Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food

22 May 2005

Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

The disclosures come as European countries, including Britain, prepare to vote on whether the GM-modified corn should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the European Union failed to secure agreement over whether the product should be sold here, after Britain and nine other countries voted in favour.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430

at one of the top universities in the world tells me to stay away from this stuff, I tend to listen.

Instinct plays a large role too.

As I've said many times..I work in a store where we have organic products that advertise no gmo..gmo with a big SLASH through it!

We are not going to be suckered in by mansanto and big takeovers of the food industry.

Support your local organic farmer as if your life depends on it!

I have fed my boys organic food since they were born. Can you imagine giving your infant "Round-up Ready" Soy Formula? :scared:

They know because they fed it to rats.

Grain of salt folks, grain of salt.

Rats aren't built to eat a diet 'rich in corn'...of any kind.

Neither are you.

science and the government.

Monsato decides what will and won't be studied and what info gets released to the public.

...but here's the details on what the other rats were fed: corn (non-modified).

Dr Pusztai reported a "huge list of significant differences" between rats fed GM and conventional corn, saying the results strongly indicate that eating significant amounts of it can damage health. The new study is into a corn, codenamed MON 863, which has been modified by Monsanto to protect itself against corn rootworm, which the company describes as "one of the most pernicious pests affecting maize crops around the world".

You like people to prove a negative.
Read up on some things like LD 50. Helps when science is science and innuendo is seen as such.

did see a lot in the corn granary when I lived on the farm.

knows that rats think corn is what they're SUPPOSED to eat...well, because it is! That, and about everything else, including the kitchen pipes, the siding off the house, burlap bags...well, you get the picture! Rats will eat just about anything.

:kick::kick::kick:

The control group was fed similar amounts of corn as well, simply not GM corn. You can't write off the results that easily.

Monsanto wants to own the FOOD supply.

One of the parts of the interim gov. rules it illegal for Iraqi's to save their seeds from year to year (like farmers have done for centuries). They have to purchase commercial seed. GM seed.

Tell me we aren't trying to wipe them out.

Those kernels of corn are hybrid for a reason. Monsanto is currently trying to collect royalties off of corn grown in South America. Soon the only seeds out there will be Monsanto and they will have control of the food supply. Farmers are beginning to worry about this. What if they started demanding rallies off of all corn grown? When all other seed corn is fazed out, they will be able to charge whatever they want for it. This is a bigger deal than most realize. It isn't just corn, it's wheat, soybeans, and rice.

what kinda bizarre lobbyist statement is that and has it got to do with GM foods :crazy:

peace

but one group was fed non-GM corn and there should have been a control group fed normal rat grub.

If the control group and the non-GM group had no problems, then Monsanto has BIG problems.

So it wasn't the corn, it's the tinkering with nature.

I'm thinking apples and oranges, here. I mean, why would you FEED hair color to rats? That isn't even an hypothesis I would put forward to find out the "safety" of hair color. Most folks wouldn't EAT it...?

1) Rats eat corn. They love corn. That's why there are so many of them in granaries around the world.

2) Even if we lived in a bizaro world where rats didn't usually eat corn, this scientific experiement had a control group of rats that ate non-DNA-modified corn who turned out fine, unlike the experimental group of rats that ate the DNA-modified corn whose organs became undersized.

I don't get where you're coming from here, since scientific evidence backs up the opposite of your apparent conclusion.

EDIT: grammar

Busted. This is one of the most twisted industries out there. This is FOOD!!!! Don't f*ck with my food, motherf*ckers!

(rant off; wipes brow)

Get the word out.

benefit...pay attention.

The list of foods I eat is getting smaller every day.

or natural foods store..they don't trade in non-foods.

It may be more expensive now but not in the long run when you consider loss of health and hospital bills.

educating us.

by the government. Here the industry polices itself. So you hope that when it has an organic sticker on it in the USA, that it's really organic. Track record of companies policing themselves is generally not too great. I agree local is best.

The article states that MS argues MON 863 "isn't new, having been approved to be as safe as conventional maize by nine other global authorities since 2003." Never mind that we have no idea of the longterm ramifications!

is regulated by the USDA NOP, National Organic Program.

sp

(hey - it rhymed! :P )
The NOP standards are lower than what the industry used before the USDA started the NOP, for the most part. This was due to pressure from big food companies who realized that they had to get in on this segment of the food market that was growing by leaps and bounds...I was working on an Organic farm when the standards were being negotiated - and we were appalled by the things the NOP wanted to allow. Some changes were made, but the standards still leave a lot to be desired. Our farm was certified Biodynamic by Demeter, and our standards were a shitload stricter than the NOP.

The best way to be sure you're getting good food is to know the growers. Joining a CSA is a wonderful way to do that.

Info about CSAs and how to find them:

http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/csa.html

http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa/

however, it would be very nice to know if they've found the same problems in the livestock (pigs and fowl, primarily) that are being fed a diet high in GM corn.

and always scream they win.

However, that doesn't change reality folks.

There is nothing wrong with GM food, no matter how much you want it to be that way.

