jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (83 posts)

Monsanto and Infertility

  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    It's been very well known for a number of years that Monsanto products all cause cancer and/or infertility.

    This is exactly why The Gates Foundation is now feeding Africans Monsanto foods - they seek to make Africans infertile.

    So here you go, an American farmer's pigs all became infertile from eating Monsanto Corn.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … ilDbdLAyFs

    1. Debby Bruck profile image86
      Debby Bruckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Another good topic of discussion, Wes

      Most people are blissfully, totally unaware of Monsanto and what's in the foods they eat.

      Then, they wonder why they can't lose weight, get colds easily, or have other debilities.

      Tainted and tampered, but not labeled.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I certainly need to get on my horse and do more Monsanto articles.

        I do NOT mind telling people that my most successful articles have all been about Monsanto.

        I'm not greedy - I think that the more people writing about the sickness that is Monsanto and it's ties to the US Government, the better it is for humans everywhere.

        1. Debby Bruck profile image86
          Debby Bruckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'll leave it to you to write. I haven't done a keyword search on the topic.

    2. 69
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, all corporations are trying to kill everyone so they don't have any customers any more!
      Too bad people don't get the real facts, instead of wild assed made up crap.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA


        Suck on that and tell me how it tastes.

    3. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I've been looking for the link but can't find it now, about how the chemicals used in California, some of the riches agricultural land in the country, has caused not only cancers and other diseases in migrant workers, but mutations in frogs and other aquatic creatures from groundwater runoff.

      Chemicals used to strengthen the 'immune system' of crops against insects work in two ways. They either work on the surface, killing the insect, or they work systemically, giving the crop resistance to the insect. Either way, they are getting into our food supply. The argument is that it's not enough to cause damage to humans, only to insects. But over the long term, I believe that if these chemicals can kill insects by causing nerve damage, they will do the same to us. I also believe this is the cause of the prolifertion of nervous system and brain disorders such as A.D.D., autism, memory loss in younger adults, learning disabilities, and likely everything else that plagues us.

      Cross-pollinating of plants is not new. But plants adapt because they are whole. GM amounts to human guesswork and may or may not be safe. There are plenty of ways to protect crops from insects naturally without resorting to chemicals but they are not as profitable to use.  Bottom line: Profit.

      1. Terri Meredith profile image91
        Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.  There's plenty of evidence that our central nervous systems are being affected, as well as changes in gene expression brought on by exposure to EDC's in the womb environment.  Our government ok'd far too many toxic substances into our food and environment without requiring any long term testing.  Most testing was only regarding short term exposure outcomes.  Now, 20+ years later, we are reaping the sorrows of lifetime illnesses, while Monsanto is lining their pockets with blood money. 

        http://www.minddisrupted.org/findings.endocrine.php

        http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/pren … uction.php

    4. SherryDigital profile image60
      SherryDigitalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is a similar conversation happening on reddit right now but the majority of the people commenting seem to be against the idea of GMOs causing cancer and/or infertility and blindly standing up for Monsanto.

      http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme … rporation/

      Are any of my fellow Hubbers on reddit as well?

      I would love to bring more awareness to these issues; especially to those that aren't already interested in food quality or health.
      So many others seem to not pay attention to important matters around them.

      Food quality and preserving heirloom seed is of major importance. Why does it seem that only a small portion of the population is concerned with such problems? How can we get more people involved?

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I get black listed pretty soon after joining.  I might join reddit again in a few months....I recognize the place has a great resource of information, but I sort of hate that site...except for when it's sending me hundreds of page views daily :-)

        1. Terri Meredith profile image91
          Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey there!  Long time no see...er...type...or something.  big_smile   I gotta tell ya...Reddit doesn't like me much either, but it sure helps to get their page views!  Great topic, Wes!

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thank You, Terri!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Do not imagine that your absence has gone un noticed - I've thought about you, and before much longer you'd have got an email asking whether or not you were okay.

            Glad to see you here again!

