This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Independent" GMO Researcher Forced To Admit $25K Grant From Monsanto
Submitted by Cassius Methyl via TheAntiMedia.org,
In January of 2015, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Oakland organization U.S. Right to Know requested email records between academics, scientists, and representatives of Big Agriculture.
The FOIA requests were sent to 14 scientists at four public universities, requesting information on communications and email records.
The FOIA findings included communications of well-known, staunch proponents of GM crops like Kevin Folta, a professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Gainesville, who received a $25,000 grant from Monsanto. The emails reveal the funds could “be used at [his] discretion in support of [his] research and outreach projects”.
About 4,600 pages of emails, among other records, were obtained from Folta.
According to the communications, the ties between allegedly objective scientists and Big Agriculture run deep. According to Nature Magazine,
“The documents show that Monsanto paid for Folta’s travel to speak to US students, farmers, politicians and the media. Other industry contacts occasionally sent him suggested responses to common questions about GM organisms.”
While it’s not uncommon for scientists to receive corporate funding through grants, these revelations are troublesome because Folta is regularly sold to the public as an “independent” authority on GMOs. In fact, the biotech industry-funded site, GMOanswers.com — which seeks to dispel myths about the dangers of GM foods and pesticides — has still not disclosed Folta’s financial ties to Monsanto.
According to an article from Nature Magazine, U.S. Right to Know is “probing what it sees as collusion between the agricultural biotechnology industry and academics who study science, economics and communication.”
In layman’s terms, the organization is made up of ordinary people who seek to make corruption transparent and obliterate illusions of objectivity.
Executive director of U.S. Right to Know, Gary Ruskin, said one of the reasons the organization made the requests is that “The agri-chemical industry has spent $100 million dollars in a massive public relations campaign.The public has the right to know the dynamics.”
It looks like the FOIA targets are doing everything they can to avoid revealing information. According to Wired, “Legal teams at the universities—Nebraska, University of Florida, UC Davis, and the University of Illinois—are currently evaluating the situation, but some scientists have already spoken out against the FOIA request.”
FOIA requests might be one of the greatest threats to corruption and revolving door politics, which explains why those who oppose transparency are doing everything they can to prevent them.
“Open records requests are increasingly being used to harass and intimidate scientists and other academic researchers, or to disrupt and delay their work,” a report from The Union of Concerned Scientists claims.
“Academic institutions and other involved parties need to be prepared to respond to these requests in a way that protects the privacy and academic freedom of researchers while complying with the law and respecting the public’s right to information.”
Kevin Folta did what he could to avoid blame, saying, “I’m just a teacher, trying to distill a controversial literature for the general public.”
“I turned over everything [requested by the FOIAs] immediately,” he said.
There is no such thing as objective science when a researcher receives tens of thousands of dollars from the GM producers themselves, then goes on to promote their financiers’ products. Corporate collusion between government bureaucracies and educational institutions has become a serious issue in the U.S. that has corrupted objectivity in nearly every sector of American life.
If there is corruption in our society that you wish to make transparent, you can file your own Freedom of Information Act request, just like U.S. Right to Know did.
- 25877 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


sorta like global warming, eh?
You racist sexist ignorant redneck baby-killing DENIER!!!!!!! The science is already settled.
As a physical competitor, I prove issues both ways, and let management use the results appropriately, since they're the smart people.
Mistrust of genetically modified foods and perfectly safe pesticides and herbicides is founded on junk science emanating from mystics and quacks in the 'alternative health' field. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that genetically modified foods are not only safe, healthy and nutritious, but also the only solution to world hunger. Granted, our world is overpopulated and overindustrialized, but even after we have reduced the population, we still need a way to feed tens of millions of people that is efficient and cost-effective. GMOs and advanced farming techniques are the only answer to this coming food crisis, and if you have any compassion for the third world you will stand with the science and not with the alternative health quacks.
However you want it.
the problem is, is that too many plants are given access to the internet where they can read articles like:
http://www.jbc.org/content/260/8/4724.full.pdf
A Single Amino Acid Substitutionin the Enzyme5- Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphateSynthaseConfers Resistance to the Herbicide Glyphosate
after which they start doing stuff like:
http://www.jbc.org/content/260/8/4724.full.pdf
Evolution of a Double Amino Acid Substitution in the 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase in Eleusine indica Conferring High-Level Glyphosate Resistance
Eisenhower also warned of an education industrial complex, in the same speech as hiw warning about the MIC.
