Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > GMO issue.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 26
view profile
History
GMO issue.Page 2 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
I dont think you understand what you quoted me saying. GMO or no GMO still people starving due to inadequate distribution. The reason for starving people had nothing to do with people needing to use more round up so they had to buy some Frankenstein plant.

GREED is the reason people are starving. companies dont find it profitable to feed them with the food they let rot instead. There is plenty enough food to go around no need for GMOs ....

GMO just like chemical fertilizers is another way to make people pay for something nature gives you for free. There are ways to control weed, bugs and keep soil fertile without chemicals and genetic modifications and they have worked for countless centuries perfectly and luckily as of now still do.

These people just want to make a buck off of the the petroleum and the war machine industrial waste. Then they want to make more money by making up a Frankenstein plant that they can patent and then get settlements from farmers crops whom get tainted by them as well as selling something that can be done perfectly naturally..

Again weeds are not a problem if you take the proper measures. Do a bit of research there are plenty of ways to suppress and control weeds without toxic chemicals.

There is no legitimate need for any of what these companies are selling and all this talk about philanthropy is all hogwash to make people feel fuzzy about something that is foolishness and we can do perfectly well without.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 27
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 10:47:32 PM


Currently there are only a few dozen peer reviewed studies completed on the health effects of genetically modified foods. The results of many of these studies strongly challenges the industry and government standard of substantial equivalence.

Gene Transfer:

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had their small intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM Soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the human gut bacteria. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soy transferred into their gut bacteria.[50]

"This transgene was stable inside the bacteria and appeared to produce herbicide-tolerant protein... In the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM crops, long standing assumptions that genes would not transfer to human gut bacteria were overturned. The findings should prompt immediate comprehensive follow-up tests to determine the implications for health among both the general population and at-risk groups."[51]

Allergies:

Since 2004 some cotton workers in India have experiencing allergic reactions to only Bt cotton, and not to other conventional varieties. The longer the workers were exposed to the genetically modified Bt cotton the more sever their symptoms were. An investigation concluded that reactions included: "mild to sever itching.. in severe cases eyes also became red, and swollen"[52] One doctor reported that he had seen approximately 150 cases of allergies to Bt Cotton in 2005, and another 100 in 2004. [53]

In the mid 1990's Pioneer Hi-Bred began to genetically modify a soybean that would take a gene from a Brazil nut in the hopes that soy would increase the production of of the amino acid methionine. While this particular new crop was being designed for animal feed, as the case of StarLink corn clearly showed that food only for animal consumption will undoubtedly enter the human food supply. Pioneer Hi-Bred decided to test the new GM soybean with the Brazil nut gene for allergens as many people are allergic to Brazil nuts. To the companies surprise in three separate tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing) all studies showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new gm soybean.[54] "In trying to build a better soybean the company had made a potentially deadly one."[55]

In 1999 soy allergies in the United Kingdom increased from 10%-15% in a single year. Coincidentally GM soy entered the UK shortly before 1999. One study using skin prick test showed that of the 49 subjects 13 individuals experienced a positive reaction to non-GM soy, 8 individuals reacted to the GM soybeans, and "one patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only."[56] This study again proves that a particular genetically modified food can cause an allergic reaction in a person who does not have an allergy to the natural variety.


Found this on wikipedia


Oh yeah so well tested! I feel so safe now!

And the person who said no allergic reactions reported also doesnt know. You think these biotech people are going to tell us when something is wrong? Monsanto sure kept it quiet about dioxin and agent orange until the poop hit the fan... Somehow I doubt they made such sweeping changes in their concern for public safety and health and desire to disclose information that might effect their bottom line in a negative way..
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 28
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 1:57:05 AM
More history about Monsanto and why they should be boycotted 100% they have a very long history of being harmful to human health and the environment. I would be amazed they are allowed to get away with this crap but, they are so embedded into the government in the USA it is not even funny and thus comes as no surprise as to why they even still exist...

Can find this and many more chemical companies that should be boycotted as well and why at this site.

http://www.thegreatboycott.net/boycott_doc.html



Monsanto

Monsanto, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, employs 45,000 people and peddles over eight billion dollars a year in chemical products to the planet. Its Roundup is the world's largest selling herbicide. Monsanto owns the drug firm G.D. Searle and Company, a major phramceutical supplier. Add to this branches which manufacture a whole range of fibers, plastics, resins, rubber and metallised materials and you have a giant.

Monsanto has been under great heat for some time for their production of NutraSweet and the genetically engineered BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone). Ongoing American boycotts launched out of Atlanta and Hillsboro, Wisconsin, are taking their toll. (Family farm Defenders, P.O. Box 581, Hillsboro, Wisconsin, 54634, for BGH; and Betty Martini, 9270 River Club Parkway Duluth, Georiga 30097, 770 242-2599, for NutraSweet.) Another Monsanto boycott is being run by Pure Dairy Commission, RR 2, Box 191, New Auburn WI 54757.

The U.S. FDA, as of April 20, 1995, has reported 10,386 volunteered consumer complaints stemming from NutraSweet, aka Equal (aspartame). Among the symptoms listed are blindness seizures, memory loss, loss of limb control, slurred speech, skin lesions, extremity numbness, depression, mood swings, anxiety attacks, coma and death.

Aspartame is a food addititve 180 to 200 times sweeter than sugar. Absorbed very quickly into the bloodstream it metabolizes into six to eight byproducts including methyl alcohol and the class A carcinogen, formaldehyde. At least a hundred million Americans consume products containing NutraSweet (e.g., certain Coca Cola and Pepsi drinks, Children's Tylenol Chewable Tablets, Flintstones Complete Children's Chewable Vitamins, Metamucil Sugarfree, Breath Savers, Wrigley's Extra Sugar Free Gum, Kellogg's All Bran, Twin Labs Endurance Quick fix Powder, Calcilyte).

The early research history of aspartame was plagued with deception. Animal studies were faked (S.O.P. for the drug industry), on top of the fact that even real animal data would have had no provable crossover to humans. The resulting FDA approval of aspartame paved the way for disaster.

H.J. Roberts, M.D., a diabetes specialist and member of the American Diabetes Association, states that aspartame brings on clinical diabetes and causes convulsions.

