker pointed out, "and the mainstream scientific establishment tries to pretend...that every respected scientific organization has concluded these foods are safe." That's not true-- the Royal Society, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Academy for Environmental Medicine, and editors of the esteemed medical journal, The Lancet, have all questioned the safety of GMO foods, he cited.

=================================

Slower.

And in english.

 

[OverVolt]

Didn't say "ill effects", but "negative consequences". Those being GMO's pushing out many other varieties, largely Monopolizing certain foods, added financial burdens on certain Crop Growers, and other such things.

Well GMO's are a monoculture/monocrop which ultimately fail. Genetically, the crops never adapt but the pests do. And thus its only a matter of time.

Its really no different than what happens to bananas and how they keep getting wiped out over and over because they are cloned.

GMO is the same way. All clones.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well GMO's are a monoculture/monocrop which ultimately fail. Genetically, the crops never adapt but the pests do. And thus its only a matter of time.

They are not clones or monocultures like bananas.

http://www.jamesandthegiantcorn.com...like-a-monoculture-of-bananas/comment-page-1/

What’s this about diversity? Every reader of Michael Pollen’s work knows that every corn plant in a field is genetically identical as much clones of each other as bananas.* What doesn’t seem to get mentioned (outside of maize genetics conferences) is how big the genetic differences are between the corn in one field, and the corn in the next field over. The genetic differences between two unrelated lines of corn are greater than between your average human, and your average chimpanzee. The remarkable thing about corn isn’t how much the same it is, it’s that it still manages to be one species with that much genetic variation crammed into it!

 

[OverVolt]

They are not clones or monocultures like bananas.

Hmph that doesn't match what I know.

Quick google search shows GMO corn and soy are both monocultures.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmc...nsumers-from-the-real-problem-of-monoculture/

My thoughts exactly

Monsanto controls the supply of the seeds and the seeds are all genetically identical AFAIK.

 

[Brainonska511]

Hmph that doesn't match what I know.

Quick google search shows GMO corn and soy are both monocultures.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmc...nsumers-from-the-real-problem-of-monoculture/

My thoughts exactly

Monsanto controls the supply of the seeds and the seeds are all genetically identical AFAIK.

Do GMO crops "foster monocultures"?

First of all, the corn/soy rotation in the corn belt is a highly successful production system. It also includes enough genetic diversity within those species to continue to perform.

http://www.biofortified.org/2012/09/risks/

Monoculture farming

In the United States and Canada, genetically engineered crops are generally used in farms grown with a monoculture system. However, these farms were monocultures before the advent of genetic engineering and would continue to be monocultures if genetic engineering disappeared tomorrow. Monoculture farming is a problem in and of itself, separate from genetic engineering. In India and Africa, genetically engineered crops (specifically Bt cotton and Bt maize) is grown in a variety of systems. Virus resistant papaya is grown in both larger production farms and in people’s backyards.

Regardless, if farmers don't want to plant Monsanto-patented seeds, they are free to buy seeds from other suppliers. Monsanto is not the only player in the seed market. Overall, they maybe control 25-35% of the patented seed market (and frankly much larger companies overall, like BASF, DuPont, and Dow also play a roll in the market, not as large as Monsanto is in seeds, but they are still far larger overall than Monsanto). There are plenty of other patented hybrids available from other companies and plenty of off-patent seeds (after all, patents only last for 20 years).

Edit:
Another piece:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...l-pollan-gmos-do-not-limit-genetic-diversity/

Is monoculture synonymous with GE crops?
Because two of the most popular genetically engineered foods are commodity crops–corn and soybeans–many people think and activists like Michael Pollan promote the belief that GMOs and monoculture are identical. But few experts agree with this assessment, however. There is no necessary link between monoculture and GE crops–as the devastating problems with the banana and the Florida orange illustrate only too well.
...

But that’s true of all commercial crops. There is no question we need industrial scale agriculture; it’s been one of the key drivers in the Green Revolution. The key is how to harness it. The driver of monoculture is economic and has little to do with the breeding process per se. Farmers are businessmen, and they often make choices based on what return they can get in the short term rather than taking a longer view. This includes the industrialization of the organic industry, which is becoming increasingly large scale. The monoculture problem is structural, and can happen whether farmers choose GMO, conventional or organic seeds.


