Danger lies on the GM food road

[marmar]

from the Sydney Morning-Herald:




Danger lies on the GM food road
February 10, 2011

Elizabeth Farrelly


The West Australian Minister for Agriculture, Terry Redman, wants to redefine "organic" to accommodate genetic engineering. Well he might wish it, since the legal battle brewing there over contamination of organic crops by genetically modified ones could easily blow right back onto his turf. Far scarier, though, is the environmental blowback, which could knock all these little old floods and cyclones into a cocked hat.

Steve Marsh is an organic farmer in Kojonup, four hours south-east of Perth. Or that's what he thought he was. So did the certifiers. Then, last December, the nightmare came true. Marsh's wheat and oats began testing 70 per cent positive for novel DNA and he was stripped of certification. A year earlier, following approval by the Gene Technology Regulator, the WA government approved commercialisation of GM, or ''Roundup Ready'', canola - although their own fact sheet at the time cited a United Nations report that "since the advent of GM canola in Canada farmers can no longer grow organic canola in western Canada."

They also admitted that GM canola can cross-pollinate with a number of other species, and eating such resulting crops would decertify organic livestock as well. Yet they broke their promise to publish a list of GM farmers so that non-GM growers could take evasive action. Their official advice? That "farmers discuss . . . this remote possibility with their neighbours".

With a loss of up to $800 per tonne and a minimum five-year wait before Marsh's crops can be recertified ''organic'', compensation could be big. Except that the defendant will be bankrolled by that shady agro-giant, that food-world Voldemort, Monsanto. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/danger-lies-on-the-gm-food-road-20110209-1amy1.html

[inademv]

1. So?

I don't get the whole "organic" thing. GM foods generally speaking are not something that has any inherent danger.

[SpiralHawk]

2. You obviously have been paying damn little attention

more and more reports are surfacing about the danger GMO mutant crops pose to nature and human beings.

If you want GMO mutant foodlike facsimle 'product' then you are shit out of luck, because it's occult -- not labeled -- and you can't pick it out to give it to your children.

If on the other hand you don't want GMO mutant crapola dead food, then you are shit out of luck, too. Because GMO food is occult -- not labeled -- you can't avoid it either.

Of course the RepubliBaggers are fine with this, because they are no respecters of truth, facts, or free will.

But for Americans -- who prize facts, truth & free will -- this corporate food imperialism & occultism (R) is an ABOMINATION.

http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/dangers.html

[inademv]

5. You mean

like golden rice, The GM food responsible for preventing blindness in millions? If you are going to make an assertion that GM foods are a danger to humans then you had better support that claim with some evidence.

[SpiralHawk]

23. You obviously are well versed in the playbook

...as you blithely ignore the evidence already presented...

[WhiteTara]

32. is your body Round Up ready?

since that gene is spliced into food.

[WatsonT]

46. Mine isn't

I also can't use sunlight to generate chemical energy. I'm not worried about picking up either trait from my potato chips though.

[WhiteTara]

71. You're right. Potatoes haven't been genetically modified yet

so you need not fear them, unless of course they are fried in hydrogenated oils.

Corn is another story.

[WatsonT]

77. Fine fine, corn chips then

and what exactly do you 'fear' from them?

[WhiteTara]

93. Again, you're right. You're an American

nothing bad can happen to you. Eat up. Enjoy. Have a double helping. Super size that double helping.

[WatsonT]

101. That wasn't an answer

Are you afraid of genes? Because I don't mean to alarm you but you are literally filled with genes right now, even if you eat exclusively organic GMO-free food.

What's your opinion on vaccines/autism?

[WhiteTara]

102. My opinion of vaccines/autism?

They both happen in the same child from time to time. There is an upward trend of autism; but the science on it has proven to be very non-scientific (autism/vaccine report fraud.) However, there does seem to be something out of balance that autism should be so much more prevalent now.

I have no fear of "genes". Spliced genes that incorporate pesticides and other chemicals are not what I want to consume. You, however seem to want to fill yourself this way. Go for it. Drink some radium while you're at it...bathe in DDT for fun. Whatever.

[WatsonT]

103. You do realize that plants produce their own pesticides

naturally, with no help from us, right? No, you probably didn't. You're probably of the crowd that believes natural and safe are synonyms.

I can tell because you believe only GM crops contain dreaded 'chemicals'.

You also want to see a correlation between 'unnatural' vaccines and autism.