Ralph G. Walton's aspartame study published in Biological Psychiatry (1993 34:13-17), led him to conclude "individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener; its use in this population should be discouraged." On another occasion Walton was much more blunt: "I know it (aspartame) causes seizures. I'm convinced also that it definitely causes behavioral changes. I'm very angry that this substance is on the market. I personally question the reliability and validity of any studies funded by the NutraSweet Company."

A dozen airplane magazines, including Flying Safety, published by the U.S. Air Force, have issued warnings about seizures and vertigo among pilots ingesting aspartame.

And all this is just the tip of the iceberg on this product.

Monsanto's BGH, the new growth hormone now injected into cows all over the U.S. to make them produce more milk, is another debacle. 93 percent of the nations's dairy farmers refuse to use the product. In Europe BGH is banned, at least until the year 2000. Why? Because this hormone makes cows sick -- leading to treatment with high levels of antibiotics which along with pus then find their way into the milk supply. reports of serious health and reproductive problems among U.S. cows have shot up since February 1995. Meanwhile Monsanto has tried to intimidate all those who label their milk products BGH-free. The corporation has actually brought lawsuits against such farmers and, through a related organization, has sued the state of Vermont over its permissive attitude toward BGH labeling. This obvious encroachement on the First Amendment is, of course, outrageous, but the Department of Justice does nothing to stop it.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, a well known public health advocate and professor of environmental medicine, states that "cell stimulating growth factors" such as BGH could lead to breast cancer in humans and bring about premature growth in babies. Monsanto, of course, cannot produce any safety data vis-a-vis humans because BGH is a crapshoot using million of people as experimental subjects.

More toxicity in its products? Of course. In 1985, not long before Monsanto would be exposed for having rigged a dioxin study in its favor (it made Agent Orange), the Pesticide Action Network named Monsanto's insecticied Parathion as one of the dirtiest dozen pesticides used around the world. Multinational Monitor states that Parathion "may be responsible for half the world's pesticide poisonings and 80 pecent of those in central America." Monsanto stopped making Parathion in 1986, claiming "market considerations".

Monsanto's herbicide Butachlor, marketed in foreigh countries as Machete and Lambast, has never been permanently approved by the EPA. Adverse effects of the chemical include weight loss, weight changes in internal organs, reduced brain size together with lesions. Butachlor, reports Multinational Monitor, can be found in the U.S. food supply. It's used in Argentina, Brazil, China, India, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Venezuela, which means that up to 97 percent of our rice imports could contain it.

Monsanto Lasso is the largest selling herbicide in the U.S. Lasso is everywhere on corn and soybeans. Only through extreme pressure on the EPA was Monsanto able to keep the compound on the market. EPA had already called Lasso "a probable carcinogen".

The only U.S. producer of the notorious PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) since 1929, Monsanto was forced to stop making this carcinogen in 1977 after having spread it (1.4 billion pounds) into every corner of America's land, water and human and animal bodies. By 1990, every trout and salmon over a foot long in the Great Lakes was contaminated with PCBs.

Monsanto is a leader in the biotech revolution that threatens to engineeer the genes of every food crop on the planet. This year (1996) Monsanto will introduce its altered soybean to the world of commerce. The bean is altered to withstand, without keeling over, higher levels of Monsanto's chemical herbicide Roundup. You will ingest these higher levels of Roundup.

Monsanto now owns 49.9 percent of Calgene, the maker of the Flavr Savr tomato engineered for longer shelf life. Soon to come from the parent company? Varieties of canola, cotton, maize sugar beets and rapeseed oil, all of which will also tolerate higher level of Roundup, and pass the poison on to you.

The Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C. has placed Monsanto at the top of its "dirty sixteen" companies and universities which are trying to extend the legal patenting of life forms. In response to this charge, an unruffled Monsanto spokesman said that the company puts 120 million dollars a year into biotech research and development, and there are no problems.

As if all this weren't enough, Monsanto's drug company, G.D. Searle, continues to turn out its share of toxic compounds for ingestion, as an adjunct to eating Monsanto pesticide. Examples:

*

Daypro, an NSAID for arthritis -- NSAIDS, as mentioned above, routinely cause 7,000 deaths a year in the U.S. and 70-80,000 hospitalizations.
*

Demulen, an oral contraceptive, is an estrogenic compound. Very reassuring at a time when environmental scientists are linking estrogenic pollutants to breast cancer.
*

Flagyl, an oral synthetic antiprotozoal and antibacterial, can cause convulsive seizures, peripheral neuropathy, a significant lessening of white blood corpuscles, and can make candida infections worse.
*

Kerlone for "management of hypertension" can contribute to cardiac failure.
*

Lomotil, the anti-diarrhea drug, has a number of adverse effects including tachycardia, vomiting, depression, numbness of extremities and pancreatitis.

A 1991 report by the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education indicates that Monsanto stands at the forefront of those companies who ship hazardous and potentially carcinogenic pesticides out of the country. For example, customs records for the period March to May 1990 reveal that a large anonymous St. Louis shipper sent over 21 million pounds -- over 116 tons every day -- of these pesticides out of the U.S. There is only one shipper of pesticides in St. Louis and that is Monsanto.

Beyond Searle's pharmaceuticals here is a list of Monsanto products to boycott:

* NutraSweet, Equal, BGH (aka rBGH, rBST, Posilac), Simplese (an artificial butter fat), Simple Pleasures Frozen Dairy Desserts, Salad Dressing and Mayonnaise;
* the artificial fibers Astroturf and Wear Dated Carpets;
* the garden herbicides Roundup and Dimension;
* agricultural chemicals: Lasso, Harness Plus, Far Go, Avauer, Machete, Bronco, Bullet, Cropstar GB, Freedom, Landmaster BW, Micro-Tech Partner, Ram Rod, Accord, Buckle, Fallow Master, Lariat, Rodeo;
* the feed supplement and preservative Alimet;
* the Flavr Savr tomato.

The Family Farm Defenders Monsanto Boycott says: "Be alert for dozens of new Monsanto genetically engineered plants including corn, potatoes and soybeans."

Clearly, as with all engineered foods, no long-term human studies will be done. The USFDA will automatically assume the gene insertion is safe for people and the subsequent migration of these genes into another plant species will have no untoward effect on the environment. In other words, the planet is a test tube.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 29
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 10:50:47 AM
>>The reason for starving people had nothing to do with people needing to use more round up so they had to buy some Frankenstein plant.