Ain’t nothing compared to the graft in the pharma biz.
I am sure glad all this government money flowing to our global warming heroes, Michael "hockeystick" Mann, James "NASA" Hansen and other sycophants of the Washington suck would never influence their research, right.. Anybody see Flak??
this article points out exactly what i tried to point out the other day about the muller's @ berkeley earth. those two are so up the asses of the educational grant, business donation scam they haven't seen daylight in years. a person just wouldn't believe how lazy people are about finding out about the writers on zero hedge. the hedge gave you the link to the muller's "educational" website, which had links to their business partners at another of the muller's websites. would the mullers' tell you the truth for a price? inquiring minds want to know
That's hysterical.
I know a Phd. in Chemistry that believes that exact load of crap.
Shows to go ya, book learnin' ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Captured.
It's all (and ONLY) about the money now.
Nonsense. Till date there is no long term toxicological and environmental research into the effects of GMO on humans, animals and the environment. In the US biotech is not required to test GMO on lab rats for longer than 90 days. In fact, approval of GMO by the FDA is based on data supplied by biotech companies themselves because the FDA was deregulated. There is a revolving door anyway between board members of biotech companies and the FDA. It has not proven that GMO dramatically increase yields in order to prevent people from starving. Of the so called Golden Rice (with added vitamin A) you'd need to eat huge amounts in order to obtain the daily required vitamin A. People would get enough if they would eat a varied diet of veggies.
Glyphosate -one of the main ingredients of Roundup and used intensely in agriculture in combination with GMO- has been designated as probably carcinogenic by the WHO. In Argentina the stuff is used a lot and ever since cancer rates and birth defects have increased. Weeds by the way become more resistant to Roundup so more of it is needed or even worse herbicides need to be used. Residues of Glyphosate has shown up in mothers milk in the US, surpassing EU water thresholds many many times. It has also shown up in urine samples in Germany and it stays longer in the environment than that biotech companies claim.
There is something called SmartStaxx (or something) which has two herbicides resistant genes and 4 Bt toxins incorporated into it. This stays into the product from the moment it is a seed until it ends up as animal fodder or -god forbid- on your plate. A seed of the stuff already kills a bird. New herbicides developed contain ingredients used in Agent Orange used in Vietnam as a defoliant.
GMO is only good for the biotech companies that make them and the associated herbicides and pesticides. And I was wrong when I said that until date there is no long term research cause they are trying it out, right here and right now, on us and on the environment.
Some independent researchers have shown that GMOs cause leaky gut, stomach problems, and hormone imbalances. You know they're independent because they're all labelled as quacks and the companies try to slander them and remove all funding.
The GMOs also exchange genetics with other plants and weeds, and many suspect this is responsible for superweeds and the decline of bees. No doubt synthetic biology advances will make this even worse.
Edison m/l successfully proved that Tesla's alternating current approach to electricity was guaranteed to kill anyone who used it. Edison was selling direct current at the time.
The anti-GMO folks have to make a bilking, but that doesn't mean one should trust them.
French fries are made from a poisonous plant that is a member of the deadly nightshade family. Animals drop dead all the time from eating them.
Cassava (aka yucca) is probably the most-consumed vegetable in the world. It contains cyanide. Just one pound of cassava can kill a cow.
Apricots, peaches, plums, cherries, chocolate, kidney beans, tomatoes... They're all extremely poisonous.
Without the REST of the story, such as "we only eat tomato fruits and they're OK", any sane but gullible person would avoid these common foods like a plague.
Gullible. Cool word.
Look what happens to you when you do perform a study on rats longer than 90 days.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20516-in-depth-journal-retracts-indep...
I find it interesting that researchers did not design their own studies to prove the fallibility of the French study, just attack its methods saying there weren't enough rats to draw adequate conclusions and that the 90 day time frame is industry standard. This in itself is the definition of biased " science". I can't believe they call for a redaction when they didn't prove plagerism or deceit.