One common farming practice that can help with crops that need to be replanted annually (and is often ignored in arguments against monoculture) is crop rotation, in which farmers plant a variety of crops in rotation to break pest cycles and ensure soil health. Of course, this is virtually impossible when addressing the problems with perennial tree crops, such as oranges.

Simply put, "monoculturing", or selecting limited varieties of a species to grow, is more a byproduct of the green revolution of the 50s and 60s than GM foods, as it was then that farmers started to consciously choose to plant varieties that gave them the best economic returns. It's just not something inherent to GM foods and is a red herring argument people use in the anti-GMO movement.

(Another link on the subject: http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/07/04/unraveling-five-popular-anti-gmo-claims/ )

 

[C1]

Noooo , the MIC chemical/pharmaceutical companies would never do anything to hurt anyone.

"The vital importance of the humble honeybee is just one more reason why we should abandon the industrial farming model in favor of organic farming. Dangerous pesticides and genetically engineered foods are not needed, and in the long run they are proving costly both to the economy and to human health."

"French court upholds poisoning case against Monsanto."

Sacramento, CA — "California just dealt Monsanto a blow as the state’s Environmental Protection Agency will now list
glyphosate — the toxic main ingredient in the U.S.’ best-selling weedkiller, Roundup — as known to cause cancer."

DO YOU THINK THAT THE POWER OF THE CHEMICAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE MAKING IT POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO DISCUSS NICOTINE-BASED PESTICIDES AS THE MAJOR PROBLEM?

"Oh, I know they are making it politically incorrect. You know, I have a good friend of mine who works for the USDA (U. S. Department of Agriculture) and he got demoted because he used the ‘P’ word, pesticide, when testifying before the House Ag Committee. He was told not to use that word. He used that word too many times and so he got demoted. That’s how things work in Washington. You go against the grain, you’re going to pay the consequences."

BUT THAT MEANS WE ARE LIVING IN A SYSTEM THAT IS BASED ON LIES.

"Well, you’re absolutely right about that. It’s based on money, big money!"

 

[C1]

"Monsanto and Syngenta Tighten Stranglehold on Global Food Supply"

===========

And why do you think "19 EU Nations Seek GMO Opt-Ou" ?

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/05/tp-19-eu-nations-seek-gmo-opt-out/


PS: Russia will have no part of any NWO global corporate oligarchy agricultural destroying GMO

 

[bradley]

double-post, can be removed.

 

[bradley]

We see graft and corruption entering every facet of our economy, but yet somehow think our health care, medicine and food are somehow immune or off-limits.

You don't trust your next door neighbor or relative to be anywhere near benevolent, but yet somehow you trust that scientist, doctor or politician with your very life. lol?

While I don't mind people being ignorant on these issues, I'll be damned if someone is going to force me to stop asking questions. I need answers and need em now.

However lobbyists are very powerful groups that have enough money to control even your water cooler and living room talk. Corporations don't want your truth cutting into their profits. And yes, most will sell you the lowest common denominator if you allow them. I believe this is what GMO represents.

And no way can science quantify or encapsulate something as relativity new as GMO, when we still can't figure out the true impact of some basic diets that people have eaten for generations.

And no, I won't allow the dialog to get muddled by the corporate comparison between genetically engineering food vs. thousands of years of hybridization or selective breeding. Just as I am well aware of the difference between illegal and legal immigration or the true cost on our economy and liberty.



As far as my stance on GMO's, this book speak pretty well for me atm. I'm especially concerned about the disruptive effect that GMO has on gut health, which is the center of the immune system. And I haven't even gotten into the political ramifications and free market disruptions.

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deception-Government-Genetically-Engineered/dp/0972966587

 

[DrPizza]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but GMO foods and pesticides aren't the same thing. Yes, some pesticides have been shown to be harmful. GMO foods have not, as stated above - after trillions of meals - been shown to be harmful.