Yes, the problem is distribution- but if you make all crops throughout the entire world to be more productive, then people in these poor countries can produce more food, create more wealth, and wouldn't need to be dependant on foriegn aid, which is then exploited by local governments.

My solution to the problem of distribution is to make it less valuble for governments to exploit distribution- your solution?

.....wait.....did you even express one? In countries that cannot produce enough food to feed their citizens, and require aid to survive, simply going organic won't work- that would make their food LESS productive, and make it so they have LESS food, creating MORE exploitation by Governments.

By having these people produce more food, you are empowering them, while weakening the exploitive governments.

>>>GREED is the reason people are starving. companies dont find it profitable to feed them with the food they let rot instead. There is plenty enough food to go around no need for GMOs ....

Again, thats easy to say when you're not starving. Increased production will help these people. Scofting and complaining that the world is too evil to support your vision of it, will not.

>>>There are ways to control weed, bugs and keep soil fertile without chemicals and genetic modifications and they have worked for countless centuries perfectly and luckily as of now still do.

What are you, a Luddite? We've developed modern ways to produce more food, food thats stronger against bugs, chemicals, and frost- and you want us to return to the methods that produces less and less, not because they work better, but because they work?

>>>There is no legitimate need for any of what these companies are selling

Are you trying to dicate the need of consumers? Shouldn't that be up to the individual, not you or anyone who has an equally fancy title or hat?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 12:10:17 PM


Yes, the problem is distribution- but if you make all crops throughout the entire world to be more productive, then people in these poor countries can produce more food, create more wealth, and wouldn't need to be dependant on foriegn aid, which is then exploited by local governments.

My solution to the problem of distribution is to make it less valuble for governments to exploit distribution- your solution?


Permaculture. google teaching permaculture in Africa and see how many sites pop up that are teaching real inhabitants of impoverished African countries how to grow their own food naturally and sustainably.

Here is just one single link of many..
http://www.sasix.co.za/projects/view/FS-NW-MAY-0063/

It is already happening many many many groups going to Africa to teach people permaculture. They learn how to raise crops in a manner that works with nature instead of being at war with nature and poisoning and other destructive practices. They teach the local inhabitants to grow their own food in permaculture. That way they no longer have to rely on anyone.

This movement is even sending people into areas where there is desertification happening due to over grazing of goats and other forms of mismanagement or in some cases exploitation of resources. They are teaching the people there how to make swales to make the water that does fall work and you guessed it turn the dessert back into what it should be. The USA did this during the dust bowl epidemic and there is area that was once dust and desert that now supports trees and plants.

There is absolutely no need for your Frankenstein plants nor your poisons other than to make these companies richer pandering to others whom would do it for the sake of greed in some cases or perhaps in some cases out of ignorance of natural methods.

Nature provides everything we need to make the food we need. We simply need to stop the mentality that we are at war with nature and that we need to bomb her with poison and play Dr Frankenstein with the plants genes in order to come up with solutions to man made problems.

Further, you and I both know these companies are not making these things up for some philanthropic purpose and they only hide behind this when all the evidence of what some of these companies have been up to comes to light. You have been hiding behind this subject because the fact is there is no way to defend this business otherwise. There is no need to play Frankenstein with plants in this way and let it out into the public at this time other than to make these companies rich and shift the dynamic from the family farmers to the corporate farms whom all bow down to these companies.


That is the bottom line. You and the Biotech industry like to hide behind this diversion that they are somehow a charity group out to feed hungry people. It's called a wolf in sheep's clothing for a reason.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 31
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 12:15:38 PM
When did I ever say these companies act as a charity? I clearly said, several times, that they are acting in their own self-interest- and that, by doing that, they are helping billions live better lives.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 32
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 12:20:24 PM
How about some proof of this billions of people living better lives due to frankenstein plants and poison....
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 33
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 12:30:53 PM
How about I dump the truth on you and dispel you only myth you seem to cling to



10 March 2004

Dear Friends and colleagues,

RE: FOE Report on “GMOs FAILED TO LIVE UP TO EXPECTATIONS”

The first GM crop was commercialized in 1994, and now, ten years later, the promises made by the biotech industry and its powerful lobby groups have still not materialized, according to the Friends of the Earth in a report that documents the record of GMOs over the past decade. The report was widely distributed at the First Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety held in Malaysia from 23 to 27 February 2004.

The promises made by biotech companies - that GM crops were safe, that they would provide better quality and cheaper food, that they were environmentally sustainable, that they would improve agricultural production, and that they would feed the developing world - have failed to become reality.

The report noted that not a single GM food on the market is cheaper or better quality than its ‘natural’ counterpart and that GM crops may threaten biodiversity. Developing countries are already experiencing serious problems with GM crops. In several parts of India and Indonesia for example, farmers have complained that Monsanto’s GM cotton has not delivered on the company’s claims of higher yields and improvements in the livelihoods of farmers. Furthermore, the case of Argentina proves that GM crops are not the solution for feeding the world, as the biotech companies promised. Though the country is the second largest world producer of GM crops, there are millions of people who go hungry.

The executive summary of the report is reproduced below. The full report can be downloaded at: http://www.foei.org/publications/gmo/index.html.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 34
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 1:04:05 PM
here is the link where that can be found at
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service97.htm
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 35
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 2:23:44 PM
http://www.organicvalley.coop/resources/reading-room/the-false-promise-of-gmos/

Another link for ya.



GMO Crops Will Not Feed the World

The two main GMO crops being grown today—BT corn (repels corn borers) and Roundup™ Ready soybeans (withstands herbicide treatments)—are actually animal feed crops, not food crops. Impoverished nations consume little meat protein and will see little benefit from the adoption of these GMO crops. The third most commonly planted GMO crop is BT cotton—not a crop intended to feed the starving.

With GMO seeds, biotech companies are trying to add value to widely available crops and then patent them, which makes GMO seeds more expensive from the start. Additionally, these GMO varieties require high fertilizer and, in the case of Roundup Ready crops, expensive chemical additives. The only farmers that can afford the seeds and chemicals are those from first-world countries or the wealthy landowners from developing countries, who grow the crops for export, not to feed the poor.

Poor, starving Africans need the ability and tools to feed themselves. Expensive, input-dependent non-indigenous crops are the exact opposite of what is needed to relieve hunger.


