Monsanto, GMO en andere troep #3

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 oktober 2013 17:34 schreef kets70 het volgende:

[..]

Argumentum ad Monsantium:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/11/08/argumentum-ad-monsantium/

quote:

Monsanto Blockaders Brutally Attacked In Malvinas, Argentina

quote:

Monsanto protesters in Malvinas, Argentina got a rude awakening yesterday. November 28, 2013 was the 72nd day of the blockade against the brand new Monsanto plant under construction in Malvinas, set to be the largest GM seed plant in Latin America. Protesters have been camped on site since September 18th and despite attacks and death threats they remain unmoved. They have managed to block all five entrances to the plant site, bringing construction to a standstill.

Brutal retaliation came early in the morning yesterday when two buses of approximately 60 people arrived in camp and attacked the protesters, most of whom were sleeping in tents at the time. They ripped tents, destroyed property, set fires in the campsite, threw bricks and stones and beat protesters with clubs. Some protesters also had their computers and phones stolen.

Approximately 20 protesters have been injured many with head wounds. Outspoken activists, Sofia Gatica and Celina Molina were among the wounded having been beaten and kicked while on the ground.

A small group of police officers were on site but they looked away and did not intervene as protesters were subjected to violence. It seemed the police were only interested in opening up the blockade temporarily to allow entry of a truck of construction materials into the job site. They did however manage to fire rubber bullets at protesters at some point during the attack.

quote:

Op zondag 1 december 2013 00:00 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Het artikel gaat verder.

quote:

Op zondag 1 december 2013 03:40 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:
Een tijdje geleden zag ik een paar docu's over de wandaden van Monsato & FDA/Bush.

quote:

Op zondag 1 december 2013 05:13 schreef popolon het volgende:

[..]

Vergeet niet dat onder Obama de Monsanto lobby erg veel groter en gevaarlijker is geworden in de regering. Some call it 'change'.

quote:

Op zondag 1 december 2013 05:31 schreef popolon het volgende:
Vreemd, ik kan niet m'n bericht wijzigen. Nou goed, ik heb bijna alle namen opgezocht en het klopt gewoon. Foute shit.

quote:

Controversial Seralini GMO-rats paper to be retracted

A heavily criticized study of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats is being retracted — one way or another.

The paper — by Gilles Seralini and colleagues — was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology last year. There have been calls for retraction since then, along with other criticism and a lengthy exchange of letters in the journal. Meanwhile, the paper has been cited 28 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and the French National Assembly (their lower house of Parliament) held a long hearing on the paper last year, with Seralini and other scientists testifying.

Now, as reported in the French media, the editor of the journal, A. Wallace Hayes, has sent Seralini a letter saying that the paper will be retracted if Seralini does not agree to withdraw it.

Here’s most of the November 19 letter, including Hayes’ proposed retraction notice:

The panel had many concerns about the quality of the data, and ultimately recommended that the article should be withdrawn. I have been trying to get in touch with you to discuss the specific reasons behind this recommendation. If you do not agree to withdraw the article, it will be retracted, and the following statement will be published it its place:

The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,”1 which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article. The Editor in-Chief deferred making any public statements regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings.

Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal’s standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors. Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not often made; however, it is in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested. The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process.

Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.

Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. The peer-review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to a fair, thorough, and timely peer-review process; sometimes expediency might be sacrificed in order to be as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.

The Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper. The journal’s editorial policy will continue to review all manuscripts no matter how controversial they may be. The editorial board will continue to use this case as a reminder to be as diligent as possible in the peer-review process.

quote:

Op zondag 1 december 2013 05:31 schreef popolon het volgende:
Vreemd, ik kan niet m'n bericht wijzigen. Nou goed, ik heb bijna alle namen opgezocht en het klopt gewoon. Foute shit.

Remember this?

Obama Promises to Label GMOs

We wachten nog steeds knakker. Ondertussen wordt de druk om juist het labelen te verbieden groter. Onder druk van jawel: Monsanto. Het is zo krom allemaal.

quote:

Op woensdag 4 december 2013 23:23 schreef drexciya het volgende:

[..]

In mijn ogen zegt dat heel veel; wanneer het zo onschuldig zou zijn, dan zou men niet zo falikant tegen labeling zijn. De houding van Monsanto op verschillende gebieden is op zijn zachtst gesteld discutabel en men onderdrukt echt onderzoek naar potentiële problemen.

Wat ik in een recente documentaire zie is dat er inmiddels ook Roundup resistante vormen van onkruid zijn en dat men juist meer in plaats van minder herbicide inzet.

Mijn grootste probleem met de huidige gang van zaken is dat niemand er om gevraagd heeft en dat het desondanks op allerlei manieren, zonder enige vorm van kritiek, wordt doorgedrukt. Wij, als consumenten, worden dom gehouden en mogen niet tegen deze ontwikkeling ingaan. Vooral dat laatste zie ik als verontrustend.