So, if all you're going to do is scream and say 'oh yeah, oh yeah?'...I'm outta here. This is just boring.

Enjoy yourselves denouncing science and the 21st century.

Return to the Dark Ages as a 'good' time in human history.

Bye

messing with Mother Nature..I've seen what can happen when humans start doing that.

There is no way mansanto is going to be on my supper table.

I support progressive organic farmers who work hard to keep gmo out of their crops!

to your dinner table

So what counts as "messing with Mother Nature"? The existence of edible corn in the first place is the result of genetic modification of the maize plant by Native Americans. How is that different in principle from what is happening today?

Not one of the plants grown from the GM seed will have any difference whatsover.

If a crop of GM crop is susectable to an invading virus or pest the ENTIRE CROP will be lost since NONE will have any genetic diversity.

GM is producing a Master Race of plants.

Nature requires diversity.

You cannot control seeds and Life the way corporations want to do.

You HAVE to allow for a bit of chaos.

into corn and other crops. GM is completely diffent - it does what would be impossible in nature. Example: Fish and plants don't normally combine to produce offspring. With GM they can.

Meet the brick wall.
Science is not good or bad. It is neutral. It just reports the facts.
When ones beliefs of the super efficient economy takes over their analysis then it becomes a religion.
We have seen for some time the rule of the business knows best and prove us wrong.
It don't work any more. If you believe everything then use margin in Canada. It is now produced from GM plants.

Your claim that "nothing wrong GM food" is not scientific and has nothing to do with science and all to do with capitalism.

So it's you denouncing science and the 21st century.


All the best from a socialist luddite!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

There is nothing wrong with GM food, no matter how much you want it to be that way.

And that's true because... you say so? Or Monsanto, hiding its REAL data, says so?

Oh, that's right, you're gone, so you can't answer. Just as well. I'm sick and tired of being snowed, spun, lied to and deceived by corporations and government. I CERTAINLY don't come to DU wanting more of it. But thanks anyway!!

Can't imagine why else someone would come here and post that without backing it up.

Denouncing science? Monsanto's own (secret-shhhhh) science is evidence enough for me. Sorta reminds me of the studies done by tobacco companies they suppressed. And got BUSTED for.

The GM industry is creating an unsafe product that no one wants and they are gonna go DOWN. That's the good part of capitalism.

Eating Cauliflower Mosaic Virus infected vegetables does not prove that that Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Promoter in genetically modified crops is safe

CaMV is a pararetrovirus which means that it transmitted as a double stranded DNA virus that replicates using reverse transcription of RNA into DNA. The replication of CaMV is similar to the replication of a related pararetrovirus Hepatitis B (Seeger and Mason 2000). In CaMV replication the infecting virus enters the plant cell then transfers a copy of the viral DNA to the plant cell nucleus where it forms a nuclear plasmid that very rarely (possibly never) integrates into the chromosome. The viral DNA is transcribed releasing both messenger RNA for making virus components and RNA copies of the viral chromosome that are translocated to the cytoplasm where the RNA copies of the viral chromosome are packaged in virion like particles. Within the virion like particles the RNA is reverse transcribed to make the viral DNA that is released from the plant cell in the mature virus (reviewed in Poogin et al 1998).

When CaMV genes are inserted into the DNA of the plant chromosome those genes may recombine with infecting CaMV virus. Wintermantel and Schoelz (1996) found that recombination was observable in every plant when virus invaded transgenic plants with CaMV genes inserted on plant chromosome. They believed that most observed recombination occurred in the cytoplasm during reverse transcription and that there was little chance for recombination between invading virus and CaMV transgenes on the chromosome. Genes such as human interferon have been inserted in CaMV virus and were found to produce interferon in virion like particles but the human genes were not reported to have recombined with plant chromosomesDeZoeten et al (1989).Plant gene replacement vectors based on CaMV have been discussed for nearly twenty years but have not proven highly useful because the only small DNA inserts have proven feasible but recently Viapana et al (2001) have experienced improved success by employing helper virus.

Earlier we discussed the problems with CaMV promoter integrated into the chromosome in great detail." We pointed out that the CaMV 35S promoter is promiscuous in function, and works efficiently in all plants, as well as green algae, yeast and E. coli. It has a modular structure, with parts common to, and interchangeable with promoters of other plant and animal viruses. It also has a recombination hotspot, flanked by multiple motifs involved in recombination, and is similar to other recombination hotspots including the borders of the Agrobacterium T DNA vector most frequently used in making transgenic plants"(Cummins et al 2000).

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/eatingcamv-pr.php

When a cow is injected with rBGH, its milk production is stimulated, but not directly. The presence of rBGH in the cow's blood stimulates production of another hormone, called Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1, or IGF-1 for short. It is IGF-1 that stimulates milk production.

IGF-1 is a naturally-occurring hormone-protein in both cows and humans. <3> The IGF-1 in cows is chemically identical to the IGF-1 in humans. <4> The use of rBGH increases the levels of IGF-1 in the cow's milk, though the amount of the increase is disputed. Furthermore, IGF-1 in milk is not destroyed by pasteurization. Because IGF-1 is active in humans --causing cells to divide --any increase in IGF-1 in milk raises obvious questions: will it cause inappropriate cell division and growth, causing tumors?

