Operation Nestle

I cannot click your links because you are a haxor on steroids. So you need to copypasta excerpts from credible sources. Note: NaturalNews and InfoWars are not credible sources.

Depends on the article. You have to research what you read on those sites and check the facts. Some are true others aren't.

If something on NaturalNews or InfoWars is true, then surely credible sites will also publish the information.

Also, it's a https://t.co/ link. That short URL is only used by Twitter.

True.

I am not clicking any fucking links, Mr. Doxer. Copypasta or GTFO.

Fair, fair

OP, you do not have to hurry. If you need to look around for credible sources that is fine. Take a few days if you need to.

Oh I see the mods have kindly given you some time to prepare what you want to share with us about Nestle. Remember, we want specific violations. If other companies are doing the same stuff, protesting Nestle won't change anything.

Water Scandal
1. http://thehill.com/regulation/court...service-over-nestle-water-bottling-operations
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/10/nestle-water-bc-petition_n_7771404.html
3. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pr...at-water-is-a-fundamental-human-right/5332238

Child Slavery
1. http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...stle-farms-chocolate-giants-problems-continue
2. http://www.facing-finance.org/en/20...toesse-gegen-kinderrechte-auf-kakaoplantagen/

False Advertising
1. http://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/6246
2. http://www.law360.com/articles/633072/nestle-escapes-poland-spring-false-advertising-suit
3. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ing-and-unfair-trade-practices-259231581.html
4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/nestlé-bottled-water-ads-misleading-environmentalists-say-1.748791

GMO Use
1. http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/01...stry-fines-nestle-over-failing-to-label-gmos/
2. http://www.care2.com/causes/nestle-exec-says-gmos-are-unnecessary-but-our-customers-demand-them.html

Here's a list of sources. More coming soon.

I think you are misinformed about GMOs. Scientists say they are good, much better than the old ways of creating random mutations with chemicals or radiation.

Scientists can be bribed. Google the dangers of roundup ready crops

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/23/health-problems-linked-to-monsanto-roundup/

You can't bribe the majority of scientists. There are too many.

Plus it makes sense that GMOs are good. The old ways of inducing mutations using chemicals or radiation are scattershot and unpredictable in their outcomes. By understanding genes and altering one gene at a time humans carefully can select for positive qualities that might otherwise take many generations to emerge, if at all.

All proteins are made up of 22 amino acids arranged like beads on a string. Those amino acids do not remember if they were arranged according to an inserted gene or not. There is no measurable or demonstrable difference between a GMO crop versus a non GMO crop.

Here is a partial list of scientific organizations that have tried to explain to the public that GMOs are not dangerous:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
• American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “Environmental effects at the farm level have occurred as a result of the adoption of GE crops and the agricultural practices that accompany their cultivation. The introduction of GE crops has reduced pesticide use or the toxicity of pesticides used on fields where soybean, corn, and cotton are grown.”
• World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”
• American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.”
• American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.”
• American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.”
• American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.”
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “FDA is confident that the bioengineered foods on the United States market today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”
• Health Canada: “Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods.”
• Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.”
• International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.”
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.”
• Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.”
• American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE) Update: The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has become The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). While the above statement reflected the ADA’s position the president of AND has stated that AND is currently neutral and has no position on GMOs.
• Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.”
• Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” [Google translate]
• “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”
• French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” [Google translate]
• International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.”
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.”
• International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.”

The Internet propaganda war against GMOs is a great example of misinformation being used to rally armies of well meaning people to do bad things. This is why "Dox or GTFO" is so important. If people would seek out the scientific consensus for their dox we would get more useful shit done.

Seriously mods?
A week ban for putting malware in pms?
WTF WTF WTF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union

People keep telling me GMOs are banned in Europe. It's good to know they are not.

Anybody with insulin dependent diabetes ought to be advocating against anti-GMO hype. Because since about 1982 human insulin has been made by genetically modified bacteria. Here's something from a 2007 article:

Science is much, much better than superstition and mob hysteria.

I am not a mod so I can't say what they were thinking. But I am hoping maybe this guy can learn from his mistakes.

One of the most important things I learned a while back is this: I am retarded. Also, I am not alone in this. So there is no shame in being wrong.

Now I try to laugh at my own derp. Sometimes I embrace it like a fond memory. Because my derp has been my best teacher.

Now that we have about 7 billion people on the planet, there is no point in trying to measure the degrees of awesome of any individual. In no time flat, every maximally awesome person will drop several hundred notches down the Best List. Thus everyone is a loser. And then they die.

Yes and it works both way. IMHO, saying that OMG is good is as much anti-scientific as saying it is bad.

I define "good"as a favorable risk v benefit ratio. Right now the evidence we have for the GMOs on the market shows lots of benefit and no measurable risk to human health or the environment.

New evidence might be found in the future to shift that ratio. But saying that the evidence comes down on the side of "good" right now is accurate.

JESUS H CHRIST! TI. I think that is one of the most prolific and profound things I've ever seen you write.

Yeah! I'll buy that. Not a single one of us is perfect.

Time will tell. I notice that you still characterize GMOs as a whole. In fact, there are very different products obtained through a similar process. What can be said about some of these products cannot be transferred to others.

I agree with you, each particular GM organism needs to face that risk v benefit test independently.

I suppose I speak of GMO as a group because I'm responding to the other side that has done a great job at black branding "GMO."

Many GMO products are really good. Like human insulin. And crops with substantially better yields. That translates into less farmland needed to feed people. And less farmland means less pollution of our water and more places for wild creatures to live.

I have a big soft spot in my heart for all the little critters on this planet. It really makes me miserable that we are losing so many species so quickly.

I love your productivist views, but you should, to be honest, mention its drawbacks (e.g less farmers, less crops diversity, increased control over seeds) and the consequences you mention about nature and pollution remain to be seen, AFAIK.[/quote]

Farming is a major polluter of our water ways. Run-off, pesticides, fertilizer --all horrible for aquatic habitats. The last thing I read about that concerns the sea otters off the coast of California. Nitrates in the estuary waters are making them sick.

Novel seeds can be protected by patents. I'm pretty sure most novel seeds are not the result of GMO.

The problem of monoculture farming pre-dates GMO products.

Thank you for not addressing the points I mentioned.

I must have misunderstood you. You named some negatives associated with GMOs, such as "less farmers, less crops diversity, increased control over seeds." And you said that my point about farmland polluting water ways remains to be seen.

I can't say much about the first negative you mention, less farmers. I don't know why farming with a GMO seed as compared to a non-GMO seed would mean less farmers. Maybe you mean that with higher yields we might need fewer farmers. Ok I suppose that is not good for farmers.

"Less crop diversity" --that has nothing to do with GMOs. That is more the result of mergers and acquisitions gobbling up independent farming businesses and economies of scale resulting in mega-farms growing only a couple of different crops.

"Increased control over seeds" --again, not particular to GMOs.

We don't have to wait to know that farms pollute our water ways. We already know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

Bleh that is a big long article. I read the first part which was about public fears and perceptions. But I think we are talking about actual risks.

Just to pick up one point from Wikipedia that echos something you said:

This point is not specific to GMOs. A novel non-GMO crop might be superior to existing strains and so crowd others out of the market.

Never said it is. Does not change the fact they contribute to this tendency.

I don't think you can say such a thing if "GMO" is not specifically the cause. Rather you must name the specific cause, which in this case is the novel crop's superiority to existing strains.

Just in case somebody is interested about environment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Environment

Chocolate used to be hot with Nestlé, but nowadays it is more cool water...