Better stay away from this deadly chemical spliced in by mother nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanine

It's amazing that Monsanto has apparently been around since the dawn of life on earth, splicing genes to make evil chemcials in to various living things (many of which we go on to eat): http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html#PLANT-DERIVED%20COMPOUNDS%20WITH%20PESTICIDAL%20POTENTIAL

[WhiteTara]

104. Love your assumptions about me

and of course, you do know what acronym ASSUME stands for.

Frankly, you bore me.

[WatsonT]

105. Assumptions based on your statements

are acceptable.

[WatsonT]

110. So does that mean you are aware that plants produce their own presticides?

out of curiosity what makes 'natural' pesticides harmless and 'unnatural' ones deadly if they've both been tested and found to be equally harmless to humans?

[roody]

38. link please?

[Ignis]

55. Support your claim: "responsible for preventing blindness in millions

I can't find any data to support this wild assertion. :shrug:

[NickB79]

57. It appears that it has the potential to do so, but distribution has been held up

By opponents to GM foods, such as Greenpeace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

The Wiki article says it should be introduced by 2012 if the last regulatory hurdles are cleared.

[WatsonT]

60. Be prepared for the inevitable circular logic that will ensue

Q: if GM crops are so great how come they aren't in use in so many places?
A: because people like you got them banned.
Q: well why would we ban them if they weren't useless?

And so on.

[Ignis]

61. I'm still waiting for support of the "millions saved" assertion.

I could make all sorts of predictions about projected, future benefits of introducing XYZ technology, but that's not the same at all as presenting current, independently verifiable evidence of real-world benefits using real-world examples, is it?

But it's much more fun to disparage those who dare ask for real-world data as Luddites, of course. :eyes: If we tap our titanium-shod slippers three times, I'm sure everything will work out just as it did in the lab, under controlled conditions. And for the trifecta, don't forget to trot out the tired false dichotomy that the ONLY solution to world hunger is GMO crops.

:banghead:

[WatsonT]

78. Sadly the benefits are of GR are still largely

hypothetical. It seems you actually have to allow its use before it can show any benefit.

But here's a good study on its potential: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Rice/Zimmermann-Benefit-Goldenrice.pdf#search=

"I'm sure everything will work out just as it did in the lab, under controlled conditions"

Seems that could be used to argue against any new technology ever. Did we really know exactly how penicillin would perform in the field when implemented on a mass scale? Of course not. Ban it!

What about electric cars? Nope, unless we can perfectly mimic the outside conditions in the laboratory down to every detail including the scope of their use they cannot be deemed worthwhile. Ban it!

I for one though don't feel comfortable lecturing starving kids on the horrors of potential disasters not even hinted at in years of research over the horrors of famine.

"And for the trifecta, don't forget to trot out the tired false dichotomy that the ONLY solution to world hunger is GMO crops"

Not at all, I wouldn't dare suggest that the only solution to world hunger is more food. But it is a solution. And I think we should work at solving world hunger from a multi-faceted approach. No one thing will do it. So we can either apply that logic to every single solution and discount them all out of hand, or try all proposed solutions simultaneously and perhaps hit on a combination that works.

I assume your solution involves no GM crops. So what is it?

[Ignis]

79. Lack of food grown currently isn't the problem causing world hunger.

So why focus on a solution that doesn't correct the root cause? This is an outdated, "Green Revolution"* approach to a problem of logistics, distribution, and resource allocation.

In the meantime, I invite you to read up on the "appeal to emotion" fallacy--specifically, the commonly used "think of the children" application thereof--before using it as an argument in support of any position.

* = talk about a misnomer!

[WatsonT]

85. Corrupt despotic governments

are typically the problem. But those are hard to get rid of. I'm not big on the global policeman role.

So if the government siphons off half the grain for their own uses and half of that is lost to pests, inefficiencies, rot, etc. Then you'd better make sure that quarter is enough to feed everyone.

You do that by increase the base level of food.

[Ignis]

95. Let me see if I understand your math here:

2011:
100 tons of food shipped to Despotistan.
Corrupt government of Despotistan takes 50 tons.
25 tons lost to waste, etc.
25 tons feed the hungry.

2012:
200 tons of food shipped to Despotistan.
Gov't takes 100 tons.
50 tons wasted.
50 tons feed the hungry.

2013:
300 tons shipped.
150 tons stolen.
75 tons wasted.
75 tons feed the hungry.