 WhiteWaterRogue
Joined: 4/3/2007
Msg: 36
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 3:26:14 PM

Every organism has modified genes. It makes no difference how the modifications are achieved.

How pathetic. It makes no difference that thos modified genes happened over eons in nature, eh?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 37
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 5:38:37 PM
People did not have chance effects to deal with of what happens when you cross a fish and a berry or chance happenings of having to inject large quantities of antibiotics into cows because they are constantly infected with mastitis from the use of rBGH.

Or the socioeconomic impact of these Frankenstein plants and other GMOs on family farmers with the corporate take overs. Or the pollution of other farms and wild plants with these risky technologies. There will be no do over or way to clean it up at this point since they put it out in an uncontrollable way before it was well known what would happen.

There is a huge difference between instantly modifying something and allowing natural selection or even to selectively breeding something you said it your self in your post on how it takes longer.

It takes away the ability for other things to adapt along side with it which leaves the potential for large scale destruction of ecosystems. This is one of the main factors many scientists have stated as a primary concern. It is already known that some of these technologies are poisonous to earthworms. A key creature in the keeping of healthy fertile soil.

It is already known that people whom use round up ready products spray much larger concentrations of poisons onto their fields which leaves the potential for far more threat caused by these poisons.

It is already known that these biotech methods are FAR more expensive and thus put smaller farms out of business. For example in India farmers are losing their asses with the BT cotton. It is not living up to the promises of greater yields and they are losing their livelihood due to the costs and since many of these farmers have lost everything due to this many are committing suicide at alarming rates by drinking monsanto poisons in protest.

There is far more to the ethics of this subject other than simply if we can get scientists to agree 100% on if you change a gene with a syringe or by selection or natural selection (sexual) as being identical and safe.

We are being asked to trust companies infamous for
putting out extremely harmful poisons and environmental hazards that are having horrific effects both to human health and the environment still to this day, when in those times they claimed that they were tested and safe only to find out that they were massively full of it.

They are now making Frankenstein plants and we are to trust them that they have our safety and environmental safety in mind? I dont think so..

There are a lot more reasons to be opposed to GMO than simply them not being natural and the potential for future danger as well as known dangers of their making..

Again as I said in the beginning of this I have the greatest love and respect for our family farmers and this is a direct threat to them. For that reason alone it should be done away with.

Further I believe these products that contain GMOs should be labeled so that people have a choice to ingest Frankenstein plants or not. Right now you could be eating them and no one has let you decide if you wanted to eat a fish berry, or a plant which is genetically too poisonous for a worm to eat.It is just plain wrong.

Some ideas for people who want to get together in groups to do something about this. Something that worked very well in other countries to get labeling. Get together with a large number of people who are concerned about this issue go to your local supermarket and put a bunch of items in a grocery basket go to the register and ask nicely which of the selected products have GMOs in them. You get enough people doing this they put pressure on the stores to demand labeling from the manufacturer.. Enough stores start demanding this guess what? labels.

Could also start a campaign to get everyone you know who cares about this issue to start calling the makers of your favorite products and asking if they use GMOs in their product. Ask them why they do not label their product. Start making product lists of companies that use them and boycott them.

Labels would mean we would have a choice to eat Frankenstein plants with poison genes, herbicide ready and fish genes etc or not.. Right now you every time we go to the market we are unknowingly entering into their non-scientific trials on the public. I do not wish to be anyone's guinea pig most especially for something I absolutely disagree with.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 38
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/20/2009 5:51:19 PM
Can find this here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7892328.stm




By Jean Snedegar
Business programmes, BBC World Service

Pressure is mounting from some scientists for Europe to end its resistance to genetically modified (GM) crops but fears remain about the impact of such technology on the rights of farmers.

Many American farmers like the ease of operating a GM system which involves regular spraying of chemicals which kill weeds but don't hurt their crops.

The problem is that GM pollen can blow across fields and anti-GM campaigners say the fear of being prosecuted for growing GM accidentally leads many farmers to give up traditional methods and take the GM route for a quiet life.

David Runyan, who has 400 hectares in eastern Indiana where he grows maize, wheat and soybeans, says he feels intimidated by the tactics of the biggest GM seed firm, Monsanto.

They are not farmers like we used to be
Indiana farmer David Runyan

Although Mr Runyan plants some genetically-engineered corn, he grows only conventional soybeans - something he admits is now rare.

"Approximately 90% are growing GMO soybeans," he says, "Although when the first-generation of glysophate-tolerant soybeans came out the yields were not there.

"My neighbours like them because there's less management," he says.

"They don't have to walk out to the fields. A lot of them don't even feel the dirt.

"They plant it; they hire somebody to spray it; hire somebody to fertilise it and they just go and harvest it," he says.

"They're not farmers like we used to be."

'Black listed'

Mr Runyon says he is not allowed to buy any products from Monsanto.

"I'm on what you call a Monsanto black list - a few years ago they came out and tried to investigate and search my farm and I prevented that," he says.
large farm in US with a tree in foreground
Mechanisation is necessary to make many of the larger farms profitable

"I've never signed a contract. I do not use their products and it will be a cold day before I ever buy Monsanto products."

He believes that Monsanto's past history has not been good for the world or for the people.

"They're only out for Number One. Most farmers in the United States do not care for Monsanto but they stand in line to buy their products," he laments.

"I think it's just because it's easy for them - that's the only reason I can think of, there's less management."

In 2005, investigators sent by Monsanto arrived at Mr Runyan's farm unannounced.

"They came to my house and wanted all my production records," he says.

They asked questions about his farming operation and wanted to know who he was selling his food-grade soybeans to.

"They wanted to know who I'd bought all my herbicides from and they wanted records and phone numbers," Mr Runyan recalls.

Three months after the investigators left empty handed, Mr Runyan received a letter stating that he had seven days to turn over all his production records to Monsanto.

Seed-saving is a long tradition in agriculture dating back millennia and it's actually still practiced quite a bit even in the United States and other developed countries
Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety

One reason why Mr Runyan refused was because the letter stated that Monsanto had an agreement with the Indiana Department of Agriculture, but the department didn't exist at that time.

Mr Runyan hired a lawyer to deal with his case.

David vs Goliath

David Runyan's story is not an isolated one.

To protect their patents, biotechnology companies have fiercely pursued farmers they suspect of saving and replanting their seed and farmers who may have biotech crops growing in their fields accidentally.

