<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_13_0328221</id>
	<title>Organ Damage In Rats From Monsanto GMO Corn</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263388560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jenningsthecat writes <i>"A study published in December 2009 in the <em>International Journal of Biological Sciences</em> found that three varieties of <a href="http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm">Monsanto genetically-modified corn caused damage</a> to the liver, kidneys, and other organs of rats. One of the corn varieties was designed to tolerate broad-spectrum herbicides, (so-called 'Roundup-ready' corn), while the other two contain bacteria-derived proteins that have insecticide properties. The study made use of Monsanto's own raw data. Quoting from the study's 'Conclusions' section: 'Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.' Given the very high prevalence of corn in processed foods, this could be a real ticking time bomb. And with food manufacturers not being required by law to declare GMO content, I think I'll do my best to avoid corn altogether. Pass the puffed rice and pour me a glass of fizzy water!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jenningsthecat writes " A study published in December 2009 in the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that three varieties of Monsanto genetically-modified corn caused damage to the liver , kidneys , and other organs of rats .
One of the corn varieties was designed to tolerate broad-spectrum herbicides , ( so-called 'Roundup-ready ' corn ) , while the other two contain bacteria-derived proteins that have insecticide properties .
The study made use of Monsanto 's own raw data .
Quoting from the study 's 'Conclusions ' section : 'Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days .
' Given the very high prevalence of corn in processed foods , this could be a real ticking time bomb .
And with food manufacturers not being required by law to declare GMO content , I think I 'll do my best to avoid corn altogether .
Pass the puffed rice and pour me a glass of fizzy water !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jenningsthecat writes "A study published in December 2009 in the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that three varieties of Monsanto genetically-modified corn caused damage to the liver, kidneys, and other organs of rats.
One of the corn varieties was designed to tolerate broad-spectrum herbicides, (so-called 'Roundup-ready' corn), while the other two contain bacteria-derived proteins that have insecticide properties.
The study made use of Monsanto's own raw data.
Quoting from the study's 'Conclusions' section: 'Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
' Given the very high prevalence of corn in processed foods, this could be a real ticking time bomb.
And with food manufacturers not being required by law to declare GMO content, I think I'll do my best to avoid corn altogether.
Pass the puffed rice and pour me a glass of fizzy water!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749950</id>
	<title>Video presentation of GMO issues in great detail</title>
	<author>sd1000</author>
	<datestamp>1263395580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a video describing in detail many of the studies and issues discovered in GMO's.
<a href="http://vimeo.com/6575475" title="vimeo.com" rel="nofollow">http://vimeo.com/6575475</a> [vimeo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a video describing in detail many of the studies and issues discovered in GMO 's .
http : //vimeo.com/6575475 [ vimeo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a video describing in detail many of the studies and issues discovered in GMO's.
http://vimeo.com/6575475 [vimeo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749698</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you "socialism" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:</p><p>How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this?  Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually Party members in charge of corn production?</p><p>Tell us how getting business out of government is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from starvation for eating the two grains of corn that end up getting produced?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you " socialism " enthusiasts out there , answer this question for me : How would the unencumbered " socialism " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually Party members in charge of corn production ? Tell us how getting business out of government is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from starvation for eating the two grains of corn that end up getting produced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you "socialism" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually Party members in charge of corn production?Tell us how getting business out of government is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from starvation for eating the two grains of corn that end up getting produced?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754694</id>
	<title>Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently watched a French documentary (Le monde selon Monsanto, 2007 by Marie-Monique Robin) about Monsanto's practices; key people of the FDA could be traced back to having been members of Monsanto during their careers and vice versa. See Michael Taylor as a terrifying example here: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/<br>Basically, Michael Taylor has been shifting key positions in the FDA and Monsanto many times for a substantial part of his career. Last summer he has become &ldquo;senior advisor" to the commissioner of the FDA.</p><p>How can he, as single person, fulfill both positions adequately? It certainly doesn't make sense without the clear notion of lobbying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently watched a French documentary ( Le monde selon Monsanto , 2007 by Marie-Monique Robin ) about Monsanto 's practices ; key people of the FDA could be traced back to having been members of Monsanto during their careers and vice versa .
See Michael Taylor as a terrifying example here : http : //www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/Basically , Michael Taylor has been shifting key positions in the FDA and Monsanto many times for a substantial part of his career .
Last summer he has become    senior advisor " to the commissioner of the FDA.How can he , as single person , fulfill both positions adequately ?
It certainly does n't make sense without the clear notion of lobbying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently watched a French documentary (Le monde selon Monsanto, 2007 by Marie-Monique Robin) about Monsanto's practices; key people of the FDA could be traced back to having been members of Monsanto during their careers and vice versa.
See Michael Taylor as a terrifying example here: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/Basically, Michael Taylor has been shifting key positions in the FDA and Monsanto many times for a substantial part of his career.
Last summer he has become “senior advisor" to the commissioner of the FDA.How can he, as single person, fulfill both positions adequately?
It certainly doesn't make sense without the clear notion of lobbying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749866</id>
	<title>Don't jump to conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263395100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no Monsanto fan, but <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/12/report-monsanto-corn.html" title="boingboing.net" rel="nofollow">a lot of commenters on Boing Boing</a> [boingboing.net] were questioning the methodology and validity of the study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no Monsanto fan , but a lot of commenters on Boing Boing [ boingboing.net ] were questioning the methodology and validity of the study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no Monsanto fan, but a lot of commenters on Boing Boing [boingboing.net] were questioning the methodology and validity of the study.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752934</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that you have a PhD and yet claim that reanalyzing someone else's data is "fishy". It happens all the time, and it's quite important to verify that someone's data actually backs up their claims. When the data actually supports a different interpretation, that's publishable.</p><p>Here, the authors note that the experimental design does not enable powerful tests, and that the tests that Monsanto employed were not the most powerful possible in the already weak scenario. They then established that Monsanto's results were really weak, and that applying a more powerful (but admittedly still weak) statistical methodology revealed that the data could support the opposite conclusions.</p><p>Yes, someone should do a more thorough study, which is exactly what the authors concluded. They don't so much say that their conclusions are valid, as to say that when they look at the data more closely than Monsanto did, it suggests something quite different than what Monsanto put forth.</p><p>That's science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that you have a PhD and yet claim that reanalyzing someone else 's data is " fishy " .
It happens all the time , and it 's quite important to verify that someone 's data actually backs up their claims .
When the data actually supports a different interpretation , that 's publishable.Here , the authors note that the experimental design does not enable powerful tests , and that the tests that Monsanto employed were not the most powerful possible in the already weak scenario .
They then established that Monsanto 's results were really weak , and that applying a more powerful ( but admittedly still weak ) statistical methodology revealed that the data could support the opposite conclusions.Yes , someone should do a more thorough study , which is exactly what the authors concluded .
They do n't so much say that their conclusions are valid , as to say that when they look at the data more closely than Monsanto did , it suggests something quite different than what Monsanto put forth.That 's science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that you have a PhD and yet claim that reanalyzing someone else's data is "fishy".
It happens all the time, and it's quite important to verify that someone's data actually backs up their claims.
When the data actually supports a different interpretation, that's publishable.Here, the authors note that the experimental design does not enable powerful tests, and that the tests that Monsanto employed were not the most powerful possible in the already weak scenario.
They then established that Monsanto's results were really weak, and that applying a more powerful (but admittedly still weak) statistical methodology revealed that the data could support the opposite conclusions.Yes, someone should do a more thorough study, which is exactly what the authors concluded.
They don't so much say that their conclusions are valid, as to say that when they look at the data more closely than Monsanto did, it suggests something quite different than what Monsanto put forth.That's science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752220</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>mc6809e</author>
	<datestamp>1263404940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.</i></p><p>Just like climate data, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.Just like climate data , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.Just like climate data, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750928</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1263399840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not disturbing at all, just business as usual.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not disturbing at all , just business as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not disturbing at all, just business as usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670</id>
	<title>Politics of GMO</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1263393900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This demonstrates the European objection to GMO. It is not, as the manufacturers would like to suggest, a Luddite fear of new technology. It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development. In the US, the NIH acts as a counter to the pharmaceutical companies and does a lot of fundamental research. The GMO companies are perceived as being able to carry out inadequate trials, and not make their seeds and research sufficiently available to genuine independent researchers to ensure that the result is properly evaluated. (In the UK, the chief cheerleader for Monsanto is George Bush's pal Tony Blair, which goes a lot of the way to explain our concern. He's lied to us so often that now anything he promotes is immediately seen as being evil.)<p>During the 19th century the issue was contaminated food produced by the new breed of large processed food manufacturers: in the early 20th it was the meat packing industry. Now it's Monsanto. In the first two cases it turned out industry was unfit to regulate itself, and bribery of Government officials was rife. But nowadays we regard processed food manufacturers as mostly benign (well, except for the junk food industry), and nobody worries about tinned meat. Regulation in the end was good for the industry. Monsanto needs to stop pissing on anyone who suggests it isn't perfect, and start to come clean. It would be in its long term benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This demonstrates the European objection to GMO .
It is not , as the manufacturers would like to suggest , a Luddite fear of new technology .
It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development .
In the US , the NIH acts as a counter to the pharmaceutical companies and does a lot of fundamental research .
The GMO companies are perceived as being able to carry out inadequate trials , and not make their seeds and research sufficiently available to genuine independent researchers to ensure that the result is properly evaluated .
( In the UK , the chief cheerleader for Monsanto is George Bush 's pal Tony Blair , which goes a lot of the way to explain our concern .
He 's lied to us so often that now anything he promotes is immediately seen as being evil .
) During the 19th century the issue was contaminated food produced by the new breed of large processed food manufacturers : in the early 20th it was the meat packing industry .
Now it 's Monsanto .
In the first two cases it turned out industry was unfit to regulate itself , and bribery of Government officials was rife .
But nowadays we regard processed food manufacturers as mostly benign ( well , except for the junk food industry ) , and nobody worries about tinned meat .
Regulation in the end was good for the industry .
Monsanto needs to stop pissing on anyone who suggests it is n't perfect , and start to come clean .
It would be in its long term benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This demonstrates the European objection to GMO.
It is not, as the manufacturers would like to suggest, a Luddite fear of new technology.
It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development.
In the US, the NIH acts as a counter to the pharmaceutical companies and does a lot of fundamental research.
The GMO companies are perceived as being able to carry out inadequate trials, and not make their seeds and research sufficiently available to genuine independent researchers to ensure that the result is properly evaluated.
(In the UK, the chief cheerleader for Monsanto is George Bush's pal Tony Blair, which goes a lot of the way to explain our concern.
He's lied to us so often that now anything he promotes is immediately seen as being evil.
)During the 19th century the issue was contaminated food produced by the new breed of large processed food manufacturers: in the early 20th it was the meat packing industry.
Now it's Monsanto.
In the first two cases it turned out industry was unfit to regulate itself, and bribery of Government officials was rife.
But nowadays we regard processed food manufacturers as mostly benign (well, except for the junk food industry), and nobody worries about tinned meat.
Regulation in the end was good for the industry.
Monsanto needs to stop pissing on anyone who suggests it isn't perfect, and start to come clean.
It would be in its long term benefit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749998</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263395820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?</p></div><p>This was covered in my Microeconomics class, and is generally ignored everywhere I see people invoke free market principles:</p><p>In a properly functioning free market, information is perfect and freely available to all parties.  So, if the market were truly free, you could inspect the products you could purchase and you would know exactly where they came from.  I.e. you would know, from labeling, an Internet lookup of lot numbers, or other means, exactly how much GM material and which varieties were in the product you are buying.  And you would have a means of verifying that this information is accurate and not simply fabricated.  From this, you could research the studies on the effects of these GM products.  This, of course, assumes that you're smart enough to understand this information when you get it.</p><p>The problem is not that the free market is failing.  The problem is that the market is not actually free, since you have no means to make an informed decision.  The solution is to have a consumer-accessible, independently-verifiable audit trail of the history of any food product you can buy.  How you can do that without government intervention is a separate issue needing further development.</p><p>There is also the fact that such a system will increase the cost of food you buy.  So then it becomes a question of whether you like your food cheap or verified.  History suggests that cheap will win every time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ? This was covered in my Microeconomics class , and is generally ignored everywhere I see people invoke free market principles : In a properly functioning free market , information is perfect and freely available to all parties .
So , if the market were truly free , you could inspect the products you could purchase and you would know exactly where they came from .
I.e. you would know , from labeling , an Internet lookup of lot numbers , or other means , exactly how much GM material and which varieties were in the product you are buying .
And you would have a means of verifying that this information is accurate and not simply fabricated .
From this , you could research the studies on the effects of these GM products .
This , of course , assumes that you 're smart enough to understand this information when you get it.The problem is not that the free market is failing .
The problem is that the market is not actually free , since you have no means to make an informed decision .
The solution is to have a consumer-accessible , independently-verifiable audit trail of the history of any food product you can buy .
How you can do that without government intervention is a separate issue needing further development.There is also the fact that such a system will increase the cost of food you buy .
So then it becomes a question of whether you like your food cheap or verified .
History suggests that cheap will win every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?This was covered in my Microeconomics class, and is generally ignored everywhere I see people invoke free market principles:In a properly functioning free market, information is perfect and freely available to all parties.
So, if the market were truly free, you could inspect the products you could purchase and you would know exactly where they came from.
I.e. you would know, from labeling, an Internet lookup of lot numbers, or other means, exactly how much GM material and which varieties were in the product you are buying.
And you would have a means of verifying that this information is accurate and not simply fabricated.
From this, you could research the studies on the effects of these GM products.
This, of course, assumes that you're smart enough to understand this information when you get it.The problem is not that the free market is failing.
The problem is that the market is not actually free, since you have no means to make an informed decision.
The solution is to have a consumer-accessible, independently-verifiable audit trail of the history of any food product you can buy.
How you can do that without government intervention is a separate issue needing further development.There is also the fact that such a system will increase the cost of food you buy.
So then it becomes a question of whether you like your food cheap or verified.
History suggests that cheap will win every time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752798</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>..a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.</p></div></blockquote><p>Link or it didn't happen.</p><p>I recall a story years ago about a farmer who supposedly had his crops "accidently" contaminated being hassled by Monsanto.  Turns out when they tested his crop, almost 99\% of it was Monsanto variety.  Oops.</p><p>Monsanto and The Law in this case are completely overbearing, but don't just make shit up.  It just hurts your cause.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.Link or it did n't happen.I recall a story years ago about a farmer who supposedly had his crops " accidently " contaminated being hassled by Monsanto .
Turns out when they tested his crop , almost 99 \ % of it was Monsanto variety .
Oops.Monsanto and The Law in this case are completely overbearing , but do n't just make shit up .
It just hurts your cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.Link or it didn't happen.I recall a story years ago about a farmer who supposedly had his crops "accidently" contaminated being hassled by Monsanto.
Turns out when they tested his crop, almost 99\% of it was Monsanto variety.
Oops.Monsanto and The Law in this case are completely overbearing, but don't just make shit up.
It just hurts your cause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754124</id>
	<title>On the bright side</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1263412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The GM corn has been proven effective at pest control, since it kills rats! This presents an exiting new marketing opportunity for Monsanto!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GM corn has been proven effective at pest control , since it kills rats !
This presents an exiting new marketing opportunity for Monsanto !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GM corn has been proven effective at pest control, since it kills rats!
This presents an exiting new marketing opportunity for Monsanto!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680</id>
	<title>Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I haven't read the paper in detail, but my initial impression is that, if academic researchers have found evidence that GM food damages your health, why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access? I've got a degree in biology, and this is the first time I've ever come across the 'International Journal of Biological Sciences'.</p><p>Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall. E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11\% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33\% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa. They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is.</p><p>All in all, it looks like they did a rather unconvincing study that prominent journals weren't prepared to accept, so they stuck it out there in this way. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but take it with a pinch of salt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I have n't read the paper in detail , but my initial impression is that , if academic researchers have found evidence that GM food damages your health , why have n't they put it in a really major journal--Nature , Science , PNAS , or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access ?
I 've got a degree in biology , and this is the first time I 've ever come across the 'International Journal of Biological Sciences'.Glancing at their results table , it does n't seem clear cut overall .
E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11 \ % GM corn show a response , but rats fed 33 \ % GM corn do n't , cases where male rats are apparently affected , but not females , and vice versa .
They also do n't name the maize they used as a control , so we do n't know how accurate it is.All in all , it looks like they did a rather unconvincing study that prominent journals were n't prepared to accept , so they stuck it out there in this way .
That does n't mean it 's wrong , but take it with a pinch of salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I haven't read the paper in detail, but my initial impression is that, if academic researchers have found evidence that GM food damages your health, why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access?
I've got a degree in biology, and this is the first time I've ever come across the 'International Journal of Biological Sciences'.Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall.
E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11\% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33\% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa.
They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is.All in all, it looks like they did a rather unconvincing study that prominent journals weren't prepared to accept, so they stuck it out there in this way.
That doesn't mean it's wrong, but take it with a pinch of salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1263396720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes you can, you actually have to put forth effort.</p><p>Dont buy products with it in it.  My lettuce and fresh veggies dont have it, my meat does not have it, The flour I bake with does not have it.</p><p>It means switching from Insta-fake-food they sell in a box to actually getting off your butt and cooking.</p><p>Your general health will increase nearly 3 fold if you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes you can , you actually have to put forth effort.Dont buy products with it in it .
My lettuce and fresh veggies dont have it , my meat does not have it , The flour I bake with does not have it.It means switching from Insta-fake-food they sell in a box to actually getting off your butt and cooking.Your general health will increase nearly 3 fold if you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes you can, you actually have to put forth effort.Dont buy products with it in it.
My lettuce and fresh veggies dont have it, my meat does not have it, The flour I bake with does not have it.It means switching from Insta-fake-food they sell in a box to actually getting off your butt and cooking.Your general health will increase nearly 3 fold if you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750444</id>
	<title>Common sense not always common</title>
	<author>ligius</author>
	<datestamp>1263397860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sings of organ damage in rats it's most likely to be just the precedent of a lot of evidence yet to come on this field.  Just a bit of common sense.  If you are Monsanto,  you produce a plant (food) in a way that you just want to maximize volume of your plant and don't want any other living thing in the agricultural environment, and you do this just for the sake profitability... then that food can't possibly be good for humans, nor even for rats.

Try giving a rat the chance to choose between two types of food, organic corn and gm corn, which one chooses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sings of organ damage in rats it 's most likely to be just the precedent of a lot of evidence yet to come on this field .
Just a bit of common sense .
If you are Monsanto , you produce a plant ( food ) in a way that you just want to maximize volume of your plant and do n't want any other living thing in the agricultural environment , and you do this just for the sake profitability... then that food ca n't possibly be good for humans , nor even for rats .
Try giving a rat the chance to choose between two types of food , organic corn and gm corn , which one chooses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sings of organ damage in rats it's most likely to be just the precedent of a lot of evidence yet to come on this field.
Just a bit of common sense.
If you are Monsanto,  you produce a plant (food) in a way that you just want to maximize volume of your plant and don't want any other living thing in the agricultural environment, and you do this just for the sake profitability... then that food can't possibly be good for humans, nor even for rats.
Try giving a rat the chance to choose between two types of food, organic corn and gm corn, which one chooses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751890</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1263403740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pedantry will get you nowhere... oh right, this is Slashdot. You'll probably be modded insightful or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pedantry will get you nowhere... oh right , this is Slashdot .
You 'll probably be modded insightful or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pedantry will get you nowhere... oh right, this is Slashdot.
You'll probably be modded insightful or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749440</id>
	<title>Oh God, not the bourbon.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's going to damage my liver , I 'm switching to scotch .
I 'm sorry , Jack , but I just ca n't take the chance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch.
I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750344</id>
	<title>Food, Inc.</title>
	<author>tresstatus</author>
	<datestamp>1263397560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing that Monsanto does comes as a surprise to anyone who has seen "Food, Inc.".  <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/</a> [imdb.com]

<br> <br>
the problem with GMO crops is that they can't be contained.  a farmer doesn't have to plant monsanto's corn or soy beans for them to start growing in their fields.
<br> <br>
and to anyone who says "i will just avoid eating corn and corn products".... good luck.  almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing that Monsanto does comes as a surprise to anyone who has seen " Food , Inc. " .
http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/ [ imdb.com ] the problem with GMO crops is that they ca n't be contained .
a farmer does n't have to plant monsanto 's corn or soy beans for them to start growing in their fields .
and to anyone who says " i will just avoid eating corn and corn products " .... good luck .
almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing that Monsanto does comes as a surprise to anyone who has seen "Food, Inc.".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/ [imdb.com]