That's your plan to fight world hunger? :shrug:

[WatsonT]

100. Yes. Many experts believe that the key to fixing starvation is not starving

and that involves having more food.

And sending twice as much food is a lot cheaper than sending a fleet and ground forces to occupy said regime.

What was your solution again? Besides complaining about how any given solution won't immediately fix the problem.

[Ignis]

106. As a donating and volunteer member of Oxfam for 20+ years, I have a few ideas.

But your assumption that doubling food aid shipped will result in a doubling of food actually received by the hungry is naive in the extreme--and not supported by the evidence available.

Do a little research into the history of aid movements since the '60s or so, look at the volumes of aid moved, and plug those numbers into your pretty theoretical math above. If your math had any relation to reality, you'll see that we've more than doubled the amount of aid given, yet the amount of aid actually received by the hungry doesn't correlate to this doubling.

Besides complaining about how any given solution won't immediately fix the problem.

Please provide a link to where I said that. :hi:

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

63. So it was a false claim? Thanks for clarifying.

Perhaps the poster who made this false claim will return to correct the error.

I won't hold my breath.

[appal_jack]

114. bullshit. gmo = disaster for people & environment.

Ten seconds of Googling reveals this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

which states that:

"Golden rice was developed as a fortified food to be used in areas where there is a shortage of dietary vitamin A.<2> In 2005 a new variety called Golden Rice 2 was announced which produces up to 23 times more beta-carotene than the original variety of golden rice.<3> Neither variety is currently available for human consumption." (emphasis mine)


So Golden Rice has not yet saved one life or prevented a single case of Vitamin-A-deficiency induced blindness.

GM technology has failed to help people and farmers, but it sure is successful at enriching biotech multinationals.

You want evidence of danger from GM foods? How about this?

http://onlinehealthnews.org/2010/02/genetically-modified-foods-toxins-and-reproductive-failures/

It's written from an advocacy perspective, but well more than half the references are from peer-reviewed journals.

And the conclusions?

"Even the first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary review process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions."

and

"Liver cells of mice fed GM “Roundup Ready” soybeans had structural changes, ... rats fed GM corn had liver lesions and indications of toxicity; rabbits fed GM Roundup Ready soy showed altered production of liver enzymes; and the livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%–16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation."

and

"Virtually every organ shows changes from GM food. The pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy showed profound differences, including reduced digestive enzymes; the pancreas of rats fed GM potatoes were enlarged. In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production, and inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy, and GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brains, livers, and testicles of rats as well as potentially precancerous cell growth in their stomach and intestines (see photo). Mice fed Bt potatoes—engineered to produce the insecticide called Bt-toxin—also had proliferative cell growth in their small intestine, as well as abnormal and damaged cells.

In the FlavrSavr tomato study, 7 of 40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced. Chickens fed GM corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn. But in these two industry-funded studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up."

and

"A preliminary study by a senior researcher at the Russian National Academy of Sciences had devastating results. More than half the offspring (51.6%) from female rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10% from the non-GM soy group."

I could go on, but you need to read the source, chase down the footnotes, and then acknowledge this evidence.

-app

[WatsonT]

7. All food we eat are mutants

Unless you eat exclusively wild animals.

Go for a walk some time, let me know how often you see wild broccoli roaming free through our forests.

[inademv]

8. I see mustard all the time!

[mistertrickster]

19. False. Selective breeding works entirely within the laws of billions

of years of evolution to create the environment we live in.

Gene splicing forces what almost never happens in nature.

[inademv]

22. Genes

for many traits which are not expressed are often present in a wide variety of even tangentially related species. It is simply a matter of turning them on. I get the impression that you are grossly misinformed on the differences between "gene splicing" and "genetically modified crops".

[WhiteTara]

33. is your body Round Up ready?

you can act like this is all okay, but when you are able to assimilate 2-4-D into your system let me know.

[NickB79]

52. Can you breath underwater after eating a fish dinner? nt

[WatsonT]

89. Only if it's GM tuna.

[inademv]

96. Why GM tuna?

Fish already have the genes that let them breathe underwater.

[WatsonT]

99. Well see we've engineered them to have all these genes in them

animals never had genes in them before and that's dangerous and scary.

That's why I started the genetic material out! of food movement, or the GMO food organization.

