Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Please spell spammer backwards:
Three blonde, blue-eyed siblings are named Suzy, Jack and Bill.  What color hair does the sister have?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by eragon
 - February 26, 2016, 02:13:47 PM
I wondered that, how did she prove it wasn't the actual corn but the GMO side of it? Lets face it many of us have seen mystery reactions with no clear pin point to culprit. Also the cross contamination with food production is pretty vast for meal like that, so the idea of it being GMO would never naturally occur imo.
Posted by CMdeux
 - February 26, 2016, 10:40:05 AM
Um-- okay, so here's the thing that I wondered about even at the time.

If the woman in the lawsuit was THAT convinced that the GMO corn caused anaphylaxis...  then that is an EASY, EASY extraordinary claim to prove rather conclusively.

1.  SPT with the Starlink variety of corn

2.  DBpcfc with an independent allergist..

There.  Boom.  If it's real, you just collected millions more in compensation.   You're welcome.  

And the rest of the article linked is an AWESOME read-- it's why most scientists are in NO way concerned about GMO foods.  And hey-- 7 billion of us needing to eat... well, there isn't much way around using GMO to do that. 
Posted by spacecanada
 - February 26, 2016, 10:39:50 AM
A very interesting perspective that we don't get to hear very often.
Posted by eragon
 - February 26, 2016, 09:59:06 AM