Science with an agenda is no science
Miffed
Miffed, the retraction of the Seralini study came AFTER an ex Monsanto man was appointed chief editor at the journal. The retraction was condemned by many scientists. The reason for the retraction was that the study was inconclusive -which it wasn't. Inconclusiveness is never a reason for retraction, period. There was no falsification of data or plagiarism. In the meanwhile the study was accepted by another journal.
As you said the study was attacked because of the small sizes of groups but in the end Monsanto only used half the data they collected on the rats (and probably the favorable one). Another reason was that Seralini used a rat that is prone to developing tumors. But that particular type of rat is used a lot in test because shortens the trial. Another reason was because of the suffering of the rats, that they were not euthanized sooner. I don't think that ethical concerns about lab rats have been much of a worry in trials anywhere.
MOST people are little more than bone-nostriled cannibals. Some drive BMWs. They know they're smart because they can work an iPhone.
You can't convince these people that genetic modifications made by people (bees are OK) are safe to eat because you "are what you eat", a phrase that most take literally.
Don't even try to fight this. Human ignorance is the only remaining constant revenue stream that I know of. I don't think you can even dent that ignorance, but let's not take chances. Mmmkay?
wrg,idts
How does modifying a seed so that a farmer cannot use it to seed for the following year going to solve world hunger? It is not about world food supply, but about profit for the corporation and taking as much as possible from the farmer. Companies continue to GM seeds to so call help the farmer spend less time and money in the field leaving the farmer with fewer choices but to pay the price for the seed that technology has wrought.
Why are EU and other nations not allowing GM seed to be planted?
You don't farm, do you? So why make paper arguments for them
I do farm and can tell you this is not good, we are locked into a system where we are dependant on a few monopolies, whats that saying about oil and food controlling nations? this is another method of control, except they do it at a genetic level
The EU is controlled by Greenpeace and other leftwing religious groups. Hence they love 'hippy science'. That is - science that doesnt have to be proved, just believed in. just like the hippies chanting 'love is all you need' has brought world peace.
Alternative health quacks? You sound like an establishment health quack. Quack! Quack! Quack!
MDB, you sarc is second to none! There's an award to be given here!
http://gizmodo.com/updated-anti-science-trolls-are-starting-edit-wars-on...
How much does the Templeton Foundation or the Discovery Institute offer per disruptive edit on Wikipedia science articles?
It appears the "Update" to this article is a big "nevermind" which just goes to show ALL sides are just political hacks.
Not really. Wikipedia's response is that they have the situation well in hand (which is mostly true). The fact that such coordinated attacks on science articles occur, however, is not in dispute.
Perhaps I misunderstand. Readers can determine for themselves: "Wikipedia, has expressed concerns about the study’s conclusions. A representative told Gizmodo, 'We find some of the coverage of this study overstates findings, or infers facts not in evidence. For example, the authors of this study do not seem to have successfully correlated the frequency of edits to controversial articles with an increased likelihood of inaccuracy. Instead, the study simply seems to confirm that the articles chosen as controversial are, in fact, controversial.'"
To me, this pretty much means the study shows exactly what you would expect. that "articles chosen as controversial are, in fact, controversial" and that "this study overstates findings." But then, I could be missing something. And certainly not that there's a recent uptick in anti-science activity.
EDIT: This is what I expect from gizmodo.
How could you forget to nuke the unborn gay whales...? For shame...
Perception is reality Lordylord, I think the question should not be; is there Global warming, or climate change, but rather, can paying higher taxes somehow change things, I don't think it can, as things change we must change with them, and things do change, look at all the change you've seen in you life time, change is enivitable, creatures that can adapt to the change survive, those that can't? Well you know the answer to that!
I'm still waiting on the mini ice age I was promised in skool.
With the BLS obviously in charge of all temp. recording, who knows it could be happening.
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31175
I know.
I have a family full of profs.The desperation to get research grants is not new, but it
surely is more frantic these days.Scientific integrity was lost long ago.
Ivory tower whores.
seems as if everyone is a whore thease days......................one way or another.
Sad how things have gone in western world
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/08/17/j...
This July was the warmest month on record, in what is quickly shaping up to be the warmest year on record.
You can't believe anything anymore unless you are a chump.