            1. Terri Meredith profile image91
              Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was very busy for the last couple of months with a few family matters and then the holidays, and finally...the dreaded flu.  I sure missed readin' and writin'!  I'm trying my best to catch up now.   Missed you too wink

    5. sen.sush23 profile image61
      sen.sush23posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Even if these products do not cause infertility or cancer- (meaning, those who are saying it is not so, must be saying that based on the logic that conclusive data may not be available and no cross-verification of the different environmental or other factors related have yet been performed to confirm this.)- even so, to expose innocent and unaware people to the possibilities of unhappy health issues, in the name of charity, when the developed world and the more aware mass are not open to allow themselves to be guinea-pigged by government or the corporate in the name of solving food crisis or better food; how far is that charitable behavior? I am really amazed that when there is so much controversy over the product standard of Monsanto, how can that food be so easily dispensed among the needy Africans? Or is Africa and the people there, just being a dumping ground for a long-term experiment in which the US government and the corporates are party, and these are poor guinea-pigs for whom it may be better to live a little longer as individuals and die as an entire ethnic group wiped off the face of earth?

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Define evil: Genetic engineering.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It could be the only thing that saves humanity in the fyuture of very limited food sources, I agree it needs more work and montsanto can be preety evil but its not necessarily a bad thing.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Trying to make more food for the planet isn't evil - but I do not even think for a second that that is what Monsanto is actually trying to do!

      2. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        People keep saying that, but so far, the overwhelming majority of genetically modified crops have been genetically modified for herbicide resistance or to produce insecticides in their cells, and the only thing that does (besides make lots of money for the companies selling the seeds and the chemicals) is breed super weeds and super pests. It does not contribute to food security.

        The type of genetic modifications that would contribute to food security, such as greater drought resistance, pest resistance, disease resistance, higher yields, etc. are a) not as profitable for the companies and b) still produced most easily and successfully by simple selective breeding.

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The only product that Monsanto has offered that makes the company profitable is Roundup.

          So it's quite natural, or even good business sense to tailor things to Roundup...but let's look at Roundup!!!

          Roundup itself poisons the user and the soil and water for who knows how many generations to come?

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/0 … 72862.html

    2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, if you like the Judaic or Christian account of things - then evil started with pride.

      If not, then it's still noteworthy that it's exceedingly prideful to assume superiority over Nature in the way that Monsanto does; and the track record certainly fits most person's definition of what is "evil."

  3. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I wouldn't call that a well known fact,just a paranoid conspiracy theory.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      BULLSHIT!!!  Back that up then, won't you?  I know that you can NOT do so.

      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Back up what?  That Bill Gates is not committing racial genocide with poisoned corn?

        Man, the one making the claims has to produce the evidence.  And not just someone ranting, actual primary evidence.

        I have read the reports on GM plants feed to animals.  No ill effects except for one dodgy rat/raw potato study.

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Bullshit - provide links.

          1. mom101 profile image59
            mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wes, too many people insist on not realizing the truth.

            That is what got this country where it is today.

            1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              psycheskinner probably works for Monsanto.

              1. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If that is the level of your reasoning I understand why you believe all this other stuff too.

                Bill Gates has nothing to do with Monsanto beyond wanting to give people food and control over their own reproduction.

                Monsanto food is genetic modified, which does not create toxic or sterilant food.

                I don't like Monsanto, at all (I am a full time, professional social activist).  But that doesn't mean I will spread every paranoid theory that happens to target them.

                I stick to the actual facts, which are damaging enough.  Making shit up just damages the efforts of those trying to cause real change in the world.

                1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                  Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  https://www.google.com/search?ix=ica&am … nfertility

                  I think the front page of Google search links here blow your "paranoid conspiracy theory" completely out of the water, and then some.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image82
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Some people on the internet said stuff.

                    Try repeating that search with Google Scholar.

                    I made up my mind after reading a large number of actual experimental reports.

                    GM foods have not been shown to cause infertility in people, or indeed any animal.

              2. Huntgoddess profile image83
                Huntgoddessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No kidding.

                1. psycheskinner profile image82
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Again showing your prejudices.  PsycheSkinner hates Monsanto.  She just doesn't believe in lying even about entities she hates.  That is because she is 1) honest, 2) a scientist and 3) she thinks dishonest campaigns are less successful than honest ones in the long run.

  4. Huntgoddess profile image83
    Huntgoddessposted 5 years ago

    Yeah, Monsanto is some scary business. I've never heard of a company going all over the globe and buying heirloom seeds from small family farmers who live sustainably. Monsanto does that, because it wants to rid the world of seeds --- other than its own "frankenseeds". They make these farmers an offer they can't refuse.

    Then, there's BGH. . . .