;-)

[Name removed]

107. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mistertrickster]

113. Looks like somebody else ought to do some research . . .

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Genetically_modified_foods_techniques

Genetically modified (GM) foods are created using biotechnology to change their genetic material. A variety of techniques is used. Food may be genetically modified to increase its shelf life, make it resistant to pesticides and insecticides, or improve the crop nutritional yield.

How genetic modification works
Genes are the blueprints for our bodies and control factors such as growth and development. Within almost every cell of the body, genes are beaded along tightly bundled strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) called chromosomes. These are encased by a membrane (the nuclear membrane) to produce a nucleus.

Genes use chemical messages to instruct the cell to perform its functions by making proteins or enzymes. By introducing a foreign gene, scientists prompt the altered cell to make new proteins or enzymes, so that the cell performs new functions. For example, the gene that helps a coldwater fish survive low temperatures can be inserted into a strawberry to make it frost-resistant. The genes may be taken from an animal, plant or micro-organism. If the genes are inserted into another species, the resulting organism is referred to as ‘transgenic’.

A range of techniques
Some of the techniques used to transfer foreign cells into animals and plants include:
Bacterial carriers
Biolistics
Calcium phosphate precipitation
Electroporation
Gene silencing
Gene splicing
Lipofection (or liposome transfection)
Microinjection
Viral carriers.

******

This is not simply instructing a gene already present to switch on or off--this is introducing foreign genetic matter into the cell.

Or let's let an expert express it:

“The Fallacy of Equating Gene-Splicing With Traditional Breeding: Traditional breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar to genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.

"Biotechnicians achieve this unnatural boosting by taking the section of DNA that promotes gene expression in a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene prior to insertion. The viral booster (called a “promoter”) radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus — deeply different from the way it behaves within its native organism and from the way the engineered organism’s own genes behave. …
Consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce a substance that has never been in that species, it produces it in an essentially unregulated manner that is uncoordinated with the needs and natural functions of the organism.”

http://www.biointegrity.org/health-risks/health-risks-ge-foods.htm

[WatsonT]

41. Vast monoculture fields

with plants that have been breed down to require protection from insects and the environment all to offer greater yields of edible vegetative matter (for humans) never happens in nature.

Show me a wild field of corn, just corn, with the yield of modern corn that we've had no hand in producing.

The 'natural' ship sailed a long time ago. Prior to agriculture (good luck putting that genie back in the bottle). Now you're just selecting an arbitrary point in thousands of years of unnatural agriculture to say "we stop here, no further". May as well say you prefer old style cars to the hybrids because hybrids aren't natural.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

50. How often do plants cross pollinate with animals

in nature, scientist guy?

[WatsonT]

53. Almost never

As often as you see the situation I described in my question.

How often to plants end up with viral DNA incorporated in to their genome?

Often. But apparently we're ok eating things with up to 10% of their genome from viruses (those are bad right?) but not if it's spliced with some other organism we eat.

/edited to almost never as it does occur sometimes.

[NickB79]

54. There are several known or suspected examples of natural gene transfer between plants and animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Eukaryotes

"Analysis of DNA sequences suggests that horizontal gene transfer has also occurred within eukaryotes from the chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes to the nuclear genome. As stated in the endosymbiotic theory, chloroplasts and mitochondria probably originated as bacterial endosymbionts of a progenitor to the eukaryotic cell.<16>"

snip

"There is also evidence for horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes to parasites of the Rafflesiaceae plant family from their hosts (also plants),<20><21> from chloroplasts of a not-yet-identified plant to the mitochondria of the bean Phaseolus,<22> and from a heterokont alga to its predator, the sea slug Elysia chlorotica.<23>"

snip

"Researchers at the University of Arizona have found that the genome of pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) contains multiple genes that were horizontally transferred from fungi.<25><26> Plants, fungi,and microorganisms can synthesize carotenoids, but torulene made by pea aphids is the only carotenoid known to be synthesized by an organism in the animal kingdom.<27>"

[UnrepentantLiberal]

58. Let's try that again with

plants that humans eat and not hair-splitting oddities found somewhere in nature.

[inademv]

59. So the answer you got

which was a direct answer to your question wasn't good enough for you and you want another example? Sounding pretty "conservative" there in your "skepticism".

[mistertrickster]

116. Thanks for telling me to "look it up." I found that you were even more wrong than I first thought.

[NickB79]

51. False. Google "lateral gene transfer" or "horizontal gene transfer"

Many, many genes in a large number of species across this planet were acquired from another species in very similar ways to the techniques we currently use to genetically engineer crops. Even the human genome has suspected genes from bacterial species in it.

