Save our honey!

[sen-no-sen]

Antoinet11 has too much certainty on human infallibility to traffic viruses with genes of bacteria unrelated to those of multicellular beings, to do the right things, without unforeseeable surprises due to the complexity of living organisms, which still almost completely eludes us, after 4 billion years of evolution with enormous natural disasters !!

Just make the oils stable and inert by hydrogenating them, almost nothing chemically, full of heart and cancer deaths, and it was very unpredictable at the start !!
Crazy cow the same, almost nothing to change and huge surprise with unimaginable prions !!.

So GMOs, much more complex, can awaken even more unpredictable things to avoid at all costs and become irreparable afterwards !!

Absolutely dedicated, and the examples abound, at the start it is always the same catchphrase: no risk and then we count the dead by hundreds, thousands!

Besides, I would like Antoinet111 to answer this basic question: what is the use of food GMOs?

[chatelot16]

if it were starvation and a GMO was the only solution not to die late, we could start using it ...

but currently there is no shortage of but with the current culture

currently we see problems with bees! what should we deal with first? of the future of bees? or the increase in the profit of the corn merchant?

the future of bees is not only the future of beekeepers and honey ... it is above all the future of all plants that we need bees for their reproduction

don't count on monsanto to worry about bees ... if fruit trees don't produce anything anymore for lack of bees they will make us GMO trees producing fruit without fertilization ... sterile fruit of course ... and even more big ... and tasteless

[Obamot]

so as not to die from end

We die anyway from ... end

[Janic]

antoine hello

I am going to write to Monsanto right now and propose you as a human guinea pig, since playing with genetic engineering is simple "like a lab manip". Laughing
I hope when affirming that you eat GMO morning, noon, evening because otherwise it is to take people for idiots!

What is the relationship?

It reminds me of the film Erin Brockovich with julia roberts who suggests, to lawyers contesting the poisoning of water, to drink this water themselves, which they refuse with horrified hindsight.
Antoine you are lucky that France refuses (in part) GMOs, therefore it is hardly noticeable in our country of its possible deleterious effects. This is called the precautionary principle!
PS: the permanent rudeness that you use will not advance the debate, on the contrary!

Chatelot hello

if it were starvation and a GMO was the only solution not to die late, we could start using it ...
but currently there is no shortage of but with the current culture

That's right, but Monsanto corn doesn't claim to avoid starvation but only to avoid phytosanitary treatments, which is a major difference. So in countries in demand for food, and assuming that the parasite is the same as in our country, they would suffice (like che 'us!) To treat.

[sen-no-sen]

That's right, but Monsanto corn doesn't claim to avoid starvation but only to avoid phytosanitary treatments, which is a major difference.

The worst part about it, Janic, is that it isn't even the case!
Monsanto has created GMOs with one goal: to sell a package.
Seed, license, herbicide.


Monsanto is not a grain firm it is a chemical tanker.
Just like Bayer (manufacturer of gaucho ... and zyklon b during World War 2), aventis (ex Rhone poulenc, big polluter also), Syngenta, BASF ...
Chemical specialists in life? Curious, isn't it?

Monsanto marketed its corn not for the purpose of boosting its growth or productivity (which is not the case), but to be able to use its roundup (systemic herbicide and flagship product of the brand).

As for recent developments aimed at introducing a herbicide directly into the plant, we imagine that our digestive system will appreciate (many cases of severe allergy with starlink corn from aventis, however prohibited for human consumption but which ends up on the plate of many Americans. , we don't know why).

[Janic]

sen no sen

The worst part about it, Janic, is that it isn't even the case!
Monsanto has created GMOs with one goal: to sell a package.
Seed, license, herbicide.

Of course, I mentioned the "boat" reasons generally given and which, in a certain way, Antoine takes on his own. Like what the cramming is very effective!