  5. 71
    SanXuaryposted 5 years ago

    Globally cornering the market and patenting our food supply is at the top of the list. The impact of round up ready food is completely unknown but banned in Europe. Research is badly needed from the dying off of all pollinators to include bees and bats to human health. What they our most known for is the destruction of the independent non-commercial farmer. Every time a patented seed lands in the wrong field they sue them or threaten them into purchasing their crops or forcing them out of business. Many organic farms and crops with decades of hybridization are being destroyed. These genetically modified crops are working to some extent but were a disaster in India. The fear is if we become to dependant on them instead of normal diversity one bug will eventually defeat them and a disaster in our food supply will begin. It may take us years to repair and regrow crops we no longer grow and super weeds are already winning the current game.

    1. Huntgoddess profile image83
      Huntgoddessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks so much for this, SanXuary. I've heard of these things, as well. I could not have put it better.

  6. Aficionada profile image92
    Aficionadaposted 5 years ago

    Wesman, thank you for that link.  I heard a long time ago about the problems with Monsanto and genetically modified foods.  I had pretty much come to the conclusion that some people were becoming hysterical for insufficient reasons, but this video helped open my eyes to see some things I wasn't aware of, such as the peer-reviewed study from Baylor University, the inadequate testing of GMO products on the part of the large seed companies, and the seeming indifference of the FDA.

    One point from the video:  the farmer stated that it was one specific hybrid of corn - not all corn products from Monsanto - that caused the pigs' sterility; it contained an estrogen-mimicking compound. (He called it "a subset within the technology.") And the toxicologist from the USDA said that some dairy cows in northern Iowa that he had been studying did not want to reproduce, as long as their diet was made up of the GMO grain products; but during the summer when they were fed on grass and green chopped alfalfa, they returned to normal. Also, the researchers at Baylor said that they have been finding the estrogen-mimicking compound in products that are already on the grocery shelves locally.  That is a cause for concern!

    I haven't checked into the Gates Foundation connection yet.  But personally I believe it's not their intent to cause sterility, but simply a lack of scientific curiosity and deep compassion (maybe ultimately laziness) on their part that allows them to invest so much money without investigating the product adequately.

    I'll definitely check out some of your Hubs.

    1. Huntgoddess profile image83
      Huntgoddessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Does their intent matter? It's the harm they cause that is the problem.

      But --- would they really state their true intent anyway?

      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        GM foods don't cause infertility.  They do cause not dying of hunger.

        Paranoid race genocide conspiracy theories are causing nations to turn away food from famine stricken areas.

        That matters.

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You can't prove that GM "food" doesn't cause fertility, and in fact, the majority of the information on the web speaks against you.

          1. Terri Meredith profile image91
            Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Besides the failure to present both short term and long term studies before dumping this food onto our dinner plates, there is another obvious problem with GM foods.  They don't have to label them.  We are not given the right to decide what we are willing to put into our bodies.  What's scarier is the fact that people DO have food allergies that may be life threatening.  What happens when someone eats something that has been altered by genes from a food to which they are allergic?  When they start swelling up, and discover they can't breathe, they won't even know why they're sick.  And even if they get to a medical facility before it's too late, it will all be guess work on the physician's part.  People can and do die from allergic reactions that aren't attended to swiftly.

            Just keep on telling your stuff, Wes, and I'll keep telling mine.  Maybe we can get at least one fat head to use some logic and critical thinking before they start spouting off the canned lies and ideas put out there by the puppet masters.

  7. 71
    SanXuaryposted 5 years ago

    Currently all research is conducted by the manufacturer and the FDA then determines if there research is good enough to pass muster. Today's boards are no longer made up of subject matter experts or people of any scientific back ground. One should review the case of aspertain, it was considered dangerous and its research inconclusive until the company hired an ex politician to represent there company. Consider all the drug companies now being sued for countless deaths and health issues and the fact that every medication has an average of forty side effects. Still these companies believe that no matter what the cost is that they will profit,pay damages and have  a new product with new claims of no ill effects by the time their victims ever receive any compensation.  There is currently no regulation on any genetically modified thing or labelling required. A company can grow genetically modified fish and if they should escape into the wild we would have no idea of the impact until years later when it became known. Such a disaster would be impossible to ever fix and the damage done may never be repaired. If America does not care about the consequences of such chances what will the World be like when everyone else decides to create their own Frankensteins.