Either way, companies like Monsanto call it "seed piracy".

Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety says Monsanto will force farmers to sign a technology use agreement which basically forbids the farmer from saving seeds from his harvest for planting the next season.

"Seed-saving is a long tradition in agriculture dating back millennia and it's actually still practiced quite a bit even in the United States and other developed countries," he says.

Thousands of farmers who have been pursued by Monsanto in the US have paid the company at least $85m (£59.4m) in damages for the so-called crime of saving seeds from their harvest.

When asked about their tactics, Monsanto directs people to the "For the Record" section on their website.

Statement on Monsanto's website
Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with about 120 lawsuits having been filed within the last decade. Less than a dozen cases required a full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.

Biotech scientist Michael Fromm believes these lawsuits are fair practice on Monsanto's part.

"They do have patented technology," he says. "The farmers sign agreements not to save the seed as a way for Monsanto to make money on their crop.

"They've gone after a few farmers pretty hard in terms of litigation. If somebody doesn't enforce their property rights - the market tends to abuse it more."

The big fear of consumers in Europe has been safety.

After 10 years of Americans eating GM crops, many in the industry say this proves they must be safe, but even in the US some critics are not convinced.

"There really have been no long-term studies and especially in the US - our regulatory system is extremely lax," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC.

"I certainly don't believe that all GM crops would be harmful to eat.

"The question is: will the regulatory system detect them? And my answer in short is, 'maybe sometimes' and that's not really very comforting to me."

To my knowledge there's not a single instance of any health risk for any of the commercially sold genetically engineered crops
Michael Fromm, University of Nebraska

What worries Mr Gurian-Sherman is that no scientific long-term studies have been conducted comparing groups of people who eat GM and those that do not, to see if the GM eaters get more allergies or other medical problems.

Such concerns have not so far worried most Americans or Michael Fromm, at the University of Nebraska.

In the 1990s he helped develop genetically-engineered crops for Monsanto, the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seed.

"I absolutely believe that genetically engineered crops are safe and the industry record over the last 12-plus years has absolutely proven that.

"To my knowledge there's not a single instance of any health risk for any of the commercially-sold genetically engineered crops."
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 39
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/21/2009 1:50:16 AM


I checked the links that you provided, none of them are peer reviewed. Do you have any that are peer reviewed as I would be interested to see them and see their methodologies. I sincerely would.


This greenpeace site has some peer reviewed studies linked. Have a look.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/EU-no-GE241108/gmo-q-and-a



Lastly, GMO is not being done in somebodies garage unless that somebody is bill gates. It takes staffs of hundreds of people and computers to map out the genomes for each GMO. IF somebody could do this with a rubber band and tape in their garage, we should put them in charge of NASA because they are brilliant!



Actually people are doing their own genetic experiments in their garages these days. Who said they had to know what they are doing? I think that is exactly my point. There is a large black market in foreign countries like Brasil and India for Bt cotton and other GMO crops. Except these are not stolen versions of the major companies that invented them as in the case of pirates jacking a shipment and selling it. It means someone is making it and who knows how it is being done. Google there are many reputable press coverage of Garage amateurs doing genetic experiments in their garages. It is way out of control.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28390773/

There is one example.



Secondly, just because one company used to make DDT and now is involved with GMO does not mean that the products are equivalent to each other. Corporations are huge today, and they have multiple branches that make multiple things. GE for example makes everything from airplanes to light bulbs. If my light bulb burns out, it does not mean that every single one of their planes will fall out of the sky.


The point of this argument is not to say the products are alike in the way you are alluding to. The point is some of these companies that are "leading the way" in biotech applied to food crops are the same companies busted for fraudulent science to get approval by our lax lack of regulation government agencies. Most of this stuff is sadly voluntary and I firmly believe the Fast Death Administration FDA is worthless in its current form at protecting us from these companies.



On January 6, 2005, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a settlement with Monsanto over a complaint filed in US District Court that a company manager bribed an Indonesian environmental official over GE crops. Monsanto agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty, as well a $1 million penalty levied by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) based on the same bribe, which was intended to induce the repeal of a 2001 environmental impact assessment decree obstructing market entry for GE crops.

source: http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/article1616.html 20jan2005



Monsanto's Dirty Tricks: Atrazine. . .
Toxic Deception:
How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law, and Endangers Your Health
Dan Fagan, Marianne Lavelle, and the Center for Public Integrity / Birch Lane Publishing Group 1996

Spinning Science

Brazen cheating on the scale of IBT or Craven Laboratories is rare--or, at least, rarely uncovered. But subtle, sophisticated slanting of scientific research is part of the everyday strategy of chemical companies enmeshed in regulatory battles.

Atrazine

Lyle Jackson learned all about that in the summer of 1985. That is when he concluded that the so-called experts who had flown into Fayette County, Iowa, to test drinking-water wells for herbicide contamination were looking in the wrong places. The story of how that happened, a tale pieced together from internal EPA documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and from interviews with those involved, illustrates just how far a chemical manufacturer will go to make data come out its way.


http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Tricks-Atrazine.htm

this site is awesome for finding things about monsanto in particular the site is LOADED with links.

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-Glyphosate.htm


have a read.

For someone whom cares so much about peer reviewed material, if I were you I would be concerned that the Fast Death Administration thinks it sound idea to allow these companies to simply prove these genetically modified products have the same nutritional value and if they can they are considered equivalent. There are only a handful of peer reviewed works done in general for or against GMO. It is insane this stuff is allowed in the wild at all! Like I said before I am not 100% opposed to study of these things but, it should be done with extreme caution, not the wanton disregard for it I have been seeing from my personal research.

Further my personal point of view is as my good friend Brett Dennen says, "You don't need a three piece suit to argue the truth."


BTW I do not think it is fearmongering to demand these things be labeled so that consumers can make a choice to eat it or not, and protections for farmers be put in place so that they do not have their crops infected with this stuff as well as get sued, bullied etc by these companies when they do.

Further, protections for family farmers needs to be put in place. I believe the worst thing that could happen to us on this level is to lose all of out family farms and have them replaced by corporate farms growing these things.

