Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

[Figong]

that same study has been posted many many times in this thread and its junk science

Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process?

 

[UncleBuck]

just incase they come for your food

yep, a complete overhaul of our ages old food production system accompanied with a heavy advertising campaign designed to convince you that it's all OK should probably just be accepted blindly before all the science is in.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process?

forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.

don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.

 

[echelon1k1]

forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.

don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.

It's like BP and their "Sorry" ads... It's all good we fucked your coastline but "we're sorry"...

We're Sorry so you can trust us again...

 

[Figong]

forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.

don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.

hahaha.. independent lab with nothing to gain by saying 'good' or 'bad' has more credibility than anyone out to make a profit.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process?

you posted the article i would assume you had taken the time to read it???

• The published does not present all the data. “All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here’”—this is a quote from the paper, which means that no reader can evaluate the findings, which mean the data may have been cherry picked
• Small sample size. The control group is inadequate to make any deduction. Only 10 rodents some of these develop tumors. Until you know the degree of variation in 90 or 180 (divided into groups of ten) control rodents these results are of no value.
• Maize was minimum 11% of the diet—that’s nor a normal diet for rats and invariably distorted the data
• In Fig. 2, the bars with a zero appears to be for the non-maize control, yet those bars don’t look significantly different from the bars indicating 11, 22, and 33% of GM maize in the diet. The authors do not appear to have done analysis of their data.
• The data from the control group fed non-GM maize is not included in the main figures making it very difficult to interpret the results
• No results given for non-gm maize
• The same journal published a paper showing no adverse health effects in rats of consuming gm maize (though this is a shorter 90-day study)

 

[UncleBuck]

It's like BP and their "Sorry" ads... It's all good we fucked your coastline but "we're sorry"...

We're Sorry so you can trust us again...

their new ads are just as LOL as the HFCS ads.

"we will only mine for oil when its safe. and if its safe, we WON'T drill"

oh, thank you so much, BP. will you also tuck me into bed and clean my garage? will you babysit my kid?

i love you, BP. making me all warm and fuzzy and shit.

 

[ginjawarrior]

forbes is clearly part of the tin foil hat wearing, barefoot hippy crowd.

don't trust those people, trust monsanto. they even made some commercials so that you'll trust them, so why don't you trust them? just trust them.

forbes clearly reported the study with integrity

 

[Figong]

you posted the article i would assume you had taken the time to read it???
[/LIST]

Yes I read all of it, and am just thinking that you're not seeing the bigger picture - which would be insects that could potentially be resistant (or at some point immune) to pest control methods.. and due to RIU, I will use the spider mite as an example. Let's say that the spider mite manages to pick up a recessive allele that makes it resistant to more than a few pesticides. You get a big infestation in your plants somehow (inside or outside) and 100% of your crops get wiped out due to the inability to kill them by what at one time was 'normal means'. Still think this is really a good idea? Sure, the allele would be recessive, but it's still quite a possibility.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Yes I read all of it, and am just thinking that you're not seeing the bigger picture - which would be insects that could potentially be resistant (or at some point immune) to pest control methods.. and due to RIU, I will use the spider mite as an example. Let's say that the spider mite manages to pick up a recessive allele that makes it resistant to more than a few pesticides. You get a big infestation in your plants somehow (inside or outside) and 100% of your crops get wiped out due to the inability to kill them by what at one time was 'normal means'. Still think this is really a good idea? Sure, the allele would be recessive, but it's still quite a possibility.

beautiful and it was that reasoning that lead you to this post?

"Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process? "

but yeah you were talking about spider mites......

 

[ginjawarrior]

this whole scaremonger theme of posting a "scary story" then when proven wrong quickly double down on stupid by changing the subject to "what if" seems to be the bread and butter to you nut jobs

oh lets not forget the communial circle jerk you pass round everytime you pass out one of these scaremongering articles

 

[Figong]

One of many reasons why I'm posting in this thread, I noticed you didn't answer as to whether or not you thought it was still a good idea after the example I posted though.

 

[Figong]

this whole scaremonger theme of posting a "scary story" then when proven wrong quickly double down on stupid by changing the subject to "what if" seems to be the bread and butter to you nut jobs

oh lets not forget the communial circle jerk you pass round everytime you pass out one of these scaremongering articles

Not enough data = proven wrong?

No... Not enough data = more is required for a solid answer - let's not confuse the issue.

 

[ginjawarrior]

yep, a complete overhaul of our ages old food production system accompanied with a heavy advertising campaign designed to convince you that it's all OK should probably just be accepted blindly before all the science is in.

your living in a country where you can get sued for not warning your coffee is too hot

if this campaign is nothing but lies then liability is slap them silly

but lets guess they own the courts too?

 

[ginjawarrior]

One of many reasons why I'm posting in this thread, I noticed you didn't answer as to whether or not you thought it was still a good idea after the example I posted though.

i dont give a flying fuck about your made up hypothetical

next?

 

[ginjawarrior]

Not enough data = proven wrong?

No... Not enough data = more is required for a solid answer - let's not confuse the issue.

no junk data.

 

[Figong]

i dont give a flying fuck about your made up hypothetical

next?

Of course it's easier to dismiss it than discuss it.. sound familiar?

 

[UncleBuck]

your living in a country where you can get sued for not warning your coffee is too hot

if this campaign is nothing but lies then liability is slap them silly

but lets guess they own the courts too?

you must not be familiar with how american politics works.

you can buy all the justice you want here.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Of course it's easier to dismiss it than discuss it.. sound familiar?

no but its easy to cherry pick the scary part of an article and post it online

and then pretend you dont know anything about the rest of the article

while leading into an oh so scary hypothetical




your tactic is fucking transparent and highly worthy of dissmissal

but yet i did discuss it i said i dont give a flying fuck

 

[ginjawarrior]

you must not be familiar with how american politics works.

you can buy all the justice you want here.

they're out to get your food