  8. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Pretty much all of their products contribute to making them profitable.  Being profitable is what Monsanto does best.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nope.  Only Roundup makes Monsanto profitable - without Roundup, that corporation is history


      http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsant … nsanto.pdf

  9. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago
  10. 0
    Arlene V. Pomaposted 5 years ago

    Being a California farm girl, I know of the damage done by chemicals.  Monsanto is bad news.  I never bought into the company and their stocks, and I refuse to use Round-Up in my garden.  Round-Up is pure poison.  Take one good whiff of straight Round-Up, and expect to be sick for at least a couple of days.  I will not eat fruit or vegetables from a garden that was "cleaned up" by Round-Up.  No doubt, this poison remains in the soil.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yup...and then leaches into the water supply.

  11. Huntgoddess profile image83
    Huntgoddessposted 5 years ago

    But, hey if you want a drink of fresh non-pasteurized milk from a local farmer whose cows eat green grass in the summer (hay in the winter) --- you might not be able to get that because the farmers are in jail, and their kids are in foster homes, and their milk has been dumped out by the state.

    The United States FDA has sent attorneys to the state's "consumer protection" division, in order to put a stop to the "menace" of small, local, family farms who produce clean, healthy, pure products. These products have Omega 3 --- and other elements that are entirely missing from industrialized foods shipped from far away.

    Just sayin'

    1. mom101 profile image59
      mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Does anyone here know the stand of the candidates on this monsanto company?

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They've got such wealthy stockholders that I doubt any candidate can speak out against them very successfully....that's left to us.

        1. mom101 profile image59
          mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          it is a sad sad thing.

          I live in a small town. Most of the time it is quiet.  Once upon a time, I enjoyed talking the politic talk, stirring up a few "hardcores", laughing a little. But, not any more.

          A year or so ago, our election commissioner was found in the trunk of a car.

          That tends to quieten down the talk. Don't really feel safe enough to go to the polls to vote.

          Our food, something we have to have, can someone tell me why it is a good thing for one company to have a monopoly on seeds? I, for the life of me, can not figure this out.

          I ain t even gonna list the dangers that could be associated with this.
          Are we allowed to even grow our own food any more?

          Laws, seems like they are re writing them on a daily basis. What are we to do?

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh don't worry, "psychoskinner" says that you're probably just paranoid.

            Of course wonderful people wish to control all seeds....for our own good!  Just ask psychoskinner!

            I'm so glad that Monsanto is looking out for the future of seeds for vegetables, grains, and fruits for us...god knows that it's just lucky all those dumb ass common farmers over the course of the past several MILLIONS OF YEARS OF HUMAN HISTORY DIDN'T FUCK IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            HOLY SHIT! WHAT KIND OF FUCKING IDIOT TRUSTS MONSANTO?
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6070697_f248.jpg

            1. Debby Bruck profile image86
              Debby Bruckposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not I, said the little maid.

  12. ptosis profile image78
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    Monstanto made Agent Orange  - the legacy continues in the Tu Du hospital where there is the highest rate of still-borns generation after generation and has a room of wall-to wall still-borns in 5 gallon glass jars.

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6072611_f248.jpg


    BTW the reason why strawberries from CA no longer have a 3 or 4 digit produce code is because it has fish gene for protection against frost.

    Another frankenfood is
    http://voices.yahoo.com/genetically-eng … 34624.html

    http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A1295/1295148/470_1295148.jpg

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yup.

      Salmon is no longer safe to eat, unless you happen to know that it's not farm raised with the speed grow frankengene in it.

      1. Huntgoddess profile image83
        Huntgoddessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        OMG --- Really? I did not know that, but I did wonder why salmon is so cheap nowadays.

        I don't know whether or laugh, cry, faint --- ooooh, yuck!

    2. Huntgoddess profile image83
      Huntgoddessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ptosis --- thanks for this information. I do remember Agent Orange all too well. I forgot that it was from Monsanto.

      Be afraid.

      Be very afraid.

    3. Greek One profile image80
      Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i still think i could eat that in one sitting

    4. kirstenblog profile image80
      kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Damn thats one tasty looking fish! tongue
      It will really come in handy when I try to grow some gills of my very own, I'm gonna be a superhero!!! lol tongue

  13. Huntgoddess profile image83
    Huntgoddessposted 4 years ago

    The thing that scares me the most is:  What about poor folks?