Further I believe their is a rather large demographic that does not wish to eat these things and us expressing our opinions or putting out information that is available out there for people to learn about this issue and hear an opposing side, is not fearmongering. It is making known a point of view. Again make your own opinion on the subject, I respect peoples opinions... I am sure you can respect that many people would not want to eat these things if they knew about it. The sick part is they are given no choice and in many cases do not even know about it.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/26/2009 10:34:07 AM
this just in.



Medical Group Calls for Ban on Genetically Modified Foods

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods. The medical organization warned that genetically modified foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health. Dr. Amy Dean said, "Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health.”



http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/26/headlines#11





Genetically Modified Foods

According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally."1 This technology is also referred to as "genetic engineering", "biotechnology" or "recombinant DNA technology" and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops.2

Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3

Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11

Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6

Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11

Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.

In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn."12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.

Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."13

Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."13

With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:


* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

* Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

* Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

* For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.




Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM

1. World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html

2. Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10

3. Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.

4. Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.

5. Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.

6. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.

7. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.

8. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.

9. Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.

10. Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.

11. Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.

12. Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.

13. Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.

14. Eggen, D. Obama targets food safety: president announces new leaders, groups to upgrade laws. Washington Post. March 15, 2009. p. A02.


http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 41
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/26/2009 1:18:11 PM
We've got no idea who you are refering to 135....

Eitherway- you necroposted this kabio? Why? You aren't arguing anyones points- you're merely posting articles that agree with you ad nausam. And if thats all you're going to do.....then why should anyone read this topic?

I mean, people who are interested in reading about it certainly are capible of finding the articles- this is the place for people to DISCUSS it.
 Beaugrand®™©
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 42
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/26/2009 2:06:57 PM
If you don't want to consume genetically modified food- grow your own.
Seriously.

Food crops, and food animals, have been "genetically altered" since the beginning of agriculture, in both deliberate and accidental ways.
For thousands of years enlightened farmers picked the plumpest, most disease-free seeds for the next year's planting, gradually selecting desired qualities, over time, that produced bigger and better kernels of grains.

Now it's done in a lab with specially sequenced strands of DNA.
The risk is minimal and the scrutiny is intense.

If you don't like it, shop at the "organic food store." No one is forcing you to shop at Safeway.

Oh, and you really don't need to "cut 'n' paste," just leave the URL for the article. If I'm interested I'll use the link, if not I just ignore your post.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 43
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/26/2009 5:45:12 PM
>>>Had the topic not been posted

But why not discuss it? Well over half this thread is just that user posting, over and over again, with no one asking, articles.

Its a revival for the sake of revival, not a revival because other users expressed interest in it.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 44
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/26/2009 9:52:11 PM
I feel its an overblown issue- I feel the results of GMO has saved billions of lives, unintentually fought government courption and exploitation, and helped fight poverty all over the world. Everything this user does outlines the danger of GMO, and yet, they are unable to present one example where a GMO actually harmed someone. They claim that its wrong to patent plants- but patenting plants has been going on for nearly a century now, and was introduced solely with the intent of creating better, stronger, and more productive plants.

And I feel he is working to undermine all that good, out of a paranoid fear. Some African countries like Zambia have refused to accept GMO aid- which means these people are starving and dying for no reason- that people are dying for a risk that doesn't exist. Better Dead than Fed, it seems.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 45
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/27/2009 12:17:55 AM


Its a revival for the sake of revival, not a revival because other users expressed interest in it.


Not at all it is a revival because it is in the headlines today that a medical association of physicians and scientists have asked for a moratorium be placed on GMOs due to growing evidence showing this as a threat to public health. If you read the article from Democracy Now! and then read the article published by the association that requested the moratorium you will see the evidence they cite as well as their recommendations as doctors and scientists. They give point by point well laid out information.

To the man whom said grow your own. Oh I do have a rather large heirloom garden, no fertilizers, no pesticides, I do not even use compost. I practice a modified style laid out by Masanobu Fukuoka. It has been quite successful in feeding myself and my lady for a number of years now. My neighbors are starting to take note as well and have begun their own gardens in the city as well. Most of them have stopped with the chemicals also. Seems no one wants to waste their money on that crap once they see it is not needed.

The issue here is they are putting into the wild something that has not been properly tested for long term effects into the wild where it can cross with natural plants.

They claim it is all for some noble purpose to increase yields and fight hunger but, even that has been proven to be a lie in a study. They only wish to be able to patent this product and increase sales of their other silly products.

The issue is man disrupting nature to begin with that causes problems like a plauge of pests. Or lack of fertility due to mismanagement.... Don't practice monoculture and you dont have these issues. Practice companion planting.

If you no longer wish to have problems with weeds simply stop digging and use mulch. Mulch everything you do not eat and even mulch the weeds. As the years go by you will see less and less weeds. The ground will also become more and more fertile from the decomposing plants. If you allow chickens or ducks to roam free range in your field the loop will be complete. They will help eat the insects and will leave nutrient rich presents in small enough doses as to not be harmful to you or the plants.

The issue here is you have a group of idiots whom do not understand how to interact with the natural order or they simply wish to keep everyone ignorant so that they can profit off of their foolishness. They offer a product such as a pesticide which kills not only the "pest" but, also all of the things that eat the pest thereby making a situation where you have no choice but, to spray. Same goes for digging/tilling. You dig and the weed seeds that were buried deep in the ground that would have never germinated now grow. The more you dig the more you have weeds and the more you need to dig. You are sowing the seeds of your own future senseless work.

The thing that blows my mind is mankind in order to adjust for the folly of thinking themselves above nature or at war with it, keeps thinking of ever more foolish ways to tamper with the natural order instead of truly becoming a student of nature and learning how it even works. Mostly science only puts a spot light on what man does not know. For every so called "breakthrough technology" we require an even crazier one to cover for the damage it does.

Instead of taking on a problem like vitamin A deficiency in a sane and useful manner they would rather spend billions on something not needed. It would be far more cost effective to grow food that is naturally high in vitamin A or in many cases eat what is already all around them in the cases of a great number of edible plants that grow as weeds all around us.

There are so many plants people are not eating that are edible especially ones high in Vit A.

A very good example of a highly nutritious plant that is often dug up and thrown out as a weed and or ignored is purslane (Portulaca oleracea)

Instead of growing something already in nature and perfectly edible and tasty these nuts want to invent a Frankenstein plant. So ask yourself why they would rather make up something instead of teaching people how to properly feed themselves with natural plants. It's all in the money. They want to be able to patent food to control it and exploit further those in misery and hunger.

