in 20 years, cancer rates are likely to jump because our average life span will be 3 or 4 years longer...the longer one lives, the more likely he is to die of a wasting disease, like cancer or heart failure, than from more 'youthful' causes of mortality, such as car accidents, head injuries, food poisoning and gunshots...add to that, our population is aging...the average age of americans will be up about 1-2 years in 20 years...ironically, thanks in no small way due to life-expanding innovations from companies like mon!...
you see?...a littel common sense will go a long way, bozo...all of your ninny-whining and pseudo-science is for naught...you don't know what you're talking about, but the result will be about what you expect...
bc forbes once said something like: with all thy getting, be sure to get understanding...this would be good advice for you, before the roof caves in on you...
The increase in longevity over the past 50 years is due mostly to the decrease in childhood mortality. It doesn't necessarily mean someone who is 50 or 60 will live longer. Thus, the increase in longevity that some refer to may not materialize. Remember that polio, diphtheria, etc. once killed people of various ages, including children. Required protection for more children in moving vehicles also helped longevity statistics.
I don't have a position in MON now, though I traded it on the short side and made a couple hundred dollars recently before exiting to reconsider. I was long MON awhile back, but it now seems stuck around an important technical point and MON looks vulnerable, IMHO. Of course, it's all in the hands of the institutional owners and where the big money chooses to take this stock.
Come to think of it farmers probably will be getting more cancer due to RR beans - more skin cancer from sun bathing in the tropics since they don't have to work so hard to grow a crop. More colon cancer due to more red meat steaks they can afford due to RR beans making them more profit
A hint of a link? You are making it too easy. What is a "link" after all?
Anti-GMO propagandists love to talk about a link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, which is a kind of cancer. A team of epidemiologists in Sweden looked for evidence that exposure to certain agricultural chemicals might cause NHL. They did not find a connection with NHL and they published their research. That's the "link" - it was in the study.
By that logic, Rush Limbaugh is "linked to" Barack Obama.
there is zero evidence that a chemical that is non-toxic at high levels causes cancer at low levels. there is no data to suggest that a protein if ingested causes cancer. yes small chemicals cause cancer but the wast majority of them are also toxic at high levels and are a lot more toxic than table salt. Table salt can kill, so can dihydrogen monoxide but we don't think they shoul be banned from food and glyphosate is substantially less toxic than both
<<<i expect massive lawsuits and penalties against this company any week or month now>>>
The first thing you have to have to stand a chance with a lawsuit is: someone who has actually been harmed.
Not someone who may be harmed at some undetermined time in the near or far future.