<snip>

The position of Monsanto, and of the dairy conglomerates using rBGH, are different. Monsanto's public position since 1994 has been that IGF-1 is not elevated in the milk from rBGH-treated cows. For example, writing in the British journal, LANCET, in 1994, Monsanto researchers said "...IGF-1 concentration in milk of rBST-treated cows is unchanged," and "...there is no evidence that hormonal content of milk from rBST-treated cows is in any way different from cows not so treated." <7> However, in a published letter, the British researcher T. B. Mepham reminded Monsanto that in its 1993 application to the British government for permission to sell rBGH in England, Monsanto itself reported that "the IGF-1 level went up substantially ." <8> The U.S. FDA acknowledges that IGF-1 is elevated in milk from rBGH-treated cows. <4> Other proponents of rBGH acknowledge that it at least doubles the amount of IGF-1 hormone in the milk. <9> The earliest report in the literature found that IGF-1 was elevated in the milk of rBGH-treated cows by a factor of 3.6. <10> No one besides Monsanto seems to argue that rBGH treatment of cows has no effect on IGF-1 levels in their milk.

<snip>

A new study published this month shows this to be wrong. IGF-1 by itself in saliva is destroyed by digestion, but IGF-1 in the presence of casein (the principal protein in cows' milk) is not destroyed by the digestive system. <11> Casein has a protective effect on IGF-1, so IGF-1 in cows milk remains intact in the gut of humans who drink rBGH-treated milk. There was reason to believe that this might be true because researchers in 1984 had shown that another growth hormone, Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF), in the presence of casein was not degraded by the digestive system. <12> However, proof had been lacking for IGF-1 until now.

<snip>

2. Two British researchers, D.N. Challacombe and E.E. Wheeler, experimented with IGF-1, exposing human cells taken from the small intestine. They report that IGF-1 induced mitotic activity --that is to say, IGF-1 promoted cell division. <14> This is an important finding. Cancer is uncontrolled cell division.

http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw454.htm

for trying to report about serious human health impacts of rBGH in dairy cows. They lost their jobs, were prohibited from airing their story on a Fox affiliate in Florida due to pressure from Monsanto, and spent their life savings on legal fees.

The chemical industry is dreadful about going to extreme lengths to suppress the truth about its products. When I wrote an article years ago comparing nontoxic alternatives to pesticide products, I received a death threat on my answering machine.

I hope the British editor who dared to expose the truth has a bodyguard named Smith & Wesson.

No need for name calling.

Show me some independent testing that shows GE Foods are safe. Despite the fact that GE foods have been on the market for about 10 years, there has been only minimal testing done which is usually what science and progress are all about. Why are the studies not done?? Because they know what they will find?? Because there is no money to fund them, and because any research that is done that finds anything negative is immediately halted.

Food allergy rates are increasing along with numerous other chronic illnesses. WE DON'T KNOW what GE foods do to our immune system. Call me conservative when it comes to THE ENTIRE FOOD SUPPLY OF THE WORLD as Monsanto has stated in a shareholder meeting that they would like to own ALL THE SEEDS!! I'd rather be safe than sorry!

Testing was also avoided as there is a revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA. They claim that GE foods are "substantially equivalent" to traditionally grown crops??? Altering DNA, inserting herbicides into every single cell in GE corn and it is still the same??? NOT

But hey, I trust Monsanto, they say that Agent Orange hasn't caused birth defects, deaths and chronic health problems

There is NO WAY TO CONTROL the spread of pollen from GE crops, there is NO LIABILITY to farmers that grow GE crops and contaminate their neighbor's crops. There may soon be NO organic crops if Monsanto has their way. Currently it is impossible to grow GE FREE canola in Canada due to wipespread GE contamination.

Monsanto spent millions in a campaign in Oregon to prevent GE foods from being labeled.

Now it is the FARM BUREAU, the Universities (cuz they get big bucks for research) and the Patrick Moore (former greenpeace member/turncoat) that are behind the efforts to prevent local bans of GE Crops. When Patrick Moore came to our local college he was paid $10,000 to spout lies about GE crops.

Watch "The Future of Food",
read "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith/seedsofdeception.com
Read "Genetic Engineering, Food, and Our Environment" by Luke Anderson

If you want to avoid GE foods, make sure to buy organic soy, corn, canola and cotton seed oil products. Most processed foods contain one or more of the above.

At least the "pharmeceutical rice" (grown with human genes) is on hold for Northern California. But not in Arkansas

Add on note here

Good news in the GE arena is that Ignacio Chapela (UC Berkeley Professor) was granted tenure last week despite efforts of Bio-tech companies (and a $25 Million donation to the University) to have his tenure denied.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/21/BAG8VCSGL41.DTL

Embattled UC teacher is granted tenure
Critic of campus' ties with biotech lost initial bid

"fast-tracking" FDA approval was for "ethical" reasons in spite of the fact that none of these new drugs EVER went for any long term research even AFTER they were dispensed as prescription drugs. Just look at the what happened when they fast-tracked AZT. It was later determined that many deaths were attributed to the "dosage" of this DNA-killing(aka life-killing) prescribed poison. Now they've just lowered the dosage(and created "cocktails") so the killings are slower and they call it "progress" when less people are dying of these poisons so discernibly.