Everything is being manipulated.Sensory overload works better than depravation for
brainwashing.
That is the unique beauty of the scientific method: It is based on reproducable evidence. Ergo, belief is not required.
This does not preclude instances of corruption and manipulation, but this can be corrected by additional testing in the case of reasonable doubt.
Theory is supposed to be based on observation, not the other way round.
Thats not science, thats cooking the books,
You are a nordic fool.
Heheh. Fools who live in close proximity to ice masses of the arctic, and experience first-hand the consequences of what industrial lobbyists in America so energetically obscure.
I'm gonna bet that WC is well aware of the scientific method, but also that climate researchers don't hesitate as to which side of their bread to butter. Though there may be a case, the money flows and unanimity of media coverage has got to cause one's conscious eyebrows to rise.
Come on. Given, this is a ZH comment section, but this comment betrays an incredibly naive, Modernist, and Logical Positivist (ie mid-20th century) view.
Plus, you're confusing anecdote with empirical evidence.
And I don't even doubt global warming.
A wise professor once told me "Sufficient amount of research will support your thesis." The issue with long term research is that empirical evidence of climate change over geological scales is rather sparse and a lot of so called science is merely intrapolating huge gaps. And this intrapolated data is then used as basis for extrapolation. While practical, this is not really "scientific" method.
That is a great rebuttal Winston. Never, ever, argue against their thesis.
Question how they collected the data to prove their thesis.
I used to argue with Flak all the time on this. S/he woud always talk about average temps, blah blah blah. If you look deep, their confidence limits are way larger than their declared change. Which works well for them when they exclaim "hottest year ever" but is never remembered when the noise bounces the other way.
Either way, below their conclusions are their data, which is rotten to the core.
Adjusted data. Lol. Still get a kick out of that one. If I used "adjusted data" in my line of work, I would be in jail.
pods
I used to delve into all of Flak's links and I found several of them credible but what disturbed me was she came to conclusions by extrapolating the data to a point that simply was not credible. What bothered me was using one marker, CO2, as the primary driver when there are other influences such as Earth Orbit Oscillation in centennial time frames, the multidecadal tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle, or the orbit eccentricity Milankovitch cycle, which causes glacial and interglacial ages on Earth.
Then when you contemplate jailing/fining deniers, their agenda becomes clear. Who says science can't be a religion?
Miffed;-)
wrg,idts
larssen you have a major problem. so much bad science is floating around chasing grants that the scientific community is losing respect. the science is never settled.....it is only an educational or business grant away from being rewritten...good grief
Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago
Top 6 Climate Change Problemshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU
damn winston....i thought i was the only one waiting and waiting and waiting. somehow i don't think the people bought one.....lol
@madcows
Get where you are comming from on the GW
SHOCKED..........................SHOCKED I TELL YER......................WHERES MY MEDS
You mean like the Heartland foundation funded by big oil trying to discredit global warming? Climate proponents are mostly funded by governments. Climate skeptics are mostly funded by big oil.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud is a wholly government owned and operated fraud. Every single government funded climate model is a fantasy. If you'd know the truth about climate models begin reading at:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-i-historic-development-ne...
Every model is as good as its design and models are only an approximation of a very complex reality. But most if not all models that were developed independently show the same trend.
The fact is that the sun has been stable for centuries apart from a period in the late medieval times when there was a pause in solar flares. A 1 degree Celsius drop in temperature then caused what is called 'the little ice age'. Currently apparently there is again a pause in the solar flare cycle so a new period of cooling could be on the horizon. But that does not mean that warming is not happening. And CO2 retains IR, as does Methane, as does water vapor as do a lot of other gases present in the atmosphere that have increased ever since industrialization.
However, CO2 tax, carbon markets, etc. are just scams. What would work are other sources of energy such as solar, hydrogen or nuclear fusion. But that ain't gonna happen cause the world needs to keep on buying that petrodollar baby!
Yes and there is no way a government could direct the outcome for evil purposes, like taxes, passing legislation controlling peeps etc.
Big guns beats big oil everyday and the government has an unlimited supply of them and forced servitude to pull the triggers.
and by the way, let me help you, remove the mirrors in your home.
You think big companies are any different? And has there been any CO2 tax imposed on people? Has any legislation to control population been passed?