 
the problem with GMO crops is that they can't be contained.
a farmer doesn't have to plant monsanto's corn or soy beans for them to start growing in their fields.
and to anyone who says "i will just avoid eating corn and corn products".... good luck.
almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754474</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Kintanon</author>
	<datestamp>1263413700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the underpinnings of a free market is an informed population. Being informed is the first step.<br>The second free market issue here is that government regulation is what allows Monsanto to strong arm all of the other farmers and dominate the market.<br>In a free market system of informed consumers the situation should end up with multiple companies genetically modifying the corn which is used in the market and competing to sell it to the companies which process it. If people demand a safer genetically modified corn, they will get it. If they demand the cheapest possible corn, they'll get that. Those two might not be the same thing though.<br>In a scenario like that there is actually an industry available for people testing and rating genetically modified corn. A company might start that tests the corn of several companies that make it, all of whom pay for the privilege, and then rates them based on various criteria. Consumers could then avoid food which contains products from unrated companies at the very least.<br>The free market DOES have a solution for this kind of thing, but it requires that the government not protect large companies and in fact actively work to make their business transparent to the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the underpinnings of a free market is an informed population .
Being informed is the first step.The second free market issue here is that government regulation is what allows Monsanto to strong arm all of the other farmers and dominate the market.In a free market system of informed consumers the situation should end up with multiple companies genetically modifying the corn which is used in the market and competing to sell it to the companies which process it .
If people demand a safer genetically modified corn , they will get it .
If they demand the cheapest possible corn , they 'll get that .
Those two might not be the same thing though.In a scenario like that there is actually an industry available for people testing and rating genetically modified corn .
A company might start that tests the corn of several companies that make it , all of whom pay for the privilege , and then rates them based on various criteria .
Consumers could then avoid food which contains products from unrated companies at the very least.The free market DOES have a solution for this kind of thing , but it requires that the government not protect large companies and in fact actively work to make their business transparent to the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the underpinnings of a free market is an informed population.
Being informed is the first step.The second free market issue here is that government regulation is what allows Monsanto to strong arm all of the other farmers and dominate the market.In a free market system of informed consumers the situation should end up with multiple companies genetically modifying the corn which is used in the market and competing to sell it to the companies which process it.
If people demand a safer genetically modified corn, they will get it.
If they demand the cheapest possible corn, they'll get that.
Those two might not be the same thing though.In a scenario like that there is actually an industry available for people testing and rating genetically modified corn.
A company might start that tests the corn of several companies that make it, all of whom pay for the privilege, and then rates them based on various criteria.
Consumers could then avoid food which contains products from unrated companies at the very least.The free market DOES have a solution for this kind of thing, but it requires that the government not protect large companies and in fact actively work to make their business transparent to the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753072</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern,</p></div></blockquote><p>Are those the Canadian equivalents of Georgetown, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Georgeton , UCLA school of medicine , Mount Sinai School of Medicine , Vancerbilt , Nortwestern,Are those the Canadian equivalents of Georgetown , Vanderbilt , and Northwestern ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern,Are those the Canadian equivalents of Georgetown, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749922</id>
	<title>Mod parent up.</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1263395400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.. someone that RTFA?! You must be new here.</p><p>Mod parent up.</p><p>For the ADHD, you can skip to this:<br><a href="http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA3" title="biolsci.org">http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA3</a> [biolsci.org]<br>and<br><a href="http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA4" title="biolsci.org">http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA4</a> [biolsci.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow.. someone that RTFA ? !
You must be new here.Mod parent up.For the ADHD , you can skip to this : http : //www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm # headingA3 [ biolsci.org ] andhttp : //www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm # headingA4 [ biolsci.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.. someone that RTFA?!
You must be new here.Mod parent up.For the ADHD, you can skip to this:http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA3 [biolsci.org]andhttp://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA4 [biolsci.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752092</id>
	<title>There are other studies. This is an outlier.</title>
	<author>CCW</author>
	<datestamp>1263404520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a three generation feeding study that showed no adverse affect for rats fed Bt producing GMO corn, but did detect minor biochemical changes.  I just skimmed it, so it may not be perfect, but it is well written and doesn't reek of significance inflation and data mining for a desired outcome like the cited study does.   #2 hit on google for "Bt Rat Feeding Studies" so there is no reason for the authors not to have cited it except that it contradicts their conclusions with better data.</p><p><a href="http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img\_editor/file/Kilic&amp;Akay08BtMaizeFeedingStudy.pdf" title="somloquesembrem.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img\_editor/file/Kilic&amp;Akay08BtMaizeFeedingStudy.pdf</a> [somloquesembrem.org]</p><p>Aysun Kilic, M. Turan Akay, A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 46, Issue 3, March 2008, Pages 1164-1170, ISSN 0278-6915, DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016.<br>Keywords: Transgenic Bt corn; Three generation study; Histopathology; Biochemical analysis; Wistar albino rat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a three generation feeding study that showed no adverse affect for rats fed Bt producing GMO corn , but did detect minor biochemical changes .
I just skimmed it , so it may not be perfect , but it is well written and does n't reek of significance inflation and data mining for a desired outcome like the cited study does .
# 2 hit on google for " Bt Rat Feeding Studies " so there is no reason for the authors not to have cited it except that it contradicts their conclusions with better data.http : //www.somloquesembrem.org/img \ _editor/file/Kilic&amp;Akay08BtMaizeFeedingStudy.pdf [ somloquesembrem.org ] Aysun Kilic , M. Turan Akay , A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats : Biochemical and histopathological investigation , Food and Chemical Toxicology , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , March 2008 , Pages 1164-1170 , ISSN 0278-6915 , DOI : 10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016.Keywords : Transgenic Bt corn ; Three generation study ; Histopathology ; Biochemical analysis ; Wistar albino rat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a three generation feeding study that showed no adverse affect for rats fed Bt producing GMO corn, but did detect minor biochemical changes.
I just skimmed it, so it may not be perfect, but it is well written and doesn't reek of significance inflation and data mining for a desired outcome like the cited study does.
#2 hit on google for "Bt Rat Feeding Studies" so there is no reason for the authors not to have cited it except that it contradicts their conclusions with better data.http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img\_editor/file/Kilic&amp;Akay08BtMaizeFeedingStudy.pdf [somloquesembrem.org]Aysun Kilic, M. Turan Akay, A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 46, Issue 3, March 2008, Pages 1164-1170, ISSN 0278-6915, DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016.Keywords: Transgenic Bt corn; Three generation study; Histopathology; Biochemical analysis; Wistar albino rat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753038</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they only sue those who knowingly raise a new generation of seed from purchased seeds in violation of their contract. Most of those caught doing so simply admit it and pay a fine. The myth that farmers with cross-field-pollinated fields get sued likely got started by farmers who violated their contract and then lied about it when caught. The anti-monsanto crowd does little fact checking in this aera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they only sue those who knowingly raise a new generation of seed from purchased seeds in violation of their contract .
Most of those caught doing so simply admit it and pay a fine .
The myth that farmers with cross-field-pollinated fields get sued likely got started by farmers who violated their contract and then lied about it when caught .
The anti-monsanto crowd does little fact checking in this aera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they only sue those who knowingly raise a new generation of seed from purchased seeds in violation of their contract.
Most of those caught doing so simply admit it and pay a fine.
The myth that farmers with cross-field-pollinated fields get sued likely got started by farmers who violated their contract and then lied about it when caught.
The anti-monsanto crowd does little fact checking in this aera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750024</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>clarkn0va</author>
	<datestamp>1263395940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/" title="imdb.com">this one.</a> [imdb.com] And <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/" title="imdb.com">this one.</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this one .
[ imdb.com ] And this one .
[ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this one.
[imdb.com] And this one.
[imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754560</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1263414000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>when we currently do not even have a free market.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's right.  We currently do not have a "free market".  We have <i>never</i> had a "free market" and no "free market" has ever existed in human history.  Further, there will never, ever <i>be</i> a "free market".</p><p>Yet, we have people who base their entire socio-political view on the desirability of this impossible fantasy.</p><p>And let me tell you, the downside to having an "almost free market" where government plays no part in being a counterbalance to corporate power, you get a situation that's much much worse than a reasonable regulatory system in an open society.</p><p>But you don't hear free market nutjobs talking about a "reasonable regulatory system".  You hear them talking about how "any government regulation of the marketplace is a bad thing".</p><p>That's why they're wrong and dangerous.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when we currently do not even have a free market.That 's right .
We currently do not have a " free market " .
We have never had a " free market " and no " free market " has ever existed in human history .
Further , there will never , ever be a " free market " .Yet , we have people who base their entire socio-political view on the desirability of this impossible fantasy.And let me tell you , the downside to having an " almost free market " where government plays no part in being a counterbalance to corporate power , you get a situation that 's much much worse than a reasonable regulatory system in an open society.But you do n't hear free market nutjobs talking about a " reasonable regulatory system " .
You hear them talking about how " any government regulation of the marketplace is a bad thing " .That 's why they 're wrong and dangerous .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>when we currently do not even have a free market.That's right.
We currently do not have a "free market".
We have never had a "free market" and no "free market" has ever existed in human history.
Further, there will never, ever be a "free market".Yet, we have people who base their entire socio-political view on the desirability of this impossible fantasy.And let me tell you, the downside to having an "almost free market" where government plays no part in being a counterbalance to corporate power, you get a situation that's much much worse than a reasonable regulatory system in an open society.But you don't hear free market nutjobs talking about a "reasonable regulatory system".
You hear them talking about how "any government regulation of the marketplace is a bad thing".That's why they're wrong and dangerous.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752916</id>
	<title>Re:Stduy flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excessive fructose consumption causes the production of reactive oxygen species in the liver, which <a href="http://cbs5.com/health/sugar.molecule.liver.2.1008081.html" title="cbs5.com" rel="nofollow">causes sclerotic damage similar to that caused by alcohol consumption.</a> [cbs5.com]</p><p>The liver damage/liver function anomalies detected by the monsanto safety study may be totally unrelated to the BT production, but may instead be a biproduct of boosting sugar production in the corn products (which would be financially advantageous, since more HFCS and Corn ethanol could be produced per acre, which would also boost support for government biofuel subsidies).</p><p>It is important to note that raw glucose is relatively safe to consume in absurd quantites; It is fructose, and sucrose (which breaks down into glucose and fructose upon ingestion, which makes it biologically interchangeable with HFCS) which result in the production of the reactive oxygen species.  The problem is that glucose is substantially less sweet tasting than HFCS or Sucrose.</p><p>Humans were better able to tolerate a high corn biased diet when the corn was essentially starchy field corn, for much the same reasons that asian cultures could withstand large quantities of starchy rice; Starch gets metabolized into glucose, and the fructose levels in these 'bland' foods is very minimal.</p><p>Modern cultivation techniques have appealed to human cravings for sweet, and glucose is not very sweet; instead, we breed for, and excessively consume the biologically dangerous sucrose, and fructose at ever greater levels.</p><p>As the linked to article points out, excessive fructose consumption contributes mightily to obesity, and type II diabetes; as well as to "fatty liver disease", which causes massive liver damage.</p><p>These effects are being widely reported in humans right now, but disclosure and further study is being actively discouraged by the Corn grower's association, and the people behind the HFCS lobby groups, <a href="http://www.sweetsurprise.com/" title="sweetsurprise.com" rel="nofollow">while they simultaneously produce purposefully specious propaganda.</a> [sweetsurprise.com] (It's specious, because it assumes Sucrose table sugar is "safe", when it has the exact same deleterious health effects. It's like saying that ingesting Lead acetate sweetener is no more dangerous than cooking in lead pots. Both are equally deadly.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excessive fructose consumption causes the production of reactive oxygen species in the liver , which causes sclerotic damage similar to that caused by alcohol consumption .
[ cbs5.com ] The liver damage/liver function anomalies detected by the monsanto safety study may be totally unrelated to the BT production , but may instead be a biproduct of boosting sugar production in the corn products ( which would be financially advantageous , since more HFCS and Corn ethanol could be produced per acre , which would also boost support for government biofuel subsidies ) .It is important to note that raw glucose is relatively safe to consume in absurd quantites ; It is fructose , and sucrose ( which breaks down into glucose and fructose upon ingestion , which makes it biologically interchangeable with HFCS ) which result in the production of the reactive oxygen species .
The problem is that glucose is substantially less sweet tasting than HFCS or Sucrose.Humans were better able to tolerate a high corn biased diet when the corn was essentially starchy field corn , for much the same reasons that asian cultures could withstand large quantities of starchy rice ; Starch gets metabolized into glucose , and the fructose levels in these 'bland ' foods is very minimal.Modern cultivation techniques have appealed to human cravings for sweet , and glucose is not very sweet ; instead , we breed for , and excessively consume the biologically dangerous sucrose , and fructose at ever greater levels.As the linked to article points out , excessive fructose consumption contributes mightily to obesity , and type II diabetes ; as well as to " fatty liver disease " , which causes massive liver damage.These effects are being widely reported in humans right now , but disclosure and further study is being actively discouraged by the Corn grower 's association , and the people behind the HFCS lobby groups , while they simultaneously produce purposefully specious propaganda .
[ sweetsurprise.com ] ( It 's specious , because it assumes Sucrose table sugar is " safe " , when it has the exact same deleterious health effects .
It 's like saying that ingesting Lead acetate sweetener is no more dangerous than cooking in lead pots .
Both are equally deadly .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excessive fructose consumption causes the production of reactive oxygen species in the liver, which causes sclerotic damage similar to that caused by alcohol consumption.
[cbs5.com]The liver damage/liver function anomalies detected by the monsanto safety study may be totally unrelated to the BT production, but may instead be a biproduct of boosting sugar production in the corn products (which would be financially advantageous, since more HFCS and Corn ethanol could be produced per acre, which would also boost support for government biofuel subsidies).It is important to note that raw glucose is relatively safe to consume in absurd quantites; It is fructose, and sucrose (which breaks down into glucose and fructose upon ingestion, which makes it biologically interchangeable with HFCS) which result in the production of the reactive oxygen species.
The problem is that glucose is substantially less sweet tasting than HFCS or Sucrose.Humans were better able to tolerate a high corn biased diet when the corn was essentially starchy field corn, for much the same reasons that asian cultures could withstand large quantities of starchy rice; Starch gets metabolized into glucose, and the fructose levels in these 'bland' foods is very minimal.Modern cultivation techniques have appealed to human cravings for sweet, and glucose is not very sweet; instead, we breed for, and excessively consume the biologically dangerous sucrose, and fructose at ever greater levels.As the linked to article points out, excessive fructose consumption contributes mightily to obesity, and type II diabetes; as well as to "fatty liver disease", which causes massive liver damage.These effects are being widely reported in humans right now, but disclosure and further study is being actively discouraged by the Corn grower's association, and the people behind the HFCS lobby groups, while they simultaneously produce purposefully specious propaganda.
[sweetsurprise.com] (It's specious, because it assumes Sucrose table sugar is "safe", when it has the exact same deleterious health effects.
It's like saying that ingesting Lead acetate sweetener is no more dangerous than cooking in lead pots.
Both are equally deadly.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30760256</id>
	<title>Not Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some day, one of these things is going to slip through our bribed or non-existent regulatory structures. And when it does, we're fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some day , one of these things is going to slip through our bribed or non-existent regulatory structures .
And when it does , we 're fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some day, one of these things is going to slip through our bribed or non-existent regulatory structures.
And when it does, we're fucked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744</id>
	<title>we need GMO foods</title>
	<author>chichilalescu</author>
	<datestamp>1263394380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>like it or not.<br>you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant (and already there are a lot of starving people), or change something to the food we eat.<br>I didn't do any research on the issue, but if a biologist says he wants funding to make food that grows faster and easier, I think he should get that funding. I would gladly have society give up on "new clothes every season, or you're a caveman/woman/person/thingie" and put more money into this kind of research.<br>but i'm just a geeky hippie, so i don't get a say in this.<br>on the other hand, if there are alternatives to gmo foods, let me know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>like it or not.you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant ( and already there are a lot of starving people ) , or change something to the food we eat.I did n't do any research on the issue , but if a biologist says he wants funding to make food that grows faster and easier , I think he should get that funding .
I would gladly have society give up on " new clothes every season , or you 're a caveman/woman/person/thingie " and put more money into this kind of research.but i 'm just a geeky hippie , so i do n't get a say in this.on the other hand , if there are alternatives to gmo foods , let me know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like it or not.you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant (and already there are a lot of starving people), or change something to the food we eat.I didn't do any research on the issue, but if a biologist says he wants funding to make food that grows faster and easier, I think he should get that funding.
I would gladly have society give up on "new clothes every season, or you're a caveman/woman/person/thingie" and put more money into this kind of research.but i'm just a geeky hippie, so i don't get a say in this.on the other hand, if there are alternatives to gmo foods, let me know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750642</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1263398640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The linked stories are not about your beloved president.<br>So relax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked stories are not about your beloved president.So relax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked stories are not about your beloved president.So relax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751580</id>
	<title>Sounds like it would be an idea to insert a gene</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263402360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to insert a gene which somehow prevented the genetically modified corn from bearing small corn babies either alone or with normal corn. That way if you left it for some time it would all die by itself.</p><p>Oh wait, they did that but it was evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to insert a gene which somehow prevented the genetically modified corn from bearing small corn babies either alone or with normal corn .
That way if you left it for some time it would all die by itself.Oh wait , they did that but it was evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to insert a gene which somehow prevented the genetically modified corn from bearing small corn babies either alone or with normal corn.
That way if you left it for some time it would all die by itself.Oh wait, they did that but it was evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750388</id>
	<title>Re:government protection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263397680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?</p></div><p>If they were insanely rich after the fact, why not? Ethics, sustainability and the environment is, after all, left wing, communist, tree-hugger, la-la-land propaganda. Never mind King Midas and all that.<br>But with the ubiquity of corn (by-)products, the Monsanto executives are probably no better off than the rest of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Monsanto would n't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees , right ? If they were insanely rich after the fact , why not ?
Ethics , sustainability and the environment is , after all , left wing , communist , tree-hugger , la-la-land propaganda .
Never mind King Midas and all that.But with the ubiquity of corn ( by- ) products , the Monsanto executives are probably no better off than the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?If they were insanely rich after the fact, why not?
Ethics, sustainability and the environment is, after all, left wing, communist, tree-hugger, la-la-land propaganda.
Never mind King Midas and all that.But with the ubiquity of corn (by-)products, the Monsanto executives are probably no better off than the rest of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755326</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263373800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are definitely scientific papers that re-interpret statistical data from studies the authors did not perform, though they are usually published in the form of review articles.  They are not treated as original research, obviously, and I say this not as a supporter of this particular paper.  It has its problems, and I find it [perhaps] telling that the only reports I can find citing it emanate from HuffPost (which isn't bad on some things but has a pretty dismal Health section) and TreeHugger and other such agenda-driven sources.  (Again, this is not to say I don't agree with some of the agendas, but we should base opinions on the evidence when applicable and not our politics.)</p><p>The only thing we can hope for is that a properly controlled study with a large sample is carried out to produce better and more definitive results.  I wouldn't be surprised in the least if such a study went either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are definitely scientific papers that re-interpret statistical data from studies the authors did not perform , though they are usually published in the form of review articles .
They are not treated as original research , obviously , and I say this not as a supporter of this particular paper .
It has its problems , and I find it [ perhaps ] telling that the only reports I can find citing it emanate from HuffPost ( which is n't bad on some things but has a pretty dismal Health section ) and TreeHugger and other such agenda-driven sources .
( Again , this is not to say I do n't agree with some of the agendas , but we should base opinions on the evidence when applicable and not our politics .
) The only thing we can hope for is that a properly controlled study with a large sample is carried out to produce better and more definitive results .
I would n't be surprised in the least if such a study went either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are definitely scientific papers that re-interpret statistical data from studies the authors did not perform, though they are usually published in the form of review articles.
They are not treated as original research, obviously, and I say this not as a supporter of this particular paper.
It has its problems, and I find it [perhaps] telling that the only reports I can find citing it emanate from HuffPost (which isn't bad on some things but has a pretty dismal Health section) and TreeHugger and other such agenda-driven sources.
(Again, this is not to say I don't agree with some of the agendas, but we should base opinions on the evidence when applicable and not our politics.
)The only thing we can hope for is that a properly controlled study with a large sample is carried out to produce better and more definitive results.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if such a study went either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754514</id>
	<title>Separate study needed for processed foods</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1263413820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of comments are mentioning processed foods, and the large amount of corn in them.</p><p>While there are many good reasons to stay away from processed foods (read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan for details), you can't necessarily apply the cited study to processed foods, precisely because they are processed. The processing might well break down or remove the chemicals that are causing the organ damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of comments are mentioning processed foods , and the large amount of corn in them.While there are many good reasons to stay away from processed foods ( read " The Omnivore 's Dilemma " or " In Defense of Food " by Michael Pollan for details ) , you ca n't necessarily apply the cited study to processed foods , precisely because they are processed .
The processing might well break down or remove the chemicals that are causing the organ damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of comments are mentioning processed foods, and the large amount of corn in them.While there are many good reasons to stay away from processed foods (read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan for details), you can't necessarily apply the cited study to processed foods, precisely because they are processed.
The processing might well break down or remove the chemicals that are causing the organ damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749662</id>
	<title>Ubiquitous Corn ... depending on what you eat</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1263393840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people don't drink soda, eat candy, or eat meat (fed on said corn), isn't there a sort of Darwinian solution to this?  It seems like all you really need to do is not eat crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people do n't drink soda , eat candy , or eat meat ( fed on said corn ) , is n't there a sort of Darwinian solution to this ?
It seems like all you really need to do is not eat crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people don't drink soda, eat candy, or eat meat (fed on said corn), isn't there a sort of Darwinian solution to this?
It seems like all you really need to do is not eat crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754</id>
	<title>I have nothing against GMO in theory</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1263394500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>but WTF Monsanto, FDA. This is bad for EVERYBODY. Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).
<br> <br>
This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is. I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery, but I'd bet my bottom dollar Monsanto spent a lot of money wispering into ears that GMO posed no health risk and was a forgone conclusion. Hell, they didn't even need to check their own data, what could possibly go wrong? Besides that's the FDA's job right? Meanwhile the FDA hears all about how Monsanto wouldn't let any GMO through that would hurt their consumers. Of course they know the technology better, and their own analysis should be thorough enough to allow for FDA approval.
<br> <br>
I'll take a Department of Redundancy Department that does its goddamn job over a regulatory body that doesn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but WTF Monsanto , FDA .
This is bad for EVERYBODY .
Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth , ever ( except maybe the Hopi ) .
This is why you ca n't let lobbying continue as is .
I do n't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery , but I 'd bet my bottom dollar Monsanto spent a lot of money wispering into ears that GMO posed no health risk and was a forgone conclusion .
Hell , they did n't even need to check their own data , what could possibly go wrong ?
Besides that 's the FDA 's job right ?
Meanwhile the FDA hears all about how Monsanto would n't let any GMO through that would hurt their consumers .
Of course they know the technology better , and their own analysis should be thorough enough to allow for FDA approval .
I 'll take a Department of Redundancy Department that does its goddamn job over a regulatory body that does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but WTF Monsanto, FDA.
This is bad for EVERYBODY.
Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).
This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is.
I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery, but I'd bet my bottom dollar Monsanto spent a lot of money wispering into ears that GMO posed no health risk and was a forgone conclusion.
Hell, they didn't even need to check their own data, what could possibly go wrong?
Besides that's the FDA's job right?
Meanwhile the FDA hears all about how Monsanto wouldn't let any GMO through that would hurt their consumers.
Of course they know the technology better, and their own analysis should be thorough enough to allow for FDA approval.
I'll take a Department of Redundancy Department that does its goddamn job over a regulatory body that doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753998</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1263411780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might want to see the documentary "King of Corn". Think of it as a primer and then continue your research.

ITS IN EVERYTHING. You're wearing it now I bet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to see the documentary " King of Corn " .
Think of it as a primer and then continue your research .
ITS IN EVERYTHING .
You 're wearing it now I bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to see the documentary "King of Corn".
Think of it as a primer and then continue your research.
ITS IN EVERYTHING.
You're wearing it now I bet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750588</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263398460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, they have more revolving doors with the government, than Haliburton and Microsoft together!<br>For these cases, Monsanto IS the government. It is the one who defines the requirements.<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1508484&amp;cid=30750526" title="slashdot.org">I posted a documentary about this ealier.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , they have more revolving doors with the government , than Haliburton and Microsoft together ! For these cases , Monsanto IS the government .
It is the one who defines the requirements.I posted a documentary about this ealier .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, they have more revolving doors with the government, than Haliburton and Microsoft together!For these cases, Monsanto IS the government.
It is the one who defines the requirements.I posted a documentary about this ealier.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752526</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>takowl</author>
	<datestamp>1263406080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.</p></div><p>On<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.? More seriously, if I'd taken the time to read it in detail, my comment would have been much later, and nobody would ever have read it. Considering the apparent credulity of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers on this issue, I wanted to get an oar in.</p><p>It does have some credible scientists on its editorial board. And I don't believe it's a bogus journal. But I do know a bit about how science works (being in it), and we consider the reputation of the journal, not just its editorial board. IJBS hardly has any reputation (acidfast7, posting above and below, agrees with me on this).</p><p>To back up my point, a bit of searching shows that this group of scientists has tried the same stunt before, and their methodology was and still is suspect (this is from Food Standards Australia/NZ, <i>not</i> Monsanto): <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/educationalmaterial/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm" title="foodstandards.gov.au" rel="nofollow">FSANZ response</a> [foodstandards.gov.au] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I know , actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.On /. ?
More seriously , if I 'd taken the time to read it in detail , my comment would have been much later , and nobody would ever have read it .
Considering the apparent credulity of / .
readers on this issue , I wanted to get an oar in.It does have some credible scientists on its editorial board .
And I do n't believe it 's a bogus journal .
But I do know a bit about how science works ( being in it ) , and we consider the reputation of the journal , not just its editorial board .
IJBS hardly has any reputation ( acidfast7 , posting above and below , agrees with me on this ) .To back up my point , a bit of searching shows that this group of scientists has tried the same stunt before , and their methodology was and still is suspect ( this is from Food Standards Australia/NZ , not Monsanto ) : FSANZ response [ foodstandards.gov.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.On /.?
More seriously, if I'd taken the time to read it in detail, my comment would have been much later, and nobody would ever have read it.
Considering the apparent credulity of /.
readers on this issue, I wanted to get an oar in.It does have some credible scientists on its editorial board.
And I don't believe it's a bogus journal.
But I do know a bit about how science works (being in it), and we consider the reputation of the journal, not just its editorial board.
IJBS hardly has any reputation (acidfast7, posting above and below, agrees with me on this).To back up my point, a bit of searching shows that this group of scientists has tried the same stunt before, and their methodology was and still is suspect (this is from Food Standards Australia/NZ, not Monsanto): FSANZ response [foodstandards.gov.au] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753294</id>
	<title>I know,  Scientifically, "common sense" sucks</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1263408840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But is it really a stretch that if an insect won't eat it, \_maybe\_ we shouldn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But is it really a stretch that if an insect wo n't eat it , \ _maybe \ _ we should n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is it really a stretch that if an insect won't eat it, \_maybe\_ we shouldn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751962</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Richy\_T</author>
	<datestamp>1263404040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HFCS is not Kosher. Become Jewish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HFCS is not Kosher .
Become Jewish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HFCS is not Kosher.
Become Jewish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750066</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263396120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's kind of an unfair question, because in a truly free market the corn wouldn't have the ridiculous subsidies attached to it that we have. The reason candies and sodas use corn syrup instead of sugar is, because of the fucked up way we handle corn, it's actually cheaper that way.</p><p>Besides that, the answer is: if you believe it harms your liver, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it. It's really simple.</p><p>The answer to most of these "I'm so outraged" posts is usually, "then don't buy it." For example:<br>"Google double-dips on the ETF for their Nexus One phone!" "Ok, so don't buy it."<br>"Modern video games are really expensive and the gameplay isn't as good as older games!" "Ok, so don't buy them."<br>"Windows is a crummy OS and it crashes all the time!" "Ok, so don't buy it."</p><p>You see, once you learn the "then don't buy it" secret, all of Slashdot becomes redundant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's kind of an unfair question , because in a truly free market the corn would n't have the ridiculous subsidies attached to it that we have .
The reason candies and sodas use corn syrup instead of sugar is , because of the fucked up way we handle corn , it 's actually cheaper that way.Besides that , the answer is : if you believe it harms your liver , do n't buy it .
If enough people do n't buy it , it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it .
It 's really simple.The answer to most of these " I 'm so outraged " posts is usually , " then do n't buy it .
" For example : " Google double-dips on the ETF for their Nexus One phone !
" " Ok , so do n't buy it .
" " Modern video games are really expensive and the gameplay is n't as good as older games !
" " Ok , so do n't buy them .
" " Windows is a crummy OS and it crashes all the time !
" " Ok , so do n't buy it .
" You see , once you learn the " then do n't buy it " secret , all of Slashdot becomes redundant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's kind of an unfair question, because in a truly free market the corn wouldn't have the ridiculous subsidies attached to it that we have.
The reason candies and sodas use corn syrup instead of sugar is, because of the fucked up way we handle corn, it's actually cheaper that way.Besides that, the answer is: if you believe it harms your liver, don't buy it.
If enough people don't buy it, it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it.
It's really simple.The answer to most of these "I'm so outraged" posts is usually, "then don't buy it.
" For example:"Google double-dips on the ETF for their Nexus One phone!
" "Ok, so don't buy it.
""Modern video games are really expensive and the gameplay isn't as good as older games!
" "Ok, so don't buy them.
""Windows is a crummy OS and it crashes all the time!
" "Ok, so don't buy it.
"You see, once you learn the "then don't buy it" secret, all of Slashdot becomes redundant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750832</id>
	<title>Re:Politics of GMO</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1263399420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check the history of tobacco money - they jumped into processed foods in a big way when the anti-smoking sentiment got strong in the U.S.<br> <br>Of course, those were all good people in the tobacco industry, straight shooters who were concerned about the general welfare of, well, themselves at least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check the history of tobacco money - they jumped into processed foods in a big way when the anti-smoking sentiment got strong in the U.S. Of course , those were all good people in the tobacco industry , straight shooters who were concerned about the general welfare of , well , themselves at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check the history of tobacco money - they jumped into processed foods in a big way when the anti-smoking sentiment got strong in the U.S. Of course, those were all good people in the tobacco industry, straight shooters who were concerned about the general welfare of, well, themselves at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750220</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263396960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this more of a failing of the the FDA? (government)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this more of a failing of the the FDA ?
( government )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this more of a failing of the the FDA?
(government)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750528</id>
	<title>Currently only in Animal Feed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Currently, GMO corn is only in animal feed.  But the problem is that you cannot simply go to the elevator and request "GMO Free" corn.  Feed corn is feed corn, whether it's GMO or not.  That was the big coup that Monsanto pulled off a few years back.  It took a lot of lobbying, I'm sure.</p><p>I raise "all natural" free-range chickens and sell them to friends and neighbors.  I wish that I could get corn that was GMO-free, but the only way is to purchase "organic" (TM) corn, at about 10 times the price.  At that point, I'd have to sell the chickens for $5/lb and no one in their right mind would pay for it.</p><p>Monsanto knew that if their corn had to be silo'd separately from other varieties, that it would be worth a lot less, so they had to get it commoditized with the rest, or all of that R&amp;D would have been wasted.  Good for them.  Bad for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , GMO corn is only in animal feed .
But the problem is that you can not simply go to the elevator and request " GMO Free " corn .
Feed corn is feed corn , whether it 's GMO or not .
That was the big coup that Monsanto pulled off a few years back .
It took a lot of lobbying , I 'm sure.I raise " all natural " free-range chickens and sell them to friends and neighbors .
I wish that I could get corn that was GMO-free , but the only way is to purchase " organic " ( TM ) corn , at about 10 times the price .
At that point , I 'd have to sell the chickens for $ 5/lb and no one in their right mind would pay for it.Monsanto knew that if their corn had to be silo 'd separately from other varieties , that it would be worth a lot less , so they had to get it commoditized with the rest , or all of that R&amp;D would have been wasted .
Good for them .
Bad for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently, GMO corn is only in animal feed.
But the problem is that you cannot simply go to the elevator and request "GMO Free" corn.
Feed corn is feed corn, whether it's GMO or not.
That was the big coup that Monsanto pulled off a few years back.
It took a lot of lobbying, I'm sure.I raise "all natural" free-range chickens and sell them to friends and neighbors.
I wish that I could get corn that was GMO-free, but the only way is to purchase "organic" (TM) corn, at about 10 times the price.
At that point, I'd have to sell the chickens for $5/lb and no one in their right mind would pay for it.Monsanto knew that if their corn had to be silo'd separately from other varieties, that it would be worth a lot less, so they had to get it commoditized with the rest, or all of that R&amp;D would have been wasted.
Good for them.
Bad for us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750856</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news cavemen invent the wheel. I'm underwhelmed with surprise at this not shocking Revelation that Monsanto and GMO's suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news cavemen invent the wheel .
I 'm underwhelmed with surprise at this not shocking Revelation that Monsanto and GMO 's suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news cavemen invent the wheel.
I'm underwhelmed with surprise at this not shocking Revelation that Monsanto and GMO's suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749902</id>
	<title>Re:Politics of GMO</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1263395340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chief cheerleader in the UK is the former science minister in Tony Blair's government - Lord Sainsbury, who's family owns a supermarket chain of the same name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chief cheerleader in the UK is the former science minister in Tony Blair 's government - Lord Sainsbury , who 's family owns a supermarket chain of the same name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chief cheerleader in the UK is the former science minister in Tony Blair's government - Lord Sainsbury, who's family owns a supermarket chain of the same name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750480</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1263398040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that they were able to use Monsanto's own data and still show a possible problem is worrying</p><p>If this were independent research (as it should be) and they showed this then it could be ignored<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but I would assume Monsanto's own data is likely to be sanitised at least to a degree?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they were able to use Monsanto 's own data and still show a possible problem is worryingIf this were independent research ( as it should be ) and they showed this then it could be ignored .... but I would assume Monsanto 's own data is likely to be sanitised at least to a degree ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they were able to use Monsanto's own data and still show a possible problem is worryingIf this were independent research (as it should be) and they showed this then it could be ignored .... but I would assume Monsanto's own data is likely to be sanitised at least to a degree?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749880</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263395220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, note the acknowledgments at the bottom: Greenpeace (which is against GMOs) started the research in the first place.  No, it doesn't show that the results are bogus, but it is fishy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , note the acknowledgments at the bottom : Greenpeace ( which is against GMOs ) started the research in the first place .
No , it does n't show that the results are bogus , but it is fishy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, note the acknowledgments at the bottom: Greenpeace (which is against GMOs) started the research in the first place.
No, it doesn't show that the results are bogus, but it is fishy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750074</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1263396180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certainly there are aspects of it which reek of "data mining": checking every possible correlation, and seeing what ones turn out to be statistically significant, then hypothesising on that. The post-hoc hypothesis is unscientific off the bat, and doing so greatly tightens the criteria for statistical significance, because it's like taking several gambles at once. The chances that one or more of them will come up are higher than any individual bet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly there are aspects of it which reek of " data mining " : checking every possible correlation , and seeing what ones turn out to be statistically significant , then hypothesising on that .
The post-hoc hypothesis is unscientific off the bat , and doing so greatly tightens the criteria for statistical significance , because it 's like taking several gambles at once .
The chances that one or more of them will come up are higher than any individual bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly there are aspects of it which reek of "data mining": checking every possible correlation, and seeing what ones turn out to be statistically significant, then hypothesising on that.
The post-hoc hypothesis is unscientific off the bat, and doing so greatly tightens the criteria for statistical significance, because it's like taking several gambles at once.
The chances that one or more of them will come up are higher than any individual bet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749984</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1263395700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Require the food producers to label the source of their ingredients and let the customer decide<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...when people avoid Monsanto's corn then the food companies will stop buying corn from farmers using GM Corn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Regulation of the market should always be like this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... require business to give the customer (at all levels) the information to make informed decisions and the market will self regulate, the only reason Monsanto's GM crops are used in the US is because people don't know which food they are in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in Europe many are labelled GM Free and many customers choose based on this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Require the food producers to label the source of their ingredients and let the customer decide ... ...when people avoid Monsanto 's corn then the food companies will stop buying corn from farmers using GM Corn ....Regulation of the market should always be like this ... require business to give the customer ( at all levels ) the information to make informed decisions and the market will self regulate , the only reason Monsanto 's GM crops are used in the US is because people do n't know which food they are in ... in Europe many are labelled GM Free and many customers choose based on this .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Require the food producers to label the source of their ingredients and let the customer decide ... ...when people avoid Monsanto's corn then the food companies will stop buying corn from farmers using GM Corn ....Regulation of the market should always be like this ... require business to give the customer (at all levels) the information to make informed decisions and the market will self regulate, the only reason Monsanto's GM crops are used in the US is because people don't know which food they are in ... in Europe many are labelled GM Free and many customers choose based on this ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30758050</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title and summary !</title>
	<author>blivit42</author>
	<datestamp>1263385620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Fig. 1 really sums it up.  Principle Component Analysis effectively finds an axis through your multi-dimensional data space that best separates your datapoints.  In this case, the 1st principle component (X-axis) clearly visually separates males from females.  What this tells us is that the variation in the data was dominated more by the sex of the animal than by any other factor in the experiment.  Whatever effects the different corn diets may have had on their measurements, those effects are swamped out by differences between the sexes of the animals, and are therefore probably not very biologically significant.  Figs. A, B, C, all show the same behavior.  Nothing to see here, move along.  Just another crappy experiment that doesn't really tell us anything other than the variables they measured are highly sex-dependent.
<br> <br>
Now, it may be possible that only one or a small number of variables are contributing to the the first principle component.  If these variables were removed from the analysis for being sex-dependent, THEN maybe some separation caused by diet might appear.  Who knows.  If they really were trying to show an effect from diet, I would guess that they would have tried such things to get the PCA to show what they wanted to see (separation on diet, rather than sex).  Fig D does have sex as the 2nd component, so maybe the 1st component could be interesting, but nowhere do they say that the 1st component separates on diet, and the figure legend even touts it as yet more evidence of separation by sexes.  Since almost all of their figures show sex as the main source of variation, and all of their figure legends make major note of that fact, I'm guessing that there just weren't any significant effects from diet there in the first place, otherwise they would have been able to massage better figures out of it.
<br>
<br>
However you massage your statistics, if you can't see it by eye, then it's not real.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Fig .
1 really sums it up .
Principle Component Analysis effectively finds an axis through your multi-dimensional data space that best separates your datapoints .
In this case , the 1st principle component ( X-axis ) clearly visually separates males from females .
What this tells us is that the variation in the data was dominated more by the sex of the animal than by any other factor in the experiment .
Whatever effects the different corn diets may have had on their measurements , those effects are swamped out by differences between the sexes of the animals , and are therefore probably not very biologically significant .
Figs. A , B , C , all show the same behavior .
Nothing to see here , move along .
Just another crappy experiment that does n't really tell us anything other than the variables they measured are highly sex-dependent .
Now , it may be possible that only one or a small number of variables are contributing to the the first principle component .
If these variables were removed from the analysis for being sex-dependent , THEN maybe some separation caused by diet might appear .
Who knows .
If they really were trying to show an effect from diet , I would guess that they would have tried such things to get the PCA to show what they wanted to see ( separation on diet , rather than sex ) .
Fig D does have sex as the 2nd component , so maybe the 1st component could be interesting , but nowhere do they say that the 1st component separates on diet , and the figure legend even touts it as yet more evidence of separation by sexes .
Since almost all of their figures show sex as the main source of variation , and all of their figure legends make major note of that fact , I 'm guessing that there just were n't any significant effects from diet there in the first place , otherwise they would have been able to massage better figures out of it .
However you massage your statistics , if you ca n't see it by eye , then it 's not real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Fig.
1 really sums it up.
Principle Component Analysis effectively finds an axis through your multi-dimensional data space that best separates your datapoints.
In this case, the 1st principle component (X-axis) clearly visually separates males from females.
What this tells us is that the variation in the data was dominated more by the sex of the animal than by any other factor in the experiment.
Whatever effects the different corn diets may have had on their measurements, those effects are swamped out by differences between the sexes of the animals, and are therefore probably not very biologically significant.
Figs. A, B, C, all show the same behavior.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Just another crappy experiment that doesn't really tell us anything other than the variables they measured are highly sex-dependent.
Now, it may be possible that only one or a small number of variables are contributing to the the first principle component.
If these variables were removed from the analysis for being sex-dependent, THEN maybe some separation caused by diet might appear.
Who knows.
If they really were trying to show an effect from diet, I would guess that they would have tried such things to get the PCA to show what they wanted to see (separation on diet, rather than sex).
Fig D does have sex as the 2nd component, so maybe the 1st component could be interesting, but nowhere do they say that the 1st component separates on diet, and the figure legend even touts it as yet more evidence of separation by sexes.
Since almost all of their figures show sex as the main source of variation, and all of their figure legends make major note of that fact, I'm guessing that there just weren't any significant effects from diet there in the first place, otherwise they would have been able to massage better figures out of it.
However you massage your statistics, if you can't see it by eye, then it's not real.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610</id>
	<title>That's excellent.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263393420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a food that kills rats.  How can you possibly get angry about a food that kills rats?  I mean, do you know how many people are starving because rats eat the food?  This is absolutely a great thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a food that kills rats .
How can you possibly get angry about a food that kills rats ?
I mean , do you know how many people are starving because rats eat the food ?
This is absolutely a great thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a food that kills rats.
How can you possibly get angry about a food that kills rats?
I mean, do you know how many people are starving because rats eat the food?
This is absolutely a great thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750178</id>
	<title>Re:we need GMO foods</title>
	<author>Punko</author>
	<datestamp>1263396780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.  If you increase the food supply, you will have the base population expand and then have more people starving.  If the worlds' population is stable, and you increase the food supply, then its a win. But we have already shown that the human population is expanding and will continue to expand until the mortality rate equals birthrate for the planet as a whole.  you want more people to die of starvation? Increase the food supply and wait.  You want fewer people to die of starvation? Reduce base human population and the number of people starving will go down.  Kill of 2B now,  and number of starving folks (always some percentage of total population) will be reduced.  Sorry folks, but animal herds done regulate themselves until a significant portion of the population is on the tipping point of starvation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
If you increase the food supply , you will have the base population expand and then have more people starving .
If the worlds ' population is stable , and you increase the food supply , then its a win .
But we have already shown that the human population is expanding and will continue to expand until the mortality rate equals birthrate for the planet as a whole .
you want more people to die of starvation ?
Increase the food supply and wait .
You want fewer people to die of starvation ?
Reduce base human population and the number of people starving will go down .
Kill of 2B now , and number of starving folks ( always some percentage of total population ) will be reduced .
Sorry folks , but animal herds done regulate themselves until a significant portion of the population is on the tipping point of starvation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
If you increase the food supply, you will have the base population expand and then have more people starving.
If the worlds' population is stable, and you increase the food supply, then its a win.
But we have already shown that the human population is expanding and will continue to expand until the mortality rate equals birthrate for the planet as a whole.
you want more people to die of starvation?
Increase the food supply and wait.
You want fewer people to die of starvation?
Reduce base human population and the number of people starving will go down.
Kill of 2B now,  and number of starving folks (always some percentage of total population) will be reduced.
Sorry folks, but animal herds done regulate themselves until a significant portion of the population is on the tipping point of starvation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751416</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263401760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an absurd question.  Checking for poisoned foods (whether it's via spraying or GM) has pretty much nothing to do with it being a "free market" or not.</p><p>Besides, I think most people understand that there is a difference between "free market" and unregulated anarchy.  The problem comes in when regulations are put in place not to provide a level playing field, but to artificially prop up companies/industries that would have otherwise failed on said level playing field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an absurd question .
Checking for poisoned foods ( whether it 's via spraying or GM ) has pretty much nothing to do with it being a " free market " or not.Besides , I think most people understand that there is a difference between " free market " and unregulated anarchy .
The problem comes in when regulations are put in place not to provide a level playing field , but to artificially prop up companies/industries that would have otherwise failed on said level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an absurd question.
Checking for poisoned foods (whether it's via spraying or GM) has pretty much nothing to do with it being a "free market" or not.Besides, I think most people understand that there is a difference between "free market" and unregulated anarchy.
The problem comes in when regulations are put in place not to provide a level playing field, but to artificially prop up companies/industries that would have otherwise failed on said level playing field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750254</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1263397140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?</p></div><p>In a free market, you wouldn't have patents, trademarks, copyrights, so I highly doubt the genitive case of "Monsanto's GM corn".</p><p>Also without the federal govt collecting our income taxes, skimming off quite a percentage for salaries and corruption, and then distributing money to politically connected corn farmers, I really don't think we'd be growing much corn.</p><p>Finally, if we had a free market, that would imply informed consumers making intelligent choices, so I think we'd simply not buy the bad stuff.</p><p>If the above is "not possible", which I believe, then I guess a free market is not possible, so we need to have the govt control it and regulate the hell out of it, in my opinion, just like health care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto 's GM corn ? In a free market , you would n't have patents , trademarks , copyrights , so I highly doubt the genitive case of " Monsanto 's GM corn " .Also without the federal govt collecting our income taxes , skimming off quite a percentage for salaries and corruption , and then distributing money to politically connected corn farmers , I really do n't think we 'd be growing much corn.Finally , if we had a free market , that would imply informed consumers making intelligent choices , so I think we 'd simply not buy the bad stuff.If the above is " not possible " , which I believe , then I guess a free market is not possible , so we need to have the govt control it and regulate the hell out of it , in my opinion , just like health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?In a free market, you wouldn't have patents, trademarks, copyrights, so I highly doubt the genitive case of "Monsanto's GM corn".Also without the federal govt collecting our income taxes, skimming off quite a percentage for salaries and corruption, and then distributing money to politically connected corn farmers, I really don't think we'd be growing much corn.Finally, if we had a free market, that would imply informed consumers making intelligent choices, so I think we'd simply not buy the bad stuff.If the above is "not possible", which I believe, then I guess a free market is not possible, so we need to have the govt control it and regulate the hell out of it, in my opinion, just like health care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752254</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1263405120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to sign a contract with Monsanto to purchase their seeds. Did you ever stop to think that this contract may prohibit testing and/or releasing public information in regards to that testing? These researchers might be trying to find a loophole, where the results were published elsewhere and they are aggregating them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to sign a contract with Monsanto to purchase their seeds .
Did you ever stop to think that this contract may prohibit testing and/or releasing public information in regards to that testing ?
These researchers might be trying to find a loophole , where the results were published elsewhere and they are aggregating them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to sign a contract with Monsanto to purchase their seeds.
Did you ever stop to think that this contract may prohibit testing and/or releasing public information in regards to that testing?
These researchers might be trying to find a loophole, where the results were published elsewhere and they are aggregating them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751310</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263401340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a civilised country after all...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a civilised country after all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a civilised country after all...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1263393120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article\_15573.cfm" title="organicconsumers.org">I </a> [organicconsumers.org]
<a href="http://www2.dupont.com/Our\_Company/en\_US/executives/fisher.html" title="dupont.com">have </a> [dupont.com] <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/22-14" title="commondreams.org">no </a> [commondreams.org] <a href="http://iowaindependent.com/22980/iowa-law-firm-files-as-monsanto-lobbyist-in-advance-of-ag-antitrust-workshop" title="iowaindependent.com">idea.</a> [iowaindependent.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I [ organicconsumers.org ] have [ dupont.com ] no [ commondreams.org ] idea .
[ iowaindependent.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I  [organicconsumers.org]
have  [dupont.com] no  [commondreams.org] idea.
[iowaindependent.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749804</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1263394800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.</i> <br> <br>