We may never know what health atrocities GE food may wrought, as any studies will be skewed and twisted to blame something else (global warming, pollution, electromagnetic rays, etc). In Iraq throwing DU(and chemical weaponry) into the mix certainly won't give a clear picture of what these people will be ill from...

a UK newspaper to the right of Ghengis Khan and ultra capitalist, had an item on GM food, which stated that gastric diseaes had increased by 50% in the USA, since inception of the sale of GM food.

said the spider to the fly.

another absolutist statement to be taken with a lump of salt i presume

peace

I gotta hand it to Maple, he's got balls to intimate that science says GM foods are safe IN A THREAD SHOWING MONSANTO'S OWN SCIENCE PROVES IT ISN'T!

BTW

peace

Knowing the genes doesn't help much.

* Gene functions are mutually entangled in complex networks and strongly influenced by environmental feedback. The effects of individual genes cannot be separated from other.

* Genes and genomes are in constant flux, updating and changing in both function and structure as the organism acts on and responds to the environment. There is no constant reference point for comparing different genomes.

* The protein coding sequences comprise at most 1.5% of the human genome. Vast areas consist of non-coding DNA that are transcribed and increasingly found to be responsible for yet further layers of complexity in regulating gene function and structure. Gene sequences really don't tell much of the story.

* There are insurmountable methodological and conceptual problems in mapping the functions of the genome, the transcriptome and the proteome. It can't be done.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/genome041905.cfm

or is it that YOU are the one who is screaming and saying "oh yeah, oh yeah?"

I mean really - this is Monsanto's own study so you can't say it's biased against GM foods, and the results are pretty clear - this particular GM corn causes changes in rat physiology, which is indicative of potential health effects in Humans.

Now I for one am not anti-GM in so far as it is proven safe - however, I have yet to see studies PROVING it is safe, and I am intrigued by the fact that a study that seems to indicate problems with at least one GMO was deemed "confidential" or "secret".

What does Monsanto have to hide?

Welcome to DU, Karmakaze!

:toast:

Wish I'd thought of it. :D

Welcome. :hi:

Welcome to DU - your post (and Maple's idiotic one) is proof that post counts don't mean a thing.

:toast:

PS: nice handle!

Once a few successfully transformed plants have been found, scientists then
use traditional breeding techniques to produce a viable farm breed. The
whole process from beginning to end is very expensive. North Carolina State
University scientists estimated the costs of developing a transgenic variety
of corn to be $1,300,000, while traditional breeding of a new variety costs
$52,000 (reported in Cox 2001). In addition, GM plants are weighed down with
many patents: Beta-carotene enriched "golden" rice has "as many as 16
important patents and 72 potential intellectual property barriers" (Beachy
2003). Even if we imagine GM seeds being given away by the scientists who
produced them, the high production costs and the intellectual property
rights would remain present as external factors.

Genetic manipulation aims to introduce clearly defined alterations into
plants. But genetic studies over the past decades and the results of genetic
manipulation experiments show vividly that genes do not act in isolation. A
gene construct may be physically located in one specific place in a
chromosome, but physiologically it is part of a dynamic and changing system.
In other words, it becomes part of the ecology of the organism and, as in
any ecosystem, every change in the part has effects within the whole, just
as changes in the whole affect the part. So when we add a gene construct to
an organism, we can expect multiple effects. Let's look at a couple of
examples.

Genetic manipulation aims to introduce clearly defined alterations into
plants. But genetic studies over the past decades and the results of genetic
manipulation experiments show vividly that genes do not act in isolation. A
gene construct may be physically located in one specific place in a
chromosome, but physiologically it is part of a dynamic and changing system.
In other words, it becomes part of the ecology of the organism and, as in
any ecosystem, every change in the part has effects within the whole, just
as changes in the whole affect the part. So when we add a gene construct to
an organism, we can expect multiple effects. Let's look at a couple of
examples.

Different lines (genetic varieties) of genetically engineered potatoes were
created that break down the sugar sucrose in different ways. This entails a
small genetic change that is associated with the production of a specific
enzyme in each of the transgenic lines. The scientists wanted to know if
additional changes were being effected, so they carried out a so-called
metabolic profile. They investigated the amounts of 88 different substances
(starch, different sugars, different amino acids, etc.) being produced in
the tubers. Surprisingly, there was not just a change in amount of the
substances in the specific breakdown pathway affected by the genetic
manipulation, but in most of the 88 substances. The transgenic lines
differed from each other and from the non-manipulated potatoes. For example,
the transgenic potatoes often produced more amino acids than the
non-manipulated potatoes, and nine substances were found in the transgenic
potatoes that could not be detected in the non-manipulated potatoes
(Roessner et al. 2001).

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/natureinst012005.cfm

you're the one denouncing science here.

just because some people are skeptical about GM foods, they want to go back to the dark ages?

