Bracing, they call it!
The EU has banned several GMO foods as theyâve been directly linked to stomach cancer.
Also, while âRoundup Readyâ crops havenât been directly linked to cancer (yet), they enable the use of Roundup. Of course Monsanto will say that Roundup hasnât been directly linked either but it has been proven that Roundup prevents human cells from clearing toxins properly and the long-term buildup of those toxins does cause cancer. To the point where the good old US of A is the only developed country with a declining life expectancy right now.
âDirectly linkedâ != anything but a weak correlation.
Your use of âtoxinsâ doesnât inspire credibility.
Iâm guessing youâre referring to this discredited and retracted study?
The only thing worse than the USâ sidestepping regulation and letting corporations dictate policy is Europeâs love of populist badscience dictating policy.
Well, that or people confusing blogspam rumor with fact.
9 Likes
Not true at all.
4 Likes
Naturalnews wouldnât lie!
6 Likes
If only I could like this more than once, I would. I unliked it, just so I could like it again. ScienceBasedMedicine.org ftw.
My most abject apologies, I just assumed most folks here read the news!
Let me see what my Google-fu can turn upâŚ
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-knew-of-glyphosate-roundup-cancer-link-35-years-ago/5449462
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/bans.html
âŚand if youâre curious about the IARC report that incontrovertibly links Roundup to cancer, hereâs the monograph as published in the Lancet:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/fulltext
(Itâs free, but you do have to register.)
I trust everybody knows what the Lancet isâŚ
2 Likes
Thank you for refuting your own earlier post.
2 Likes
Try reading it all before jumping to conclusionsâŚ
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/
Ah. This brand of garbage science, nothing new.
Keep throwing it out there until something sticks!
I go there for espresso and espresso drinks as well as ice coffee. I rarely drink hot coffee there preferring to grind and brew at home. Yeah, I might be a nit of a coffee snob.
But see your statement about how he actedâŚthatâs where I fall in not liking him. I have no real issues with him âfixingâ the game to get a free coffee every day. Even though its not exactly cost effective. However, reallyâŚjust acting like that when you know you are getting a sweet dealâŚthatâs just a head scratcher.
That there is a total entitled asshole who I would pay money to see kicked in the nuts.
sums it up.
2 Likes
If the company designed the program with such an obvious flaw, they deserve what they get. They should have put a bit more thought into it.
When Chiliâs first started an affinity points card program, they did it in-house, without even bringing in other people in the company who might have noticed their error. Basically, when you signed up you got a swipe card, and every time you ate at Chiliâs, your server would swipe your card, and points would be added to your account. At certain levels, you could trade your points in for merchandise. To encourage people to sign up, you were given a free dessert. The problem was, the dessert was worth more than the lowest level gift that you would have to work months to get. So people would just fill out the application with phony info, get the dessert, throw the card away, and repeat the process the next time they ate there.
And then, there was the issue with people stealing whole stacks of the unactivated swipe cards, because they could easily be used for cloning stolen credit cards. Not one of Chiliâs shining moments.
1 Like
I did, thank you. Iâm pretty familiar with Wikipedia.
The EU has not âbannedâ GMOs that cause stomach cancer, and thereâs no evidence that GMOs cause stomach cancer.
3 Likes
Nor have they been proven to cause âinflammationâ, the latest catch-all scare from the woo crowd.
4 Likes
Neither would Monsanto, amirite?
I think labeling GMOs is worthwhile if only to give people the chance to avoid giving money to them.
And the anti-anti-GMO crowd seems at least as knee-jerk to me as the anti-GMO crowd.
3 Likes
By requesting a burden of demonstrating an actual link? No. Thats the baseline for not promoting pseudoscience.
1 Like
I was actually referring to the rest of the content, lol! What you see there is from a mere 5min of searching. Iâm not going to spend an hour trying to spoon-feed water to a horseâŚ
1 Like
Thereâs some vague concerns over heterogeneity of crop usage and preserving heirloom foods that I can understand and support, but the other mass of reasons to avoid âGMOsâ remain unfounded bullshit and/or not specific to GMO crop usage.
No. By using scorn, shame, and condemnation to defeat the person rather than reason and evidence to defeat the argument.
Even if you have all the facts on your side, the hyperpartisan culture war flavor of the response to any anti-GMO argument is not a good look.
Every time I see an argument like this, I become more sympathetic to the anti-GMO side regardless of the facts at hand. People have a right to their opinion and to make choices for themselves on that basis, even if itâs formed for bad reasons.
And anyway, if you truly want to demonstrate your superior rationality, you should be trying to falsify your own beliefs instead of castigating others for the crimethought of doubting that Monsanto and similar agribusinesses have everyoneâs best interests in mind.
Maybe give your opinion on this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer
3 Likes
What makes you so sure of that?
Is it really reason and evidence?
Whence the evidence?
Cui bono?
2 Likes