No, you're misunderstanding. They don't allow the use of pesticides, the pesticides have been inserted into their genome. The pesticides are derived from bacterial DNA that is naturally herbicidal. Unfortunately, it's also a rodenticide, which means it's probably pretty poisonous to us as well..</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like the issue is n't the GM itself , but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits .
No , you 're misunderstanding .
They do n't allow the use of pesticides , the pesticides have been inserted into their genome .
The pesticides are derived from bacterial DNA that is naturally herbicidal .
Unfortunately , it 's also a rodenticide , which means it 's probably pretty poisonous to us as well. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.
No, you're misunderstanding.
They don't allow the use of pesticides, the pesticides have been inserted into their genome.
The pesticides are derived from bacterial DNA that is naturally herbicidal.
Unfortunately, it's also a rodenticide, which means it's probably pretty poisonous to us as well..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750624</id>
	<title>Cross breeding issues</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1263398580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My concern, which doesn't appear to have been raised yet, is this shit blows around in the wind and cross-breeds with non-GMO corn. I'm guessing nobody has any idea how badly this has happened yet. This stuff could be ending up in our food, making the most important and second largest cash crop (after marijuana) in the US  poisonous to consumers. I wonder why that doesn't sit well with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My concern , which does n't appear to have been raised yet , is this shit blows around in the wind and cross-breeds with non-GMO corn .
I 'm guessing nobody has any idea how badly this has happened yet .
This stuff could be ending up in our food , making the most important and second largest cash crop ( after marijuana ) in the US poisonous to consumers .
I wonder why that does n't sit well with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My concern, which doesn't appear to have been raised yet, is this shit blows around in the wind and cross-breeds with non-GMO corn.
I'm guessing nobody has any idea how badly this has happened yet.
This stuff could be ending up in our food, making the most important and second largest cash crop (after marijuana) in the US  poisonous to consumers.
I wonder why that doesn't sit well with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749994</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263395820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point, but I wonder if we can really decouple these two things.  The whole point of most of these modifications is to allow farmers to spray the crops heavily without damaging them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point , but I wonder if we can really decouple these two things .
The whole point of most of these modifications is to allow farmers to spray the crops heavily without damaging them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point, but I wonder if we can really decouple these two things.
The whole point of most of these modifications is to allow farmers to spray the crops heavily without damaging them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749700</id>
	<title>Good luck with that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I think I'll do my best to avoid corn altogether</p></div><p>If anyone has ever read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Omnivore's\_Dilemma" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Omnivore's Dilemma</a> [wikipedia.org], you'll realize that in American culture, the only way to stay away from GMO corn is to stay completely away from processed foods - I'm not sure about the Organic brands.</p><p>But you just know that the GMO corn makers are just going to take the cigarette companies' play book and stall any legitimate inquiries and just poo-poo any facts and studies that that show their product in an unfavorable light..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'll do my best to avoid corn altogetherIf anyone has ever read The Omnivore 's Dilemma [ wikipedia.org ] , you 'll realize that in American culture , the only way to stay away from GMO corn is to stay completely away from processed foods - I 'm not sure about the Organic brands.But you just know that the GMO corn makers are just going to take the cigarette companies ' play book and stall any legitimate inquiries and just poo-poo any facts and studies that that show their product in an unfavorable light. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think I'll do my best to avoid corn altogetherIf anyone has ever read The Omnivore's Dilemma [wikipedia.org], you'll realize that in American culture, the only way to stay away from GMO corn is to stay completely away from processed foods - I'm not sure about the Organic brands.But you just know that the GMO corn makers are just going to take the cigarette companies' play book and stall any legitimate inquiries and just poo-poo any facts and studies that that show their product in an unfavorable light..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754214</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>transami</author>
	<datestamp>1263412680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. The problem with GM is not the tech itself. The tech can certainly be used for good --increased vitamin content for instance. But we were lied to. Instead of using GM to produce better food, all those government/taxpayer research dollars went to produce lower quality food for the sake of higher yields and thus higher profits. We already know that pesticides are bad for us. Now they use GM's to allow 10x more to be used. It's criminal really. But that seems to be the way of everything today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The problem with GM is not the tech itself .
The tech can certainly be used for good --increased vitamin content for instance .
But we were lied to .
Instead of using GM to produce better food , all those government/taxpayer research dollars went to produce lower quality food for the sake of higher yields and thus higher profits .
We already know that pesticides are bad for us .
Now they use GM 's to allow 10x more to be used .
It 's criminal really .
But that seems to be the way of everything today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The problem with GM is not the tech itself.
The tech can certainly be used for good --increased vitamin content for instance.
But we were lied to.
Instead of using GM to produce better food, all those government/taxpayer research dollars went to produce lower quality food for the sake of higher yields and thus higher profits.
We already know that pesticides are bad for us.
Now they use GM's to allow 10x more to be used.
It's criminal really.
But that seems to be the way of everything today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755862</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263375780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All you "socialism" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:</p><p>How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually Party members in charge of corn production?</p></div><p>Judging by the "Party" reference, you 1) confuse socialism and authoritarianism, and 2) think that, if one stands against extreme forms of capitalism, one can only stand for extreme forms of socialism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All you " socialism " enthusiasts out there , answer this question for me : How would the unencumbered " socialism " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually Party members in charge of corn production ? Judging by the " Party " reference , you 1 ) confuse socialism and authoritarianism , and 2 ) think that , if one stands against extreme forms of capitalism , one can only stand for extreme forms of socialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you "socialism" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually Party members in charge of corn production?Judging by the "Party" reference, you 1) confuse socialism and authoritarianism, and 2) think that, if one stands against extreme forms of capitalism, one can only stand for extreme forms of socialism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750160</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263396720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kinda like Tree Ring temperature correlations eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like Tree Ring temperature correlations eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like Tree Ring temperature correlations eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749736</id>
	<title>So, no more rat problem in the corn field</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1263394260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first read the title, I thought this was some sort of intentional solution targeted at controlling rats in corn fields. They just need to tweak this to be more targeted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first read the title , I thought this was some sort of intentional solution targeted at controlling rats in corn fields .
They just need to tweak this to be more targeted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first read the title, I thought this was some sort of intentional solution targeted at controlling rats in corn fields.
They just need to tweak this to be more targeted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30756602</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study???!!! I"ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes."</p><p>Or because you can't do research on Monsanto corn without a contract, on account of their patent.</p><p>That, and, because the STUDY HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE, and the company that paid for it WAS HIDING THAT DATA.</p><p>If they'd just given it up without a fight, this would have come to light nearly a decade ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study ? ? ? ! ! !
I " ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes .
" Or because you ca n't do research on Monsanto corn without a contract , on account of their patent.That , and , because the STUDY HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE , and the company that paid for it WAS HIDING THAT DATA.If they 'd just given it up without a fight , this would have come to light nearly a decade ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study???!!!
I"ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes.
"Or because you can't do research on Monsanto corn without a contract, on account of their patent.That, and, because the STUDY HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE, and the company that paid for it WAS HIDING THAT DATA.If they'd just given it up without a fight, this would have come to light nearly a decade ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752340</id>
	<title>Re:Yummy Roundup!</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1263405360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool, maybe the mosquitoes will quit eating me alive every summer!
<br>
<br>

-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , maybe the mosquitoes will quit eating me alive every summer !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, maybe the mosquitoes will quit eating me alive every summer!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751650</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263402660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong, but keep on milking your sacred cow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong , but keep on milking your sacred cow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong, but keep on milking your sacred cow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750288</id>
	<title>Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1263397260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Goodwin's law needs to include some extras.</p><p>Long before Hitler is mentioned, invariably, George Bush will be mentioned and associated with the target of the post...as in "George Bush's pal Tony Blair".</p><p>Also, those who dispute the main idea of the post/discussion or the authors of studies/articles, etc. that support the dissenter, will be accused of being paid by the target of post/discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Goodwin 's law needs to include some extras.Long before Hitler is mentioned , invariably , George Bush will be mentioned and associated with the target of the post...as in " George Bush 's pal Tony Blair " .Also , those who dispute the main idea of the post/discussion or the authors of studies/articles , etc .
that support the dissenter , will be accused of being paid by the target of post/discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Goodwin's law needs to include some extras.Long before Hitler is mentioned, invariably, George Bush will be mentioned and associated with the target of the post...as in "George Bush's pal Tony Blair".Also, those who dispute the main idea of the post/discussion or the authors of studies/articles, etc.
that support the dissenter, will be accused of being paid by the target of post/discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750464</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>7n7</author>
	<datestamp>1263397980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can't even get enough people together to storm DC and lynch all the politicians there who have been screwing us royally for decades.  What makes you think anyone would storm Monsanto headquarters over some bad corn?
<br>
<br>