Nature gives us for free everyday all we need and more. It is not nature that is broken. It is man whom needs to be fixed. When we finally wise up and decide to humble ourselves enough to actually study how nature works we will realize these companies have been looking to take advantage of peoples ignorance of how nature works and fears of famine.

Why is it no one needs to fertilize and pesticide forests yet, they remain one of the most productive habitats on earth? Why is it that people in the USA dont need this rice that is tampered with to produce vitamin A? What is so different in Asia that they cannot grow something besides rice?

Why is it that we have a SURPLUS of food compared to the population of the world and we have so many malnourished. It has nothing to do with yields. It has to do with inadequate distribution.

There is no legitimate need for any of these genetic experiments they are performing on the public whom are being used as guinea pigs against their knowledge as it stands right now..
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 46
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/27/2009 5:55:06 AM
>>> it is in the headlines today that a medical association of physicians and scientists have asked for a moratorium be placed on GMOs due to growing evidence showing this as a threat to public health.

Again, no actual evidence of people being harmed, though.

I've said it before, but since you seem to like to revive topics, I guess I'll repeat myself so the issue is clear to you once again; Give me the name of the person harmed by GMO. Otherwise, you're chasing the boogie man again.

As for your medical association;

Wikipedia says;

<div class="quote">Clinical ecology is not a recognized medical specialty.[5] Critics of clinical ecology charge that multiple chemical sensitivity has never been clearly defined, no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed for it, no diagnostic tests have been substantiated, and not a single case has been scientifically validated. Well-conducted studies establishing the theories and practices of clinical ecology were not found in reviews of evidence supporting its practices by the American Medical Association in 1992[6], the American College of Physicians in 1989,[7] the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 1993,[8] the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology,[9] and more recently by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 1999.[10]

Seems your organsation is sketchy, as they are unable to define, explain, test, or verify their supposive area of expertise.

>>> Seems no one wants to waste their money on that crap once they see it is not needed.

Again, thats an elitist way to look at this issue- you can afford the time, space, and money to develop your own food like that. Not everyone has that freedom, esspecially people in impoverish countries.

>>>The issue here is they are putting into the wild something that has not been properly tested for long term effects into the wild where it can cross with natural plants.

Define properly tested- because I honestly believe you've never given thought as to at which point GMO's would be acceptable- they simply are not in your eyes, and never will be, reguardless if they're proven healthy or not.

>>>They claim it is all for some noble purpose to increase yields and fight hunger but, even that has been proven to be a lie in a study. They only wish to be able to patent this product and increase sales of their other silly products.

Again, we've been over this again and again(and again)- I never stated that people invented these plants because they love their brother- I've stated numerous times in this thread, they are acting in self-interest- they want to make money. And they do it by offering a product that produces more money for the farmer. Theres a shocker- people are working to profit off their work! But reguardless of their intent, they still achieve some of the greatest deeds in human history- I mean, over a billion people saved? Aside from the discovery of insulian, is there any other human achievement thats saved so many lives?

And why should their intent be an issue at all? If someone rescues you from a burning building, does it somehow lessen the effect if they get paid doing it? Why do you wish to dictate that they must act out of pure altruistic intent in order for their food to be acceptable?

>>>The issue is man disrupting nature to begin with....the natural order.... It is not nature that is broken.

Exactly- to you, its not an issue of whether or not the food is safe- you decided long before you received any reports that genetically modified foods is wrong, regardless if it could save lives. You have an issue not with the health, but rather you have a problem with the premise- and are attempting to terrorize people with unsubstantiated and vague claims that they will be harmed if they eat these plants, not because they may be, but because you feel the entire process was wrong from the get-go.

>>>they would rather spend billions on something not needed.

Who is 'they'? And why are you the judge and jury on what is and is not needed? Shouldn't need be dictated by the market, not some random persons whims?

>>>fears of famine.

Its not fears! Famine is very real, and these advancements are combating it. Again, nothing more than self-rightious elitism- that its okay to condemn the food so long as you aren't the one going hungry.

>>>Why is it no one needs to fertilize and pesticide forests yet, they remain one of the most productive habitats on earth?

Because no one harvests forests- we harvest crops- and when we do harvest trees, yes, the land under it often times becomes under threat, unless properly managed.

Trees have a natural cycle- but trees can live anywhere from hundreds or thousands of years. Crops live 3-10 months- so naturally, we have to step in to cultivate the land

>>>What is so different in Asia that they cannot grow something besides rice?

Difference in habitat. I mean, you cannot really be this dense, can you? They get different levels of rainfall, different PH balances, different altitudes, and a different culture and different market demands.

>>>It has to do with inadequate distribution.

Exactly- there are areas in the world where there simply is not enough land to feed everyone, while other parts of the world where the opposite is true. If we produce plants that produce more and are more able to survive different enviroments, then the issue will become resolved.
 Beaugrand®™©
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 47
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/27/2009 8:01:12 AM
Let's not forget that a global population of nearly 7 Billion people is anything but "natural." If "nature" ran its course, global population would have stabilized around a fourth of that amount, or less, due to famine and disease- both "natural" kinds of events.

Vaccines aren't "natural."
Antibiotics aren't "natural."
Surgery isn't "natural."
Aspirin isn't "natural."

Death from disease and starvation and accident are all "natural."

"Natural" isn't necessarily "good."
"Artificial" isn't necessarily "bad."

And yet we still have discussions like this...
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 48
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/27/2009 11:10:33 AM


Give me the name of the person harmed by GMO.


The industry has purposefully made this next to impossible. They have gotten the politicians involved to make sure they never label it. Since GMOs the numbers of food allergies have skyrocketed. No way to check if what they ate is GMO. It is not labeled EVER in the USA. No one knows what they are eating. That is point number one and even from a person whom believes in this issue from a pure capitalist perspective this is beyond wrong. Consumers should always have a choice to eat or not eat these things. They should know 100% every ingredient in a product. They should be able to make a choice to eat Frankenstein or not.

Further this comes straight from the group whom asked for the moratorium maybe you can have a look at this small part of it and you will see where they have concerns. I believe they are more than legit.



Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3

Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11

Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6

Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11

Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.

In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn."12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.

Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."13

Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."13

With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:


* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

* Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

* Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

* For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.