    We have to eat at soup kitchens or get groceries from food pantries at least part of the time --- or else starve. Who knows maybe starvation is better than eating this GM stuff.


    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/4356210_f248.jpg

  14. 0
    SarahBodoposted 4 years ago

    African's will never become infertile. They eat other fresh and natural foods, unlike many other people.   
    @Wesman Todd Shaw, where did you get this idea from?

  15. kirstenblog profile image80
    kirstenblogposted 4 years ago
  16. sen.sush23 profile image61
    sen.sush23posted 4 years ago

    @Wesman, the Utube link on BT Cotton in India was very good. I know that terrain and know just how false those government officials sound who are saying that the company has written on the packets that it is suitable for irrigated land. Central India is the main cotton growing area in India, and the temperature and soil are the best for cotton farming. To sell to these farmers seeds that require more water is like signing death sentence, for monsoon is the only source of water and it is infrequent. A company like Monsanto, that is mammoth in its size and scope, cannot be unaware of this rudimentary fact of the cotton planting in India. It only seems that they may have a program to eradicate the small farmers and kill the domestic cotton industry. How the different corporates and the government or corrupt officials play out their individual roles in this scheme one can only guess!

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you very much, sen.sush23 - it's amazing that people actually believe what any United States corporation says about anything.  It's ridiculous, really.  When I saw that video that first time I got so angry I could hardly see straight.

      What it is is creating poison and calling it food to murder and lower populations, and it's always the case that Monsanto is seeking to control all aspects of the food supply by stealing as much arable land as possible.

  17. KrystalD profile image87
    KrystalDposted 4 years ago

    Well said sen.sush23. This is probably one of biggest concerns as well. Africans should NOT be used as lab rats in the name of "charity."

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Especially when we all know that American's waste more good food than probably any other people do anyway.

  18. Terri Meredith profile image91
    Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago

    http://www.psr.org/environment-and-heal … urity.html

    This should help those who believe there's nothing wrong with GM foods to take a closer look at what's being put out there by monster-makers.  Remember, some foods are being modified with man-made chemicals as well as taking genes from other animals and plants.  The last paragraph says it all.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There seems to be a line in the mental sand - people that don't believe that there is any kind of global conspiracy ever also tend to believe GMO "food" is healthy, and that Monsanto is a noble organization.

      I can't explain it - but that's what seems to be going on.

  19. Terri Meredith profile image91
    Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago

    Our fearless leader has been banned from forums for 3 days.  He's instructed me to carry on in his absence.  He WILL return.  Apparently someone didn't like his passionate responses and cried "Foul".  roll

    Aren't we a bit old for tattling?

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe he shouldn't sink to juvenile personal insults.

      I mean, aren't we a bit old for playground debate methods, and capable of following a few simple rules?

      1. Terri Meredith profile image91
        Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        We're ALL too old for playground debate methods.  I do happen to recall that Wes asked for some sources from you other than just your opinion.  He wanted independent studies done by scientists other than the ones working for the corporations marketing their garbage.  You failed to come up with any credible source, published and/or peer reviewed.  Why is that?

        I love the fact that Wes is passionate about his beliefs.  It might serve him better than letting his frustration show, to remain calm and settle for reaching those who are willing to listen and then search on their own.  But I admire his passion.

        1. psycheskinner profile image82
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          My position is that GM does not cause sterility.  That is a negative.  Science proves positives.  So he is the one that needs to show there is some proof. 

          I could list negative results all day and it would not prove anything as another study of a specific GM and specific consumer could still find the result.

          Also he never did ask me for proof as far as I recall.  Just suggested I was biased (which I am, *against* Monsanto--and any bully boy vertically integrated behemoth companies with bad environmental and human rights records) and stupid (which I suppose is up for debate).

          I am passionate about my beliefs too.

          1. Terri Meredith profile image91
            Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Then by your premise, we shouldn't look for possible trouble.  When we see something curious, we shouldn't go about looking for the cause.  We should just accept what we see on the surface?  We have an explosion of illnesses that are climbing in percentages of prevalence.  The smart thing to do is to determine when the increases began, determine what changes took place during that time frame, and then eliminate each change until the culprit is found. 

            So far, common sense reasoning and deduction has led researchers with outstanding credentials,  to the fact that toxins in the environment and our food have been the culprit.  The problem in proving it through the scientific channels you suggest, takes much more time than we can afford without putting a halt on continued consumption.  All the testing and studying should have been done BEFORE these things were unleashed on the consumers.