TNT</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't even get enough people together to storm DC and lynch all the politicians there who have been screwing us royally for decades .
What makes you think anyone would storm Monsanto headquarters over some bad corn ?
TNT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't even get enough people together to storm DC and lynch all the politicians there who have been screwing us royally for decades.
What makes you think anyone would storm Monsanto headquarters over some bad corn?
TNT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751852</id>
	<title>Sue them rats ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the farmers before them , whose  grasses  were allegedly pollinated merely by the  wind from so called G Modified  stuff, they may  go ahead and Sue  the rats who are just as Dumbfounded  .<br>The rats having  taken no action they can control and yet being held liable and falsely outrageously Blamed for nothing they did or had any control over .<br>Albeit twisted, Such a lawsuit might  nonetheless  be accepted in the USA  by some Jackass liberal  Judge hypothetical named   Judge Jerk'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,. Knowing full well  that  the rats cant pay and can in no way be held legally liable due to a raisin sized brain . This gives the  rats a mentally incapable obvious  defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the farmers before them , whose grasses were allegedly pollinated merely by the wind from so called G Modified stuff , they may go ahead and Sue the rats who are just as Dumbfounded .The rats having taken no action they can control and yet being held liable and falsely outrageously Blamed for nothing they did or had any control over .Albeit twisted , Such a lawsuit might nonetheless be accepted in the USA by some Jackass liberal Judge hypothetical named Judge Jerk ' , .
Knowing full well that the rats cant pay and can in no way be held legally liable due to a raisin sized brain .
This gives the rats a mentally incapable obvious defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the farmers before them , whose  grasses  were allegedly pollinated merely by the  wind from so called G Modified  stuff, they may  go ahead and Sue  the rats who are just as Dumbfounded  .The rats having  taken no action they can control and yet being held liable and falsely outrageously Blamed for nothing they did or had any control over .Albeit twisted, Such a lawsuit might  nonetheless  be accepted in the USA  by some Jackass liberal  Judge hypothetical named   Judge Jerk' ,.
Knowing full well  that  the rats cant pay and can in no way be held legally liable due to a raisin sized brain .
This gives the  rats a mentally incapable obvious  defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460</id>
	<title>forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto <a href="http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2010/01/04/forbes-monsanto-company-of-the-year/" title="monsantoblog.com">company of the year.</a> [monsantoblog.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year .
[ monsantoblog.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year.
[monsantoblog.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751000</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, people would stop eating GM corn products. And GM wheat products. And GM soy products. And meat and dairy products from cattle fed with GM feed. But that's ok, 'cuz Monsanto can just GM the people, so they can survive through photosynthesis.</p><p>I don't know about you, but once my liver and kidneys have been damaged by a defective product, there is no redress civil courts can provide. Lynching the Monsanto executives wouldn't make me feel any better either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , people would stop eating GM corn products .
And GM wheat products .
And GM soy products .
And meat and dairy products from cattle fed with GM feed .
But that 's ok , 'cuz Monsanto can just GM the people , so they can survive through photosynthesis.I do n't know about you , but once my liver and kidneys have been damaged by a defective product , there is no redress civil courts can provide .
Lynching the Monsanto executives would n't make me feel any better either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, people would stop eating GM corn products.
And GM wheat products.
And GM soy products.
And meat and dairy products from cattle fed with GM feed.
But that's ok, 'cuz Monsanto can just GM the people, so they can survive through photosynthesis.I don't know about you, but once my liver and kidneys have been damaged by a defective product, there is no redress civil courts can provide.
Lynching the Monsanto executives wouldn't make me feel any better either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750364</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1263397620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read about this a couple of days ago while looking into artificial flavouring actually.. the info is out there for people who care enough to look.</p><p>Having said that, just because food has one effect on rats, does not mean that it has the same effect on humans. I also found a couple of experiments on animals where they'd feed birds, pigs etc higher levels of protein in their diet and they'd end up with cancer.. I read a good book recently about studies of carbs and fat on humans, but it annoyingly didn't mention protein at all..</p><p>Anyway, processed corn based foods are just generally no good nutritionally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about this a couple of days ago while looking into artificial flavouring actually.. the info is out there for people who care enough to look.Having said that , just because food has one effect on rats , does not mean that it has the same effect on humans .
I also found a couple of experiments on animals where they 'd feed birds , pigs etc higher levels of protein in their diet and they 'd end up with cancer.. I read a good book recently about studies of carbs and fat on humans , but it annoyingly did n't mention protein at all..Anyway , processed corn based foods are just generally no good nutritionally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about this a couple of days ago while looking into artificial flavouring actually.. the info is out there for people who care enough to look.Having said that, just because food has one effect on rats, does not mean that it has the same effect on humans.
I also found a couple of experiments on animals where they'd feed birds, pigs etc higher levels of protein in their diet and they'd end up with cancer.. I read a good book recently about studies of carbs and fat on humans, but it annoyingly didn't mention protein at all..Anyway, processed corn based foods are just generally no good nutritionally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749576</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263393240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not disturbing at all. They are <i>all</i> in this together. It's not outright collusion but they all play this game of one hand washing the other in the name of corporate profits. Under eight years of a Republican President nothing was done that might get in the way of businesses making money, and it probably started a lot sooner than that. People may just love their little gadgets and such, but huge multinational corporations, based in a country whose government has an unbridled addiction to money, are really cultural poison. In the coming decades this will begin to come to light.</p><p>You don't have to be "organic". Just eating "natural" is not that expensive. And much healthier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not disturbing at all .
They are all in this together .
It 's not outright collusion but they all play this game of one hand washing the other in the name of corporate profits .
Under eight years of a Republican President nothing was done that might get in the way of businesses making money , and it probably started a lot sooner than that .
People may just love their little gadgets and such , but huge multinational corporations , based in a country whose government has an unbridled addiction to money , are really cultural poison .
In the coming decades this will begin to come to light.You do n't have to be " organic " .
Just eating " natural " is not that expensive .
And much healthier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not disturbing at all.
They are all in this together.
It's not outright collusion but they all play this game of one hand washing the other in the name of corporate profits.
Under eight years of a Republican President nothing was done that might get in the way of businesses making money, and it probably started a lot sooner than that.
People may just love their little gadgets and such, but huge multinational corporations, based in a country whose government has an unbridled addiction to money, are really cultural poison.
In the coming decades this will begin to come to light.You don't have to be "organic".
Just eating "natural" is not that expensive.
And much healthier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753092</id>
	<title>Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?</title>
	<author>RalphTheWonderLlama</author>
	<datestamp>1263408000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it's easy to criticize megacorps, but Monsanto employs a LOT of people where I live.  Not only that, they really put a lot of money into science - have a large payroll for scientists, researches, lab workers.  They are a biotech driver.  It's better to have them here than another country for many reasons.  One is that we CAN criticize them here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it 's easy to criticize megacorps , but Monsanto employs a LOT of people where I live .
Not only that , they really put a lot of money into science - have a large payroll for scientists , researches , lab workers .
They are a biotech driver .
It 's better to have them here than another country for many reasons .
One is that we CAN criticize them here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it's easy to criticize megacorps, but Monsanto employs a LOT of people where I live.
Not only that, they really put a lot of money into science - have a large payroll for scientists, researches, lab workers.
They are a biotech driver.
It's better to have them here than another country for many reasons.
One is that we CAN criticize them here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752902</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually didn't."</p><p>Are you stupid?</p><p>To me, it's clear they got the data elsewhere and are offering their analysis of that data.  I don't see where this is unclear as you make it sound.  It's also very clear upfront by the story and the comments even on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., and that's saying something.</p><p>Further, there's no way you are a PhD and have never encountered this.  There are always reviews of literature, opinion letters, and counter opinions on top articles in many scientific journals where non-authors of the original papers rehash and reinterpret or offer differing analysis of someone else's data.  I've seen this in physics and biology journals.</p><p>And it's also commonly accepted, esp. in biology, to take data, aggregate it AMONGST multiple studies between multiple papers by different authors and institutions, and apply statistical analysis to them.  Many times, no new original data is added to the analysis.</p><p>I've even seen this more direct method, which you are criticizing, multiple times.  People take someone else's data, and reanalyze it applying a different algorithm or data interpretation.  No wet work or replication of the experiment were done in those either; they got the raw data and went at it.  It's particularly seen in the physics and computer and astronomy worlds, where people take images, data sets, and rerun them.  Usually it's done with huge datasets done that were generated for another reason though or to apply a new method of thinking.</p><p>Here, it was done over litigated and freshly uncovered data.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, because if you do, there's a shitload of papers done in nearly any other scientific discipline where less direct application is done and routinely accepted.</p><p>So where the hell do you get off saying never?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually did n't .
" Are you stupid ? To me , it 's clear they got the data elsewhere and are offering their analysis of that data .
I do n't see where this is unclear as you make it sound .
It 's also very clear upfront by the story and the comments even on /. , and that 's saying something.Further , there 's no way you are a PhD and have never encountered this .
There are always reviews of literature , opinion letters , and counter opinions on top articles in many scientific journals where non-authors of the original papers rehash and reinterpret or offer differing analysis of someone else 's data .
I 've seen this in physics and biology journals.And it 's also commonly accepted , esp .
in biology , to take data , aggregate it AMONGST multiple studies between multiple papers by different authors and institutions , and apply statistical analysis to them .
Many times , no new original data is added to the analysis.I 've even seen this more direct method , which you are criticizing , multiple times .
People take someone else 's data , and reanalyze it applying a different algorithm or data interpretation .
No wet work or replication of the experiment were done in those either ; they got the raw data and went at it .
It 's particularly seen in the physics and computer and astronomy worlds , where people take images , data sets , and rerun them .
Usually it 's done with huge datasets done that were generated for another reason though or to apply a new method of thinking.Here , it was done over litigated and freshly uncovered data .
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it , because if you do , there 's a shitload of papers done in nearly any other scientific discipline where less direct application is done and routinely accepted.So where the hell do you get off saying never ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually didn't.
"Are you stupid?To me, it's clear they got the data elsewhere and are offering their analysis of that data.
I don't see where this is unclear as you make it sound.
It's also very clear upfront by the story and the comments even on /., and that's saying something.Further, there's no way you are a PhD and have never encountered this.
There are always reviews of literature, opinion letters, and counter opinions on top articles in many scientific journals where non-authors of the original papers rehash and reinterpret or offer differing analysis of someone else's data.
I've seen this in physics and biology journals.And it's also commonly accepted, esp.
in biology, to take data, aggregate it AMONGST multiple studies between multiple papers by different authors and institutions, and apply statistical analysis to them.
Many times, no new original data is added to the analysis.I've even seen this more direct method, which you are criticizing, multiple times.
People take someone else's data, and reanalyze it applying a different algorithm or data interpretation.
No wet work or replication of the experiment were done in those either; they got the raw data and went at it.
It's particularly seen in the physics and computer and astronomy worlds, where people take images, data sets, and rerun them.
Usually it's done with huge datasets done that were generated for another reason though or to apply a new method of thinking.Here, it was done over litigated and freshly uncovered data.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, because if you do, there's a shitload of papers done in nearly any other scientific discipline where less direct application is done and routinely accepted.So where the hell do you get off saying never?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754676</id>
	<title>Please read the study...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, I am a bit worried by the mindless chatter from many people on both sides of the debate here. I trust you read the article ? It is freely accessible. Noticed how they blast the miniscule amount of data not allowing the critically important dose-response relationship ? Then go ahead and talk of an 'obvious dose-response' using the same data ? With their ciritcal point being one mean value ? (Oh, please notice that it is perfectly fine to replace the used statistics with their own take on it, which really seems superior. But they still do not have enough data for any dose-response-relationship, which makes everything else interesting but meaningless. To the pro-GMO crowd - please ignore the rather worrisome, agressive style of the text and instead notice the valid criticism of the lack of data. Keep in mind that while they do slightly exaggerate to make a point, the same point would stand without exaggeration).</p><p>Things to take away from this (in my opinion):<br>a) If third parties call someone 'independent' - check to see if true (hint: these researchers are not). But please keep in mind that being dependent on a source of money does not automatically mean someone is wrong.</p><p>b) Commercially motivated animal testing has to be subject to far better statistical analysis. The authors are mostly right - not nearly enough data.</p><p>c) Calling data insufficient for a specific analysis and then using it to prrof your own agenda ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... not so good</p><p>d) Do not automatically trust a study or an organization just because they seem to be on your side.</p><p>Two more things to mention:<br>1) Even if this would be proof that one GMO is dangerous (not convincing, which is a pity - that would have been interesting, to say the least), it would not follow that it ios ok to generalize to all GMOs. But it would be good incitement to ask for better controls (which everyone one should anyways)</p><p>2) Sorry to everyone who feels offended. Please take a deep breath and remember that I certainly did not mean you. You are a rational, critical thinker, after all !</p><p>Cheers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I am a bit worried by the mindless chatter from many people on both sides of the debate here .
I trust you read the article ?
It is freely accessible .
Noticed how they blast the miniscule amount of data not allowing the critically important dose-response relationship ?
Then go ahead and talk of an 'obvious dose-response ' using the same data ?
With their ciritcal point being one mean value ?
( Oh , please notice that it is perfectly fine to replace the used statistics with their own take on it , which really seems superior .
But they still do not have enough data for any dose-response-relationship , which makes everything else interesting but meaningless .
To the pro-GMO crowd - please ignore the rather worrisome , agressive style of the text and instead notice the valid criticism of the lack of data .
Keep in mind that while they do slightly exaggerate to make a point , the same point would stand without exaggeration ) .Things to take away from this ( in my opinion ) : a ) If third parties call someone 'independent ' - check to see if true ( hint : these researchers are not ) .
But please keep in mind that being dependent on a source of money does not automatically mean someone is wrong.b ) Commercially motivated animal testing has to be subject to far better statistical analysis .
The authors are mostly right - not nearly enough data.c ) Calling data insufficient for a specific analysis and then using it to prrof your own agenda ?
.... not so goodd ) Do not automatically trust a study or an organization just because they seem to be on your side.Two more things to mention : 1 ) Even if this would be proof that one GMO is dangerous ( not convincing , which is a pity - that would have been interesting , to say the least ) , it would not follow that it ios ok to generalize to all GMOs .
But it would be good incitement to ask for better controls ( which everyone one should anyways ) 2 ) Sorry to everyone who feels offended .
Please take a deep breath and remember that I certainly did not mean you .
You are a rational , critical thinker , after all ! Cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I am a bit worried by the mindless chatter from many people on both sides of the debate here.
I trust you read the article ?
It is freely accessible.
Noticed how they blast the miniscule amount of data not allowing the critically important dose-response relationship ?
Then go ahead and talk of an 'obvious dose-response' using the same data ?
With their ciritcal point being one mean value ?
(Oh, please notice that it is perfectly fine to replace the used statistics with their own take on it, which really seems superior.
But they still do not have enough data for any dose-response-relationship, which makes everything else interesting but meaningless.
To the pro-GMO crowd - please ignore the rather worrisome, agressive style of the text and instead notice the valid criticism of the lack of data.
Keep in mind that while they do slightly exaggerate to make a point, the same point would stand without exaggeration).Things to take away from this (in my opinion):a) If third parties call someone 'independent' - check to see if true (hint: these researchers are not).
But please keep in mind that being dependent on a source of money does not automatically mean someone is wrong.b) Commercially motivated animal testing has to be subject to far better statistical analysis.
The authors are mostly right - not nearly enough data.c) Calling data insufficient for a specific analysis and then using it to prrof your own agenda ?
.... not so goodd) Do not automatically trust a study or an organization just because they seem to be on your side.Two more things to mention:1) Even if this would be proof that one GMO is dangerous (not convincing, which is a pity - that would have been interesting, to say the least), it would not follow that it ios ok to generalize to all GMOs.
But it would be good incitement to ask for better controls (which everyone one should anyways)2) Sorry to everyone who feels offended.
Please take a deep breath and remember that I certainly did not mean you.
You are a rational, critical thinker, after all !Cheers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750190</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>SBFCOblivion</author>
	<datestamp>1263396900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752238</id>
	<title>Re:government protection</title>
	<author>jecblackpepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263405000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Even <b>tobacco companies</b> wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?"</p><p>There is a long history of companies who were completely willing to sell products that end up killing their customers, provided that they made a profit from them first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Even tobacco companies would n't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees , right ?
" There is a long history of companies who were completely willing to sell products that end up killing their customers , provided that they made a profit from them first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Even tobacco companies wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?
"There is a long history of companies who were completely willing to sell products that end up killing their customers, provided that they made a profit from them first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753904</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ding ding ding ding ding!!!</p><p>Finally, someone who actually read the first few sentences of the article!</p><p>(Not that permitting the over-use of the pesticides could not be considered an intrinsic problem).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ding ding ding ding ding ! !
! Finally , someone who actually read the first few sentences of the article !
( Not that permitting the over-use of the pesticides could not be considered an intrinsic problem ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ding ding ding ding ding!!
!Finally, someone who actually read the first few sentences of the article!
(Not that permitting the over-use of the pesticides could not be considered an intrinsic problem).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750044</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263396060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?<br></i><br>It's called "trade secrets". I hope it comes back and bites them in the ass; there will be lawsuits by people with liver damage, even if they're drinkers or use a lot of Tylenol. Win or lose it'll be expensive for Monsanto, and I for one will cheer the people suing them on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years ? It 's called " trade secrets " .
I hope it comes back and bites them in the ass ; there will be lawsuits by people with liver damage , even if they 're drinkers or use a lot of Tylenol .
Win or lose it 'll be expensive for Monsanto , and I for one will cheer the people suing them on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?It's called "trade secrets".
I hope it comes back and bites them in the ass; there will be lawsuits by people with liver damage, even if they're drinkers or use a lot of Tylenol.
Win or lose it'll be expensive for Monsanto, and I for one will cheer the people suing them on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750136</id>
	<title>Good 'ol Monsanto</title>
	<author>revlayle</author>
	<datestamp>1263396600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They want to own food and the IPs for any GMOs they make and them force them into countries an markets.  While i usually try to avoid hype documentaries, I do recommend watching "Food, Inc." as a starting insight into the evil of Monsanto (as well as the meat industry) - maybe biased but still a GOOD watch.  The find a French documentary (usually it is subtitled or dubbed) called "The World According to Monsanto" for more details on the companies practices.  Remember, before food, they created Agent Orange (as well as all the other "rainbow" Agent herbicides).  Because of these shows, I have tried to buy my food from local source, and try to buy (unsuccessfully) in season (when i do buy out of season, I try Whole Foods, dunno if they are THAT better, but the one in Tulsa is good) - all my meat comes from a local butcher now and local livestock feed in conventional ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They want to own food and the IPs for any GMOs they make and them force them into countries an markets .
While i usually try to avoid hype documentaries , I do recommend watching " Food , Inc. " as a starting insight into the evil of Monsanto ( as well as the meat industry ) - maybe biased but still a GOOD watch .
The find a French documentary ( usually it is subtitled or dubbed ) called " The World According to Monsanto " for more details on the companies practices .
Remember , before food , they created Agent Orange ( as well as all the other " rainbow " Agent herbicides ) .
Because of these shows , I have tried to buy my food from local source , and try to buy ( unsuccessfully ) in season ( when i do buy out of season , I try Whole Foods , dunno if they are THAT better , but the one in Tulsa is good ) - all my meat comes from a local butcher now and local livestock feed in conventional ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want to own food and the IPs for any GMOs they make and them force them into countries an markets.
While i usually try to avoid hype documentaries, I do recommend watching "Food, Inc." as a starting insight into the evil of Monsanto (as well as the meat industry) - maybe biased but still a GOOD watch.
The find a French documentary (usually it is subtitled or dubbed) called "The World According to Monsanto" for more details on the companies practices.
Remember, before food, they created Agent Orange (as well as all the other "rainbow" Agent herbicides).
Because of these shows, I have tried to buy my food from local source, and try to buy (unsuccessfully) in season (when i do buy out of season, I try Whole Foods, dunno if they are THAT better, but the one in Tulsa is good) - all my meat comes from a local butcher now and local livestock feed in conventional ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749978</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263395700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how am I going to be SCARED of GM corn if it's due to something else?</p><p>Big science-y words like "genetic" and "nuclear" are supposed to scare the pants off me for no reason!! You can't take that away from me, it's all I have!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how am I going to be SCARED of GM corn if it 's due to something else ? Big science-y words like " genetic " and " nuclear " are supposed to scare the pants off me for no reason ! !
You ca n't take that away from me , it 's all I have !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how am I going to be SCARED of GM corn if it's due to something else?Big science-y words like "genetic" and "nuclear" are supposed to scare the pants off me for no reason!!
You can't take that away from me, it's all I have!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752394</id>
	<title>Lack of Control Experiments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a reason this is appearing in a fourth rate journal.  There are no control experiments.  How do you know that soybeans or some other food substance won't do the same thing to rats.  The rat intestinal system isn't exactly identical to humans'.  For example, here's a rodenticide made exclusively from corn cellulose that's supposed to be non-toxic to humans: <a href="http://www.freshpatents.com/Rodenticide-dt20070816ptan20070190098.php" title="freshpatents.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.freshpatents.com/Rodenticide-dt20070816ptan20070190098.php</a> [freshpatents.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason this is appearing in a fourth rate journal .
There are no control experiments .
How do you know that soybeans or some other food substance wo n't do the same thing to rats .
The rat intestinal system is n't exactly identical to humans' .
For example , here 's a rodenticide made exclusively from corn cellulose that 's supposed to be non-toxic to humans : http : //www.freshpatents.com/Rodenticide-dt20070816ptan20070190098.php [ freshpatents.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason this is appearing in a fourth rate journal.
There are no control experiments.
How do you know that soybeans or some other food substance won't do the same thing to rats.
The rat intestinal system isn't exactly identical to humans'.
For example, here's a rodenticide made exclusively from corn cellulose that's supposed to be non-toxic to humans: http://www.freshpatents.com/Rodenticide-dt20070816ptan20070190098.php [freshpatents.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751124</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1263400680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it is not a ground breaking, fundamental science result, which is what Science and Nature tend to publish. They also wouldn't publish a result about the safety of side airbags in KIA cars, although, technically, it is physics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is not a ground breaking , fundamental science result , which is what Science and Nature tend to publish .
They also would n't publish a result about the safety of side airbags in KIA cars , although , technically , it is physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is not a ground breaking, fundamental science result, which is what Science and Nature tend to publish.
They also wouldn't publish a result about the safety of side airbags in KIA cars, although, technically, it is physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750744</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1263399060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, on the plus side, the world *is* overpopulated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , on the plus side , the world * is * overpopulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, on the plus side, the world *is* overpopulated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753786</id>
	<title>Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory</title>
	<author>EEBaum</author>
	<datestamp>1263410940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery</p></div><p>You, sir/madam, are what is called an idealist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this out-and-out corruption through briberyYou , sir/madam , are what is called an idealist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this out-and-out corruption through briberyYou, sir/madam, are what is called an idealist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753692</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title and summary !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 3 authors are not scientists but well known french anti-GMO activists. Once you know their inherent biais and politic background, you know it is a complete waste of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 3 authors are not scientists but well known french anti-GMO activists .
Once you know their inherent biais and politic background , you know it is a complete waste of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 3 authors are not scientists but well known french anti-GMO activists.
Once you know their inherent biais and politic background, you know it is a complete waste of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752326</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH...</p></div><p>Are suggesting that corn is a mammal?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH...Are suggesting that corn is a mammal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH...Are suggesting that corn is a mammal?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752698</id>
	<title>All the top schools!</title>
	<author>BancBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263406620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>
 their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, (...) Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.</i></p>
 </div><p>Panaphonics? Magnetbox? Sorny?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton , ( ... ) Vancerbilt , Nortwestern , UC , etc .
Panaphonics ? Magnetbox ?
Sorny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
 their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, (...) Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.
Panaphonics? Magnetbox?
Sorny?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</id>
	<title>An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know enough about toxicity studies to analyze this too closely but then as I read it, there is some "fishy" stuff going on.. First off, though - these researchers did not set up these studies. They used lawyers to get data from some of these companies or something like that- it's kind of vague. I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually didn't. You are just trying to take the numbers and draw your own conclusion.<br>They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. " They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe. That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.</p><p>They also note that the control corn fed the rats in these studies was not similar enough to the GM variety to be good controls.</p><p>OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study???!!! I"ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes. How can you pick apart an experimental design and then use that data and say YOUR conclusions are valid. This is insulting and I still do not believe this can be a legitimate journal (although I can't find much on it online).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know enough about toxicity studies to analyze this too closely but then as I read it , there is some " fishy " stuff going on.. First off , though - these researchers did not set up these studies .
They used lawyers to get data from some of these companies or something like that- it 's kind of vague .
I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually did n't .
You are just trying to take the numbers and draw your own conclusion.They say in one part : " The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto .
" They say that because they think Monsanto should n't say the corn is safe - but then they ( these researchers ) are using that same " Insufficient " data to say it 's unsafe .
That 's the way this whole paper is- it just does n't jive together.They also note that the control corn fed the rats in these studies was not similar enough to the GM variety to be good controls.OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study ? ? ? ! ! !
I " ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes .
How can you pick apart an experimental design and then use that data and say YOUR conclusions are valid .
This is insulting and I still do not believe this can be a legitimate journal ( although I ca n't find much on it online ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know enough about toxicity studies to analyze this too closely but then as I read it, there is some "fishy" stuff going on.. First off, though - these researchers did not set up these studies.
They used lawyers to get data from some of these companies or something like that- it's kind of vague.
I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually didn't.
You are just trying to take the numbers and draw your own conclusion.They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto.
" They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe.
That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.They also note that the control corn fed the rats in these studies was not similar enough to the GM variety to be good controls.OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study???!!!
I"ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes.
How can you pick apart an experimental design and then use that data and say YOUR conclusions are valid.
This is insulting and I still do not believe this can be a legitimate journal (although I can't find much on it online).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753454</id>
	<title>I think you are missing the bigger picture</title>
	<author>jbssm</author>
	<datestamp>1263409500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For us Europeans and Americans, this may just seem a serious but easily solvable problem.
They will replace the crops, they will pay something to the affected people and in the end all the Monsanto CEO's will be happy and rich as usual (remember, the China milk problem? As much as you can say they are evil as opposed to USA, at least they made the guilty people pay<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which obviously will not happen here with Monsanto. They are just too rich and powerfull).
Anyway, for the West this will not be such a big problem, we will just eat other stuff while the crops get replaced. But now, think about all those 3rd world countries, that are using this to survive, do you really think they can afford to eat "other stuff" while they wait?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For us Europeans and Americans , this may just seem a serious but easily solvable problem .
They will replace the crops , they will pay something to the affected people and in the end all the Monsanto CEO 's will be happy and rich as usual ( remember , the China milk problem ?
As much as you can say they are evil as opposed to USA , at least they made the guilty people pay ... which obviously will not happen here with Monsanto .
They are just too rich and powerfull ) .
Anyway , for the West this will not be such a big problem , we will just eat other stuff while the crops get replaced .
But now , think about all those 3rd world countries , that are using this to survive , do you really think they can afford to eat " other stuff " while they wait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For us Europeans and Americans, this may just seem a serious but easily solvable problem.
They will replace the crops, they will pay something to the affected people and in the end all the Monsanto CEO's will be happy and rich as usual (remember, the China milk problem?
As much as you can say they are evil as opposed to USA, at least they made the guilty people pay ... which obviously will not happen here with Monsanto.
They are just too rich and powerfull).
Anyway, for the West this will not be such a big problem, we will just eat other stuff while the crops get replaced.
But now, think about all those 3rd world countries, that are using this to survive, do you really think they can afford to eat "other stuff" while they wait?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751054</id>
	<title>Re:Politics of GMO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would be in its long term benefit.</p></div><p>Senior executives mostly don't think much further than their next annual bonus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be in its long term benefit.Senior executives mostly do n't think much further than their next annual bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be in its long term benefit.Senior executives mostly don't think much further than their next annual bonus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755948</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263376080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides that, the answer is: if you believe it harms your liver, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it. It's really simple.</p></div><p>It's a good advice once the cat is out of the bag, but how many people get to be poisoned before that happens?</p><p>There's also the issue of disparity here. A large corp (or any sufficiently wealthy entity, really) can engage in massive propaganda campaigns, and drown anyone speaking out against it in noise. We see that happening in practice all the time. Thus, consumer has theoretical access to all relevant information - the problem is that he has to fish it out in a sea of rumors, lies, and FUD. Grassroots information spreading campaigns can counter that somewhat, but they are still no match for a propaganda machine oiled with $$$.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides that , the answer is : if you believe it harms your liver , do n't buy it .
If enough people do n't buy it , it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it .
It 's really simple.It 's a good advice once the cat is out of the bag , but how many people get to be poisoned before that happens ? There 's also the issue of disparity here .
A large corp ( or any sufficiently wealthy entity , really ) can engage in massive propaganda campaigns , and drown anyone speaking out against it in noise .
We see that happening in practice all the time .
Thus , consumer has theoretical access to all relevant information - the problem is that he has to fish it out in a sea of rumors , lies , and FUD .
Grassroots information spreading campaigns can counter that somewhat , but they are still no match for a propaganda machine oiled with $ $ $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides that, the answer is: if you believe it harms your liver, don't buy it.
If enough people don't buy it, it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it.
It's really simple.It's a good advice once the cat is out of the bag, but how many people get to be poisoned before that happens?There's also the issue of disparity here.
A large corp (or any sufficiently wealthy entity, really) can engage in massive propaganda campaigns, and drown anyone speaking out against it in noise.
We see that happening in practice all the time.
Thus, consumer has theoretical access to all relevant information - the problem is that he has to fish it out in a sea of rumors, lies, and FUD.
Grassroots information spreading campaigns can counter that somewhat, but they are still no match for a propaganda machine oiled with $$$.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30762388</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1263469980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>to actually getting off your butt and cooking</p></div><p>Dude, you're talking to Slashdot geeks, our idea of 'cooking' is 30 seconds in a microwave...</p><p>(Except for the lucky ones who live in their Mom's basement.. Mom probably takes pity on them once in awhile and feeds them decent food.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to actually getting off your butt and cookingDude , you 're talking to Slashdot geeks , our idea of 'cooking ' is 30 seconds in a microwave... ( Except for the lucky ones who live in their Mom 's basement.. Mom probably takes pity on them once in awhile and feeds them decent food .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to actually getting off your butt and cookingDude, you're talking to Slashdot geeks, our idea of 'cooking' is 30 seconds in a microwave...(Except for the lucky ones who live in their Mom's basement.. Mom probably takes pity on them once in awhile and feeds them decent food.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?</p></div></blockquote><p>People would stop eating corn products.</p><p>Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.</p><p>If the courts declined to provide relief then the injured parties would all get together, storm the Monsanto headquarters and lynch all the executives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto 's GM corn ? People would stop eating corn products.Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.If the courts declined to provide relief then the injured parties would all get together , storm the Monsanto headquarters and lynch all the executives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?People would stop eating corn products.Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.If the courts declined to provide relief then the injured parties would all get together, storm the Monsanto headquarters and lynch all the executives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757482</id>
	<title>Re:Food, Inc.</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1263382920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and to anyone who says "i will just avoid eating corn and corn products".... good luck. almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn.</i></p><p>You mean like all the fruits, vegetables, and grains? Or the highly processed food products and meat that we shouldn't be eating so much of to begin with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and to anyone who says " i will just avoid eating corn and corn products " .... good luck .
almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn.You mean like all the fruits , vegetables , and grains ?
Or the highly processed food products and meat that we should n't be eating so much of to begin with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and to anyone who says "i will just avoid eating corn and corn products".... good luck.
almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn.You mean like all the fruits, vegetables, and grains?
Or the highly processed food products and meat that we shouldn't be eating so much of to begin with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761300</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1263409500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because Monsanto only makes one thing;<br>
MONEY.<br>
If it was profitable to feed you rat poison, after fighting litigation, do you think they would do it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because Monsanto only makes one thing ; MONEY .
If it was profitable to feed you rat poison , after fighting litigation , do you think they would do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because Monsanto only makes one thing;
MONEY.
If it was profitable to feed you rat poison, after fighting litigation, do you think they would do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749600</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1263393420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.</p></div><p>You can't say "and obviously knew the outcome" unless you're Monsanto.  I believe that GMO crops undergo far fewer tests for safety than pesticides.  From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON\_863" title="wikipedia.org">the Wikipedia page on</a> [wikipedia.org] one of the three crops in question (MON 863):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In 1989 a 90-day rat-feeding trial done by the FDA, 40 rats that were fed the Bt corn developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins and diseases. Gilles-Eric Seralini reviewed the study as part of the French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics and said that the response by the rats were similar to reactions caused by pesticides. Although the Bt-toxin is a pesticide, he points out that animal research on pesticide-producing corn is nowhere as thorough as that required for approval of pesticides. Follow-up studies on these serious findings were demanded from organisations worldwide. None were conducted and the corn was approved.</p></div><p>MON 863 is even approved for use in the EU which is surprising considering the long history of European countries denying crops imported from other countries like the US where GMO crops are allowed on the off chance that said crops were cross pollinated with GMO plants in other fields.  Very recently I believe <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618913,00.html" title="spiegel.de">Germany banned cultivation of GMO plants</a> [spiegel.de].  If you want your data don't look toward Monsanto or even the underfunded FDA.  Look to the European Union, I hope more studies follow in the path of this research but unfortunately it's hard to think of a source for major funding if it's not our tax dollars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001 , and obviously knew the outcome.You ca n't say " and obviously knew the outcome " unless you 're Monsanto .
I believe that GMO crops undergo far fewer tests for safety than pesticides .
From the Wikipedia page on [ wikipedia.org ] one of the three crops in question ( MON 863 ) : In 1989 a 90-day rat-feeding trial done by the FDA , 40 rats that were fed the Bt corn developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies , infections , toxins and diseases .
Gilles-Eric Seralini reviewed the study as part of the French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics and said that the response by the rats were similar to reactions caused by pesticides .
Although the Bt-toxin is a pesticide , he points out that animal research on pesticide-producing corn is nowhere as thorough as that required for approval of pesticides .
Follow-up studies on these serious findings were demanded from organisations worldwide .
None were conducted and the corn was approved.MON 863 is even approved for use in the EU which is surprising considering the long history of European countries denying crops imported from other countries like the US where GMO crops are allowed on the off chance that said crops were cross pollinated with GMO plants in other fields .
Very recently I believe Germany banned cultivation of GMO plants [ spiegel.de ] .
If you want your data do n't look toward Monsanto or even the underfunded FDA .
Look to the European Union , I hope more studies follow in the path of this research but unfortunately it 's hard to think of a source for major funding if it 's not our tax dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.You can't say "and obviously knew the outcome" unless you're Monsanto.
I believe that GMO crops undergo far fewer tests for safety than pesticides.
From the Wikipedia page on [wikipedia.org] one of the three crops in question (MON 863):In 1989 a 90-day rat-feeding trial done by the FDA, 40 rats that were fed the Bt corn developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins and diseases.
Gilles-Eric Seralini reviewed the study as part of the French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics and said that the response by the rats were similar to reactions caused by pesticides.
Although the Bt-toxin is a pesticide, he points out that animal research on pesticide-producing corn is nowhere as thorough as that required for approval of pesticides.
Follow-up studies on these serious findings were demanded from organisations worldwide.
None were conducted and the corn was approved.MON 863 is even approved for use in the EU which is surprising considering the long history of European countries denying crops imported from other countries like the US where GMO crops are allowed on the off chance that said crops were cross pollinated with GMO plants in other fields.
Very recently I believe Germany banned cultivation of GMO plants [spiegel.de].
If you want your data don't look toward Monsanto or even the underfunded FDA.
Look to the European Union, I hope more studies follow in the path of this research but unfortunately it's hard to think of a source for major funding if it's not our tax dollars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750994</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>maztuhblastah</author>
	<datestamp>1263400140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?</p></div><p>Well, for starters, we wouldn't have paid massive subsidies to farmers to grow corn.  This subsidization has artificially distorted the supply and demand curves thereby making the profitability of the crop far less dependant on the market demand than it should be.  Since farmers will grow more corn to get more subsidy money (as the subsidies are dependent on crop ratios and output), many farms will have a monoculture, thereby necessitating the use of more pesticides, etc.  (Just as with operating systems, monocultures are *bad* when it comes to farming.)  Due to the increased use of said pesticides, and the increased vulnerability of the crops, there will be an increased demand for plants engineered to withstand both the pesticides and the pests -- thereby creating Monsanto's market.</p><p>Simple, when you get right down to it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto's frankencorn?</p></div><p>Sorry, but I don't have a good answer.  If I had to guess, I'd say that it would have no impact on the human death toll due to genetically-engineered food.  Now admittedly, that's because (to the best of my knowledge) there isn't actually such a death toll, but still...</p><p>Also, just a tip: try to steer clear of those "clever" terms like "frankencorn".  They don't make you sound witty -- they make you sound like a juvenile zealot who's more concerned about ranting against the opposition than actually discussing the issue at hand.</p><p>Love the smug, "I've got ya now!" attitude you've got going there though.  It *did* succeed at getting some responses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto 's GM corn ? Well , for starters , we would n't have paid massive subsidies to farmers to grow corn .
This subsidization has artificially distorted the supply and demand curves thereby making the profitability of the crop far less dependant on the market demand than it should be .
Since farmers will grow more corn to get more subsidy money ( as the subsidies are dependent on crop ratios and output ) , many farms will have a monoculture , thereby necessitating the use of more pesticides , etc .
( Just as with operating systems , monocultures are * bad * when it comes to farming .
) Due to the increased use of said pesticides , and the increased vulnerability of the crops , there will be an increased demand for plants engineered to withstand both the pesticides and the pests -- thereby creating Monsanto 's market.Simple , when you get right down to it.Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto 's frankencorn ? Sorry , but I do n't have a good answer .
If I had to guess , I 'd say that it would have no impact on the human death toll due to genetically-engineered food .
Now admittedly , that 's because ( to the best of my knowledge ) there is n't actually such a death toll , but still...Also , just a tip : try to steer clear of those " clever " terms like " frankencorn " .
They do n't make you sound witty -- they make you sound like a juvenile zealot who 's more concerned about ranting against the opposition than actually discussing the issue at hand.Love the smug , " I 've got ya now !
" attitude you 've got going there though .
It * did * succeed at getting some responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?Well, for starters, we wouldn't have paid massive subsidies to farmers to grow corn.
This subsidization has artificially distorted the supply and demand curves thereby making the profitability of the crop far less dependant on the market demand than it should be.
Since farmers will grow more corn to get more subsidy money (as the subsidies are dependent on crop ratios and output), many farms will have a monoculture, thereby necessitating the use of more pesticides, etc.
(Just as with operating systems, monocultures are *bad* when it comes to farming.
)  Due to the increased use of said pesticides, and the increased vulnerability of the crops, there will be an increased demand for plants engineered to withstand both the pesticides and the pests -- thereby creating Monsanto's market.Simple, when you get right down to it.Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto's frankencorn?Sorry, but I don't have a good answer.
If I had to guess, I'd say that it would have no impact on the human death toll due to genetically-engineered food.
Now admittedly, that's because (to the best of my knowledge) there isn't actually such a death toll, but still...Also, just a tip: try to steer clear of those "clever" terms like "frankencorn".
They don't make you sound witty -- they make you sound like a juvenile zealot who's more concerned about ranting against the opposition than actually discussing the issue at hand.Love the smug, "I've got ya now!
" attitude you've got going there though.
It *did* succeed at getting some responses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750446</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1263397860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please spare us the silly technicalities. We're not talking about crossbreeding an orange and a grapefruit here.</p><p>We're talking about crossbreeding our food with toxic microbes. That has never been remotely possible in agriculture until they started directly fiddling with DNA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please spare us the silly technicalities .
We 're not talking about crossbreeding an orange and a grapefruit here.We 're talking about crossbreeding our food with toxic microbes .
That has never been remotely possible in agriculture until they started directly fiddling with DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please spare us the silly technicalities.
We're not talking about crossbreeding an orange and a grapefruit here.We're talking about crossbreeding our food with toxic microbes.
That has never been remotely possible in agriculture until they started directly fiddling with DNA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749798</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition, check out this documentary of <a href="http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/1C4FB64D50354B9A856504954B453CC9/580798/the-world-according-to-monsant.aspx" title="livevideo.com" rel="nofollow">The world according to monsanto</a> [livevideo.com]... pretty eye opening.</p><p>If you are American, I hope your anti-French nationalism does not blind you while seeing this film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , check out this documentary of The world according to monsanto [ livevideo.com ] ... pretty eye opening.If you are American , I hope your anti-French nationalism does not blind you while seeing this film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, check out this documentary of The world according to monsanto [livevideo.com]... pretty eye opening.If you are American, I hope your anti-French nationalism does not blind you while seeing this film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751462</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>NewtonFan</author>
	<datestamp>1263401880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regulation sounds like a better option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regulation sounds like a better option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regulation sounds like a better option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749936</id>
	<title>Re:Could american law please...</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1263395520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the main goals of corporations is to make sure owners, stockholders, and employees don't have personal liability.  Who do you put in jail?</p><p>We're still in the age of no personal accountability due to the last administration.  I don't see Obama doing all that much to untie that knot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main goals of corporations is to make sure owners , stockholders , and employees do n't have personal liability .
Who do you put in jail ? We 're still in the age of no personal accountability due to the last administration .
I do n't see Obama doing all that much to untie that knot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main goals of corporations is to make sure owners, stockholders, and employees don't have personal liability.
Who do you put in jail?We're still in the age of no personal accountability due to the last administration.
I don't see Obama doing all that much to untie that knot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</id>
	<title>An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1263393120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From their conclusions:</p><p><i>This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown</i></p><p>It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From their conclusions : This can be due to the new pesticides ( herbicide or insecticide ) present specifically in each type of GM maize , although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process can not be excluded .
All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event ( glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603 , modified Cry1Ab in MON 810 , modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863 ) .
These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them , especially over long time periods are currently unknownIt sounds to me like the issue is n't the GM itself , but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From their conclusions:This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded.
All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863).
These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknownIt sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754486</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1263413760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile, millions starve since their choice was corn or rocks. The liver damaged people die young anyway and somehow their loved ones don't find the dollar off corn syrup coupons to be much consolation. That's a GREAT "solution" there.</p><p>You could be on to something with the lynchings though. I'll support an unregulated market so long as the vital feedback mechanism of lynching executives is equally unregulated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , millions starve since their choice was corn or rocks .
The liver damaged people die young anyway and somehow their loved ones do n't find the dollar off corn syrup coupons to be much consolation .
That 's a GREAT " solution " there.You could be on to something with the lynchings though .
I 'll support an unregulated market so long as the vital feedback mechanism of lynching executives is equally unregulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, millions starve since their choice was corn or rocks.
The liver damaged people die young anyway and somehow their loved ones don't find the dollar off corn syrup coupons to be much consolation.
That's a GREAT "solution" there.You could be on to something with the lynchings though.
I'll support an unregulated market so long as the vital feedback mechanism of lynching executives is equally unregulated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750188</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263396900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As noted above, genetically modified produce is quite possibly the very definition of agriculture. Please inform yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As noted above , genetically modified produce is quite possibly the very definition of agriculture .
Please inform yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As noted above, genetically modified produce is quite possibly the very definition of agriculture.
Please inform yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761526</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1263412380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that there is research out there showing that Monsanto corn is bad for our health, I'm wondering how long until they start getting sued</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that there is research out there showing that Monsanto corn is bad for our health , I 'm wondering how long until they start getting sued</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that there is research out there showing that Monsanto corn is bad for our health, I'm wondering how long until they start getting sued</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754030</id>
	<title>Re:Ubiquitous Corn ... depending on what you eat</title>
	<author>RobNich</author>
	<datestamp>1263411900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only it were that easy.  Unfortunately, corn has made its way into just about every single food sold in the US.  This is because the US government is subsidizing the cost of corn.  This also makes it a viable fuel substitute, though without the price-altering subsidies corn would be too expensive to replace petroleum-based fuel.  Corn is so cheap in the US it has started to replace even soy in foods and other products that need starch or other derivatives.</p><p>This is yet another example of the US government interfering with the free market and causing problems.  And since the Constitution forbids this type of meddling, it's rather surprising that it's allowed to continue.  Perhaps US citizens are not as smart as they once were?  For example, as smart as they were before the US government took over schooling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only it were that easy .
Unfortunately , corn has made its way into just about every single food sold in the US .
This is because the US government is subsidizing the cost of corn .
This also makes it a viable fuel substitute , though without the price-altering subsidies corn would be too expensive to replace petroleum-based fuel .
Corn is so cheap in the US it has started to replace even soy in foods and other products that need starch or other derivatives.This is yet another example of the US government interfering with the free market and causing problems .
And since the Constitution forbids this type of meddling , it 's rather surprising that it 's allowed to continue .
Perhaps US citizens are not as smart as they once were ?
For example , as smart as they were before the US government took over schooling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only it were that easy.
Unfortunately, corn has made its way into just about every single food sold in the US.
This is because the US government is subsidizing the cost of corn.
This also makes it a viable fuel substitute, though without the price-altering subsidies corn would be too expensive to replace petroleum-based fuel.
Corn is so cheap in the US it has started to replace even soy in foods and other products that need starch or other derivatives.This is yet another example of the US government interfering with the free market and causing problems.
And since the Constitution forbids this type of meddling, it's rather surprising that it's allowed to continue.
Perhaps US citizens are not as smart as they once were?
For example, as smart as they were before the US government took over schooling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749838</id>
	<title>Re:government protection</title>
	<author>schizix</author>
	<datestamp>1263394920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us?</p></div><p>uh oh, the government cares about us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us ? uh oh , the government cares about us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us?uh oh, the government cares about us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754322</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this?</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you believe that "unencumbered socialism" is the only possible alternative to a "free market" fantasy?</p><p>That's a straw man argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the unencumbered " socialism " handle a problem like this ? Do you believe that " unencumbered socialism " is the only possible alternative to a " free market " fantasy ? That 's a straw man argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this?Do you believe that "unencumbered socialism" is the only possible alternative to a "free market" fantasy?That's a straw man argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751582</id>
	<title>Re:Politics of GMO</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1263402360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you overestimate the Europeans who object to GMO. I'm all for hawk-like oversight, but how many anti-GM people do you know who will say: "OK, now the oversight is in line with other industries I support, so now I'm cool with GM"? I know none.</p><p>Those people (for example many Germans) really are Luddites and their irrationality will destroy this planet. (The same people tend to fear nuclear power, so produce most of their electricity with earth-destroying coal. The world thanks you, fuckers!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you overestimate the Europeans who object to GMO .
I 'm all for hawk-like oversight , but how many anti-GM people do you know who will say : " OK , now the oversight is in line with other industries I support , so now I 'm cool with GM " ?
I know none.Those people ( for example many Germans ) really are Luddites and their irrationality will destroy this planet .
( The same people tend to fear nuclear power , so produce most of their electricity with earth-destroying coal .
The world thanks you , fuckers !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you overestimate the Europeans who object to GMO.
I'm all for hawk-like oversight, but how many anti-GM people do you know who will say: "OK, now the oversight is in line with other industries I support, so now I'm cool with GM"?
I know none.Those people (for example many Germans) really are Luddites and their irrationality will destroy this planet.
(The same people tend to fear nuclear power, so produce most of their electricity with earth-destroying coal.
The world thanks you, fuckers!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749720</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>snaz555</author>
	<datestamp>1263394200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All you "free market" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:</p><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? </p></div><p>
I'm not a free market enthusiast, but even I can answer this: you take your business to a store that doesn't carry GM produce or products that contain it.  My local Whole Foods store, for instance, is GM-free and predominantly organic.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All you " free market " enthusiasts out there , answer this question for me : How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
I 'm not a free market enthusiast , but even I can answer this : you take your business to a store that does n't carry GM produce or products that contain it .
My local Whole Foods store , for instance , is GM-free and predominantly organic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you "free market" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
I'm not a free market enthusiast, but even I can answer this: you take your business to a store that doesn't carry GM produce or products that contain it.
My local Whole Foods store, for instance, is GM-free and predominantly organic.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752398</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>claus.wilke</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. " They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe. That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.</p></div><p>You might want to re-read your statistics textbook. They say that the <strong>power</strong> of the Monsanto analysis is low. That implies that if Monsanto does <strong>not</strong> see a significant result, they cannot conclude that no effect exists. However, the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless. Thus, even though power was low, the effect was large enough to show up.</p><p>In a nutshell: To demonstrate that there is a problem, all you have to do is find the problem in some instance. To demonstrate that there is no problem, you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem. What the authors are saying is: "Monsanto didn't look very hard, and yet there is evidence of problems."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They say in one part : " The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto .
" They say that because they think Monsanto should n't say the corn is safe - but then they ( these researchers ) are using that same " Insufficient " data to say it 's unsafe .
That 's the way this whole paper is- it just does n't jive together.You might want to re-read your statistics textbook .
They say that the power of the Monsanto analysis is low .
That implies that if Monsanto does not see a significant result , they can not conclude that no effect exists .
However , the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless .
Thus , even though power was low , the effect was large enough to show up.In a nutshell : To demonstrate that there is a problem , all you have to do is find the problem in some instance .
To demonstrate that there is no problem , you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem .
What the authors are saying is : " Monsanto did n't look very hard , and yet there is evidence of problems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto.
" They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe.
That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.You might want to re-read your statistics textbook.
They say that the power of the Monsanto analysis is low.
That implies that if Monsanto does not see a significant result, they cannot conclude that no effect exists.
However, the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless.
Thus, even though power was low, the effect was large enough to show up.In a nutshell: To demonstrate that there is a problem, all you have to do is find the problem in some instance.
To demonstrate that there is no problem, you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem.
What the authors are saying is: "Monsanto didn't look very hard, and yet there is evidence of problems.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761046</id>
	<title>Codex Alimentarius</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is in order with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex\_Alimentarius" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Codex Alimentarius</a> [wikipedia.org] to poison the food supply  to significantly reduce the world's population.  The Codex Alimentarius is now being used by individual countries to reduce the nutritional value of all foods, and to allow dangerous chemicals to be introduced into the food supply. Monsato significantly profits from all this, while at the same time poisoning the food supply. Demand from your representative that GM foods be labeled and identified, making it harder for companies like Monsato to continue to poison us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in order with the Codex Alimentarius [ wikipedia.org ] to poison the food supply to significantly reduce the world 's population .
The Codex Alimentarius is now being used by individual countries to reduce the nutritional value of all foods , and to allow dangerous chemicals to be introduced into the food supply .
Monsato significantly profits from all this , while at the same time poisoning the food supply .
Demand from your representative that GM foods be labeled and identified , making it harder for companies like Monsato to continue to poison us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in order with the Codex Alimentarius [wikipedia.org] to poison the food supply  to significantly reduce the world's population.
The Codex Alimentarius is now being used by individual countries to reduce the nutritional value of all foods, and to allow dangerous chemicals to be introduced into the food supply.
Monsato significantly profits from all this, while at the same time poisoning the food supply.
Demand from your representative that GM foods be labeled and identified, making it harder for companies like Monsato to continue to poison us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750884</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1263399720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That sounds more plausible to me than any hidden GM effect; but the ability to drastically increase the amount of pesticides dumped on the fields was the very reason why 'roundup ready' crops were designed in the first place by the pesticide producer in question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds more plausible to me than any hidden GM effect ; but the ability to drastically increase the amount of pesticides dumped on the fields was the very reason why 'roundup ready ' crops were designed in the first place by the pesticide producer in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds more plausible to me than any hidden GM effect; but the ability to drastically increase the amount of pesticides dumped on the fields was the very reason why 'roundup ready' crops were designed in the first place by the pesticide producer in question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</id>
	<title>Riddle me this</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1263393180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you "free market" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:</p><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?  Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?</p><p>Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto's frankencorn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you " free market " enthusiasts out there , answer this question for me : How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto 's GM corn ? Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto 's frankencorn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you "free market" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto's frankencorn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753058</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>barkingcorndog</author>
	<datestamp>1263407820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article\_15573.cfm" title="organicconsumers.org" rel="nofollow">I </a> [organicconsumers.org]
<a href="http://www2.dupont.com/Our\_Company/en\_US/executives/fisher.html" title="dupont.com" rel="nofollow">have </a> [dupont.com] <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/22-14" title="commondreams.org" rel="nofollow">no </a> [commondreams.org] <a href="http://iowaindependent.com/22980/iowa-law-firm-files-as-monsanto-lobbyist-in-advance-of-ag-antitrust-workshop" title="iowaindependent.com" rel="nofollow">idea.</a> [iowaindependent.com]</p> </div><p>So, Obama's appointments in 2009 allowed Monsanto to hide this information from 2001 to the present? <br> <br> Where's the link about the time machine?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I [ organicconsumers.org ] have [ dupont.com ] no [ commondreams.org ] idea .
[ iowaindependent.com ] So , Obama 's appointments in 2009 allowed Monsanto to hide this information from 2001 to the present ?
Where 's the link about the time machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I  [organicconsumers.org]
have  [dupont.com] no  [commondreams.org] idea.
[iowaindependent.com] So, Obama's appointments in 2009 allowed Monsanto to hide this information from 2001 to the present?
Where's the link about the time machine?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome. So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?</p></div></blockquote><p>The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001 , and obviously knew the outcome .
So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years ? The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.
So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754150</id>
	<title>Kill Monsanto.</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1263412380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if we needed any more reasons to put Monsanto out of business.  This has got to be one of the most foul organizations on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if we needed any more reasons to put Monsanto out of business .
This has got to be one of the most foul organizations on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if we needed any more reasons to put Monsanto out of business.
This has got to be one of the most foul organizations on the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750576</id>
	<title>Re:government protection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just what government are you implying is small?  The US Government hardly qualifies as small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what government are you implying is small ?
The US Government hardly qualifies as small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what government are you implying is small?
The US Government hardly qualifies as small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751964</id>
	<title>Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1263404040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you'll notice at the top of the page there's what's called an Impact Factor: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact\_factor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact\_factor</a> [wikipedia.org]
3.24 is nothing to brush aside. That in itself shows a certain "legitimacy" of this journal.