Adding Ad Hominem to your reaction only shows you are a weak debater.
Exactly. The people getting $500K+ grants are mum of course.
Universities are the modern "flat Earth that the Universe revolves around" enclaves of delusion.
The pay is good, always a ready supply of eager young Women worshiping at your feet, and pretty buildings.
Even worse than Fascism has hit these shores.
i'm all for the requirement that politicians, authors, journalists and scientists wear logos like NASCAR showing who their sponsors are
They'd have to make them really small, like all the little flags or whatever they are that generals have on their chests.
Far too many out there giving up their personal sovereignty to schlep some corporation's schtick for some blood money.
What are the consequences?
If they're not socio/psychopaths, it will be shame & little else.
http://www.hos.ufl.edu/faculty/kmfolta
University of Florida
Folta is employed by the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, not the University of Gainesville.
moar shit that "might" be bad for health
Book Review - Vaccine Whistleblower - By Kevin Barry, Esq.http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/08/book-review-vaccine-whistleblower-by-...
Excellent. Thanks for this. The purge list starts with:
1. Federal Reserve owners and their minions.
2. Execs of Monsatan.
3. Execs of big pharma.
If all their private jets could be downed at once, the world would be a better place.
Big government agencies like the EPA, FDA or the CDC are created by private interests to give their rackets the imprimatur for the greater good or 'public interest'. While something good is possible, fraud, if it doesn't live in the house, is its closest neighbor.
Amazing isn't it? Throw an old mercury thermostat in the landfill and EPA come down on you like a ton of bricks, then CDC says it's ok to put it permanently in your mouth or mandatory inject to infants.
Folta is just another POSE (Pile Of Stinkin' Excrement).
Am i the only one around here who thinks that the rise in cancer and other diseases is God's way of telling us to take a better look at our fucked up food supply?
Yes, you are the only one. All disease and every other "evil" thing is the result of sin, for by one man's sin, not only did evil infest man but the entire creation. Sin is not a created thing, it is by definition a rebellion against the fixed moral law-giver, God Almighty.
The good news is that the darker the night, the brighter the light. For God so loved mankind that he GAVE us the way of escape from the snare of sin, the Lord Jesus. That is the message God is telling all. Turn from your sin and surrender to Christ, for there is no other name given among men from which we can be saved from the penalty of our sin and all we be judged according to moral perfection, which means no one can stand on their own merit; only on the merit of the one who gave his life, the Lord Jesus. It is what people neglect the most and yet there is nothing more important for ourselves and our children and grand children. We spend our energies all day & all life long on things that do not satisfy and have no eternal value; it is why it is written that the wages, something we earn, of sin is eternal death. God places people in hell, but man earns his way to hell despite all the obstacles God places in the path.
Edited below
I stand corrected by the thumbs on my first sentence, but I am correct in the point that people do not understand the widespread problem of sin and that disease and every other bad thing is the result of sin.
May God help you and all people to see the truth of our fallen natures that we can seek the cure bound up in the person and the work of the Lord for our eternal good. Sadly people hate the truth as you will see from this comment.
I talked to god this morning and It said bullshit.
is it a sin to know too much aka know that religion is made up nonsense? They did say that the evil satan snake tricked a woman into eating from the tree of knowledge. That little story was propaganda to make people think that being smart is a sin and they want you dumb to . . . guess why.
is it a sin to know too much aka know that religion is made up nonsense? They did say that the evil satan snake tricked a woman into eating from the tree of knowledge. That little story was propaganda to make people think that being smart is a sin and they want you dumb to . . . guess why.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to vote your comment down twice. You might want to dig a bit deeper into what a true sacred is versus the false sacreds we are fed daily. It's a big subject and worthy of your deeper evaluation.
This is not "the answer." This is a hint (2nd hour of podcast): http://noliesradio.org/archives/97689
Well, in this case, the wages of sin--the sin of searching out the proximate, objective causes of things--may well be life.
And the wages of righteous riding around on a high horse, based on believing "stuff people say"--venerable and ancient chit-chit (written in Greek or Aramaic and blessed by some guys who probably worked for the University at Nicea and were taking bribes even back then) though it may be--looks like it's likely to be brain damage.