They're suddenly Luddites?

Luddites communicating on an... internet message board?

check your rhetoric at the front desk.

That's a falsehood. The Luddites were actually against the monopolization of technology by the elites.

btw - GM company websites don't count.

to improve crop yields and crop attributes.

It is a matter of propaganda that only industrial farming and GM food can feed the planet. All the (few) studies done to compare yields have shown organic to do as well as or better than industrial (I am using industrial as a easy word to describe non-organic). This is particularly true if the studies ar run long enough for the real benefits of organic to kick in (soil replenishment, etc...), which tends to happen after five years or so. Then organic really forges ahead of non-organic.

A full review in the article:
Can organic farming feed the world?
http://www.energybulletin.net/1469.html

Some key comments:

"One of the criticisms of organic agriculture has been that there is not enough nitrogen available naturally, therefore only chemical fertilizers can provide adequate supplies to sustain current yields. This is clearly not the case as shown by both the Rothamsted and Rodale experiments, where manure-based systems can provide enough nitrogen not only to sustain high crop yields but also to build up the nitrogen storage in the soil."

"Another argument that critics are making is that organic food is more expensive, therefore, low-income families and people in the third world would not be able to afford it. While it is true that organic food has a price premium, this price difference is the result of higher demand for organic products, and does not necessarily reflect a higher cost of production. According to the Wallace Institute report mentioned earlier, organic production of grains and soybeans in the mid-west was more profitable than conventional in at least half the cases studied, even without factoring the higher prices that organic soybeans bring in the market (sometimes more than twice as much as conventional soybeans)."

"Even these studies overestimate the relative costs of organic production. Federal commodity programs and subsidies are geared towards large-scale chemically intensive agriculture and artificially inflate figures for industrial agriculture. "

"Even in the United States, the smallest farms, those 27 acres or less, have more than ten times greater dollar output per acre than larger farms (US Agricultural Census, 1992). Conversion to small organic farms therefore, would lead to sizeable increases of food production worldwide."

Etc...

Best

José de Freitas
Portugal

Caveat: I am not an agro engineer, so had to take the studies cited at face value.

Someone who holds a preconceived notion and refuses to relinquish it in the face of experimental evidence. That's about as unscientific as you can get. Controlled experiment, both sets of rats fed equal quantities of the same types of food, kept in the same conditions. One set is healthier than the other set. That's pretty compelling evidence. It needs to be reproduced and examined for experimental flaws. The experiments need to be expanded, after all humans ain't rats. But so far it's darn good science. All your talk about Luddites and Dark Ages, Socialism, whatever, doesn't invalidate it. Since you mention "science" why not offer some real criticism of the results rather than babbling a few catch phrases and storming out in a huff because, I'm sure, we wouldn't listen to reason anyway.

There've been other disturbing experimental results beside these, most notably the introduction of unforseen allergic reactions when genetic material from one species was introduced into another. The big problem as I see it is that once this genie is out of the bottle there is literally no way to put it back in, ever. We're already seeing this. Non-GM crops have been pollinated by GM strains all over the world and we're finding traces of GM genes everywhere.

There may be some value to GM eventually but we have got to go slowly and be very very careful. We're modifying our biological and genetic environment in ways that have never been done before and which are absolutely irreversible.

We're not denouncing science - SCIENCE is denouncing GM foods.

With your support of "free" trade and globalization, it's hardly surprising you would make outright untrue statements about GM foods, though.

Your Orwellian claim that science supports GM foods WHEN IT DOES NOT is ridiculous. Most here know that. I don't think you're going to really get far pushing GM when you use untruthful arguments.

I'm such a freedom-hater. :cry:

Seems that Bt-corn made people rather ill in the Phillipines...

http://www.munlochygmvigil.org.uk/phillipines.htm

(this is for GMaple...I didn't realize how far down the reply tree I was!)

your terse sentences denouncing the denouncers ain't gonna cut it for me.

i have flip-flopped on this issue for years, but you are not doing a good job at making a defensible argument for GM foods.

could be one of the causes of your complete blindness to scientific reality.

get much worse there? For those that don't know, the list of new laws Bremmer left the newly freed Iraqis includes one law that makes it illegal to use anything but GM seeds for crops as of this year.

I guess Monsanto and the gov't had to dump that somewhere.

Percy Schmeiser's story is all one needs to know:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

and the very high rate of birth deformities in Iraq. Many have assumed it was caused by depleted uranium, but perhaps there's another cause.

They are in your cheerios and your chips. the Only way not to consume them is to buy GMO-free and Organics.

Let's go into the poor neighborhoods across the US and implore people to buy the $3 head of organic lettuce instead of the $2 normal one. That'll go over just great.

Not to mention that going organic involves many alternatives including farmers' markets, food co-operatives, CSAs (Consumer Supported Agriculture), buying directly from farmers, joining a community garden, growing your own...

Here's some info on CSAs:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa/

eating the food until fall. ALso, I haven't heard if it's being enforced that they can only use those GM seeds. I would say the birth defects right now are only from DU.

