Monsanto's toxic substance found in beer

47 posts in this topic

28 minutes ago, lisa13 said:

@Kelethyour original comment is akin to me saying your wife should not be concerned about being exposed to second hand smoke when she's outdoors in public as there is so much pollution in the air already.

My quote was 

"Do you realize how much stuff that you eat and drink everyday is classed as a probable carcinogen the same as glyphosphate." as in being called a probable carcinogen does not mean you're going to get cancer if you eat,drink or do whatever with it so please stop spouting bollocks.

If I would have meant what you say I meant I would have made it clear by saying exactly that as you'd know if you've ever read any of my posts in the past.

Fraufruit certainly doesn't need you riding in on your white steed to avenge a supposed insult to her because if she thought i meant what you say she would have told me to fuck off herself.

28 minutes ago, lisa13 said:

would you honestly have the same attitude, ie, that it's fine if there were additives (intentional or incidental) in her food/drink/air that are highly suspect/implicated as contributing to lung cancer, simply because "there are contributors to cancer everywhere"? 

If those additives were kept secret then I'd have a problem.

The problem is those additives are everywhere,lets face it over toasting your toast is a probable carcinogen.

57 minutes ago, lisa13 said:

I'll gladly fuck off.

Oh please do.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Guest said:

My wife told me that grilled hotdogs cause cancer. I said yeah, "he smoked for 30 years, chewed tobacco for years after that, and drank Jack Daniels by the gallon, then died from hotdogs."

 

Something is going to kill you. I say do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and enjoy life.

 

Couldn't agree more. I know loads of people who led healthy lives and yet got cancer. Life is short, enjoy it!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can also think that after VW scandal there appeared to be gazillion of people who have "health effects" from terrible modern diesels. Nobody says that diesel is safe, but:

1. Where were all these people before VW scandal?

2. Why there were no such terrible health effects with old diesels without filters etc?

 

Faking an illness is a well known phenomenon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zwiebelfisch said:

 

Do you have a list of cosmetic companies that do test on animals?  Every list I have seen is completely wrong.  For example https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/companies-that-test-on-animals/

 

 

working alphabetically

 

 

Almay

http://www.almay.com/faqs.aspx 

 

Artistry 

https://www.amway.com/en/ResourceCenterDocuments/Visitor/ctzn-amw-cat-v-en--EnvironmentalStewardship.pdf

Do they get a pass for only testing where required by law?

 

Avon

http://www.avoncompany.com/corporate-responsibility/about-cr/positions-policies/animal-welfare/

 

 

I really dont want to go all the way through the list, so Id love it if you could provide a list of these terrible companies that actually do do animal testing of cosmetics.

 

Maybe loreal? They often get accused:

http://www.loreal.com/sustainability/l'oréal-answers/the-question-of-animal-testing/frequently-asked-questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I only searched for companies that do not do animal testing for any reason. Give it a try.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fraufruit said:

 

I only searched for companies that do not do animal testing for any reason. Give it a try.

 

The thing is, all cosmetic companies that I have found are against animal testing.  All of them.  There are no end of horror stories about animal testing but as far as I can tell they are all utter BS unles you go back over 20 years.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While everyone's talking about Monsanto and the link to increased Cancer rates, I believe there is another cause that we really can't do anything about. Since the late 40's there has been a lot of Nuclear testing going on plus the odd accident such as Windscale,Three mile Island and Chernobyl. We really don't know just how much stuff really is in the atmosphere and how it affects us. I know for some cancers a FISH test is carried out that can identify if the DNA has been altered.

 

Now back to the big pharmaceuticals, ironic how they poison us with their chemicals and then persuade us that we need more chemicals to make us better again.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zwiebelfisch said:

 

The thing is, all cosmetic companies that I have found are against animal testing.  All of them.  There are no end of horror stories about animal testing but as far as I can tell they are all utter BS unles you go back over 20 years.

 

 

You can outsource animal testing to India or other similar countries. To some third party company. If journalists find something, the company "didn't know about that and immediately stops all collaboration with this Indian company".

 

One should stop being naive. Banning animal testing in Europe means animal testing will be done somewhere else, where animals will suffer much more due to lack of control.

 

Any new product should be tested before humans can consume it, because otherwise humans will sue the company.

You want to ban animal testing, then introduce human testing and become a voluntary tester.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, yourkeau said:

You can outsource animal testing to India or other similar countries. To some third party company. If journalists find something, the company "didn't know about that and immediately stops all collaboration with this Indian company".

 

One should stop being naive. Banning animal testing in Europe means animal testing will be done somewhere else, where animals will suffer much more due to lack of control.

 

In the EU, cosmetics which have been tested on animals are banned, not just the testing itself. The same applies to India. Testing is allowed in the US...That's the base theory.

It gets a bit tricky when you consider that china requires some products to be tested. So how do the products that are sold in both EU and China satisfy both laws?

 

10 hours ago, yourkeau said:

Any new product should be tested before humans can consume it, because otherwise humans will sue the company.

You want to ban animal testing, then introduce human testing and become a voluntary tester.

 

Today there is no need for cosmetics testing on animals (I'm not talking about drugs) - there is artifical skin and in-vitro testing which can be used with the same results (not to mention testing on unused slaughter-animal parts for some tests, but that's debatable). But animal testing is cheaper and profit is king.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vietnam has demanded Monsanto pay compensation to the victims of Agent Orange, which the company supplied to the US military during the Vietnam War.

 

Quote

Between 1961 and 1971, the US military sprayed around 12 million gallons of the chemical substance on over 30,000 miles of southern Vietnam....

 

Who to blame - the military establishment who ordered it or Monsanto and others who produced it while knowing what it would be used for?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now