[LWolf]

3. You don't see

farmers not able to save seed, cross-pollination of neighboring crops AND wild plant life, allowing one or two mega corporations to own the patent on the planet's food as having no inherent danger?

[inademv]

4. That

isn't a problem with the GM foods, it's a problem with the bureaucracy surrounding it.

[LWolf]

87. GM foods have a whole boatload of different problems, it's true. nt

[WatsonT]

6. Farmers not being able to save seed isn't true

they can't save GM seed, no one is forcing them to abandon the old methods.

The other two issues are entirely legal in nature and have nothing to do with the science.

[DCKit]

12. Until they get sued by MonSatan because their crops have been contaminated...

by GMO genetics.

You obviously know nothing of the subject.

[WatsonT]

14. Actually I'm guessing I know

considerably more than most.

BTW: getting sued by anyone for any reason, this is a scientific, or legal matter?

[DCKit]

20. Reading from the official manual isn't "knowledge".

And your attempt to engage in a fallacious argument is eminently ignorable. It doesn't matter if the argument is legal, scientific or theological. Very few farmers can afford to take the risk, any risk, of going up against Monsanto, because Monsanto has proven they have no qualms about bringing the full fury of their highly compensated legal team to bear on the most insignificant threat to their domination, contamination and control of seed stocks - some of which the independent farmers they have successfully sued, have spent decades breeding and developing.

I've got all day, how 'bout you?

[WatsonT]

40. "Reading from the official manual isn't "knowledge"."

And here's the problem: no data will be admissible unless it reaffirms the original theory. Otherwise it is all corporate propaganda. It's value is judged not based on the quality of the study but on the 'quality' of it's conclusions.

"And your attempt to engage in a fallacious argument is eminently ignorable. It doesn't matter if the argument is legal, scientific or theological. "

It matters a great deal. When the argument starts with "these things are unsafe and eating them will cause us all to mutate in to horrible genetic freaks" and then shifts to "well there are a lot of legal problems with it" I'm going to call BS. Legal problems can be dealt with . . . legally. But to equate those with problems in the science is absurd.

That's like saying some medicine magically doesn't work because it's awful that some companies get a patent and make billions off them while exploiting the poor. No, the medicine works, the marketing of them is what needs refinement.

[NickB79]

56. Farmers in industrialized nations haven't saved their own seeds for decades

Since the introduction of hybrid crops in the 1950's, farmers have purchased almost all of their seed from seed companies every year. The amount of money you save in using open-pollinated seed doesn't compare to the increased yields you get out of hybrid crops.

If you want to be concerned about mega-corporations controlling seed patents, you're about 50 years too late.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

88. Hybrid seeds are not the same.

They don't save them because they don't breed true, that much is correct.

[NickB79]

111. My point was that seed-saving is a red herring in the argument against GM crops

Because almost no farmers in industrialized nations have saved their own seeds for most crops since the advent of hybrid crops 60 years ago. If hybrid crops had never existed, you'd have a point. However, the introduction of hybrid crops killed off most seed-saving a generation before GM crops were even introduced.

[LWolf]

112. Yet, open-pollinated crops, and small farms and homesteads

that plant them and save seeds are all that stand between industrialization and corporate owning of food on the planet.

Just one of the many issues with GM crops. A few big corporations owning the means to produce food that billions depend on.

[mistertrickster]

108. Rape seed (canola) farmers were saving their seeds until patented varieties

infected their strains and they were forced out of business . . .

[DCKit]

9. Thanks. You've made me feel so much better about GMOs. Can't wait for more.

Being reassured by some anonymous person on the Internets always makes me feel better.

Now, if only those GM, BT engineered corn tortillas didn't give me the shits. Funny how a protein humans have not evolved to cope with can do that to someone with food sensitivities.

Oh hell, I brought up evolution.

[inademv]

10. Go cry to people with lactose intollerance

[marmar]

13. Que?

:wtf:

[jeff47]

24. You refuse to be reassured by some anonymous person on the Internet

yet you're happy to be alarmed by other anonymous people on the Internet.

[DCKit]

25. Care to expound on that?

I never said, and you don't know where my information comes from. The information I cited is backed up by far more than discussion board conversations. Make a specific allegation, and I'll be happy to refute it.

Just a random piece of personal information: I detest bullies.