I'm certainly no fan of the legislation Bremer introduced, and I hope the new government repeals it, but thankfully it's not quite as bad as that. What they made illegal is to save seeds that are patented, such as GM seeds. They are also handing out GM seeds to farmers in order to fool them into using it, reportedly. Once their crops are contaminated they'll have to pay royalties and buy need seeds each season for all eternity. But there's no law against using ordinary, unpatented seed!

Might that be?
Why should they adhere to US patent law?

Because the US says so, Iraq isn't an independent nation at all, at this point in time, we hold the pursestrings and the guns, so no, it can't contradict the United States at this time. Not only that but Globalization makes it worse, with orgs like the IMF and WTO, along with certain treaties that Iraq and other countries needing loans or grants NEED to sign, they have to obey patent laws of all other signees of said treaty, usually to their detriment. Though there is always the illegal way, but I wouldn't want to get caught by our soldiers saving patented seeds over more than one season, you might be labeled a terrorist for resisting corporate dominance.

children, ala Nazi Germany...

I only wish you had been in our county to help with our campaign against GE crops that only got 40% of the vote, but wan't too bad for a bunch of newbie activists.

thanks for the education.

My all-knowing professors told me only conspiracy theorists are against GE, who is this "Monsanto" nut job to tell me otherwise?!


And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed - if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'
'Stand easy!' barked the instructress, a little more genially.
Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate sublety: consciously to induce unconciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

these conundrums. This form of control, could it be so much easier with a christian base? People who are already denying logic by accepting such doublespeak? (This sounds like this could be a good general discussion thread.)

the people used to modify food by crossbreeding..etc to naturally enhance the food supply.

However, reading the article I find that Monsanto made some special corn that is resistant to root worm...well my main concern would be what about the natural flora and fauna in our own bodies? Granted if it gets rid of tape worms....that would be a plus but if it attacks the good stuff in our body that breaks down food then it could be a disaster.

Genetic modification involves the insertion of DNA ACROSS different kingdoms-human, plant, animal, bacteria or virus into crops

It involves the use of viruses (CMV-see above posts)

It involves the insertion of antibiotic resistance “marker genes”, such as e-coli in the process of gene splicing, (because they have no f*ing clue where the inserted gene lands in the DNA strand when it is inserted and no clue about the possible hazards from altering the DNA)

It involves the insertion of herbicides/pesticides

The process of genetica engineering is NOT the same as traditional cross-breeding which involving plans of the same or similar species, please don't fall for the industry lies!

Once again Europe leads the US in awareness of issues and probits growing GE crops (except for one type of corn the the WTO/US forced them to allow)

Genetically engineered salmon devoured all the smaller native salmon in one study, so far the west coast has a ban on GE salmon

Watch "The Corporation" -the movie covers the dangers of rBGH and the TV investigative reporters that tried to do a story but were silenced by pressure from Monsanto

For a scary science fiction book writen in 1972 read "The Sheep Look Up" by John Brunner which is about "tainted" food aid to 3rd world countries and so called "organic foods". It was recently reprinted with an afterword covering genetically engineered foods.

For current and archived stories on GE check here:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.html
http://www.biointegrity.org/
http://www.calgefree.org/
http://www.cetos.org/ (Center for Ethics and Toxics) May Marc Lappe Rest in Peace
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=181
http://non-gm-farmers.com/
http://www.foodfirst.org/issues/gefood
http://gefreevt.org/
http://biotechimc.org/
http://www.saynotogmos.org/
http://biodev.org/

doesn't cross breeding affect the genes?

which are the most common allergies.

Yes, GE has not been proven safe, but I also wonder if sooooo much traditional hybridization is any safer. I don't think there has been any research into the causes of food allergies or if studies have been done to see if people that have allergies to our current varieties of corn, wheat, etc are also allergic to the "native" varities.

They are right on more often then not on many things! Anytime they screw around with nature you have to question it, in the long run it comes back to bites us.

Humankind has been "screwing around with nature" for thousands of years. It's one of the defining characteristics of the species. It's why we have homes to live in, a predictable food supply, and means of transportation other than walking.

Arguing that something is eeeeviiillll just because it's "screwing around with nature" is just a little bit simplistic.

GM corn contains everything from pig proteins to genes that allow it to be doused in Roundup regularly (which sure ain't good for you, either). This is why one of my biggest bills every month comes from organic groceries and pet foods.The sad thing is that there's no way to be certain that organic corn is 100% organic, since pollen from GM crops can often make it way to organic farms.

and kidneys

Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430

Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

The disclosures come as European countries, including Britain, prepare to vote on whether the GM-modified corn should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the European Union failed to secure agreement over whether the product should be sold here, after Britain and nine other countries voted in favour.

However, the disclosure of the health effects on the Monsanto rats has intensified the row over whether the corn is safe to eat without further research. Doctors said the changes in the blood of the rodents could indicate that the rat's immune system had been damaged or that a disorder such as a tumour had grown and the system was mobilising to fight it.

<snip>
Dr Michael Antoniu, an expert in molecular genetics at Guy's Hospital Medical School, described the findings as "very worrying from a medical point of view", adding: "I have been amazed at the number of significant differences they found ."


more...