[dedeleco]

Monsanto is also very famous for residual dioxin from defoliants spread over Vietnam to flush out the Communists and which is still wreaking havoc in Vietnam through poor workmanship of children !!!
Unpredictable consequence at the time of this impurity (at the limit of detection at that time) of defoliants declared safe and harmless at that time !!!

antoinet111 seems to refuse to read the books of exact and real facts, that I cited and that he must read before affirming and repeating the manipulations of chemical lobbies which shamelessly pollute the whole planet to the point of killing and making toxic even polar bears by very unexpected concentration of these toxins in the chain food:

« The World according to MonsantoBy Marie Monique ROBIN, which must be found on the net or on you tube.

Arte editions even in paperback!

And in the same spirit, contempt for industrial trusts which despise their customers, in secret, concealment and manipulation, ultimately killing them by diseases (cancers, diabetes and heart attacks), he must read the books:

Our daily poison Ed Arte Monique Robin
http://robin.blog.arte.tv/category/notr ... quotidien/
http://notre-poison-quotidien.arte.tv/

and "the black book of the drug"by Corinne Lalo and Patrick Solal editions Plon
which traces the entire history of drugs and their Lobbies, which killed and injured tens of thousands, long before the Mediator !!!

That's right, but Monsanto corn doesn't claim to avoid starvation but only to avoid phytosanitary treatments, which is a major difference.

The worst part about it, Janic, is that it isn't even the case!
Monsanto has created GMOs with one goal: to sell a package.
Seed, license, herbicide.
Monsanto is not a grain firm it is a chemical tanker.
Just like Bayer (manufacturer of gaucho ... and zyklon b during World War 2), aventis (ex Rhone poulenc, big polluter also), Syngenta, BASF ...
Chemical specialists in life? Curious, isn't it?
Monsanto marketed its corn not for the purpose of boosting its growth or productivity (which is not the case), but to be able to use its roundup (systemic herbicide and flagship product of the brand).
As for recent developments aimed at introducing a herbicide directly into the plant, we imagine that our digestive system will appreciate (many cases of severe allergy with starlink corn from aventis, however prohibited for human consumption but which ends up on the plate of many Americans. , we don't know why).

Lire:
http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article208
http://www.lebulletin.com/actualites/ma ... s-us-16545
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/enviro ... 42392.html

The risks are poorly assessed for public health. Monsanto has tested them by feeding them to rats for up to three months. Which is not enough. We denounce the scientific committees which have accepted these shortcomings. In addition, the blood tests were not public! Criigen's second opinions showed that the consumption of GMO corn reveals signs of hepatic and renal toxicity.

They could be the beginnings of chronic pathologies, themselves undetectable after a few months, such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer. As these foods affect millions of people and are not tracked in the food chain, the health risk is great not to assess them better.

First, iIt is not scientific to say that a product which has not been tested for three months on mammals and without a blood test is harmless, especially since it contains new pesticide residues.

Then it is not normal to rule on analyzes which remain confidential as many committees do, at a time of transparency and the proliferation of chronic diseases possibly linked to pollutants in our society.

We forget to test thoroughly on fetuses and gestation, over several generations, what is criminal, considering the number of other authorized products discovered dangerous for the fetuses (hyper-fragile in full formation), with diseases, malformations, and cancers more 30 to 40 years later, in particular in junk food !!

[Janic]

with diseases, deformities, and cancers more than 30 to 40 years later, especially in junk food !!

and vaccines! (I couldn't let it pass!)

[sen-no-sen]

Thanks for the dedicated links.
The most terrible thing is that in the case of starlink corn, human consumption is prohibited, but not that for livestock!
Its so-called "experts" must have been missing during biology, because apparently the notion of the food chain seems to escape them!

We forget to test thoroughly on fetuses and gestation, over several generations, which is criminal, given the number of other authorized products discovered dangerous for fetuses (hyper-fragile in full formation), with diseases, malformations, and cancers more 30 to 40 years later, especially in junk food !!

We fall back into the vicious circle of animal experimentation.
Here the question is not even to know if it is harmful, but to know what it is good to do with GMOs?
I would like someone to answer me

[Janic]

The most terrible thing is that in the case of starlink corn, human consumption is prohibited, but not that for livestock!

and as the biggest consumer of corn is cattle; the solution is ... become VG!