I am surprised they submitted to the FOIA. Increasingly they are being denied in many areas. I just read a book about people going missing in national parks and the gov denied the FOIA from a retired detective and author. The author wanted to know why the park authorities were not keeping a list of the missing in the park system. First they told him they didn't have to respond because they didn't believe he was an author, then they said his books were not in enough libraries. Thirdly, he was told that it would cost 34,000 for a list of people who have gone missing in Yosemite and 1.6 million for a list of those missing in the park system as a whole.
Increasingly when you hit a sensitive spot they just tell you to screw yourself.
I'am witnessing the same, i think its a sign they are over pretending, think there is some footage of GW saying it would be easier to have a dictatorship, we are heading that way i think.
Develop new tofu and soybean recipes. Tofu clings any flavoring, butt ass smells or vigana organism tainted.
Bring your new Tranny flavored dish to the menu. Fuck off Monsanto.
someone should start an organization in every professional field called, "i am not a whore". how many members do you think this organization would have?
They can blend in special planned parenthood abortion sauces to marinate GMO food.
Mmm, Mmm, good.
Kevin Folta = Dickweed
Corporate collusion between government bureaucracies and educational institutions has become a serious issue in the U.S. that has corrupted objectivity in nearly every sector of American life.
That goes for climate change advocacy as well...
Be gentle.
Down arrow me all you want while you stuff cheap food in your faces. After a quarter century of GMOs in your diet you can't point to any reliable study that shows ill effects.
Just eat it then. You'll find out.
GMO cucumbers brought out. Animals fed them lose their pubic hair.
Monkeys and razor blades.
Eat it.
"GMO cucumbers"
women have seen no ill effects from gmo cucumbers used as sexual aids
You don't notice any change in Americans in the past 25 years? Empirical evidence is evidence.
The most significant thing about GMO food is that it's cheap.
When given the ability to afford the caloric intake of a Roman emperor, 97% of Americans run to the buffet table.
I have noticed that.
Guess what the majority of Americans choose to do when given the ability to cheaply indulge in porn and other passive, idiotic entertainments instead of engaging with real life in the real world?
Here's a bit of that empirical stuff you were talking about - Increased rates of cancer, obesity, food allegies, autism probably a host of others.
Everybody'll need new organs transplanted from people that ate healthy real food.
Oh they are there alright. You just need to look for them. A GMO eggplant was taken off the market in Asia because it killed rats. Might be a good rodent repellant then but not so good for human consumption.
OK - I'll down arrow you ya fucking douchebag
Funny how the "reliable" studies appear to be funded by the patent holders and/or the "false flag propaganda" advocacy groups they support.
ROFL! Just keep munching away while the rest of us watch.
Consider reviewing: http://www.cias.wisc.edu/curriculum/modII/sece/GMO_Politics_of_Science.doc
Also, Seeds of Death may be worth watching for those who wonder why their health sucks and they feel like crap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A
Additional information: http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/
And you can't point to any reliable scientists to do the study.
In modern life, those who make the money are the heros, it really dosen't matter how you get the money,,, what have you got to sell? If you are good looking you can be a sexual prostitute, if you haver a P.H.D. you can be an Academic prostitute, if you have a position in Government, or the Police you can turn that into seious money, if you have the 'Right' position of course, a lot of the whining about this is by people who have nothing to sell and so, they are jealous!
You only live for a little while! So get all you can while you can still get it! People are dying? well they were all going to die anyway, how is that your fault? why should you worry? This is the philosophy which guides modern life and will lead mankind into a new age of peace and abundance!
How about collusion between politicized government agencies, ideological politicians, billionaire oligarchs, and non-profit astroturfers?
Why do you folks love pollution so much? Seems like pretty nasty stuff to me.
Local organic fruits and vegetables and only free range beef and chicken for my family. If, after this 50 year GMO experiment on the population concludes and they are in fact safe, well then the joke was on me! I still love the quality and the taste and the health of my children is worth any cost. Keep wondering why there are so many autistic kids, so many with crazy allergies. Keep wondering why our fitness obsessed culture keeps producing larger humans. Keep wondering why type 2 Diabetes exists in children for the first time in history. I'll keep on eating healthy foods and enjoying time with my healthy family.