[jeff47]

26. You'd have to make your specific anti-GM claim first

'Cause you're asking me to prove a negative, something which can't be done.

Anyway, my point is lots of anti-GM folks will believe any post listing dangers of GM, but absolutely refuse to consider any post that does not support their view.

Example: Farmer claims they were sued by Monsanto because the wind pollinated their crops. That will be posted all over the place, and routinely cited as gospel by anti-GM posters. Yet at trial it came out that said farmer had sacks of Monsanto seed in his barn. That part goes down the memory hole.

[DCKit]

29. If the farmer had sacks of Monsanto seed in his barn, then he bought and paid for Monsanto seed.

How could Monsanto have sued him? Did he steal the seed from their production facilities? Hijack one of their trucks?

Your argument makes no sense. Change the channel on your TeeVee.

[jeff47]

30. He got it from a neighboring farmer

He wanted to try it out. When the suit happened, he went to the media to claim the wind did it.

And your post is exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't match your orthodoxy, so it must be ignored or attacked.

[laundry_queen]

36. Got it from a neighboring farmer?

Can you point me in the direction of that little tidbit of information? Thanks.

[WatsonT]

42. Here's one:

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/TN-Farmer-Pleads-Guilty21feb03.htm

[laundry_queen]

81. Ok

I thought we were talking about the Canadian farmer.

[WatsonT]

84. You asked specifically

for examples of farmers getting GM seed from other farmers.

[roody]

39. Percy Schmeiser

www.percyschmeiser.com

[WatsonT]

86. Different expectations

if you're saying what he wants to hear it doesn't matter who you are. Likewise if you're saying something he doesn't like to hear it doesn't matter who you are.

The same logic that allows people to watch their kids die from preventable diseases on the word of Dr. Jenny McCarthy but who wouldn't ever consider listening to the mountains of evidence from actual doctors (although admittedly they have smaller breasts) contradicting those claims.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. Mexico does not agree.

They are telling Monsanto they can't sell their GMO corn seeds or expand their plantings of GMO corn in Mexico besides a few small, closely controlled test plots precisely because they have concerns about safety.

Mexico rejects Monsanto’s GMO corn

(NaturalNews) Mexican officials seem to have more common sense than American officials, with their continued denouncement of Monsanto’s genetically-modified (GM) corn. Mexico has kept in effect a moratorium on Monsanto’s GM corn since 2005, citing a lack of safety studies and evidence showing the “Frankencorn” is safe, and that it will not cross-contaminate non-GM crops. The Mexican government recently denied Monsanto’s request to expand a pilot program for its crops in Northern Mexico as well.

In 2009, Mexico decided to allow Monsanto to plant small GM corn test sites on the condition that the company could both prove that its crops were resistant to pests and pesticides, and that they could provide economic benefits to Mexico. Monsanto has yet to show that the crops actually benefit people rather than its own pocketbook, and of course the multinational biotechnology company has yet to submit a single legitimate safety study for its crops.

The Mexican govenment seems to have had enough of the games, it seems, having recently denied any further expansions of the Monsanto test sites. With its many varieties of heritage corn, Mexico has a lot to lose if its corn stocks become contaminated with Monsanto’s patented corn varieties. So it is pressing for more safety studies before any further plantings take place.

To date, there has never been a single, verifiable safety study proving that any GMO is safe for people or for the environment. GMO residues, however, are known to travel to nearby fields and contaminate conventional and organic crop varieties. In fact, most of North Dakota is now blanketed in GMO canola, as the mutant crop now infests fields and meadows, and grows by roadside all across the midwestern plain state.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031295_Mexico_GMO_corn.html#ixzz1DqlpWlg2

Too bad its not like the US will do the same seeing as how President Obama appointed a former Monsanto VP as the USA's (supposed) food safety Czar.

The man that brought you Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is now america’s food safety czar

Source: Huffington Post – Jeffrey Smith

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply — the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods — secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried “serious health hazards,” and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn’t going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to “different risks” than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them — companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

http://blacklistednews.com/The-man-that-brought-you--Monsanto%27s-genetically-engineered-bovine-growth-hormone-is-now-america%27s-food-safety-czar-/4963/400/0/0/Y/M.html

[WhiteTara]

31. I didn't know your body was Round Up ready! n/t

[emsimon33]

34. Please become informed before you make such statements

[roody]

37. So what is one more person's livelihood ruined?

Are you on the wrong site?