Also: the fact that this data CAN go both ways is enough to bring the original conclusions (that it is safe) into question and prompt new research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 'll notice at the top of the page there 's what 's called an Impact Factor : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact \ _factor [ wikipedia.org ] 3.24 is nothing to brush aside .
That in itself shows a certain " legitimacy " of this journal .
Also : the fact that this data CAN go both ways is enough to bring the original conclusions ( that it is safe ) into question and prompt new research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you'll notice at the top of the page there's what's called an Impact Factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact\_factor [wikipedia.org]
3.24 is nothing to brush aside.
That in itself shows a certain "legitimacy" of this journal.
Also: the fact that this data CAN go both ways is enough to bring the original conclusions (that it is safe) into question and prompt new research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751716</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>bperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1263402900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it might be money, as others have said.</p><p>But I have some other questions.</p><p>1) Why hasn't this fairly simple experiment been done before?</p><p>2) Why do three types of corn with fairly different modifications have very similar toxicities?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it might be money , as others have said.But I have some other questions.1 ) Why has n't this fairly simple experiment been done before ? 2 ) Why do three types of corn with fairly different modifications have very similar toxicities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it might be money, as others have said.But I have some other questions.1) Why hasn't this fairly simple experiment been done before?2) Why do three types of corn with fairly different modifications have very similar toxicities?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750328</id>
	<title>Re:Politics of GMO</title>
	<author>DeadCatX2</author>
	<datestamp>1263397500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development.</i></p><p>Maybe if people would stop freaking out about the idea of GM food, we could have a rational discussion about what kind of oversight is appropriate.  Instead, everyone panics, labels GM food the devil, and the debate is snuffed out.</p><p>There's this stuff called Golden Rice, it's rice that has a Vitamin A gene.  It will help lots of Chinese kids stop going blind.  Maybe those researchers should study whether that rice kills rats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development.Maybe if people would stop freaking out about the idea of GM food , we could have a rational discussion about what kind of oversight is appropriate .
Instead , everyone panics , labels GM food the devil , and the debate is snuffed out.There 's this stuff called Golden Rice , it 's rice that has a Vitamin A gene .
It will help lots of Chinese kids stop going blind .
Maybe those researchers should study whether that rice kills rats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development.Maybe if people would stop freaking out about the idea of GM food, we could have a rational discussion about what kind of oversight is appropriate.
Instead, everyone panics, labels GM food the devil, and the debate is snuffed out.There's this stuff called Golden Rice, it's rice that has a Vitamin A gene.
It will help lots of Chinese kids stop going blind.
Maybe those researchers should study whether that rice kills rats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502</id>
	<title>Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1263392760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corn is in every-fucken-thing. You cant avoid it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corn is in every-fucken-thing .
You cant avoid it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corn is in every-fucken-thing.
You cant avoid it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750222</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263396960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] and a lot of stuff that has corn in it (anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup) [...]</p></div><p>Just to be clear here: sweetening with corn syrup is mostly a US thing. If I pop out and buy myself a can of locally bottled Coke or Pepsi over here (Scandinavia), it's sweetened with old fashioned sugar. Same goes for european chocolates. On the other hand, there's sugar/sweetening in bloody everything now, so who knows how much of these evil proteins are in circulation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] and a lot of stuff that has corn in it ( anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup ) [ ... ] Just to be clear here : sweetening with corn syrup is mostly a US thing .
If I pop out and buy myself a can of locally bottled Coke or Pepsi over here ( Scandinavia ) , it 's sweetened with old fashioned sugar .
Same goes for european chocolates .
On the other hand , there 's sugar/sweetening in bloody everything now , so who knows how much of these evil proteins are in circulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] and a lot of stuff that has corn in it (anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup) [...]Just to be clear here: sweetening with corn syrup is mostly a US thing.
If I pop out and buy myself a can of locally bottled Coke or Pepsi over here (Scandinavia), it's sweetened with old fashioned sugar.
Same goes for european chocolates.
On the other hand, there's sugar/sweetening in bloody everything now, so who knows how much of these evil proteins are in circulation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750820</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>jburroug</author>
	<datestamp>1263399360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since there is no good way to tell with processed foods where the raw ingredients come from or what was done to it at the factory I by and large eschew eating processed, packaged foods. Over the past few years I've given up eating fast food, drinking sodas and have ditched all the standard "junk food" I grew up with. I threw out my microwave a few years ago as part of this effort to remove TV dinners as an option for nights I was feeling lazy. Right now I'm fortunate enough to have access to three different Saturday farmer's markets a short drive from my home so in any given week about 25-50\% of my calories come from local farmers that I've come to know and trust over the past year. It's not just bean sprouts and granola either - I get fresh wild caught gulf shrimp, grass fed beef, free range chickens and eggs, farm raised hog and the richest, creamiest freshest goat cheeses in addition to the wonderful seasonal fruits and vegetables. I know everyone involved in the whole chain of sowing, growing and harvesting what I buy at these markets. That's how I found a free market solution to the problem.</p><p>Of course it's not as though the government has actually made this free market solution easy - none of these small farmers qualify for the kind of subsidies bigger farmers growing industrial crops get. Not to mention new regulations being written to solve food contamination issues caused solely by industrial farming are putting a huge squeeze on these small farmers that don't have the vulnerabilities to contamination that the industrial farms have in the first place. It's kind of hard to get E.Coli in your spinach if your supply chain consists of pulling it out of the ground and driving it thirty miles into town the next day unless you detour to a feedlot on the way and wash it in the waste pond first. Likewise it's kind of impossible to get dangerous E.Coli in your beef when you avoid putting your cattle in an overcrowded feedlot on an unnatural diet of subsidized (GM?) corn and antibiotics.</p><p>Of course I know I'm lucky  - I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford to pay a premium for better food though I've certianly made cuts to other parts of the budget to afford this  and to live in a large enough city (Houston) that's also close to a lot of agriculture so the supply and demand works out for my farmers to keep selling to me. I've also had to make some big adjustments to how I live - I've really had to make food a hobby and part of my social life in a much bigger way than it is for most Americans. I spend two or three hours nearly every Saturday morning hitting up the markets, chatting with farmers, ranchers and fishermen buying up what looks good and fresh. I've had to learn our local growing seasons so I know what to expect from month to month. I'm learning all about home food preservation, canning and charcuterie so I can buy my favorite produce in bulk at the peak of the season and enjoy it all year. It is a lot of work, easily 15-20 hours a week, but I eat better than I used too and both my GF and I have lost quite a bit of weight once we dumped all processed foods from our diet starting about two years ago. Side bonus is avoiding organ failure due to Monsanto products.</p><p>Like I said it's a lot of work just to eat but we've only had access to cheap and easy food year round for what the last 50-60 years or so? My food routine isn't any more onerous or expensive than what my grandparents generation and earlier grew up with and they seemed to manage just fine.</p><p>If the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov were going to do anything to actually help our food system first we'd end subsidies and price supports, ban the import of foodstuffs from countries with even worse food safety records than our own (looking at you China) require that all packaged and processed foods clearly list not only the ingredients but the source of said ingredients down to the name of the farm or ranch it came from. Likewise all packaged animal products should be required to have a picture of the actual farm the animal was living on at the time of slaughter (or milking or egging or whatever)  Then consumers can really make a choice about what they are eating and where it came from. Until then we're stuck paying a hefty premium for actual food from actual farms .</p><p>Cheers,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since there is no good way to tell with processed foods where the raw ingredients come from or what was done to it at the factory I by and large eschew eating processed , packaged foods .
Over the past few years I 've given up eating fast food , drinking sodas and have ditched all the standard " junk food " I grew up with .
I threw out my microwave a few years ago as part of this effort to remove TV dinners as an option for nights I was feeling lazy .
Right now I 'm fortunate enough to have access to three different Saturday farmer 's markets a short drive from my home so in any given week about 25-50 \ % of my calories come from local farmers that I 've come to know and trust over the past year .
It 's not just bean sprouts and granola either - I get fresh wild caught gulf shrimp , grass fed beef , free range chickens and eggs , farm raised hog and the richest , creamiest freshest goat cheeses in addition to the wonderful seasonal fruits and vegetables .
I know everyone involved in the whole chain of sowing , growing and harvesting what I buy at these markets .
That 's how I found a free market solution to the problem.Of course it 's not as though the government has actually made this free market solution easy - none of these small farmers qualify for the kind of subsidies bigger farmers growing industrial crops get .
Not to mention new regulations being written to solve food contamination issues caused solely by industrial farming are putting a huge squeeze on these small farmers that do n't have the vulnerabilities to contamination that the industrial farms have in the first place .
It 's kind of hard to get E.Coli in your spinach if your supply chain consists of pulling it out of the ground and driving it thirty miles into town the next day unless you detour to a feedlot on the way and wash it in the waste pond first .
Likewise it 's kind of impossible to get dangerous E.Coli in your beef when you avoid putting your cattle in an overcrowded feedlot on an unnatural diet of subsidized ( GM ?
) corn and antibiotics.Of course I know I 'm lucky - I 'm fortunate enough to be able to afford to pay a premium for better food though I 've certianly made cuts to other parts of the budget to afford this and to live in a large enough city ( Houston ) that 's also close to a lot of agriculture so the supply and demand works out for my farmers to keep selling to me .
I 've also had to make some big adjustments to how I live - I 've really had to make food a hobby and part of my social life in a much bigger way than it is for most Americans .
I spend two or three hours nearly every Saturday morning hitting up the markets , chatting with farmers , ranchers and fishermen buying up what looks good and fresh .
I 've had to learn our local growing seasons so I know what to expect from month to month .
I 'm learning all about home food preservation , canning and charcuterie so I can buy my favorite produce in bulk at the peak of the season and enjoy it all year .
It is a lot of work , easily 15-20 hours a week , but I eat better than I used too and both my GF and I have lost quite a bit of weight once we dumped all processed foods from our diet starting about two years ago .
Side bonus is avoiding organ failure due to Monsanto products.Like I said it 's a lot of work just to eat but we 've only had access to cheap and easy food year round for what the last 50-60 years or so ?
My food routine is n't any more onerous or expensive than what my grandparents generation and earlier grew up with and they seemed to manage just fine.If the .gov were going to do anything to actually help our food system first we 'd end subsidies and price supports , ban the import of foodstuffs from countries with even worse food safety records than our own ( looking at you China ) require that all packaged and processed foods clearly list not only the ingredients but the source of said ingredients down to the name of the farm or ranch it came from .
Likewise all packaged animal products should be required to have a picture of the actual farm the animal was living on at the time of slaughter ( or milking or egging or whatever ) Then consumers can really make a choice about what they are eating and where it came from .
Until then we 're stuck paying a hefty premium for actual food from actual farms .Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since there is no good way to tell with processed foods where the raw ingredients come from or what was done to it at the factory I by and large eschew eating processed, packaged foods.
Over the past few years I've given up eating fast food, drinking sodas and have ditched all the standard "junk food" I grew up with.
I threw out my microwave a few years ago as part of this effort to remove TV dinners as an option for nights I was feeling lazy.
Right now I'm fortunate enough to have access to three different Saturday farmer's markets a short drive from my home so in any given week about 25-50\% of my calories come from local farmers that I've come to know and trust over the past year.
It's not just bean sprouts and granola either - I get fresh wild caught gulf shrimp, grass fed beef, free range chickens and eggs, farm raised hog and the richest, creamiest freshest goat cheeses in addition to the wonderful seasonal fruits and vegetables.
I know everyone involved in the whole chain of sowing, growing and harvesting what I buy at these markets.
That's how I found a free market solution to the problem.Of course it's not as though the government has actually made this free market solution easy - none of these small farmers qualify for the kind of subsidies bigger farmers growing industrial crops get.
Not to mention new regulations being written to solve food contamination issues caused solely by industrial farming are putting a huge squeeze on these small farmers that don't have the vulnerabilities to contamination that the industrial farms have in the first place.
It's kind of hard to get E.Coli in your spinach if your supply chain consists of pulling it out of the ground and driving it thirty miles into town the next day unless you detour to a feedlot on the way and wash it in the waste pond first.
Likewise it's kind of impossible to get dangerous E.Coli in your beef when you avoid putting your cattle in an overcrowded feedlot on an unnatural diet of subsidized (GM?
) corn and antibiotics.Of course I know I'm lucky  - I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford to pay a premium for better food though I've certianly made cuts to other parts of the budget to afford this  and to live in a large enough city (Houston) that's also close to a lot of agriculture so the supply and demand works out for my farmers to keep selling to me.
I've also had to make some big adjustments to how I live - I've really had to make food a hobby and part of my social life in a much bigger way than it is for most Americans.
I spend two or three hours nearly every Saturday morning hitting up the markets, chatting with farmers, ranchers and fishermen buying up what looks good and fresh.
I've had to learn our local growing seasons so I know what to expect from month to month.
I'm learning all about home food preservation, canning and charcuterie so I can buy my favorite produce in bulk at the peak of the season and enjoy it all year.
It is a lot of work, easily 15-20 hours a week, but I eat better than I used too and both my GF and I have lost quite a bit of weight once we dumped all processed foods from our diet starting about two years ago.
Side bonus is avoiding organ failure due to Monsanto products.Like I said it's a lot of work just to eat but we've only had access to cheap and easy food year round for what the last 50-60 years or so?
My food routine isn't any more onerous or expensive than what my grandparents generation and earlier grew up with and they seemed to manage just fine.If the .gov were going to do anything to actually help our food system first we'd end subsidies and price supports, ban the import of foodstuffs from countries with even worse food safety records than our own (looking at you China) require that all packaged and processed foods clearly list not only the ingredients but the source of said ingredients down to the name of the farm or ranch it came from.
Likewise all packaged animal products should be required to have a picture of the actual farm the animal was living on at the time of slaughter (or milking or egging or whatever)  Then consumers can really make a choice about what they are eating and where it came from.
Until then we're stuck paying a hefty premium for actual food from actual farms .Cheers,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750848</id>
	<title>Gentlemen.........</title>
	<author>Ellis D Trippman</author>
	<datestamp>1263399540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Behold......DEATH!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Behold......DEATH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Behold......DEATH!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749538</id>
	<title>Here's the movie about it</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1263393060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4867493254318912106&amp;ei=QMpNS4XwGIa-wgP24rnvDg&amp;q=world+according+to+monsanto&amp;hl=en&amp;view=3&amp;dur=3#" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4867493254318912106&amp;ei=QMpNS4XwGIa-wgP24rnvDg&amp;q=world+according+to+monsanto&amp;hl=en&amp;view=3&amp;dur=3#</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = -4867493254318912106&amp;ei = QMpNS4XwGIa-wgP24rnvDg&amp;q = world + according + to + monsanto&amp;hl = en&amp;view = 3&amp;dur = 3 # [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4867493254318912106&amp;ei=QMpNS4XwGIa-wgP24rnvDg&amp;q=world+according+to+monsanto&amp;hl=en&amp;view=3&amp;dur=3# [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749896</id>
	<title>Got news for you, GMO is in the wild in China</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1263395280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I taught at an Agricultural U. in China, where the government and University was all but openly encouraging students to take the untested GMO rice home to their rural families to plant. They were experimenting with all kinds of nasty pesticides and other things, and I would not exactly call the development they were doing "scientifically rigorous". The scientific method in China basically means at best copying things from other countries, and at worst just randomly trying things out. I never got the sense the grad students and such even really understood what it was they were doing, and the potential environmental impact or ethics of it was certainly not openly discussed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I taught at an Agricultural U. in China , where the government and University was all but openly encouraging students to take the untested GMO rice home to their rural families to plant .
They were experimenting with all kinds of nasty pesticides and other things , and I would not exactly call the development they were doing " scientifically rigorous " .
The scientific method in China basically means at best copying things from other countries , and at worst just randomly trying things out .
I never got the sense the grad students and such even really understood what it was they were doing , and the potential environmental impact or ethics of it was certainly not openly discussed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I taught at an Agricultural U. in China, where the government and University was all but openly encouraging students to take the untested GMO rice home to their rural families to plant.
They were experimenting with all kinds of nasty pesticides and other things, and I would not exactly call the development they were doing "scientifically rigorous".
The scientific method in China basically means at best copying things from other countries, and at worst just randomly trying things out.
I never got the sense the grad students and such even really understood what it was they were doing, and the potential environmental impact or ethics of it was certainly not openly discussed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750008</id>
	<title>Re:Wary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263395880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug's digestive system to kill it.  Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human's digestive system?</p><p>--PM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello ,     Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug 's digestive system to kill it .
Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human 's digestive system ? --PM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello,
    Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug's digestive system to kill it.
Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human's digestive system?--PM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753648</id>
	<title>It's the glyphosate, not the modified protein</title>
	<author>Ubi\_NL</author>
	<datestamp>1263410400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you would actually read the article their conclusion states that it is probably remainders of the toxin itself rather than the modified protein inside the plant that is responsible for the effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you would actually read the article their conclusion states that it is probably remainders of the toxin itself rather than the modified protein inside the plant that is responsible for the effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you would actually read the article their conclusion states that it is probably remainders of the toxin itself rather than the modified protein inside the plant that is responsible for the effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749962</id>
	<title>Stduy flawed</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1263395580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the GMO corn has been bred for high sugar, as we know that's the main focus, then the rats more than likely consumed more calories which I would expect to have a detrimental effect on most systems in the body.