Organic? Free Range?
You must have robbed a bank to afford that for a whole family.
It is very expensive. We are comfortable and do not eat out often in restaurants. Like I said, for me the cost is worth the sacrifice. Whether it is luck, genetics, lifestyle or a combination of the three. My family is rarely sick and we have no prescription medicine in the house. I'll do whatever I can to keep it that way.
Absolutely insane cost, I agree. However, I am fortunate to be able to raise some myself. free range organic chicken breasts are $9/lb, whole bird runs around $6/lb. I can raise the same for $4-5 and butchering myself. All my fruit and veggies are either grown by me or by farmers I know.
Yesterday I splurged and went to Burger Lounge and had a burger, fry and chocolate shake. They are known for their high quality, organic ingredients and it showed! The shake was what I remembered as a kid, rich and chocolaty with real ice cream. Cost? Twenty bucks. No, I can't afford that regularly in either my budget or waistline but it was the best fast food I've ever had outside my own kitchen.
The payoff is great health so when you factor that in, it is far more affordable. Some people are paying $2000/mo just in pharmaceuticals. I take no medications.
Ultimately, it is a choice what kind of life you wish to lead. I think most people don't realize what vibrant health and being full of energy really is like. It absolutely is not found in a bottle.
Miffed
Glad the 2 of you are healthy. How much of that is simply not having tons of fast carbs/sugar in your diet and becoming insulin resistant?
Go to any supermarkt and notice WHOLE AISLES of products no healthy person would consume. There is an entire aisle of soft drinks that are either sugar water or chemical water. Another one for breakfast cereals that are a fast carb grain coated with sugar. An entire aisle of cookes/crackers/snacks that are a made of fast carb grain + sugar + trans fat. Another one for bread/bagels/etc. Yet another one for frozen pre-packaged meals full of garbage ingredients.
Probably half of a supermarket is things that slowly sicken you. And this is what americans mostly consume. At the highest cost per pound.
I don't think you have to spend enormous amounts on oganic, cage free, blah blah blah. Just stick to veggies, fruits, eggs/meat/cheese that you prepare.
Google "GMO myths and truths". Plenty of information there on the myths on GMO such as that it is an exact technique. It is not. Often they "miss"and insert foreign genes outside of the intended target area but the organism is not tested for the genetic mutations that occur outside the target area.
Double agents ... nastiest kind of creep.
I have a dream... that someday oversized plastic people can just order up their new laboratory made new and improved organs from Wasazon and have them installed in the comfort of their local installation network satellite office. There good as new!
Hope I stop having these dreams!
I think this is all nonsense and posts like this honestly that don't investigate all the facts while destroying human beings is what's wrong with society today. I heard this guy recently on the JRE podcast and he came across as a very credible and decent guy. I also remember that he was fairly upfront with how Monsato, and others, cooperate with his university on research. Maybe you don't like that Monsato gave $25K to the university but knee-jerk impugning the man's integrity seems disgraceful.
A simple google search gets to his response. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/16/kevin-folta-responds-an...
I guess you can believe he's a liar but with so many real criminals in our public life, I'm not sure why we need to create new ones.
If the "donations" and conflicts of interest were not disclosed in his public papers and lectures, allegedly implying that the writer is just a liar is being easy on him.
Same for universities and the crony "revolving door in DC" as well.
Zero credibility.
Agreed. I guess my point is that the guy claims that these donations were not secret at all. I am certain that when I heard him on the JRE podcast he acknowledged that his university receives some form of funding from various places including Monsanto. Honestly, there was a lot of discussion in that podcast about his research and specifically his relationship with Monsanto specifically and I was honestly surprised about how open and non-defensive he was about it. He certainly didn't appear to be hiding anything about it nad before that podcast I didn't know anything about Monsanto or GMOs.
you should have turned off the podcast then and there. you should have realized you were listening to propaganda lies at that point which is a waste of time. It's great that he was dumb enough to admit he was bribed but still, all credibility gone.
So every scientist that works at a university that receives any amount of donations from a private company is immediately a lying propogandist that has been bribed into shilling for the company? Is there a single example of scientific research performed at any institution that receives ZERO external funding? The only scientists that should be allowed to publish research that has been peer-reviewed and verified are those rich enough to fund their own research or find some unbelievably benevolent rich person with no other agenda then to hand their money over. Got it.