[prairierose]

94. And you know they are not a danger how???

How many of the studies have you read? How many organic farmers who have been ruined have you talked to?

[mistertrickster]

15. "Golden rice has prevented blindness" . . . yeah, so would a one-a-day vitamin.

Instead, our scientists do what nature hasn't done in one hundred million years by mixing genes from widely different species.

And guess what, once you do that and plant it in the environment, that Frankenstein's monster is cross-pollinating FOREVER.

Not for awhile, not for a time, but FOREVER.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gregorian]

28. That isn't about degree of difficulty. That is about priority.

We could bomb countries with refrigerators if we used one tenth the money we spend on military research alone.

[WatsonT]

43. I know right?

And just drinking bottled water would clear up all those nasty diseases they have. And getting a cheeseburger now and then would wipe out the effects protein deficiency and starvation.

What are these folks too lazy to drive their SUVs to the local walmart?

[BridgeTheGap]

16. Crops are usually genetically modified to produce one or two traits, sometimes a few more. One

problem lies in the fact that genetic modification will typically induce hundreds of changes to the crop. What will effects will those changes have? We don't know. We do know that gmo canola is now "off the farm" growing wild and taking over. This "round-up ready" version is not responding to typical herbicides, as it was designed to do.
Make no mistake - gmo is EXPERIMENTAL - and we should have the choice on whether or not to participate in the experiment.

And, yes, the legal issues, while not scientific, loom large in the whole equation. The potential for monopolization of crops can not be ignored.

And it still amazes me, given the level of corruption that exists in our political and economic system, that people are willing to believe the "science" bought and paid for by "big agra."

Keeping diversity in the crops we grow is the biggest hedge against massive crop failures. Big Agra is pushing us away from that. They are setting up an extremely profitable system for themselves while placing the longterm health of agriculture in peril.

[mistertrickster]

18. +1000 . . . you are what you eat. nt

[DCKit]

27. "What will effects will those changes have?"

In the case of BT protein producing corn (and other crops), a protein that is alien to the human digestive system - the same one that causes failure in the digestive system of crop pests.

Additionally, those same crop pests are also becoming resistant to the BT protein. The little buggers not only greatly outnumber humans, they breed and evolve faster than we, or the livestock we're feeding GMO crops to, do.

[WatsonT]

45. Bt toxin is so deadly that . . .

. . . it has been in use for decades on organic farms: http://www.ghorganics.com/Page44.html

And studies have shown the toxin doesn't work on people: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16618212

But much like vaccines causing autism if enough people feel there is a connection and despise this 'unnatural' practice it will become true.

[DCKit]

70. BT toxin ON the food is different than BT toxin IN the food.

Unless I'm picking from my own garden, I wash my vegetables and fruits.

All I can say is "Thanks for keep this thread kicked."

[WatsonT]

72. Apparently not

there haven't been any studies showing it's toxicity in humans.

[appal_jack]

115. See post #118 for evidence to the contrary.

Or heck, just follow the link:

http://onlinehealthnews.org/2010/02/genetically-modified-foods-toxins-and-reproductive-failures/

-app

[WatsonT]

44. Breeding has affected more than a 'few traits'

the reason we have to spray pesticides is that our selection has left crops with little resistance to insects. Same basic idea behind our need to fertilize, water, and protect them from weeds.

Traditional breeding has left crops cripples in just about every way but producing food for us. That's why they need such constant care and would die off without us.

GM isn't creating super plants that will out-compete all other plants on earth. It's pushing them slightly back towards the vigor shown by their wild cousins. We gave the crippled kid a crutch and folks are worried he now has an unfair advantage over the varsity athletes.

"And, yes, the legal issues, while not scientific, loom large in the whole equation. The potential for monopolization of crops can not be ignored. "

Legal issues require legal solutions. You can't use legal problems though to fault the science. Monsanto lacking business scruples doesn't prove GM crops will cause us all to mutate in to genetic freaks.

[roody]

47. Tell us what one has to do to splice a gene.

[WatsonT]

48. You find a suitable vector

plasmids often. Viruses can work. Use restriction enzymes to cut it's DNA and insert a segment of cloned DNA that was likewise cut with the same enzyme so they have matching ends and occasionally the novel DNA will incorporate itself in to the vectors DNA. You screen for those that have and use them to insert the novel DNA in to another organism. Mostly you will fail but once inserted it becomes a permanent part of the organisms genome and can be breed conventionally.