From the study:
We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design. A group consisting of the same number of animals fed a mixture of these test diets would have been a better and more appropriate control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the GMO corn has been bred for high sugar , as we know that 's the main focus , then the rats more than likely consumed more calories which I would expect to have a detrimental effect on most systems in the body .
From the study : We note that these unrelated , different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs .
The quantity of some sugars , ions , salts , and pesticide residues , do in fact differ from line to line , for example in the non-GM reference groups .
This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet ( 320 ) compared to the GM-fed groups ( 80 ) per transformation event , which considerably unbalances the experimental design .
A group consisting of the same number of animals fed a mixture of these test diets would have been a better and more appropriate control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the GMO corn has been bred for high sugar, as we know that's the main focus, then the rats more than likely consumed more calories which I would expect to have a detrimental effect on most systems in the body.
From the study:
We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs.
The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups.
This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design.
A group consisting of the same number of animals fed a mixture of these test diets would have been a better and more appropriate control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752868</id>
	<title>And...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1263407100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People would stop eating corn products.</p></div></blockquote><p>And they would know which corn products were Monsanto-ized, how, exactly? Giving up corn products altogether is a pretty giant step.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People would stop eating corn products.And they would know which corn products were Monsanto-ized , how , exactly ?
Giving up corn products altogether is a pretty giant step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People would stop eating corn products.And they would know which corn products were Monsanto-ized, how, exactly?
Giving up corn products altogether is a pretty giant step.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do it through lawsuits.  They are a very litigious company as they sue their own customers for failing to disclose harvest data and seed information.  Since they patended certain varieties of soybeans and corn, you cannot keep seed from one year to the next.  Also, a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.</p><p>It's a travesty.  I am not opposed to GM foods by any means, but this company's approach to solving problems with their products is completely unreasonable.  A class-action suit seems to be the only answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do it through lawsuits .
They are a very litigious company as they sue their own customers for failing to disclose harvest data and seed information .
Since they patended certain varieties of soybeans and corn , you can not keep seed from one year to the next .
Also , a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.It 's a travesty .
I am not opposed to GM foods by any means , but this company 's approach to solving problems with their products is completely unreasonable .
A class-action suit seems to be the only answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do it through lawsuits.
They are a very litigious company as they sue their own customers for failing to disclose harvest data and seed information.
Since they patended certain varieties of soybeans and corn, you cannot keep seed from one year to the next.
Also, a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.It's a travesty.
I am not opposed to GM foods by any means, but this company's approach to solving problems with their products is completely unreasonable.
A class-action suit seems to be the only answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30764126</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>berbo</author>
	<datestamp>1263484860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?</p></div></blockquote><p>People would stop eating corn products.</p><p>Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.</p></div><p>Dead people can sue?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto 's GM corn ? People would stop eating corn products.Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.Dead people can sue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?People would stop eating corn products.Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.Dead people can sue?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750582</id>
	<title>Misleading title and summary !</title>
	<author>cyberfunk2</author>
	<datestamp>1263398460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you actually read the journal article, all you will find is a LOT of criticism of Monsanto's statistical methodology (which may be valid), but very little (if any) of any actual evidence of toxicity.</p><p>Basically , they claim (which may be correct):  Monsanto didn't do their studies properly!  They should've used more rats, for longer, and with more measured parameters !</p><p>And THEN they turn around and claim... even though the study is statistically unsound (according to their own argument), we're going to draw some conclusions that are weak to begin with, even within the weak frame of this supposedly faulty study !</p><p>It just doesn't make much sense.... from a professional scientists' standpoint (mine), this amounts to a lot of hemming and hawing about experimental methods, but absolutely nothing in the way of conclusions !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually read the journal article , all you will find is a LOT of criticism of Monsanto 's statistical methodology ( which may be valid ) , but very little ( if any ) of any actual evidence of toxicity.Basically , they claim ( which may be correct ) : Monsanto did n't do their studies properly !
They should 've used more rats , for longer , and with more measured parameters ! And THEN they turn around and claim... even though the study is statistically unsound ( according to their own argument ) , we 're going to draw some conclusions that are weak to begin with , even within the weak frame of this supposedly faulty study ! It just does n't make much sense.... from a professional scientists ' standpoint ( mine ) , this amounts to a lot of hemming and hawing about experimental methods , but absolutely nothing in the way of conclusions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually read the journal article, all you will find is a LOT of criticism of Monsanto's statistical methodology (which may be valid), but very little (if any) of any actual evidence of toxicity.Basically , they claim (which may be correct):  Monsanto didn't do their studies properly!
They should've used more rats, for longer, and with more measured parameters !And THEN they turn around and claim... even though the study is statistically unsound (according to their own argument), we're going to draw some conclusions that are weak to begin with, even within the weak frame of this supposedly faulty study !It just doesn't make much sense.... from a professional scientists' standpoint (mine), this amounts to a lot of hemming and hawing about experimental methods, but absolutely nothing in the way of conclusions !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751792</id>
	<title>Food Inc - Documentary</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1263403260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that this popped up the day after I watched the movie "Food Inc."  If you think this is disturbing, you NEED to watch the movie<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><a href="http://www.foodincmovie.com/" title="foodincmovie.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.foodincmovie.com/</a> [foodincmovie.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that this popped up the day after I watched the movie " Food Inc. " If you think this is disturbing , you NEED to watch the movie ...http : //www.foodincmovie.com/ [ foodincmovie.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that this popped up the day after I watched the movie "Food Inc."  If you think this is disturbing, you NEED to watch the movie ...http://www.foodincmovie.com/ [foodincmovie.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755492</id>
	<title>Australian "FDA": this article is a joke!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/educationalmaterial/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm</p><p>Executive, slightly hyperbolic summary: these guys do crappy statistics, don't listen to scientific consensus, and are repeat offenders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.foodstandards.gov.au/educationalmaterial/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfmExecutive , slightly hyperbolic summary : these guys do crappy statistics , do n't listen to scientific consensus , and are repeat offenders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/educationalmaterial/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfmExecutive, slightly hyperbolic summary: these guys do crappy statistics, don't listen to scientific consensus, and are repeat offenders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751312</id>
	<title>Re:Wary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263401340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes a protein could most certainly never harm anyone upon ingestion:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum\_toxin</p><p>Please go make some meat and dirt and tell us how that works out for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes a protein could most certainly never harm anyone upon ingestion : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum \ _toxinPlease go make some meat and dirt and tell us how that works out for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes a protein could most certainly never harm anyone upon ingestion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum\_toxinPlease go make some meat and dirt and tell us how that works out for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263394080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what's most disturbing about this is ferengi magazine just named monsanto company of the year.</i></p><p>Why would a Ferengi care about your liver? Monsanto has always been evil. Before the Clean Air Act you couldn't drive through Sauget, IL with your windows down; you couldn't breathe and the air burned your lungs. Very toxic. These sociopaths don't give a rat's ass (or liver) about your health, your well being, anything at all about you except how much money they can extract from your wallet and how best to exploit you.</p><p>This is why we need regulations. Now, to you "free marketers" out there, how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal, non GM corn? Your god of commerce fails here, and we need "socialist" regulations badly.</p><p>GM <i>anything</i> should be required to be clearly marked on the container.</p><p>This bothers me; I eat a lot of corn, and a lot of stuff that has corn in it (anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup). I like to drink a bit, which is one reason I stay away from Tylenol. Now I guess I'll have to stop drinking soda and stop eating corn, or stop drinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's most disturbing about this is ferengi magazine just named monsanto company of the year.Why would a Ferengi care about your liver ?
Monsanto has always been evil .
Before the Clean Air Act you could n't drive through Sauget , IL with your windows down ; you could n't breathe and the air burned your lungs .
Very toxic .
These sociopaths do n't give a rat 's ass ( or liver ) about your health , your well being , anything at all about you except how much money they can extract from your wallet and how best to exploit you.This is why we need regulations .
Now , to you " free marketers " out there , how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal , non GM corn ?
Your god of commerce fails here , and we need " socialist " regulations badly.GM anything should be required to be clearly marked on the container.This bothers me ; I eat a lot of corn , and a lot of stuff that has corn in it ( anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup ) .
I like to drink a bit , which is one reason I stay away from Tylenol .
Now I guess I 'll have to stop drinking soda and stop eating corn , or stop drinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's most disturbing about this is ferengi magazine just named monsanto company of the year.Why would a Ferengi care about your liver?
Monsanto has always been evil.
Before the Clean Air Act you couldn't drive through Sauget, IL with your windows down; you couldn't breathe and the air burned your lungs.
Very toxic.
These sociopaths don't give a rat's ass (or liver) about your health, your well being, anything at all about you except how much money they can extract from your wallet and how best to exploit you.This is why we need regulations.
Now, to you "free marketers" out there, how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal, non GM corn?
Your god of commerce fails here, and we need "socialist" regulations badly.GM anything should be required to be clearly marked on the container.This bothers me; I eat a lot of corn, and a lot of stuff that has corn in it (anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup).
I like to drink a bit, which is one reason I stay away from Tylenol.
Now I guess I'll have to stop drinking soda and stop eating corn, or stop drinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751914</id>
	<title>Re:we need GMO foods</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263403860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant (and already there are a lot of starving people), or change something to the food we eat.<br></i><br>Unlike centuries past, there is plenty of food to feed everyone, thanks to technology like giant harvesters and such. The only reason people are starving is greed and politics. Because of politics we could have so much food we'd have to discard most of it, and people would still go hungry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant ( and already there are a lot of starving people ) , or change something to the food we eat.Unlike centuries past , there is plenty of food to feed everyone , thanks to technology like giant harvesters and such .
The only reason people are starving is greed and politics .
Because of politics we could have so much food we 'd have to discard most of it , and people would still go hungry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant (and already there are a lot of starving people), or change something to the food we eat.Unlike centuries past, there is plenty of food to feed everyone, thanks to technology like giant harvesters and such.
The only reason people are starving is greed and politics.
Because of politics we could have so much food we'd have to discard most of it, and people would still go hungry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750774</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1263399180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yea, we know that. My wife discovered her sinus issues over the years were caused by a slight allergy to corn. She cut out corn (gluten free) and for the past couple of years she's been lots happier.</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yea , we know that .
My wife discovered her sinus issues over the years were caused by a slight allergy to corn .
She cut out corn ( gluten free ) and for the past couple of years she 's been lots happier .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yea, we know that.
My wife discovered her sinus issues over the years were caused by a slight allergy to corn.
She cut out corn (gluten free) and for the past couple of years she's been lots happier.
[John]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</id>
	<title>How did I guess this was from Kdawson?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263394320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The study shows no organ damage. This is a lie by the esteemed Slashdot editor.</p><p>The study shows slight changes in some parameters which could be signs of damage. It could also not be. Eating sausages will give you different kidney readings from eating chicken, yet neither sausages nor chicken has been banned. Correspondingly the study says these are "signs of toxicity and not proof of toxicity". I would have expected KDawsons "organ damage" to imply that organ damage had been found.</p><p>Some data seems surprising - there is a significant effect for female rats consuming 11\% Monsanto corn, but not male rats or female rats consuming 33\%?</p><p>Although I agree that multiple year teasts should be performed, and organ damage checked for. Though it would be extremely surprising if this has not already been done by anyone.</p><p>Of course, since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil, since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The study shows no organ damage .
This is a lie by the esteemed Slashdot editor.The study shows slight changes in some parameters which could be signs of damage .
It could also not be .
Eating sausages will give you different kidney readings from eating chicken , yet neither sausages nor chicken has been banned .
Correspondingly the study says these are " signs of toxicity and not proof of toxicity " .
I would have expected KDawsons " organ damage " to imply that organ damage had been found.Some data seems surprising - there is a significant effect for female rats consuming 11 \ % Monsanto corn , but not male rats or female rats consuming 33 \ % ? Although I agree that multiple year teasts should be performed , and organ damage checked for .
Though it would be extremely surprising if this has not already been done by anyone.Of course , since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil , since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study shows no organ damage.
This is a lie by the esteemed Slashdot editor.The study shows slight changes in some parameters which could be signs of damage.
It could also not be.
Eating sausages will give you different kidney readings from eating chicken, yet neither sausages nor chicken has been banned.
Correspondingly the study says these are "signs of toxicity and not proof of toxicity".
I would have expected KDawsons "organ damage" to imply that organ damage had been found.Some data seems surprising - there is a significant effect for female rats consuming 11\% Monsanto corn, but not male rats or female rats consuming 33\%?Although I agree that multiple year teasts should be performed, and organ damage checked for.
Though it would be extremely surprising if this has not already been done by anyone.Of course, since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil, since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752196</id>
	<title>Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1263404820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although I agree that multiple year teasts [sic] should be performed, and organ damage checked for.</p></div><p>That idea is what differentiates you from Monsanto, a highly litigious company with a history of suppressing negative results.<br> <br>I think GM products should be identified on the label, and regular testing should absolutely be required before the products are made available for human consumption.
<br> <br>The alternative is to expect that Monsanto has my health in highest concern, which makes me laugh. Monsanto is in it for the money, period. They would do anything to keep the cash flowing. <em>(Cue the Dune quotes)</em></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I agree that multiple year teasts [ sic ] should be performed , and organ damage checked for.That idea is what differentiates you from Monsanto , a highly litigious company with a history of suppressing negative results .
I think GM products should be identified on the label , and regular testing should absolutely be required before the products are made available for human consumption .
The alternative is to expect that Monsanto has my health in highest concern , which makes me laugh .
Monsanto is in it for the money , period .
They would do anything to keep the cash flowing .
( Cue the Dune quotes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I agree that multiple year teasts [sic] should be performed, and organ damage checked for.That idea is what differentiates you from Monsanto, a highly litigious company with a history of suppressing negative results.
I think GM products should be identified on the label, and regular testing should absolutely be required before the products are made available for human consumption.
The alternative is to expect that Monsanto has my health in highest concern, which makes me laugh.
Monsanto is in it for the money, period.
They would do anything to keep the cash flowing.
(Cue the Dune quotes)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751004</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care that it's GM, I care that it damages my liver.<br>The lesson here seems to be in requiring strict testing for GM on line with what is mandated for other ways of introducing chemicals into our food.<br>We should focus on the end product and develop procedures and regulations for dealing with the diversity that GM enables.<br>Possibly a new lineage should be required to document that it's at least as safe, healthy and nutritious as the original product before you're allowed to sell it as e.g. "maize". This would affect naturally bred lineages, too, but presumably anything on the market today would be grandfathered in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care that it 's GM , I care that it damages my liver.The lesson here seems to be in requiring strict testing for GM on line with what is mandated for other ways of introducing chemicals into our food.We should focus on the end product and develop procedures and regulations for dealing with the diversity that GM enables.Possibly a new lineage should be required to document that it 's at least as safe , healthy and nutritious as the original product before you 're allowed to sell it as e.g .
" maize " . This would affect naturally bred lineages , too , but presumably anything on the market today would be grandfathered in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care that it's GM, I care that it damages my liver.The lesson here seems to be in requiring strict testing for GM on line with what is mandated for other ways of introducing chemicals into our food.We should focus on the end product and develop procedures and regulations for dealing with the diversity that GM enables.Possibly a new lineage should be required to document that it's at least as safe, healthy and nutritious as the original product before you're allowed to sell it as e.g.
"maize". This would affect naturally bred lineages, too, but presumably anything on the market today would be grandfathered in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752276</id>
	<title>The Monsanto people have been VERY VERY bad...</title>
	<author>Time\_Warped</author>
	<datestamp>1263405180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to wish them into the cornfield too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to wish them into the cornfield too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to wish them into the cornfield too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751652</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263402660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One pre-condition of a "free market" scenario is that the consumers all know everything (IE they would know if a food is good or bad for them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One pre-condition of a " free market " scenario is that the consumers all know everything ( IE they would know if a food is good or bad for them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One pre-condition of a "free market" scenario is that the consumers all know everything (IE they would know if a food is good or bad for them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749712</id>
	<title>Good luck</title>
	<author>Rooked\_One</author>
	<datestamp>1263394140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>gotta keep this short as I have to get to work, but something like 90\% of the food products you buy at say, walmart, contains GM corn or soybeans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>got ta keep this short as I have to get to work , but something like 90 \ % of the food products you buy at say , walmart , contains GM corn or soybeans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gotta keep this short as I have to get to work, but something like 90\% of the food products you buy at say, walmart, contains GM corn or soybeans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754302</id>
	<title>Curious</title>
	<author>OpenSourced</author>
	<datestamp>1263413040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when you try to put a medicine on the market, that only a small handful of people will take, you have to test it, test it again, then in other animals, then finally in people with controlled trials. When you modify a food, that almost everybody will take, you are allowed to on your say so, or perhaps on the looks of the thing "Hey, its maize, old and good, you know it cannot harm anybody".</p><p>I wonder if a medicine that showed this effects on rats would have been allowed even to be tested on humans, much less to be ever released to general consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when you try to put a medicine on the market , that only a small handful of people will take , you have to test it , test it again , then in other animals , then finally in people with controlled trials .
When you modify a food , that almost everybody will take , you are allowed to on your say so , or perhaps on the looks of the thing " Hey , its maize , old and good , you know it can not harm anybody " .I wonder if a medicine that showed this effects on rats would have been allowed even to be tested on humans , much less to be ever released to general consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when you try to put a medicine on the market, that only a small handful of people will take, you have to test it, test it again, then in other animals, then finally in people with controlled trials.
When you modify a food, that almost everybody will take, you are allowed to on your say so, or perhaps on the looks of the thing "Hey, its maize, old and good, you know it cannot harm anybody".I wonder if a medicine that showed this effects on rats would have been allowed even to be tested on humans, much less to be ever released to general consumption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753108</id>
	<title>Isn't the point of testing...</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1263408060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To do it BEFORE the world's crops are contaminated permanently with this GMO rubbish?</p><p>Does anyone in the mainstream not wonder why and how investigation was either not done, or hushed up, before these products were approved for environmental release, not to mention sale as food?</p><p>Oh well. Keep drinking your <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=aspartame+dangerous+cover-up&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=" title="google.com">Aspartame laced sodas</a> [google.com] and eating your GMO corn chips, everyone. Somebody's making a...killing on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To do it BEFORE the world 's crops are contaminated permanently with this GMO rubbish ? Does anyone in the mainstream not wonder why and how investigation was either not done , or hushed up , before these products were approved for environmental release , not to mention sale as food ? Oh well .
Keep drinking your Aspartame laced sodas [ google.com ] and eating your GMO corn chips , everyone .
Somebody 's making a...killing on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To do it BEFORE the world's crops are contaminated permanently with this GMO rubbish?Does anyone in the mainstream not wonder why and how investigation was either not done, or hushed up, before these products were approved for environmental release, not to mention sale as food?Oh well.
Keep drinking your Aspartame laced sodas [google.com] and eating your GMO corn chips, everyone.
Somebody's making a...killing on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750012</id>
	<title>Re:we need GMO foods</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1263395880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about birth control? Not over-populating an already over-crowded planet?</p><p>The main problem with GM, is that eventually the GM crops will work their way "into the wild". And then there is no stopping them. What happens if a particularly nasty GM crop gets loose and cross cultivates with wild or non-GM crops, and wipes out the natural crop? And said nasty GM crop is after-the-fact demonstrated to have a severe negative health impact on the human population? How can anyone control it? Wipe it out? What then???</p><p>GM is a time-bomb, sooner or later it's going to explode. And we are starting to see the expansion now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about birth control ?
Not over-populating an already over-crowded planet ? The main problem with GM , is that eventually the GM crops will work their way " into the wild " .
And then there is no stopping them .
What happens if a particularly nasty GM crop gets loose and cross cultivates with wild or non-GM crops , and wipes out the natural crop ?
And said nasty GM crop is after-the-fact demonstrated to have a severe negative health impact on the human population ?
How can anyone control it ?
Wipe it out ?
What then ? ?
? GM is a time-bomb , sooner or later it 's going to explode .
And we are starting to see the expansion now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about birth control?
Not over-populating an already over-crowded planet?The main problem with GM, is that eventually the GM crops will work their way "into the wild".
And then there is no stopping them.
What happens if a particularly nasty GM crop gets loose and cross cultivates with wild or non-GM crops, and wipes out the natural crop?
And said nasty GM crop is after-the-fact demonstrated to have a severe negative health impact on the human population?
How can anyone control it?
Wipe it out?
What then??
?GM is a time-bomb, sooner or later it's going to explode.
And we are starting to see the expansion now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754132</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1263412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Declining to comment on the silly lynching plan... You've got no chance in hell winning a law suit. There is no way to PROVE the corn is what caused your liver failure w/e. It damages millions of people just a little bit. Like second hand smoke.... Or factory/power plant pollution... I can't go sue the local steel plant because I have asthma.. though it was likely a huge contributor.<br> <br>What you would do if you got enough mad people is force a law to be made that shut them down.... Which is somehow socialist/evil. And no longer a 'free market'.<br> <br>Capitalism is a great and powerful force. Competition is an amazing thing that makes companies very efficient. The goal should be for the government to point this power and wield it. That way the companies work to our advantage not against us for their own advantage. Set rules and frameworks in which capitalism can prosper in a way advantaging the populace, Simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Declining to comment on the silly lynching plan... You 've got no chance in hell winning a law suit .
There is no way to PROVE the corn is what caused your liver failure w/e .
It damages millions of people just a little bit .
Like second hand smoke.... Or factory/power plant pollution... I ca n't go sue the local steel plant because I have asthma.. though it was likely a huge contributor .
What you would do if you got enough mad people is force a law to be made that shut them down.... Which is somehow socialist/evil .
And no longer a 'free market' .
Capitalism is a great and powerful force .
Competition is an amazing thing that makes companies very efficient .
The goal should be for the government to point this power and wield it .
That way the companies work to our advantage not against us for their own advantage .
Set rules and frameworks in which capitalism can prosper in a way advantaging the populace , Simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Declining to comment on the silly lynching plan... You've got no chance in hell winning a law suit.
There is no way to PROVE the corn is what caused your liver failure w/e.
It damages millions of people just a little bit.
Like second hand smoke.... Or factory/power plant pollution... I can't go sue the local steel plant because I have asthma.. though it was likely a huge contributor.
What you would do if you got enough mad people is force a law to be made that shut them down.... Which is somehow socialist/evil.
And no longer a 'free market'.
Capitalism is a great and powerful force.
Competition is an amazing thing that makes companies very efficient.
The goal should be for the government to point this power and wield it.
That way the companies work to our advantage not against us for their own advantage.
Set rules and frameworks in which capitalism can prosper in a way advantaging the populace, Simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753026</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1263407760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"free market" does not mean "no laws against poisons in food"</p><p>While there are probably people who believe in a a world with no laws, the term "free market" does not mean this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" free market " does not mean " no laws against poisons in food " While there are probably people who believe in a a world with no laws , the term " free market " does not mean this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"free market" does not mean "no laws against poisons in food"While there are probably people who believe in a a world with no laws, the term "free market" does not mean this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30756066</id>
	<title>Whew!  Glad I missed that one!</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1263376560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less than 7\% of corn consumed in the US is directly ingested, the rest being used for animal feed, high-fructose corn syrup, starch, and other products.  As such, the issue is probably not a great concern (although, if it hurts Monsanto and breaks the stranglehold this company has on the corn industry, it's a good idea).  Also, since the whole point of the RR trait is to allow farmers to douse their fields in Roundup, I'd also check to see how of the stuff the corn has absorbed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less than 7 \ % of corn consumed in the US is directly ingested , the rest being used for animal feed , high-fructose corn syrup , starch , and other products .
As such , the issue is probably not a great concern ( although , if it hurts Monsanto and breaks the stranglehold this company has on the corn industry , it 's a good idea ) .
Also , since the whole point of the RR trait is to allow farmers to douse their fields in Roundup , I 'd also check to see how of the stuff the corn has absorbed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less than 7\% of corn consumed in the US is directly ingested, the rest being used for animal feed, high-fructose corn syrup, starch, and other products.
As such, the issue is probably not a great concern (although, if it hurts Monsanto and breaks the stranglehold this company has on the corn industry, it's a good idea).
Also, since the whole point of the RR trait is to allow farmers to douse their fields in Roundup, I'd also check to see how of the stuff the corn has absorbed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751242</id>
	<title>Watch a movie called Food Inc.</title>
	<author>RedTeflon</author>
	<datestamp>1263401100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just watched a movie called Food Inc.  It was disturbing / eye opening at the same time.  Rather depressing actually.  It goes over a brief overview of the US food industry and touches a little on the Monsanto company.
<br>
Please check it out
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/</a> [imdb.com]
<br>
After watching it, I had to rewatch just to truly absorb all the info.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just watched a movie called Food Inc. It was disturbing / eye opening at the same time .
Rather depressing actually .
It goes over a brief overview of the US food industry and touches a little on the Monsanto company .
Please check it out http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/ [ imdb.com ] After watching it , I had to rewatch just to truly absorb all the info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just watched a movie called Food Inc.  It was disturbing / eye opening at the same time.
Rather depressing actually.
It goes over a brief overview of the US food industry and touches a little on the Monsanto company.
Please check it out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/ [imdb.com]