I'm with you on this one. If the science is public, peer-reviewed, and accepted then the source of funding can be somewhat irrelevant. Of course the source should be public, however, even without digging on FOIA. Monsanto SHOULD be funding research into the effects of their own products, that's a good thing, it's bad if they actively jump into said research and try to falsify data, which of course could and maybe is happening, but that should wash out in peer-review. The answer is balance and transparency. The problem is that big money can obfuscate both.
you should have turned off the podcast then and there. you should have realized you were listening to propaganda lies at that point which is a waste of time. It's great that he was dumb enough to admit he was bribed but still, all credibility gone.
ummm why accept a bribe from monsanto if he as a scientist wants people to trust him and have credibility?
I think that's a good point but my guess is that someone has to pay for this kind of research. There aren't many charities you can give to that funds scientific research and if there are, I can't imagine many people are donating to them. I certainly don't want the government doing it.
As long as its all public, then we can all decide for ourselves.
the fact it took a FOIA to realise this funding connection should indicate its not in the public, they are meant to declare these sorts of COIs
ummm why accept a bribe from monsanto if he as a scientist wants people to trust him and have credibility?
The new movement is, if you argue with the "science" you are anti-science.
I said it years ago - "Scientific studies result in more government grants". Glad to see that corporate grants have gotten ahead of the government, by issuing grants to selected scientists in order to get the result they want. Would this be like HFT grants, where you front run the outcome?
The usual ethno-oligarchs!
http://www.exposingcommunism.com/MONSANTO.pdf
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?25949-The-real-truth-abou...
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=589
i hate that, unless you do the study yourself, you really cannot trust ANY "scientific data" presently being generated because of obvious rampant outcome-based funding.
i'm still waiting for a global warming model that correctly predicts sun activities... screw all these temp data "studies" THEY'RE ALL MANIPULATED TO AGENDAS!
problem with pro/anti GMO "studies" is there's an agenda from both sides...
we're all going to die, try to enjoy life and stop buying into all the fertilizer being generated by manipulators out there.
I don't know about you, but there's just something about food that produces its own insecticide that makes me feel a bit uneasy.
Certainly I can't be the only one that's a little surprised that it only costs $25k to buy an 'independent' researcher. His conscience was cheap, I guess he didn't factor how valuable his labor would be if he was caught.
I can't wait until the 2,4D gene is in all of our corn...yummy! that stuff is great for you. I buy it by the gallon to add to my tea... no cancer or anything.
Its no wonder people seem so stupid. They have been trained to be that way.
We have a built in dogma to trust people with titles. PHds are great prime examples. The degree does not = truth. It shows the person may know the truth. But are they telling the truth? Sadly the answer is way to often no.
I like dealing with the self taught. As a general rule dogma is much harder to sort thru than a person that admits to not knowing. With the self taught there is so much less dogma its night and day different. My circle of friends includes several super techs. These cats are well past the one trick pony stage. We run into dogma constantly all over the place. It makes it hard to do right by people when they wont buy the truth. Once they buy into the lie they tend to stick with it.
That said. Guess where most of the dogma comes from? People with Phds for the most part.
Welcome aboard the CAAPTL list Mr. Folta. Make yourself comfortable; The guillotines will be around shortly.
Zion is a scheme, not an ethnicity..
CAAPTL:
Every American should be compiling a list, call it the Crimes Against the American People Treason List (CAAPTL). A list of known criminal pols, crats, functionaries (funcs), gun and badge thugs (thugs), and banksters that they are aware of.
Oath violating and treasonous gun and badge thugs, corrupt pols and crats, thieving banksters, etc. should be placed on it. At a minimum, their names, crimes, and positions, should be kept for future reference for accountability, trial, and punishment--Retribution.
When the DC US that is currently criminally occupying the American county, and oppressing the American people, finally collapses, these lists can then be used to root out the known criminals that will think that they can hide among their victims--no "Truth and Reconciliation," and no quarter.
This dbag was on Joe rogan podcast on 6-4. He kept saying how he is unbiased, and Never got any funding from monsanto. I guess iis doesn't miind being an outright liar....