...there is a great deal of hysteria over GM foods and VERY LITTLE good science to support any of it. That's perhaps a compelling argument to go slow with GMOs, but frankly I'd rather see some of the real questions answered. In this particular case, IF the GM corn was responsible, WHAT was the causitive mechanism? That question needs to be answered before any valid conclusions can be reached in this case, IMO.

Disclaimer-- I'm a professional ecologist and an ardent conservationist, but I prefer understanding to hysteria, and I think there's way too much of the latter surrounding the GM foods issue.

Monsanto wants to OWN THE FOOD SUPPLY!

I was addressing the OP's point about physical abnormalities, but you're right-- GMOs are at the heart of industrial ag., but there it's mostly the business model that's the problem, not necessarily genetic engineering.

"it's mostly the business model that's the problem, not necessarily genetic engineering."

The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus is the Viral promoter used in over 90% of gene splicing. For more info on the consequences of this see my above post or Do some involved research into this virus. Perhaps starting w/Dr. Mae Wan Ho's research.

At the heart of industrial Agriculture is the chemical industry, the entire Green Revolution was a toxic fraud and GMO's is actually just an extension of this. The primary motive for all of this is the fact that Monsanto's exclusive patent on glyphosate-trade name Round-Up Ready was set to expire in year 2000 and this is their MAJOR cash cow. With the end in site they were working on a new scheme-GMO's and Life Patents- to keep farmers tied into their poisons and keep the profits rolling in. It's all about control and Monsanto has destroyed local non-chemical agriculture around the world and then come in with their snake oil "fix".

Once the Frankenbean is out of the pod it might be way too
late.

isn't that the NEXT step? Wouldn't it be not only unusual but highly impractical not to mention impracticable to try to find that out along WITH the anomalies, or rather or not there would be anomalies? And who, pray tell, has the money for research like this? Do you have access to some funding (speaking of practical considerations)? You can be damn sure Monsanto isn't going to step up to the plate.

You don't sound like a professional ecologist to me at all.

What, pray tell, is wrong with this study? Why would it be subject to your higher standard of knowing the mechanisms of what causes these problems -- that doesn't strike me as the usual "standard," is it? (It couldn't be, or the medical establishment wouldn't be confused and mislead about so many other nutritional issues such as what causes obesity, the role of cholesterol in the body and its involvement in heart disease, etc.)

First I wander about the design of this study, but that's a natural concern about any experiment that MUST be addressed before the results can be evaluated. More to the point, however, assuming that the modified corn did in fact cause abnormalities independent of design issues, there are at least two potential mechanisms that suggest different kinds of problems.

First, were the abnormalities caused by the gene expression products of the engineered corn? If so, this suggests that only those specific expression products are causitive agents, and that simply argues for just this type of screening (preferably before marketing and certainly by an independent agency). But that mechanism is not a broad indictment of GMOs generally. It simp
The second mechanism is more fundamental, and more troubling. Are the engineered oligonucleotides or other gene bits, or associated RNA, passing through the digestive system barriers and causing disease, analogous to prions? That would argue that ANY modified genome is potentially dangerous to ingesst, but it would also raise serious questions about WHY this doesn't occur-- or at least cause pathologies-- when we eat non-engineered foods that are nontheless the result of historic breeding programs. Corn is one such grain even without genetic engineering-- the corn we eat has undergone considerable genetic modification from it's ancestral roots, i.e. Teosinte.

Finally, what do you think an ecologist sounds like? For the most part, we sound like sceptics, in my experience.

From millenia of experience, we know which foods are safe for humans to eat and which aren't. GM companies try to argue that the GM-modified foods are essentially the same as non-GM foods, i.e. that GM soybean is exactly the same as non-GM soybean, even though the genes have been spliced. This is patently false. I just don't want to have to experiment with my foods. If I eat corn, I esxpect it to be corn as has been eaten for thousands of years and proved to be safe. And regardless of all the breeding that has been going on to improve corn, it is still corn - just like a dog is a dog, no matter what the breed. The gene structure is still the same, regardless of the particular inherited traits.

modification takes thousands of years; in GM crops, the time span is contracted to virtually no time at all; and these slimeballs have not the foggiest idea of what goes on at the quantum level.

We're both UGA grads (PhD's)

and he has a right to express his views.

I patronize my local organic coop every week - and most of the food I buy is certified GM free.

My primary concerns with GMO's (echoed by other posters) are with Monsanto, corporate tyranny, the potential for genetic "escapes" (with unknown consequences for natural ecosystems) and the long-term retention of diversity in food species - these are much bigger problems than Frankenfood at the moment.

:hi:

(on edit: syntax stupidity)

Ecology and entomology at a CalState university. I PMed you more details if you're still interested.

when the house is on fire.

Hysteria used to be a clinical condition attributed to over-emotional women....by Male Doctors.

The house is on fire.

in another thread.

showing this. What are they hiding?

I'd rather 'err' on the side of safety, considering the only ones benefitting from GM foods are the agribusiness and chemical companies.

whether its the GMs or cell phones, or massive pollution. I just don't know which one will get us first.