After watching it, I had to rewatch just to truly absorb all the info.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30758242</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263386280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is why we need regulations. Now, to you "free marketers" out there, how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal, non GM corn? Your god of commerce fails here, and we need "socialist" regulations badly.</i></p><p>Stop patching government-created problems with government-created problems.</p><p>Who is it that created this Monsanto mega-corporation monster, a fictional superhuman with 'natural' rights and no consequences?</p><p>Hint: corporations were effectively banned in the first nearly 100 years of the USA, except for limited times and for public benefit.  John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil got corrupt politicians to 'fix' that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we need regulations .
Now , to you " free marketers " out there , how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal , non GM corn ?
Your god of commerce fails here , and we need " socialist " regulations badly.Stop patching government-created problems with government-created problems.Who is it that created this Monsanto mega-corporation monster , a fictional superhuman with 'natural ' rights and no consequences ? Hint : corporations were effectively banned in the first nearly 100 years of the USA , except for limited times and for public benefit .
John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil got corrupt politicians to 'fix ' that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we need regulations.
Now, to you "free marketers" out there, how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal, non GM corn?
Your god of commerce fails here, and we need "socialist" regulations badly.Stop patching government-created problems with government-created problems.Who is it that created this Monsanto mega-corporation monster, a fictional superhuman with 'natural' rights and no consequences?Hint: corporations were effectively banned in the first nearly 100 years of the USA, except for limited times and for public benefit.
John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil got corrupt politicians to 'fix' that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751014</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is simple...</p><p>GeneCo!</p><p>Have you not seen Repo: The Genetic Rock Opera?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is simple...GeneCo ! Have you not seen Repo : The Genetic Rock Opera ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is simple...GeneCo!Have you not seen Repo: The Genetic Rock Opera?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749812</id>
	<title>Re:forbes magazine's company of the year</title>
	<author>Bartles</author>
	<datestamp>1263394860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that truly what you see as the role of the president?   Personally preventing businesses from making money?   Good luck with that strategy in 3 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that truly what you see as the role of the president ?
Personally preventing businesses from making money ?
Good luck with that strategy in 3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that truly what you see as the role of the president?
Personally preventing businesses from making money?
Good luck with that strategy in 3 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30773480</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is your suit for damages worth when your child is going to die young because of a bad liver from consuming GMO corn?  More money can't fix everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is your suit for damages worth when your child is going to die young because of a bad liver from consuming GMO corn ?
More money ca n't fix everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is your suit for damages worth when your child is going to die young because of a bad liver from consuming GMO corn?
More money can't fix everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749540</id>
	<title>Could american law please...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263393120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...put these filthy pigs behind bars already?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...put these filthy pigs behind bars already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...put these filthy pigs behind bars already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749578</id>
	<title>Re:government protection</title>
	<author>gnud</author>
	<datestamp>1263393240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you see people would rather have a toothless "small government"</htmltext>
<tokenext>you see people would rather have a toothless " small government "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you see people would rather have a toothless "small government"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753100</id>
	<title>Re:Wary</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1263408060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hello,</p><p>
  Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug's digestive system to kill it.  Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human's digestive system?</p><p>--PM</p></div><p>
from the Wikipedia article:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods.</p></div><p>
That's why.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug 's digestive system to kill it .
Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human 's digestive system ? --PM from the Wikipedia article : The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders , and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods .
That 's why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello,
  Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug's digestive system to kill it.
Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human's digestive system?--PM
from the Wikipedia article:
The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods.
That's why.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761902</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1263461880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many of us consume unprocessed GM corn as 11\% or 33\% of our daily diets? I can't eat that many tortillas or muffins, I like a little variety in my menu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of us consume unprocessed GM corn as 11 \ % or 33 \ % of our daily diets ?
I ca n't eat that many tortillas or muffins , I like a little variety in my menu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of us consume unprocessed GM corn as 11\% or 33\% of our daily diets?
I can't eat that many tortillas or muffins, I like a little variety in my menu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751126</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>hamburger lady</author>
	<datestamp>1263400680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pretty much everything we eat has some form or another of corn in it. either corn syrup or some food chemical extracted from corn.</p><p>in a country that takes food seriously i'd agree, then again in a country that takes food seriously we would never have gotten to this point. but in america at least 'people would stop eating corn products' is about as unrealistic as saying people would stop watching TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pretty much everything we eat has some form or another of corn in it .
either corn syrup or some food chemical extracted from corn.in a country that takes food seriously i 'd agree , then again in a country that takes food seriously we would never have gotten to this point .
but in america at least 'people would stop eating corn products ' is about as unrealistic as saying people would stop watching TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pretty much everything we eat has some form or another of corn in it.
either corn syrup or some food chemical extracted from corn.in a country that takes food seriously i'd agree, then again in a country that takes food seriously we would never have gotten to this point.
but in america at least 'people would stop eating corn products' is about as unrealistic as saying people would stop watching TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753354</id>
	<title>Diversity is key</title>
	<author>spectro</author>
	<datestamp>1263409020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nature evolves providing diversity and that is its best defense. From the beginning of farming we have been fighting diversity therefore becoming vulnerable to pests. We develop a pesticide to control this pest and after a while the pest evolves becoming resistant to it....</p><p>Homogenization makes business sense but is not the way of nature. We would like to produce one kind of corn, soybean, potato, apple, etc... the one that yields us more profit. In pursuing this we are creating a single point of failure. All we need is for a pest to become round-up resistant and all our soybean/corn produce goes to hell.</p><p>Remember that pests are also fighting for survival and having more of the same just make it easier for them to figure out a resistance. If we had diversity, some of the crop would die but the rest will survive. Not as profitable but way safer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature evolves providing diversity and that is its best defense .
From the beginning of farming we have been fighting diversity therefore becoming vulnerable to pests .
We develop a pesticide to control this pest and after a while the pest evolves becoming resistant to it....Homogenization makes business sense but is not the way of nature .
We would like to produce one kind of corn , soybean , potato , apple , etc... the one that yields us more profit .
In pursuing this we are creating a single point of failure .
All we need is for a pest to become round-up resistant and all our soybean/corn produce goes to hell.Remember that pests are also fighting for survival and having more of the same just make it easier for them to figure out a resistance .
If we had diversity , some of the crop would die but the rest will survive .
Not as profitable but way safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature evolves providing diversity and that is its best defense.
From the beginning of farming we have been fighting diversity therefore becoming vulnerable to pests.
We develop a pesticide to control this pest and after a while the pest evolves becoming resistant to it....Homogenization makes business sense but is not the way of nature.
We would like to produce one kind of corn, soybean, potato, apple, etc... the one that yields us more profit.
In pursuing this we are creating a single point of failure.
All we need is for a pest to become round-up resistant and all our soybean/corn produce goes to hell.Remember that pests are also fighting for survival and having more of the same just make it easier for them to figure out a resistance.
If we had diversity, some of the crop would die but the rest will survive.
Not as profitable but way safer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751592</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263402420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read it in detail. After puzzling over the poor wording, logical fallacies and strange conclusion, I looked up then authors.</p><p>Pretty enlightening. It also explains why this meta study is so crappy, even for a meta study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read it in detail .
After puzzling over the poor wording , logical fallacies and strange conclusion , I looked up then authors.Pretty enlightening .
It also explains why this meta study is so crappy , even for a meta study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read it in detail.
After puzzling over the poor wording, logical fallacies and strange conclusion, I looked up then authors.Pretty enlightening.
It also explains why this meta study is so crappy, even for a meta study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753548</id>
	<title>Re:Cross breeding issues</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1263409980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is evidence to suggest that despite a ban on GMO crops in Mexico, there is genetic contamination in their local crops. The hypothesis is that the corn they import from the USA sometimes gets spilled and germinates, producing GMO plants that cross-pollinate with the locals.</p><p>The upside is that it probably won't thrive in the long term. The local crops don't need all the fertilizer and pesticide sprays that the GMO crops do. The BT producing varieties may be resistant to the insects but the experience of cotton farmers in India would seem to indicate that the rest of the plants genome makes it a sickly wuss of a crop.</p><p>GMO crops are part of a razor + blades sales model ; buy the crops, buy the chemical package to make sure they work. Which of course a problem - the Roundup Ready&reg; trait is essentially just intended to make the crop resistant to really nasty herbicides that usually kill everything. And now we get megadoses of them sprayed on our crops.</p><p>The real threat is the percentage of people who buy into the package. If natural varieties die out, the ONLY way to grow these crops will be to buy seed and sprays from Monsanto. They will literally own our means of survival. Not a comfortable thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is evidence to suggest that despite a ban on GMO crops in Mexico , there is genetic contamination in their local crops .
The hypothesis is that the corn they import from the USA sometimes gets spilled and germinates , producing GMO plants that cross-pollinate with the locals.The upside is that it probably wo n't thrive in the long term .
The local crops do n't need all the fertilizer and pesticide sprays that the GMO crops do .
The BT producing varieties may be resistant to the insects but the experience of cotton farmers in India would seem to indicate that the rest of the plants genome makes it a sickly wuss of a crop.GMO crops are part of a razor + blades sales model ; buy the crops , buy the chemical package to make sure they work .
Which of course a problem - the Roundup Ready   trait is essentially just intended to make the crop resistant to really nasty herbicides that usually kill everything .
And now we get megadoses of them sprayed on our crops.The real threat is the percentage of people who buy into the package .
If natural varieties die out , the ONLY way to grow these crops will be to buy seed and sprays from Monsanto .
They will literally own our means of survival .
Not a comfortable thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is evidence to suggest that despite a ban on GMO crops in Mexico, there is genetic contamination in their local crops.
The hypothesis is that the corn they import from the USA sometimes gets spilled and germinates, producing GMO plants that cross-pollinate with the locals.The upside is that it probably won't thrive in the long term.
The local crops don't need all the fertilizer and pesticide sprays that the GMO crops do.
The BT producing varieties may be resistant to the insects but the experience of cotton farmers in India would seem to indicate that the rest of the plants genome makes it a sickly wuss of a crop.GMO crops are part of a razor + blades sales model ; buy the crops, buy the chemical package to make sure they work.
Which of course a problem - the Roundup Ready® trait is essentially just intended to make the crop resistant to really nasty herbicides that usually kill everything.
And now we get megadoses of them sprayed on our crops.The real threat is the percentage of people who buy into the package.
If natural varieties die out, the ONLY way to grow these crops will be to buy seed and sprays from Monsanto.
They will literally own our means of survival.
Not a comfortable thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757652</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>holmstar</author>
	<datestamp>1263383760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>good luck with that... unless that GM-free food was grown many many miles away from any GM food, then it most likely is at least a little bit cross pollinated, such that at least some of the corn kernels, beans, rice, whatever are genetically modified, even if the field was planted with non-GM seeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>good luck with that... unless that GM-free food was grown many many miles away from any GM food , then it most likely is at least a little bit cross pollinated , such that at least some of the corn kernels , beans , rice , whatever are genetically modified , even if the field was planted with non-GM seeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>good luck with that... unless that GM-free food was grown many many miles away from any GM food, then it most likely is at least a little bit cross pollinated, such that at least some of the corn kernels, beans, rice, whatever are genetically modified, even if the field was planted with non-GM seeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752830</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1263406980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most "free market enthusiasts" do not define a free market as anarchy. Thus we would be perfectly fine with the government establishing an appropriate safety/testing regulation to cover things like this.  There's a wide spectrum between having no police (bad), having the right amount of police (good), and having a police state (bad).</p><p>Please don't allow a vocal minority to redefine free markets as zero government intervention, rather than the minimum necessary intervention.  As with most things in life, striking a balance is key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most " free market enthusiasts " do not define a free market as anarchy .
Thus we would be perfectly fine with the government establishing an appropriate safety/testing regulation to cover things like this .
There 's a wide spectrum between having no police ( bad ) , having the right amount of police ( good ) , and having a police state ( bad ) .Please do n't allow a vocal minority to redefine free markets as zero government intervention , rather than the minimum necessary intervention .
As with most things in life , striking a balance is key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most "free market enthusiasts" do not define a free market as anarchy.
Thus we would be perfectly fine with the government establishing an appropriate safety/testing regulation to cover things like this.
There's a wide spectrum between having no police (bad), having the right amount of police (good), and having a police state (bad).Please don't allow a vocal minority to redefine free markets as zero government intervention, rather than the minimum necessary intervention.
As with most things in life, striking a balance is key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751280</id>
	<title>Horrible, horrible meta study</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263401220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It';s not a study it;s a meta study. Not even a well written meta study.</p><p>After seeing some odd conclusions, and logical fallacies I decided to look up the authors. Yeah, huge anti-GM proponents.</p><p>So what we have is a metastudy - which are always questionable. They have a use, but it's a very narrow band use.</p><p>We have authors who are heavily biased.</p><p>All the data has been cherry picked.</p><p>This shows nothing. Please come back with good data.</p><p>For the record, I am pro good studies and scientific facts. Even when they may slay a sacred cow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ' ; s not a study it ; s a meta study .
Not even a well written meta study.After seeing some odd conclusions , and logical fallacies I decided to look up the authors .
Yeah , huge anti-GM proponents.So what we have is a metastudy - which are always questionable .
They have a use , but it 's a very narrow band use.We have authors who are heavily biased.All the data has been cherry picked.This shows nothing .
Please come back with good data.For the record , I am pro good studies and scientific facts .
Even when they may slay a sacred cow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It';s not a study it;s a meta study.
Not even a well written meta study.After seeing some odd conclusions, and logical fallacies I decided to look up the authors.
Yeah, huge anti-GM proponents.So what we have is a metastudy - which are always questionable.
They have a use, but it's a very narrow band use.We have authors who are heavily biased.All the data has been cherry picked.This shows nothing.
Please come back with good data.For the record, I am pro good studies and scientific facts.
Even when they may slay a sacred cow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751634</id>
	<title>Re:Wary</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263402600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first off, it isn't research. It's a collection of cherry picked data and a poorly worded conclusion buy some very biased people.</p><p>Second, it's not a statistical fluke, it's a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first off , it is n't research .
It 's a collection of cherry picked data and a poorly worded conclusion buy some very biased people.Second , it 's not a statistical fluke , it 's a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first off, it isn't research.
It's a collection of cherry picked data and a poorly worded conclusion buy some very biased people.Second, it's not a statistical fluke, it's a lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752152</id>
	<title>Re:government protection</title>
	<author>Richy\_T</author>
	<datestamp>1263404700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?</b></p><p>At least, not *this* quarter. If it takes longer than 3 months, that's a problem for another day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Monsanto would n't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees , right ? At least , not * this * quarter .
If it takes longer than 3 months , that 's a problem for another day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?At least, not *this* quarter.
If it takes longer than 3 months, that's a problem for another day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749602</id>
	<title>Disturbing?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1263393420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if you think Forbes is for the kind of people who get all gooey over fluffy pink bunnies.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if you think Forbes is for the kind of people who get all gooey over fluffy pink bunnies .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if you think Forbes is for the kind of people who get all gooey over fluffy pink bunnies.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757346</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263382380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Georgeton, Vacerbilt, Nortwestern?</p><p>Are these joke schools with reputable sounding names sort of like the knock off electronics brands, or are you a horrible speller?</p><p>If it's a joke, it's funny (in theory), but very poorly executed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Georgeton , Vacerbilt , Nortwestern ? Are these joke schools with reputable sounding names sort of like the knock off electronics brands , or are you a horrible speller ? If it 's a joke , it 's funny ( in theory ) , but very poorly executed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Georgeton, Vacerbilt, Nortwestern?Are these joke schools with reputable sounding names sort of like the knock off electronics brands, or are you a horrible speller?If it's a joke, it's funny (in theory), but very poorly executed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684</id>
	<title>Re:government protection</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1263394020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?</p><p>I still believe that the governments must protect:<br>1. the use of GMO should be explicitely mentioned on any product.<br>2. any government has the obligation to protect its citizens - through control, regulation, and if necessary, closure of businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Monsanto would n't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees , right ? I still believe that the governments must protect : 1. the use of GMO should be explicitely mentioned on any product.2 .
any government has the obligation to protect its citizens - through control , regulation , and if necessary , closure of businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?I still believe that the governments must protect:1. the use of GMO should be explicitely mentioned on any product.2.
any government has the obligation to protect its citizens - through control, regulation, and if necessary, closure of businesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750970</id>
	<title>Re:That's excellent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a rat you insensitive clod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a rat you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a rat you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749918</id>
	<title>Puffed...</title>
	<author>DigitumDei</author>
	<datestamp>1263395400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>round up ready rice?</htmltext>
<tokenext>round up ready rice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>round up ready rice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750830</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1263399420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your premise fails because the market isn't free.</p><p>When you accurately describe the market, come back and troll some more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your premise fails because the market is n't free.When you accurately describe the market , come back and troll some more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your premise fails because the market isn't free.When you accurately describe the market, come back and troll some more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751658</id>
	<title>how did I know this was a European study?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1263402660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theya re like 99\% against GM on the other side of the ocean.  You cant get a pro-GM result published in a European-based journal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theya re like 99 \ % against GM on the other side of the ocean .
You cant get a pro-GM result published in a European-based journal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theya re like 99\% against GM on the other side of the ocean.
You cant get a pro-GM result published in a European-based journal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749928</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263395460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt;&gt;Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome. So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?</i></p><p><i>&gt;The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.</i></p><p>While the visible hand of government was busy doing something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001 , and obviously knew the outcome .
So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years ? &gt; The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.While the visible hand of government was busy doing something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.
So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?&gt;The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.While the visible hand of government was busy doing something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757096</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1263381120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a coincidence. Nearly a decade ago I started to get blinding migraines in 5 minutes flat from eating corn.</p><p>I'm against genetically modified ANYTHING. Why? Because I can't verify the effects are negative. We're toddlers, playing with genomes. We need to study this shit for decades(lifetimes) before we put it out in the wild - lest we damage ourselves irreparably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a coincidence .
Nearly a decade ago I started to get blinding migraines in 5 minutes flat from eating corn.I 'm against genetically modified ANYTHING .
Why ? Because I ca n't verify the effects are negative .
We 're toddlers , playing with genomes .
We need to study this shit for decades ( lifetimes ) before we put it out in the wild - lest we damage ourselves irreparably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a coincidence.
Nearly a decade ago I started to get blinding migraines in 5 minutes flat from eating corn.I'm against genetically modified ANYTHING.
Why? Because I can't verify the effects are negative.
We're toddlers, playing with genomes.
We need to study this shit for decades(lifetimes) before we put it out in the wild - lest we damage ourselves irreparably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752548</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1263406140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my meat does not have it</p></div><p>Are you sure? What did you 'meat' eat?<br> <br>After watching Food, Inc. I've started looking for grass fed beef, and free range chicken meat.<br>
Its a little tougher to find (not at the supermarket) and a can be quite bit more expensive.
<br> <br>Also this same issue can come up in products other then corn. Round up ready is also in Soy.
I couldn't find much on other Round up Ready products, but a short google search showed Round up ready lettuce is on the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my meat does not have itAre you sure ?
What did you 'meat ' eat ?
After watching Food , Inc. I 've started looking for grass fed beef , and free range chicken meat .
Its a little tougher to find ( not at the supermarket ) and a can be quite bit more expensive .
Also this same issue can come up in products other then corn .
Round up ready is also in Soy .
I could n't find much on other Round up Ready products , but a short google search showed Round up ready lettuce is on the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my meat does not have itAre you sure?
What did you 'meat' eat?
After watching Food, Inc. I've started looking for grass fed beef, and free range chicken meat.
Its a little tougher to find (not at the supermarket) and a can be quite bit more expensive.
Also this same issue can come up in products other then corn.
Round up ready is also in Soy.
I couldn't find much on other Round up Ready products, but a short google search showed Round up ready lettuce is on the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750596</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention, Monsanto wouldn't be the giant super nearly untouchable megacorporation it is if it weren't for government-granted patent monopolies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention , Monsanto would n't be the giant super nearly untouchable megacorporation it is if it were n't for government-granted patent monopolies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention, Monsanto wouldn't be the giant super nearly untouchable megacorporation it is if it weren't for government-granted patent monopolies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750526</id>
	<title>Obligatory documentary about Monsanto</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263398220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to see a documentary, looking at the actual details, and without being as annoying as Michael Moore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;), this one is really nice:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844&amp;ei=ZN5NS\_-xIYzO2wLFydW3Bw&amp;q=the+world+according+to+monsanto&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a#" title="google.com">In English</a> [google.com] </li><li> <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8723985684378254371&amp;ei=791NS\_uBDY-62wLG\_LT5Cg&amp;q=le+monde+selon+monsanto&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a#" title="google.com">En Fran&#231;ais</a> [google.com] </li><li> <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7781121501979693623&amp;ei=PDnaSanhFIPO-AbDzPmlAg&amp;q=monsanto#" title="google.com">In Deutsch</a> [google.com] </li></ul><p>IMO, Haliburton, Microsoft, RIAA/MPAA, and the weapons industry are all freakin&rsquo; jokes compared to these guys...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/ (Only Eli Lily might come close.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see a documentary , looking at the actual details , and without being as annoying as Michael Moore ; ) , this one is really nice : In English [ google.com ] En Fran   ais [ google.com ] In Deutsch [ google.com ] IMO , Haliburton , Microsoft , RIAA/MPAA , and the weapons industry are all freakin    jokes compared to these guys... : / ( Only Eli Lily might come close .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to see a documentary, looking at the actual details, and without being as annoying as Michael Moore ;), this one is really nice: In English [google.com]  En Français [google.com]  In Deutsch [google.com] IMO, Haliburton, Microsoft, RIAA/MPAA, and the weapons industry are all freakin’ jokes compared to these guys... :/ (Only Eli Lily might come close.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751722</id>
	<title>Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1263402900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article too and took away exactly the same conclusions. I also thought it was interesting that they can't isolate the effects of the corn itself from the effects of whatever the corn was treated with. (They mentioned that the signs of toxicity are reminiscent of something that could be a reaction to a pesticide.) That might be worth doing in a future study, and wouldn't be hard: You just grow the corn in a test field and don't spray it at all, and compare its effects to the corn that was grown the conventional way.</p><p>

So come on, people. This shit is important, and lab rats aren't that expensive. Let's go already!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article too and took away exactly the same conclusions .
I also thought it was interesting that they ca n't isolate the effects of the corn itself from the effects of whatever the corn was treated with .
( They mentioned that the signs of toxicity are reminiscent of something that could be a reaction to a pesticide .
) That might be worth doing in a future study , and would n't be hard : You just grow the corn in a test field and do n't spray it at all , and compare its effects to the corn that was grown the conventional way .
So come on , people .
This shit is important , and lab rats are n't that expensive .
Let 's go already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article too and took away exactly the same conclusions.
I also thought it was interesting that they can't isolate the effects of the corn itself from the effects of whatever the corn was treated with.
(They mentioned that the signs of toxicity are reminiscent of something that could be a reaction to a pesticide.
) That might be worth doing in a future study, and wouldn't be hard: You just grow the corn in a test field and don't spray it at all, and compare its effects to the corn that was grown the conventional way.
So come on, people.
This shit is important, and lab rats aren't that expensive.
Let's go already!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750004</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1263395880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair you only need to avoid yellow corn.  Blue corn is all right.  Corn syrup shouldn't contain genetic material or plant-produced pesticides but it has high levels of mercury anyway.  Buying organic is the best you can do.  Incidentally, Monsanto &amp; the rest have lobbied to prevent food producers from labeling their product "GMO-free".</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair you only need to avoid yellow corn .
Blue corn is all right .
Corn syrup should n't contain genetic material or plant-produced pesticides but it has high levels of mercury anyway .
Buying organic is the best you can do .
Incidentally , Monsanto &amp; the rest have lobbied to prevent food producers from labeling their product " GMO-free " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair you only need to avoid yellow corn.
Blue corn is all right.
Corn syrup shouldn't contain genetic material or plant-produced pesticides but it has high levels of mercury anyway.
Buying organic is the best you can do.
Incidentally, Monsanto &amp; the rest have lobbied to prevent food producers from labeling their product "GMO-free".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1263395280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I was out sick during that meeting where Monstanto's board of directors issued the "we need to kill all our customers" directive.</p><p>This thing called "the legal system," where someone could sue someone else for damages, trespassing, etc. is amazing from what I hear.  People from everywhere can come in, fill out paperwork and ask for these things called "damages," but hell..what do I know? I am just a free market enthusiast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I was out sick during that meeting where Monstanto 's board of directors issued the " we need to kill all our customers " directive.This thing called " the legal system , " where someone could sue someone else for damages , trespassing , etc .
is amazing from what I hear .
People from everywhere can come in , fill out paperwork and ask for these things called " damages , " but hell..what do I know ?
I am just a free market enthusiast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I was out sick during that meeting where Monstanto's board of directors issued the "we need to kill all our customers" directive.This thing called "the legal system," where someone could sue someone else for damages, trespassing, etc.
is amazing from what I hear.
People from everywhere can come in, fill out paperwork and ask for these things called "damages," but hell..what do I know?
I am just a free market enthusiast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752878</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, I don't like Monsanto, they do some real b.s. stunts.<br>Also, that article used a number of terms I am not familiar with, mostly specific tests or specific data manipulation techniques.</p><p>A few things bother me.</p><p>Each test group was apparently 10 rats.<br>The results in that article include nothing from the control group(s).<br>Some of their raw data was obtained via lawsuit.<br>The testing was also done by two different groups in different locations and different times.</p><p>I'm somewhat suspicious of this.<br>If I were paranoid, I'd say they just took someone elses experimental data and manipulated it to show what they wanted.</p><p>Since the IJoBS is peer reviewed, let's see what the peers have to say about this article, especially after some of the peers do their own testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I do n't like Monsanto , they do some real b.s .
stunts.Also , that article used a number of terms I am not familiar with , mostly specific tests or specific data manipulation techniques.A few things bother me.Each test group was apparently 10 rats.The results in that article include nothing from the control group ( s ) .Some of their raw data was obtained via lawsuit.The testing was also done by two different groups in different locations and different times.I 'm somewhat suspicious of this.If I were paranoid , I 'd say they just took someone elses experimental data and manipulated it to show what they wanted.Since the IJoBS is peer reviewed , let 's see what the peers have to say about this article , especially after some of the peers do their own testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I don't like Monsanto, they do some real b.s.
stunts.Also, that article used a number of terms I am not familiar with, mostly specific tests or specific data manipulation techniques.A few things bother me.Each test group was apparently 10 rats.The results in that article include nothing from the control group(s).Some of their raw data was obtained via lawsuit.The testing was also done by two different groups in different locations and different times.I'm somewhat suspicious of this.If I were paranoid, I'd say they just took someone elses experimental data and manipulated it to show what they wanted.Since the IJoBS is peer reviewed, let's see what the peers have to say about this article, especially after some of the peers do their own testing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750840</id>
	<title>Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil, since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.</p></div><p>Don't be silly. Here, take a bowl of corn...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil , since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.Do n't be silly .
Here , take a bowl of corn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil, since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.Don't be silly.
Here, take a bowl of corn...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749468</id>
	<title>Yummy Roundup!</title>
	<author>zenaida\_valdez</author>
	<datestamp>1263392520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eat enough corn and... Roundup Ready people!!  Mmmm Yummy Roundup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat enough corn and... Roundup Ready people ! !
Mmmm Yummy Roundup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat enough corn and... Roundup Ready people!!
Mmmm Yummy Roundup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753540</id>
	<title>deadly innovation</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1263409980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now we have deadly innovations lobbied to death worldwide (even the EU simplifies the number of desks to visit for Mansanto), news about shortcomings is of course supporessed or denied and the public is kept in the unknown, all in the name of corporatism which originated in the USA, land of the not so free....</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now we have deadly innovations lobbied to death worldwide ( even the EU simplifies the number of desks to visit for Mansanto ) , news about shortcomings is of course supporessed or denied and the public is kept in the unknown , all in the name of corporatism which originated in the USA , land of the not so free... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now we have deadly innovations lobbied to death worldwide (even the EU simplifies the number of desks to visit for Mansanto), news about shortcomings is of course supporessed or denied and the public is kept in the unknown, all in the name of corporatism which originated in the USA, land of the not so free....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755010</id>
	<title>Re:An effect of pesticides?</title>
	<author>bucolic</author>
	<datestamp>1263415680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe the pesticides/insecticides are produced within the corn itself, due to GM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the pesticides/insecticides are produced within the corn itself , due to GM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the pesticides/insecticides are produced within the corn itself, due to GM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752332</id>
	<title>How many anomalies should we expect?</title>
	<author>Senescent Nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1263405360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's eyeball the statistics: 60 measurements per organ (according to the abstract), times seven organs (adrenal glands, brain, gonads, heart, kidneys, liver, and spleen), times two feeding durations (5 and 14 weeks), times two sexes (male, female), time three strains of corn tested (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), equals 5040 measurement series. (Wow! 7!)  So in the absence of any effect, we should expect 5040/20 = 252 "statistically significant" (p &lt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.05) discoveries and 5040/100 = 50 "statistically highly significant" (p &lt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01) discoveries.
<p>
Are we learning something about health, or are we just illustrating the perils of data dredging?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's eyeball the statistics : 60 measurements per organ ( according to the abstract ) , times seven organs ( adrenal glands , brain , gonads , heart , kidneys , liver , and spleen ) , times two feeding durations ( 5 and 14 weeks ) , times two sexes ( male , female ) , time three strains of corn tested ( NK 603 , MON 810 , MON 863 ) , equals 5040 measurement series .
( Wow ! 7 !
) So in the absence of any effect , we should expect 5040/20 = 252 " statistically significant " ( p .05 ) discoveries and 5040/100 = 50 " statistically highly significant " ( p .01 ) discoveries .
Are we learning something about health , or are we just illustrating the perils of data dredging ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's eyeball the statistics: 60 measurements per organ (according to the abstract), times seven organs (adrenal glands, brain, gonads, heart, kidneys, liver, and spleen), times two feeding durations (5 and 14 weeks), times two sexes (male, female), time three strains of corn tested (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), equals 5040 measurement series.
(Wow! 7!
)  So in the absence of any effect, we should expect 5040/20 = 252 "statistically significant" (p  .05) discoveries and 5040/100 = 50 "statistically highly significant" (p  .01) discoveries.
Are we learning something about health, or are we just illustrating the perils of data dredging?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750536</id>
	<title>Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1263398280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GM is safe based on Monsanto's research conducted by Monsanto funded by Monsanto</p><p>The FDA have used the results from this to conclude that it is safe!</p><p>The US government have concluded it is safe based on the FDA recommendation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>I would like to get somebody completely independent of Monsanto not constrained by them in any way to test this before eating their products<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but Monsanto seems to dislike anyone doing this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GM is safe based on Monsanto 's research conducted by Monsanto funded by MonsantoThe FDA have used the results from this to conclude that it is safe ! The US government have concluded it is safe based on the FDA recommendation ....I would like to get somebody completely independent of Monsanto not constrained by them in any way to test this before eating their products ... but Monsanto seems to dislike anyone doing this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GM is safe based on Monsanto's research conducted by Monsanto funded by MonsantoThe FDA have used the results from this to conclude that it is safe!The US government have concluded it is safe based on the FDA recommendation ....I would like to get somebody completely independent of Monsanto not constrained by them in any way to test this before eating their products ... but Monsanto seems to dislike anyone doing this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30773138</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1263474060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're way ahead of yourself.  You're assuming that in a unencumbered free market, that the victim would even know that it's GM corn that was making them sick, and that Monsanto is the company responsible.  I don't see how would even arrive there without government sponsored research to study things like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're way ahead of yourself .
You 're assuming that in a unencumbered free market , that the victim would even know that it 's GM corn that was making them sick , and that Monsanto is the company responsible .
I do n't see how would even arrive there without government sponsored research to study things like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're way ahead of yourself.
You're assuming that in a unencumbered free market, that the victim would even know that it's GM corn that was making them sick, and that Monsanto is the company responsible.
I don't see how would even arrive there without government sponsored research to study things like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753428</id>
	<title>Moral: If bacteria and insects can't eat it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..we shouldn't either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..we should n't either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..we shouldn't either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30760794</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263403500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your meat probably does have it in, since they feed corn to animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your meat probably does have it in , since they feed corn to animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your meat probably does have it in, since they feed corn to animals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750104</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1263396360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a free market, what's to stop them just buying Monsanto slop, throwing some grit in it, and selling it for twice the price as "GM-free organic"?