No part of it is 'natural'* however no part of it is intrinsically 'evil' either.

*if you want to get technical our genome and it seems like most living things genomes contains large areas of viral DNA that was incorporated via virus infection and lost it's ability to generate a new virus; forming a permanent part of our genetic makeup. It follows the same basic pattern although it wasn't down intentionally by mankind. So the process is well established, only the application is new.

[roody]

65. You inject a virus?

Does that make it sick?

[jeff47]

68. No

By replacing the DNA in the virus, you make the virus unable to replicate. Since it can't replicate, it can't make anything 'sick'.

[WatsonT]

73. No.

And the viral vector is long gone before anything is actually planted.

[WatsonT]

49. Could you tell us what 'few' traits

have been affected in the process of producing maize from wild Teosinte via all natural, organic selection methods:




That was done naturally. I can spot the difference, can you?

Now: tell me which of these is 'frankenfood' (GMO):




or . . .

[jeff47]

64. In plants, it's typically done by coating a gold nanoparticle with the DNA you want to insert

Then the particles are shot into embryos of the relevant plant.

As the plant embryos develop, they screen out the large percentage that did not take up the gene. Any plants that survive that screening are your GM crop. Carefully breed them amongst themselves and you end up with enough seed to sell commercially.

The techniques described by the sibling poster are typically used for bacteria. They're unwieldy when used in plants and animals.

[WatsonT]

74. To be fair

'plant' wasn't specified. Only 'how do you splice a gene'.

[roody]

80. I'm not buying it.

[WatsonT]

82. Not buying what?

Specifically?

[roody]

90. GMO food, if I can help it.

I'm sticking with organic, and if the powers that be allow GMO in organic, something new and GMO free will take its place.

[WatsonT]

91. Ok, so don't buy it

just don't push laws preventing anyone else from having it either.

I think people should be free to avoid GM crops if they choose. It's not based on science, but who cares? That's your right.

[roody]

92. The laws I support and the Organic Consumers Association support

are truth in labeling laws. Do you support labeling GMOs?

[WatsonT]

98. Absolutely

I fully support allowing people to make their own decisions regarding what they eat. I don't agree with their reasoning (same with organic) but as long as there are various options available and no one is trying to force the other to conform to their beliefs it seems fine to me.

[jeff47]

97. Nothing wrong with your post, I just provided more info (nt)

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Helga Scow Stern]

35. GM companies don't allow independent research...

OP-Ed in LA Times.


No seeds, no independent research
Companies that genetically engineer crops have a lock on what we know about their safety and benefits.

By Doug Gurian-Sherman

February 13, 2011

Soybeans, corn, cotton and canola — most of the acres planted in these crops in the United States are genetically altered. "Transgenic" seeds can save farmers time and reduce the use of some insecticides, but herbicide use is higher, and respected experts argue that some genetically engineered crops may also pose serious health and environmental risks. Also, the benefits of genetically engineered crops may be overstated.

We don't have the complete picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.

This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how.

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

Agricultural companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads to harm, or that it could give competitors unfair insight into their products. But it's likely that the companies fear something else too: An experiment could reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous or doesn't perform as well as promised.

more at link.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-guriansherman-seeds-20110213,0,2052370.story


Vilsak is to Monsanto as Cheney was to Halliburton. What a legacy for the Obama presidency.

[JVS]

62. What if we could engineer cows that yield sanitary raw milk?

[jeff47]

66. That would be rather difficult

Raw milk at the moment it leaves the cow is sterile. The problem comes from contamination on the cow's skin, in the milking equipment, in the storage and transportation equipment, and so on.

The only way to deal with that would be to engineer the milk to contain antibiotics to kill off the contaminating bacteria, which would lead to it's own series of problems. Such as allergy and interactions with other medications.

[JVS]

67. How about engineering an udder that doesn't permit flow and using some kind of...

mechanical tap to remove the milk without contacting the skin on the way out?

[jeff47]

69. Still doesn't solve the problem

Dairies use antiseptic solutions on the cow's udders to sterilize them anyway. Plus there's no way to ensure your mechanical tap doesn't get contaminated, just like the cow's skin.

And most contamination comes from beyond the dairy. In the tanks, trucks and processing equipment used on the milk.

[WatsonT]

76. Seems a really complicated way

to get around pasteurization.

[WatsonT]

75. Many heads would explode