            There were NO long term studies done on any of the trash we're supposed to obediently swallow.  Why is that?  And why is it that these corporations who market the poison are so anxious to push through self-serving laws?  It takes money to complete a thorough long term study.  Why haven't they been required by our government to fund such studies through independent research labs?  Look what happened with Aspertame?  Monsanto pushed the few independent studies into the dark when they showed clear evidence of causing cancer.  They even claimed not to have known about the results of the study, though it carried their toxicology indentifiers.  Aspertame most certainly DOES cause cancer as well as quite a few other serious health problems.

            Wes said in his OP that it's a well known fact that Monsanto products cause cancer/infertility.  You came on pretty heavy in your very first comment on the forum:

            "I wouldn't call that a well known fact,just a paranoid conspiracy theory."

            Wes asked you to back that up.  He wanted facts that would support your statement. 

            This is a forum for exchanging thoughts and ideas and information.  The idea is that it is a way to debate the topics.  I don't know about you, but I've never been to a debate where both parties weren't expected to present evidence to support their ideas and opinions.

            On infertility by Monsanto products:

            Another problem associated with aspartame use is infertility. Dr. Madelon Price writes, “I showed (in rodents) that both amino acids [in aspartame] freely enter the arcuate nucleus and (at low dose) cause inappropriate release of hormones, and at high dose actually destroy these regulatory neurons. That is why sexual dysfunction is associated with aspartame & MSG” (2)

            According to this statement, the first issue in pregnancy resulting from aspartame is in getting pregnant in the first place. I also asked Dr. Blaylock about fertility and pregnancy. His response was “a number of studies have shown reduced fertility in both males and females - shrunken testes and ovaries were seen in the original studies by the makers of aspartame... we see reduction in the gonadotrophins-ICSH, FSH, LH and prolactin. In addition there are direct effects on the sperm and ova".

            Dr. Madelon Price is Professor of Neurobiology at Washington University.

            So, Monsanto products DO cause infertility.

  20. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    1)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 20878/full

    No. This study shows that soy effects the reproductive system (it has estrogen-like qualities). 

    To they extent they differed at all--this was caused by basic nutritional differences: "both transgenic and organic soy had an adverse effect on some parameters of the uterus and ovary morphology ... The isoflavone content of both transgenic and organic soy was evaluated and no significant difference ... the differences related to ...can probably be related to the small differences in fat, sugar and especially protein"

    These difference do not seem to be related to potential infertility.

    2) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n
    3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240415/
    4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7797819

    These studies is not about GM foods at all

    The other statements don't relate to named research I can look up.

    So, you have yet to show any evidence at all that GM foods of any kind can cause sterility.

    1. Terri Meredith profile image91
      Terri Meredithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I find it extremely difficult to believe anyone with enough intelligence to work in the science sector could claim there is no link to infertility through a damaged uterus, dead sperm cells, etc.  It was clearly stated that the glyphosate in the GM soybeans is believed to be the culprit in the first study.  The second one showed that glyphosate kills the outer layer of the placenta, causing it to die.  Can't carry a baby without a placenta.  The 3rd study showed both mothers and fathers exposed to glyphosate prior to pregnancy, it was more likely to end in spontaneous abortion.  The 4th study showed a reduction in sexual activity and sperm concentration with abnormal and/or dead sperm cells. 

      As for the Russian study, you should have no trouble tracking it down, being a scientist and all.  I'm guessing you have access to more academic sites, papers, etc.  then the rest of us poor ignorant conspiracy theorists.  I'll give you a few other links to help you along your way:

      http://www.responsibletechnology.org/
      http://www.responsibletechnology.org/ar … -sterility

      The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has asked doctors to advise their patients NOT to eat GM foods due to the seriousness of the threats to health.  Are you really stating that these esteemed people are using scare tactics to....????  What?   What would be the purpose of keeping people away from affordable, healthy food?

      I believe the real issue is that these things have been unleashed on us without the proper testing for safety.  If you were approached about being a test subject for ingesting a new chemical would you do it even though there was no testing for safety?  would you swallow something you used to clean your car tires just because someone you don't even know, insists it's ok to swallow?  No way.  You'd have a million questions about it and want proof positive.  You'd want to know every possible scenario for health implications had been checked out thoroughly.  How is this any different?

 
working