</p><p>Actually, what's to stop them from doing that right now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a free market , what 's to stop them just buying Monsanto slop , throwing some grit in it , and selling it for twice the price as " GM-free organic " ?
Actually , what 's to stop them from doing that right now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a free market, what's to stop them just buying Monsanto slop, throwing some grit in it, and selling it for twice the price as "GM-free organic"?
Actually, what's to stop them from doing that right now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749992</id>
	<title>There is an alternative to gmo corn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263395820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is a better way... see <a href="http://gonongmo.com/" title="gonongmo.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [gonongmo.com] and scroll down to the non gmo corn at the bottom of the page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a better way... see here [ gonongmo.com ] and scroll down to the non gmo corn at the bottom of the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a better way... see here [gonongmo.com] and scroll down to the non gmo corn at the bottom of the page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750770</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of us cook from scratch</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us cook from scratch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us cook from scratch</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750716</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263398940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A consumers union would form and certify that foods passed certain safety standards.</p><p>For example, there is the Forest Stewardship Council; they don't exist in a regulatory void, but the FSC is out ahead of lots of governments:</p><p><a href="http://www.fsc.org/" title="fsc.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsc.org/</a> [fsc.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A consumers union would form and certify that foods passed certain safety standards.For example , there is the Forest Stewardship Council ; they do n't exist in a regulatory void , but the FSC is out ahead of lots of governments : http : //www.fsc.org/ [ fsc.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A consumers union would form and certify that foods passed certain safety standards.For example, there is the Forest Stewardship Council; they don't exist in a regulatory void, but the FSC is out ahead of lots of governments:http://www.fsc.org/ [fsc.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656</id>
	<title>Wary</title>
	<author>methano</author>
	<datestamp>1263393780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what? I don't believe this research is right.  It may be correct and we're gonna learn of an interesting mechanism whereby this implementation actually allows a protein to avoid the digestive system and make it's way straight into the bloodstream.  That would really be cool.  But from what I know of the mechanisms of digestion and what types of molecules get through the whole process, I just don't believe this conclusion is correct.  I suspect that it's bogus or a statistical fluke.  As I said, there may be something here but my first inclination is to suspect something is wrong.  Research has shown many mutually exclusive things to be "true" and so one has to have a mechanism that throws up a "bogus flag".  This article does.<br> <br>

So I'm gonna call bogus for now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what ?
I do n't believe this research is right .
It may be correct and we 're gon na learn of an interesting mechanism whereby this implementation actually allows a protein to avoid the digestive system and make it 's way straight into the bloodstream .
That would really be cool .
But from what I know of the mechanisms of digestion and what types of molecules get through the whole process , I just do n't believe this conclusion is correct .
I suspect that it 's bogus or a statistical fluke .
As I said , there may be something here but my first inclination is to suspect something is wrong .
Research has shown many mutually exclusive things to be " true " and so one has to have a mechanism that throws up a " bogus flag " .
This article does .
So I 'm gon na call bogus for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what?
I don't believe this research is right.
It may be correct and we're gonna learn of an interesting mechanism whereby this implementation actually allows a protein to avoid the digestive system and make it's way straight into the bloodstream.
That would really be cool.
But from what I know of the mechanisms of digestion and what types of molecules get through the whole process, I just don't believe this conclusion is correct.
I suspect that it's bogus or a statistical fluke.
As I said, there may be something here but my first inclination is to suspect something is wrong.
Research has shown many mutually exclusive things to be "true" and so one has to have a mechanism that throws up a "bogus flag".
This article does.
So I'm gonna call bogus for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749506</id>
	<title>Cheap food not good for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noooooooo really?</p><p>I thought everything made from corn would be good for you...</p><p>You want health... pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noooooooo really ? I thought everything made from corn would be good for you...You want health... pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noooooooo really?I thought everything made from corn would be good for you...You want health... pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750816</id>
	<title>Sugar Fountains Ratliver Stunned Scientists.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>European sugar is traditionally made from Beetroot, but importation can have it be from Corn (US and etc.) or Sugar Cane (rest of the tropical world). Other sources exist.</p><p>Thanks to nanotechnology, cell gene manipulation is really getting closer to engineering. The 80's to mid-2k0's version was much closer to frankenstein sweepstakes with the equivalent of shotguns in the dark, and radioactive-poison roadblocks and traffic-lights.</p><p>Not that previous 'brute-forcce' genetic technology was much nicer (toxic chemicals and radiation). As in John Wyndham's "Triffids", for example<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P Or as per Kuru, and all the other traditional biowar<br>bogeys.</p><p>But this is just confirmation of really old news. Chek out references on the - previously - good, sane, stable and totally assimilated Dr. &#193;rp&#225;d Pusztai. Before he suffered 'a breakdown' and 'went rogue', becoming a soppy greenhead, evidently... </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>European sugar is traditionally made from Beetroot , but importation can have it be from Corn ( US and etc .
) or Sugar Cane ( rest of the tropical world ) .
Other sources exist.Thanks to nanotechnology , cell gene manipulation is really getting closer to engineering .
The 80 's to mid-2k0 's version was much closer to frankenstein sweepstakes with the equivalent of shotguns in the dark , and radioactive-poison roadblocks and traffic-lights.Not that previous 'brute-forcce ' genetic technology was much nicer ( toxic chemicals and radiation ) .
As in John Wyndham 's " Triffids " , for example : -P Or as per Kuru , and all the other traditional biowarbogeys.But this is just confirmation of really old news .
Chek out references on the - previously - good , sane , stable and totally assimilated Dr.   rp   d Pusztai .
Before he suffered 'a breakdown ' and 'went rogue ' , becoming a soppy greenhead , evidently.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>European sugar is traditionally made from Beetroot, but importation can have it be from Corn (US and etc.
) or Sugar Cane (rest of the tropical world).
Other sources exist.Thanks to nanotechnology, cell gene manipulation is really getting closer to engineering.
The 80's to mid-2k0's version was much closer to frankenstein sweepstakes with the equivalent of shotguns in the dark, and radioactive-poison roadblocks and traffic-lights.Not that previous 'brute-forcce' genetic technology was much nicer (toxic chemicals and radiation).
As in John Wyndham's "Triffids", for example :-P Or as per Kuru, and all the other traditional biowarbogeys.But this is just confirmation of really old news.
Chek out references on the - previously - good, sane, stable and totally assimilated Dr. Árpád Pusztai.
Before he suffered 'a breakdown' and 'went rogue', becoming a soppy greenhead, evidently... </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755904</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263375960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People from everywhere can come in, fill out paperwork and ask for these things called "damages"</p></div><p>What amount of damages could redress damaged organs that may prove to be impossible to replace? What about life?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People from everywhere can come in , fill out paperwork and ask for these things called " damages " What amount of damages could redress damaged organs that may prove to be impossible to replace ?
What about life ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People from everywhere can come in, fill out paperwork and ask for these things called "damages"What amount of damages could redress damaged organs that may prove to be impossible to replace?
What about life?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</id>
	<title>Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.  So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001 , and obviously knew the outcome .
So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.
So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749564</id>
	<title>the answer is american mindset.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1263393180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know, the 'hands off business', 'corporations regulate themselves better', 'trade secrets' shit.</p><p>now it has come to the point of damaging our kidneys, but there are still morons who are able to defend that kind of bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know , the 'hands off business ' , 'corporations regulate themselves better ' , 'trade secrets ' shit.now it has come to the point of damaging our kidneys , but there are still morons who are able to defend that kind of bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know, the 'hands off business', 'corporations regulate themselves better', 'trade secrets' shit.now it has come to the point of damaging our kidneys, but there are still morons who are able to defend that kind of bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750306</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263397380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are basically saying: if you can bribe/sue/coerce a few major journals, so they won't run a story, your products are safe because nobody can publish in a reputable journal saying otherwise; and lesser known journals are not trustworthy.</p><p>Oh but I'm sure that wouldn't happen. Big corporations always play by the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are basically saying : if you can bribe/sue/coerce a few major journals , so they wo n't run a story , your products are safe because nobody can publish in a reputable journal saying otherwise ; and lesser known journals are not trustworthy.Oh but I 'm sure that would n't happen .
Big corporations always play by the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are basically saying: if you can bribe/sue/coerce a few major journals, so they won't run a story, your products are safe because nobody can publish in a reputable journal saying otherwise; and lesser known journals are not trustworthy.Oh but I'm sure that wouldn't happen.
Big corporations always play by the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751194</id>
	<title>Re:Could american law please...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263400920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope; this is the United States of Ferengenar. Our national religion is the worship of money. here's our national prayer:</p><p>Our gold, who art in the bank, hallowed be thy name.<br>My kingdom come, my will be done on earth as it is in orbit.<br>Give me today my gourmet food and cocaine and fast cars and mansions and deliver me from socialism.<br>For money is the power and the glory forever.<br>I'm in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope ; this is the United States of Ferengenar .
Our national religion is the worship of money .
here 's our national prayer : Our gold , who art in the bank , hallowed be thy name.My kingdom come , my will be done on earth as it is in orbit.Give me today my gourmet food and cocaine and fast cars and mansions and deliver me from socialism.For money is the power and the glory forever.I 'm in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope; this is the United States of Ferengenar.
Our national religion is the worship of money.
here's our national prayer:Our gold, who art in the bank, hallowed be thy name.My kingdom come, my will be done on earth as it is in orbit.Give me today my gourmet food and cocaine and fast cars and mansions and deliver me from socialism.For money is the power and the glory forever.I'm in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750124</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1263396480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is that it needs to be done further.  Was the roundup ready corn grown in a controlled lab and the rats only ate that?  Or is the study based on rats captured from fields planted with Roundup ready?</p><p>The difference is that the rats ate corn or corn+chemicals.</p><p>It needs to be researched fully so any real findings are solid and cant be refuted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that it needs to be done further .
Was the roundup ready corn grown in a controlled lab and the rats only ate that ?
Or is the study based on rats captured from fields planted with Roundup ready ? The difference is that the rats ate corn or corn + chemicals.It needs to be researched fully so any real findings are solid and cant be refuted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that it needs to be done further.
Was the roundup ready corn grown in a controlled lab and the rats only ate that?
Or is the study based on rats captured from fields planted with Roundup ready?The difference is that the rats ate corn or corn+chemicals.It needs to be researched fully so any real findings are solid and cant be refuted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750486</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?"</p><p>Customers would die and the company would lose profits due to the loss of customers.</p><p>All that "informed decision" talk in other replies is nonsense. Even with our regulations, companies try to hide, cheat and lie as much as they can get away with.</p><p>I find it hilarious how "free market" people think everything would be better, when with all the existing regulations so much crap happens. Makes me wonder if they are just repeating that gospel out of greed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
" Customers would die and the company would lose profits due to the loss of customers.All that " informed decision " talk in other replies is nonsense .
Even with our regulations , companies try to hide , cheat and lie as much as they can get away with.I find it hilarious how " free market " people think everything would be better , when with all the existing regulations so much crap happens .
Makes me wonder if they are just repeating that gospel out of greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
"Customers would die and the company would lose profits due to the loss of customers.All that "informed decision" talk in other replies is nonsense.
Even with our regulations, companies try to hide, cheat and lie as much as they can get away with.I find it hilarious how "free market" people think everything would be better, when with all the existing regulations so much crap happens.
Makes me wonder if they are just repeating that gospel out of greed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755406</id>
	<title>fuck you cunt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>before i shove a corn cob up your anus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>before i shove a corn cob up your anus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before i shove a corn cob up your anus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496</id>
	<title>government protection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751966</id>
	<title>In order to free the market...</title>
	<author>RoboProg</author>
	<datestamp>1263404040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it was necessary to regulate it.  Without limited effective regulation, such as requiring this stuff to be labeled, it can be hard to conduct fair, non-coerced, transactions.  I am not saying we should outright ban the stuff  --  what if somebody is in a situation where the choice is grow this, because nothing else will?  But it would be nice to make an informed decision.</p><p>Either regulations, or de-regulation, can go overboard.  What was right 10 or 20 years ago may be too much or too little now.</p><p>Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from communism.  Some guys in a room on the central planning committee decide production for an entire industry, and see to it that there are no questions from the populace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it was necessary to regulate it .
Without limited effective regulation , such as requiring this stuff to be labeled , it can be hard to conduct fair , non-coerced , transactions .
I am not saying we should outright ban the stuff -- what if somebody is in a situation where the choice is grow this , because nothing else will ?
But it would be nice to make an informed decision.Either regulations , or de-regulation , can go overboard .
What was right 10 or 20 years ago may be too much or too little now.Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from communism .
Some guys in a room on the central planning committee decide production for an entire industry , and see to it that there are no questions from the populace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it was necessary to regulate it.
Without limited effective regulation, such as requiring this stuff to be labeled, it can be hard to conduct fair, non-coerced, transactions.
I am not saying we should outright ban the stuff  --  what if somebody is in a situation where the choice is grow this, because nothing else will?
But it would be nice to make an informed decision.Either regulations, or de-regulation, can go overboard.
What was right 10 or 20 years ago may be too much or too little now.Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from communism.
Some guys in a room on the central planning committee decide production for an entire industry, and see to it that there are no questions from the populace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1263397260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access?</i> <br> <br>

Yeah, their <a href="http://www.biolsci.org/editorial.htm" title="biolsci.org">editor-in-chief</a> [biolsci.org] is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH, and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.<br> <br>

<i>OK, I haven't read the paper in detail... Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall. E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11\% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33\% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa. They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is.</i>

Maybe you should read it in detail. FTFA: <i>The raw data have been obtained by European governments and made publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation.</i> So, they didn't actually perform the experiments, they're using the results of experiments that others did. It doesn't invalidate your point, but if you read further, I think they realize this:<i>Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design.</i> <br> <br>

Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why have n't they put it in a really major journal--Nature , Science , PNAS , or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access ?
Yeah , their editor-in-chief [ biolsci.org ] is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH , and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton , UCLA school of medicine , Mount Sinai School of Medicine , Vancerbilt , Nortwestern , UC , etc .
OK , I have n't read the paper in detail... Glancing at their results table , it does n't seem clear cut overall .
E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11 \ % GM corn show a response , but rats fed 33 \ % GM corn do n't , cases where male rats are apparently affected , but not females , and vice versa .
They also do n't name the maize they used as a control , so we do n't know how accurate it is .
Maybe you should read it in detail .
FTFA : The raw data have been obtained by European governments and made publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation .
So , they did n't actually perform the experiments , they 're using the results of experiments that others did .
It does n't invalidate your point , but if you read further , I think they realize this : Furthermore , groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal ( non-GM ) reference maize lines ; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests , but different types for the MON 863 trials .
We note that these unrelated , different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs .
The quantity of some sugars , ions , salts , and pesticide residues , do in fact differ from line to line , for example in the non-GM reference groups .
This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet ( 320 ) compared to the GM-fed groups ( 80 ) per transformation event , which considerably unbalances the experimental design .
Yeah , I know , actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access?
Yeah, their editor-in-chief [biolsci.org] is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH, and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.
OK, I haven't read the paper in detail... Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall.
E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11\% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33\% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa.
They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is.
Maybe you should read it in detail.
FTFA: The raw data have been obtained by European governments and made publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation.
So, they didn't actually perform the experiments, they're using the results of experiments that others did.
It doesn't invalidate your point, but if you read further, I think they realize this:Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials.
We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs.
The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups.
This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design.
Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750110</id>
	<title>Not the only problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263396420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bodily damage isn't the only problem. Just look around for Monsanto's licencing agreements that it wants to be signed for people to use their product.</p><p>Here's a starter http://boingboing.net/2009/12/13/how-monsanto-owns-an.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bodily damage is n't the only problem .
Just look around for Monsanto 's licencing agreements that it wants to be signed for people to use their product.Here 's a starter http : //boingboing.net/2009/12/13/how-monsanto-owns-an.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bodily damage isn't the only problem.
Just look around for Monsanto's licencing agreements that it wants to be signed for people to use their product.Here's a starter http://boingboing.net/2009/12/13/how-monsanto-owns-an.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749574</id>
	<title>Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1263393240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...</p></div><p>Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.</p><p>The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...</p><p>One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.</p><p>Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors.  It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off.  If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.</p><p>Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's going to damage my liver , I 'm switching to scotch .
I 'm sorry , Jack , but I just ca n't take the chance...Unfortunately , your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.The kind of " duh " think that I 'm thinking about here is that , if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals , one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you 're " adding " something to the corn , it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.Although , people wishing to avoid all GM foods , corn itself has been so selectively bred that it does n't even resemble its nearest neighbors .
It 's even moribund if we ever disappear , because its seeds over compete and kill each other off .
If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM , take something that 's essentially a grass , and turn it into corn.Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what 's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch.
I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors.
It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off.
If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752754</id>
	<title>Some do, some don't</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1263406800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the stuff has been engineered to express Bt (<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>, or more specifically, the insecticidal compound that Bt produces). So in that case, yes, the plant produces its own insecticide. In other cases, the plants are engineered for resistance to glyphosate (aka "Roundup"), a commonly used herbicide. In that case, the plant doesn't produce any pesticidal chemicals, but the farmer can feel free to use much more Roundup on his plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the stuff has been engineered to express Bt ( Bacillus thuringiensis , or more specifically , the insecticidal compound that Bt produces ) .
So in that case , yes , the plant produces its own insecticide .
In other cases , the plants are engineered for resistance to glyphosate ( aka " Roundup " ) , a commonly used herbicide .
In that case , the plant does n't produce any pesticidal chemicals , but the farmer can feel free to use much more Roundup on his plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the stuff has been engineered to express Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, or more specifically, the insecticidal compound that Bt produces).
So in that case, yes, the plant produces its own insecticide.
In other cases, the plants are engineered for resistance to glyphosate (aka "Roundup"), a commonly used herbicide.
In that case, the plant doesn't produce any pesticidal chemicals, but the farmer can feel free to use much more Roundup on his plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761216</id>
	<title>fixed that for you!</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1263408600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?</p><blockquote><div><p>People would stop eating corn products, <b>because they would be dead</b>.
<br> <br>
Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court, <b>except that they would be dead</b>.</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the unencumbered " free market " handle a problem like this ?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto 's GM corn ? People would stop eating corn products , because they would be dead .
Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court , except that they would be dead .
There , fixed that for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?
Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?People would stop eating corn products, because they would be dead.
Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court, except that they would be dead.
There, fixed that for you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752924</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1263407340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market.</p></div><p>Because we vainly hope to educate the brainwashed morons who think it actually exists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market.Because we vainly hope to educate the brainwashed morons who think it actually exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market.Because we vainly hope to educate the brainwashed morons who think it actually exists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752222</id>
	<title>Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263404940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is bad for EVERYBODY. Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).<br></i><br>IINM the Hopi ar Americans, aren't they?</p><p><i>This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is.</i></p><p>It's my belief that nobody should be allowed to lobby anyone they're not eligible to vote for. Why should Monsanto or the Teamsters be able to have better access to my elected officials than I do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bad for EVERYBODY .
Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth , ever ( except maybe the Hopi ) .IINM the Hopi ar Americans , are n't they ? This is why you ca n't let lobbying continue as is.It 's my belief that nobody should be allowed to lobby anyone they 're not eligible to vote for .
Why should Monsanto or the Teamsters be able to have better access to my elected officials than I do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bad for EVERYBODY.
Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).IINM the Hopi ar Americans, aren't they?This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is.It's my belief that nobody should be allowed to lobby anyone they're not eligible to vote for.
Why should Monsanto or the Teamsters be able to have better access to my elected officials than I do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749898</id>
	<title>Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf</title>
	<author>LordKronos</author>
	<datestamp>1263395280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait...so the president's actions in 2009 is responsible for information remaining hidden from 2000 through 2008? For crying out loud, he didn't even make US Senate until 2004. But yes, I suppose the corruption of a member of the Illionois Senate has its reach all the way down into the state of Missouri (where Monsanto is based). Or maybe Obama has a time machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait...so the president 's actions in 2009 is responsible for information remaining hidden from 2000 through 2008 ?
For crying out loud , he did n't even make US Senate until 2004 .
But yes , I suppose the corruption of a member of the Illionois Senate has its reach all the way down into the state of Missouri ( where Monsanto is based ) .
Or maybe Obama has a time machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait...so the president's actions in 2009 is responsible for information remaining hidden from 2000 through 2008?
For crying out loud, he didn't even make US Senate until 2004.
But yes, I suppose the corruption of a member of the Illionois Senate has its reach all the way down into the state of Missouri (where Monsanto is based).
Or maybe Obama has a time machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752994</id>
	<title>Their CEO eats organic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a recent radio interview, the CEO of Monsanto (a Scott named Hugh Grant, weirdly enough) admitted to eating organic food himself.  I guess he knows something we don't (or didn't until recently).</p><p>Ryssdal: Do you ever buy organic food yourself?</p><p>Grant: Yeah, I do. Yeah.</p><p>What the transcript doesn't capture is the way he says it.  He chuckles quietly, and answers softly, as if to say "Yeah, yeah, ok. You got me. But shhh..."</p><p>http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/corner\_office\_grant\_transcript/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a recent radio interview , the CEO of Monsanto ( a Scott named Hugh Grant , weirdly enough ) admitted to eating organic food himself .
I guess he knows something we do n't ( or did n't until recently ) .Ryssdal : Do you ever buy organic food yourself ? Grant : Yeah , I do .
Yeah.What the transcript does n't capture is the way he says it .
He chuckles quietly , and answers softly , as if to say " Yeah , yeah , ok. You got me .
But shhh... " http : //marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/corner \ _office \ _grant \ _transcript/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a recent radio interview, the CEO of Monsanto (a Scott named Hugh Grant, weirdly enough) admitted to eating organic food himself.
I guess he knows something we don't (or didn't until recently).Ryssdal: Do you ever buy organic food yourself?Grant: Yeah, I do.
Yeah.What the transcript doesn't capture is the way he says it.
He chuckles quietly, and answers softly, as if to say "Yeah, yeah, ok. You got me.
But shhh..."http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/corner\_office\_grant\_transcript/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757562</id>
	<title>Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1263383460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure you can. I'm allergic to milk protein. Do you have any idea how many products where I live contain milk solids? It's a huge amount<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... at least until you walk out of the isles upon isles of highly-processed food and into the meat and produce sections. Yes, it will mean you'll have to learn how to actually cook a meal, unless you're into raw food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you can .
I 'm allergic to milk protein .
Do you have any idea how many products where I live contain milk solids ?
It 's a huge amount ... at least until you walk out of the isles upon isles of highly-processed food and into the meat and produce sections .
Yes , it will mean you 'll have to learn how to actually cook a meal , unless you 're into raw food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you can.
I'm allergic to milk protein.
Do you have any idea how many products where I live contain milk solids?
It's a huge amount ... at least until you walk out of the isles upon isles of highly-processed food and into the meat and produce sections.
Yes, it will mean you'll have to learn how to actually cook a meal, unless you're into raw food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751534</id>
	<title>Re:That's excellent.</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1263402180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that the problem is the GM corn makes the rats unsafe to eat, thus removing a food source.  But when the rats die, they won't be eaten by insects- maybe there's some application there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that the problem is the GM corn makes the rats unsafe to eat , thus removing a food source .
But when the rats die , they wo n't be eaten by insects- maybe there 's some application there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that the problem is the GM corn makes the rats unsafe to eat, thus removing a food source.
But when the rats die, they won't be eaten by insects- maybe there's some application there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752890</id>
	<title>Re:Riddle me this</title>
	<author>Mab\_Mass</author>
	<datestamp>1263407220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People would stop eating corn products.</p></div>
</blockquote><p> Good luck with that.

</p><p> Unfortunately, a very high fraction of our foods have corn.  Go to a supermarket and try to find anything in a package without corn syrup.

</p><p> Now, go over to the meat and dairy aisle.  Because it is cheap, cows eat corn.  Almost all beef is fed on corn, and corn provides a supplement to dairy cows, which leads to all the milk that your kids are putting on their breakfast cereal (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!).

</p><p> Truth be told, we're not getting rid of corn as a food source anytime soon.  The only way to avoid it, as far as I can tell, is to cook most of your own food from scratch.  Buy local veggies and grass fed beef.

</p><p> For that to happen, we need a HUGE shift in the average American's diet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People would stop eating corn products .
Good luck with that .
Unfortunately , a very high fraction of our foods have corn .
Go to a supermarket and try to find anything in a package without corn syrup .
Now , go over to the meat and dairy aisle .
Because it is cheap , cows eat corn .
Almost all beef is fed on corn , and corn provides a supplement to dairy cows , which leads to all the milk that your kids are putting on their breakfast cereal ( THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ) .
Truth be told , we 're not getting rid of corn as a food source anytime soon .
The only way to avoid it , as far as I can tell , is to cook most of your own food from scratch .
Buy local veggies and grass fed beef .
For that to happen , we need a HUGE shift in the average American 's diet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People would stop eating corn products.
Good luck with that.
Unfortunately, a very high fraction of our foods have corn.
Go to a supermarket and try to find anything in a package without corn syrup.
Now, go over to the meat and dairy aisle.
Because it is cheap, cows eat corn.
Almost all beef is fed on corn, and corn provides a supplement to dairy cows, which leads to all the milk that your kids are putting on their breakfast cereal (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!).
Truth be told, we're not getting rid of corn as a food source anytime soon.
The only way to avoid it, as far as I can tell, is to cook most of your own food from scratch.
Buy local veggies and grass fed beef.
For that to happen, we need a HUGE shift in the average American's diet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751032</id>
	<title>Re:That's excellent.</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1263400320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got no problem with people making rat poison.  My problem is with people putting rat poison in MY food.  Even worse, people putting "stuff" in my food when they themselves don't even know the effects.
<br> <br>
Random thought: These business people can all do arithmetic when it comes to money, right?  Why wasn't it obvious to them that "corn that kills bugs" might be "corn that kills whatever eats it"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got no problem with people making rat poison .
My problem is with people putting rat poison in MY food .
Even worse , people putting " stuff " in my food when they themselves do n't even know the effects .
Random thought : These business people can all do arithmetic when it comes to money , right ?
Why was n't it obvious to them that " corn that kills bugs " might be " corn that kills whatever eats it " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got no problem with people making rat poison.
My problem is with people putting rat poison in MY food.
Even worse, people putting "stuff" in my food when they themselves don't even know the effects.
Random thought: These business people can all do arithmetic when it comes to money, right?
Why wasn't it obvious to them that "corn that kills bugs" might be "corn that kills whatever eats it"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30773480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30758242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30756602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30760794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30762388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30758050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30773138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30764126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_0328221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30758050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30756602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30758242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30773480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30773138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30764126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30756066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30762388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30760794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30761902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30755406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30757346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30751124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_0328221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30749754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30753786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30752222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30750536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_0328221.30754694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
