Slashdot Mirror

get your facts straight.
from : http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/aspartame.shtml

"Primarily, the only research that claims aspartame is safe is that which has been funded and/or controlled by the manufacturer (e.g., Monsanto). They put together convincing-sounding summaries of poorly-designed research in order to present to the public. When the research is examined closely it is found that the testing was often done improperly, the results were often reported inaccurately or in a biased way, and the equivalent of extremely low doses of aspartame was often used even though the summaries reported the use of high doses."

Ok, I'll take your bait...;-)

How about starting here?

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/

or here:

http://www.ethicalfunds.com/do_the_right_thing/

or here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_ investing

Some detective work on where he mailed from. But don't tell them, they made this mistake before, and will hopefully do it again.
"Monsanto's PR firm admits involvement in e-mail campaign to discredit scientists"
(2002)
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/1007 6.htm

Hardly.

I just don't usually respond to idiots, but in this case, I will.

Your childish reaction here is proof that you are not capable of having an intellegent discussion. FYI, your single sentance is a completed logical fallacy called .... "Arguing from silence". Since you are not capable of recognizing this simple fact, and in fact use that logical fallacy to try and to "score points", you have by default lost the arguement completely, by default.

The real problem is that BOTH sides are offering up simplistic arguements to complex problems. The Cindy Sheehans of the world crying "No WMD" and such are just a fallacious as Santorum is. 1)WMD are found in Iraq, proving that CS is lying or stupid, 2)Santorum is technically correct, but ultimately wrong because they are, as you and I both have indicated they were old and non-functioning.

In reality, even the Iraqis thought they had WMD, and were expecting to use them in the run-up to the war. When the US invaded, they were just as shocked as the US was that there were no-such-weapons (at least in Iraq).

The real chemical weapon used on our troops was the sweetener Aspertame (Nutrasweet), which turns into Formaldehyde. I venture to guess that more than 2500 (est. current Iraq US troop casualties) people have died as a result of that. Where is CS on that issue? Hmmm?

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/aspartame .shtml

*sighs*

Mention bioterrorism and you're guaranteed publicity and funding.

Meanwhile, the real bioterrorists are never going to be bought to justice.

I'm investing in companies that are green/eco-friendly and politically left? Really? Care to point me to some?

Here is a list. Now I've figured out your problem. You think that taking care of your personal and familial money responsibilities is a mental disorder, and you are too lazy to google "ethical investing" and click the first god damned result.

Notice all the Nutrasweet bashing going on among health gurus over the last couple of years. It was the perfect sweetener, now it causes everything from headaches to severe thunderstorms.

That bashing's been going on since soon after the product hit the market. I think the patent expiring is why you're hearing more about it because there isn't anyone to "stifle" the truth anymore. The headaches are actually caused by brain lesions. But, those aren't the worst part, the blindness is what really gets you. (For the tin hatters out there)

They have. The rotten bastards.

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminato r.shtml

I can see this being a really big deal to the type of people who'll have conniptions over anything sciencey and scary-sounding... you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".

I normally don't bother feeding the trolls (even with genetically-modified foods), but here I'll make an exception.

Ever hear of Monsanto?

They're a corporate giant thats a big player in the GM field. Based on their track record, I wouldn't trust them to provide food for my dog or cat...never mind for my own consumption.

Here are a few lowlights:

Monsanto recently sued canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement. The reason? His neighbour had been sowing Monsanto GM canola seed and some of the seed blew onto his property.

The Washington Post recently published this article detailing how for decades Monsanto dumped PCBs into streams in a small Alabama town despite having studies from the '60s describing the damage that was being done.

Monsanto is the parent company of Nutrasweet, one of the nastiest substances approved for human consumption.

Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator. Terminator involves producing seeds that grow sterile plants, requiring the farmer to aquire new seeds from the company every growing season. It shouldn't take much imagination to realise that if these plants cross-polinate with unmodified plants, the results could be catastrophic.

Is this a company you would trust and whose products you want to be putting in your mouth?

Maybe next time you see people waving signs that that say "NO FRANKENFOODS", you might ask why before pointing the finger and screaming "Conspiracy nut!"

With other technologies, there's an element of trust involved. Break the trust and you will get flak every time you try to introduce something new...good or bad. Have the individuals making these sorts of decisions shown themselves to be responsible, looking out for our best interests? Here's your answer: After approving Nutrasweet for use in carbonated beverages, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr left his post and went to work for Nutrasweet's PR division.