Steven is definitely a Monsanto supporter, but putting all of that aside. There is one thing that is not being addressed here and that Steven is obviously unaware.
Regardless of all of the studies that Biotech companies promote, the one study that seems to be missing is the soil content. My son is a horticulture major at a large ag university and he has performed numerous lab testings and soil testings on gmo's and glyphosphate, which are partners in the Biotech world. What came out of his testing, was that the glyphosphate actually destroyed all of the beneficial micro-organisms that keep soil "active". This is concerning because we need active soil for nutrients to go into the fruits and vegetables. The results of their testing showed that the soil over time will become "dead" soil. Basically, conventionally grown crops will have almost no nutrient value. A person will be eating empty calories, much like junk food.
I could lie and say that I don't care what other people eat, but the truth is, I do. I have had several co-workers get cancer, who declined conventional medical treatment (chemo) and chose to go 100% organic, etc. They went into full remission without chemo or radition. That tells me that this could potentially be the food that this person was eating. Could it be other things? Possibly.... The problem is that you have studies that are funded by Biotech, Pharma and other big corporate interests that are not the least bit interested in a non-biased study. Of course, they only want studies that support their products, etc. Its ALWAYS about the money! And if you think that the FDA is going to watch our for your best interests, think again, the top FDA officials are former Monsanto executives. Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court Justice worked for Monsanto for years. I have to give it to those Monsanto guys, they knew early on how to position themselves in our government to get what they want so they wouldn't deal with resistance. And if they did, they would be in more of a position to rule in favor of Monsanto.
BTW Steven, you are incorrect about the GMO's being allowed in Europe. I have been there and I have been to Asia. There are no GMO's that are promoted at ALL. In fact, they all look down on America because we get them whether we want them or not. The Cheerios that we eat, are not the Cheerios that get shipped to Europe. Its the NON GMO variety, regardless of the propoganda that you and Biotech are promoting.
Show me anywhere in the foreign policy for food product of those countries where GMO's are allowed.
In the end, it all boils down to the fact that I should be able to make a choice whether to consume GMO's or not. What is wrong with being informed and making a choice, absolutely nothing, unless you are selling a product that is making you billions, then, you are not allowed a choice at all.
What most people don't remember, is that back in the late 70's GMO food was released to the public with public knowledge. What you don't hear today what happened back then, is that the GMO was put into Doritos, I think, and several people died and they pulled it off of the shelves. Interestingly, when they re-introduced GMO food to the public, they didn't tell anyone.
The Environmental Working Group reported:
"Many cosmetic companies argue that the level of a harmful chemical in any one product is not enough to harm you, on the basis of studies of chemical exposure in adults. However, science is finding the timing of exposure is crucial, and that even a very small dose of some chemicals can have serious consequences in children and young women who are still developing.
Moreover, we are rarely exposed to a chemical just one time. We may use the same product every day, several days a week, for months or years. In addition, we use dozens of personal care products daily, not just one. So while exposure from one product on one day may be small, we in fact use numerous products a day for extended periods of time. As a result, scientists are finding accumulations of chemicals such as parabens and phthalates in our bodies."
Children are, indeed, those most at risk. The May study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology noted:
"For exposures in children, concern has already been raised that 'the estrogenic burden of parabens and their metabolites in blood may exceed the action of endogenous estradiol in childhood and the safety margin for propylparaben is very low when comparing worst-case exposure."
What this means is that your child may be exposed to so many synthetic hormone-mimicking chemicals that they may begin to overtake the actions of his or her natural hormones! GreenMedInfo summed it up nicely:
"In other words, synthetic hormones from chemicals like parabens may actually be eclipsing the activity of endogenously produced (natural) hormones in our children."
qurudori, Wikipedia, really?You tube, really? You substantiate my point. Just accepting a story at face value is irresponsible. The possibility that we are changing our dna through transgene expressions through Genetically Engineering Organisms that are consumed in 80% of our food in the US, and the products that we use are loaded with estrogen mimicking chemicals and preservatives are surely to have an impact on generations of individuals. Maybe you aren't interested, but I sure am. BTW, I do read books, medicial science papers and other legitimate papers, but I do stay away from Youtube and Wikipedia, since anyone and their brother can post to those sites without any verification. If you refer to wikipedia as a resource in college, you get an F on your paper.
qurudori, one study in a magazine? Please provide me with medical studies from medical journals by independant scientists and doctors who don't have a stake in the outcome of the study. Anything else is conjecture, opinion or junk science. I am sorry, I can't determine medical evidence based upon journalistic viewpoints.
There is no objective scientific evidence that suggests that you are "born" a transgender. If you spout your studies, consider this, the evidience is "junk science." I would like to see a study that is done by scientists and doctors who operate neutral and objective about this subject. Although, I DO believe that gender issues are real. I don't believe that you are "born" that way, but I firmly believe that we have created such a toxic society that our dna is being altered by our use of every day things. Consider this, chemicals in plastics, carpets, synthetic preservatives in shampoo, conditioner, surfactants/chemicals in laundry detergent and ALL synthetic preservatives which are used in everything (including foods).......can cause disruption to our entire endrocrine/hormone system. It mimics estrogen in our bodies. And let me just say that there is enough scientific data to support this claim. All of the things listed above and more that contain parabens, chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system, are banned in Europe. Why? Because the studies that they have done substantiate that it causes harm. Unfortunately, the FDA and USDA are very corrupt and allow these substances to be used in everything in the US. Most women who are pregnant, have enough synthetic substances in their bodies to cross the blood barrier, creating issues for the unborn. Why didn't this happen to the other 2? We all still have our own individual dna identity and react to environmental stimulus differently. So, is it possible that this could happen as a result of his environment? Absolutely. I have to say, that I do have compassion for this kid, because regardless of what the outcome is, will always feel different and will always be treated differently.
Stay away from any candidate that has the HBA and Steve Schuck behind them. We already have issues with this town because of the lack of ethics from those two. And as far as Jill Gaebler is concerned, here she is whining about the EAG not endorsing her, but she is backed by Mayor Bach's wife. How appropriate. She is the last person next to all of the HBA and Steve Schuck supported candidates, I would vote for.
I seriously hope that people really understand who they are voting for before actually signing the ballots.
Its timely that the Mayor denies everything he has said over the past year. His backtracking will catch up with him sooner or later. I hope that the general public understands that Leigh is not interested in whats best for the general public, that he is only interested in whats best for Mayor Bach. People, vote Leigh out and lets get someone in who is able to think objectively. For that matter, get rid of Angela too. She is another Bach "yes" person.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation