Fri, Aug 1, 2014, 10:11 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 49 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Monsanto Company Message Board

  • c_rader c_rader Oct 19, 2012 2:21 PM Flag

    Whippet

    Hey whippet, posting something dumb three times doesn't make it any less dumb.

    These DNA fragments are just nutrients. DNA serves as a code for making protein, just as words on a paper can be a recipe. But when you use the paper to start a fire, the recipe is irrelevant.

    How can you not understand that fragments of non-GMO DNA are also in the food supply? Do you worry that fragments of cabbage DNA are in your cole slaw? Are you afraid that eating the cabbage will turn you into a cabbage?

    This post is so silly that we have to assume that the originator knows it is silly but thinks it is useful anyway because some people are so ignorant that they will find it frightening. And guess who he thinks is that silly person.

    I'd like to single out one part of that post for special comment! [However, earlier this year, The Observer revealed the work of a German scientist who had found that genes from GM crops could be found in bacteria in the guts of bees.] The EU funded 170 studies all looking for some way that GMO food could be harmful. None of them found anything. So propaganda specialists resort to misrepresenting this German scientist's discovery that the bacteria in bee guts can take up DNA from the bees' food. Not just GMO DNA but any DNA. So what. It would be a very unexpected result if the bee gut bacteria ate conventional DNA but not GMO DNA. Kind of like if you could start a fire with paper used in a newspaper, but not if the print on the paper was a recipe. The bees were not harmed in any detectable way. The bacteria in the bee's gut were not harmed in any detectable way. The genes they took up were not active as genes, they were just bacteria food, which is how nature has dealt with DNA for millions of years.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • If GMO are not harmful, why when I post a link about all the damage done on the countries where these GMO are planted, links are banned complete... just like that, not links of any kind that can show the reality of the damages of GMO food. to the Environment and to the humankind. All those farmers harvesting these crops... are turning into real nightmares... and the traditional seeds are dying without any reason for the native people working with these a GMO... WE KNOW WHY.

      GMO, garbage, garbage, poison infesting the planet and humankind .

    • I find this comment more than STUPID to what reality is showing humankind : BEES WERE NOT HARMED... they die after a while and so their offspring.... Just take a look around today's world : our planet is been destroyed :
      .....NO MORE BEES AROUND anymore, no more HONEY- BIRDS, no more BEAUTIFUL COLOR BUTTERFLIES , no more HONEY-BIRDS neither, those smallest beautiful creatures that ONE TIME AGO were a delightful for our Souls and Eyes...We can't show our kids anymore what a CATERPILLAR IS, .,and if WE keep Accepting ALL THE POISSONS MON and all those big SHARK companies are disguising CONSUMERS, humankind will be destroyed by MEN... the Revelations start to be visible before our yes.... MAN DESTROYING THE MAN ...

    • Cradar, so how much is big daddy Monsanto paying ya?

      The bottom line is we, the people who are health conscious want to know what goes into our food. We already get most of that information regarding the ingredients. What do you have to hide Cradar?.....huh? What are you afraid of? If GMO is all that it is cracked up to be then why do you feel people won't buy it if there is a label on it? People still buy cigarettes despite the surgeon general's warning.

      Crader, you make no sense at all. Your arguments are meaningless. Therefore, you must be a paid poster from Mr Deep Pockets Monsanto. Your gibberish won't deter me nor anyone else from supporting our RIGHT TO KNOW!

      • 1 Reply to mr_whippet_2001
      • Whippet, it never takes very long for people like you to decide that Monsanto has to be paying me. How convenient! That belief lets you ignore all sorts of inconvenient facts. It lets you spout transparent nonsense, and skip over verifiable logical refutation. After all, you can't possibly be wrong so if I disagree with you, I must have a nefarious reason.

        Well I am not paid by Monsanto. I don't own any Monsanto stock. I don't think anyone in my family has any connection to Monsanto. And I have a standing offer to prove it by opening my affairs to scrutiny.

        Really, I don't think your name is Whippet. So you can probably say anything you want without worrying about the consequences. You might be posting stuff to help you make money. You may have sold Monsanto's stock short. We don't know. And, we don't care because we can easily see that you make no sense. But I post here with my own name, Charles Rader. Being dishonest would mean damaging my reputation.

        Not long ago either you or cwtripp (another likely alias) posted, as evidence that GMO food causes autism, that one in 100 use children are born with autism, and one in 87 in Great Britain. I commented that if autism is 15% more common in Britain, where there is essentially no GMO food being eaten, than here in the USA where it is common, it was not evidence, at all, for your hypothesis. Is it your contention that this is invalidated by an ad hominem argument? Can you, just possibly, have made a mistake?

 
MON
113.30+0.21(+0.19%)10:10 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.