As far as the GMs, it concerns me that it kills the monarchs. I also question the amount of actual nutrition that there is in a planet that is half corn and half God knows what...

gw*dipshit



Wait a minute


They already have??? That explains everything!!

Thought I read somewhere that other non-GM crops - adjacent to test sites - could be /were affected, presumably by pollen.

via various avenues. Pollen drifting, which by the way, resulted in a lawsuit against the unlucky farmer whose field had GM pollen drift from the GM field next door to his. Mistakes in labeling which was GM and which was not.

on the shelves. If you want more info on the precise genetically engineered ingredients you are likely to find in your food (beware of ALL processed food) I'll post it for you.

That would be very helpful! Thanks! :hi:

Soy Lecithin: An emulsifier and supplement derived from soy.

Glycine: An amino acid derived from soy.

Tocopherols: Vitamin E supplement, whose natural form comes from soy or wheat germ.

Phospholipids: Derived from lecithin.

MSG/Glutamic Acid/etc.: From various vegetable proteins such as corn or soy.


PRODUCTS CONTAINING SOY:

Vegetable proteins and isolates, tofu, tamari, tempeh, antioxidants (vit E.), textured vegetable protein, TVP, protein supplements, defoaming agents used in the manufacturing of yeast and sugar, vegetable oil, natto, natural flavours.

Zein: from corn protein, used as a vitamin coating.

Xanthan Gum: from corn sugar, used as a food thickener.

MSG/Glutamic acid/hydrolyzed vegetable protein or starch: used as flavour enhancers.

Inositol/inosinate:an ingredient in vitamin B supplements.

Oleic acid and Bi-products: from vegetable oils, used variously especially in cosmetics.

Stearic acid and Bi-products: from cottonseed, corn or other vegetable oils, used variously.

Lactic Acid: from fermented corn and potato starch

Lecithin:emulsifier and supplement from corn or soy.

Linoleic Acid: from vegetable oils, such as cottonseed and soybean.

Lysine:Amino acid often derived from corn.

Ascorbic Acid:Vitamin C supplement most often derived from corn.

Phospholipids:derived from lecithin (see above).

Pectin:could be derived from corn sugars, such as dextrose or fructose.

Phytic Acid: used to chelate heavy metals for supplements

CORN SUGARS:

Dextrose, fructose, dextri-maltose, maltodextrin, cyclodextrin, diacetyl, amylose, amylopectin, invert sugar, isomalt, levulose, monosaccharide, lactate condensation, polyamino sugar condensate, confectioner's sugar.

OTHER INGREDIENTS WHICH MAY CONTAIN CORN:

Baking Powder, white vinegar, aspartame, methanol, citric acid, table salt (dextrose), caramel, excipients and bill binders, malt, mono and diglycerides, sorbitol, vanilla extract, milo starch.


http://www.thebigcarrot.ca/derivatives.htm

I'll post more on this tomorrow-must get rest.

Most Papaya-GE
Raddicchio-GE

It's sickening just to read.
Would almost be easier to ask what foods HAVEN'T been genetically ruined. :-(

profit s, what does it matter if some peons get sick or die? After all, I know that corporate profits are what's important.

Bush said so, it must be true.

Bio-engineers inserted Bt into corn. Bt had been a popular pesticide with organic farmers because of it’s short-term presence in the environment after its use. By splicing Bt into corn, the frankenfood scientists created a constant presence of Bt in the environment, thereby destroying its usefulness for organic farmers.

http://www.safer-world.org/e/topics/food/gm/epa.htm

... Organic farmers were also disappointed with EPA's decision. Bt sprays are an important pest management tool for many organic and some conventional farmers, but continued use of Bt crops may reduce their effectiveness. Toxins in Bt sprays break down rapidly in the environment as opposed to the Bt in genetically engineered crops, which breaks down very slowly. With widespread use of Bt crops, there is increased insect exposure to the toxin, and insect resistance is much more likely to develop resulting in the loss of Bt sprays as a valuable tool.

<snip>

We've been eating GM Frankenfood for years now, along with non-GM Frankenfood, like HFCS, Olestra, and "Partially Hydrogenated" everything.

Only labeling will help those in the EU:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3037222.stm

Euro vote ends GM food ban
Laws which will end a European Union-wide ban on new genetically modified foods have been passed by the European Parliament.

The laws allow new GM foods to be sold in Europe for the first time in five years, but only if they are clearly labelled.

<snip>

Same old garbage about "fair trade." Here's hoping that the people fight back ... and win.

edited to note date of article: Wednesday, July 2, 2003

Because they KNOW that the shit will rot on the shelves if it's clearly labelled "GMO".

"Milo, you can't expect people to eat COTTON!!!"
"No, it's not cotton, I was joking, it's really delicious cotton candy! Here, try it again..."

Lots of claims about labeling being unfair to free trade. No one would knowingly buy that crap.

"Don’t worry Milo, them Amurkins never could tell the difference."

------------------

“Remember, a bad day for Monsanto is a good day for humanity.”
-- planetwaves.net