Again, thats an elitist way to look at this issue- you can afford the time, space, and money to develop your own food like that. Not everyone has that freedom, esspecially people in impoverish countries.


No you are the one being elitist here you think people from here somehow better suited to farming than just regular folk. I see it in reverse. I know personally people whom are going to places in Africa teaching people things to make their lives better.

Go ahead and google Permaculture Africa etc. You will see the list of people doing something sustainable about the issue taking the governments and middle men whom screw up the distribution and make these people starve out of the equation. Nothing is more powerful than putting the food back into the peoples hands. It has nothing to do with them not having the time nor land. It has to do with people taking advantage of people. Again it's far more cost effective to even give them seeds and training than to make a Frankenstein plant. One does not even need to own land to farm, any vacant spot with decent water will do.. 1/4 acre can feed two for a full year easily. We do it here at my house all the time.



Its not fears! Famine is very real, and these advancements are combating it. Again, nothing more than self-rightious elitism- that its okay to condemn the food so long as you aren't the one going hungry.



No they play on their fears and dont do a damn thing to help. The number of hungry in the world since these magical Frankenstein plants have been around has steadily climbed not gone down. Further this technology has been the death of many farmers due to the fact that it costs a HELL of a lot more to produce the same amount of yield and you have to buy everything every year. There have been plenty of farmers in India whom lost everything and decided to commit suicide by drinking Monsanto poisons that they peddle. They aren't drinking that stuff to celebrate record breaking profits from those supposed incredible yields.

PS they is the biotech industry whom are selling this trash with their empty promises.




Because no one harvests forests- we harvest crops- and when we do harvest trees, yes, the land under it often times becomes under threat, unless properly managed.

Trees have a natural cycle- but trees can live anywhere from hundreds or thousands of years. Crops live 3-10 months- so naturally, we have to step in to cultivate the land



Nice try but incorrect. Plants only get about 2% of what they need from the soil itself. The rest comes from the air and sun. So what happens is you plan in your management to act like a forest. You cover the ground with mulch which protects the ground from the rain and sun which will wash away the nutrient in the case of water and it protects from compaction as well as the suns rays which can sterilize the soil. You first and foremost stop digging/tilling. Also a completely destructive practice. You then return to the field all parts of the plants not used. Since those plants have more energy stored in them than they got from the ground they feed the ground what they took and then some. The reason no one has to fertilize the forests is because no one is clearing them. Has nothing to do with harvesting. It has to do with the foolish practice of trying to be tidy. Imitate the forest floor if you never want to have to fertilize again. All those leaves and stems and other parts of the plant you throw away need to go back into the soil they are the best fertilizer there ever was.

Secondly the reason no one has to pesticide the forest is because it is not monoculture. ie they are not growing in an unnatural fashion one crop by itself. ANYTIME you grow too much of one crop in one spot nature steps in and balances your foolery. Insects of course that eat that one type of plant will swell in numbers you just made their job easy. If left alone so too with the number of predators rise and you still could find a balance but, you will pay the price by losing some crops.

If you again imitate the forest and inter plant following companion planting. (putting plants together that benefit or otherwise like to be together.) There are even ways to trap a certain insect on what to them is like a delicacy to keep them off of something else you do not want them on. A good example is Aphids LOVE Nasturtiums I plant them near other leafy greens they would tear apart under normal situations and they stay on the nasturtiums and leave my other plants alone. Amaranth acts as a trap crops equally with cucumber beetles etc etc.

Look by spraying pesticides you kill everything beneficial as well as those whom at times act as a pest. When you knock out this balance you become dependent on the chemical.

The same goes for fertilizers, tilling, (insert foolish human practice here.) What happens when we run out of oil? When they can no longer make petrol based fertilizers? All those people whom have been using them and are now dependent on the will go belly up.

Best to prepare now and use sustainable methods now.




Difference in habitat. I mean, you cannot really be this dense, can you? They get different levels of rainfall, different PH balances, different altitudes, and a different culture and different market demands.


LMAO!! Nice try! Though I believe you made yourself sound foolish. You do know that the carrot comes from Asia originally. It is a native there. There are many many many greens that come from as in NATIVE to Asia as well high in Vitamin A. You make it sound like all they can grow is rice. Have you ever even been to Asia? It's HUGE and so vastly different from region to region they can grow EVERYTHING we can and then some of what we can grow in the USA. Because they have every climate the world has to offer where we do not.

Market demands has nothing to do with people growing things high in vitamin A so they dont die of some malnutrition. The problem here is we are dealing with life and death while trying to bolster capitalism. People are caring more about making money than caring for each other and nature which is what really sustains us all. The issue is not a lack of science experiments. The issue is a screwed up value system. GMOs will not fix this defective value system. They will add to the problem.
'



Exactly- there are areas in the world where there simply is not enough land to feed everyone, while other parts of the world where the opposite is true. If we produce plants that produce more and are more able to survive different enviroments, then the issue will become resolved.


Again the issue is not a lack of land. There is plenty of land in Africa. The issue is the people are being taken advantage of. They are not being given a chance to feed themselves. I absolutely know for certain that if given even just a minute amount of training in natural farming and the seeds to do it Africa could be flourishing again. Even in places where the land turns to desert from overgrazing and other causes. That land can be reclaimed. There is a group of guys whom have proved that they can turn even the saltiest land no one thought could be grown in able to sustain life again using a natural system.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/PermaScience/videos/2/


Look I am not opposed to the use of technology always. I am opposed to the foolishness of making something not needed simply for the purpose to make a buck when you are dealing with life. I think it quite unwise to tamper with genetics on the level in which they are doing so in the wilds. I have no issue with people studying these things in isolation. I think it could lead to better understanding of genetics and that is not inherently a bad thing. To put these things out into the wild and into the food chain based on an assumption that is really quite flawed is asking for trouble. The worst part about this is there are perfectly effective and tried and proven ways to work with nature to get the desired results. These are being left behind not because they new technology is so much better but, because people wont get rich off of other people by teaching them to grow their own food naturally. They do get rich off of this new technology. That is the bottom line some people will sell their own mother out to make a buck even though they cant take it with them when they go back to decompose in her.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 49
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/27/2009 2:13:29 PM
>>>The industry has purposefully made this next to impossible.

Luckily for you, having no way to prove something exists hasn't stopped you from claiming it exists. Why should evidence get in the way of forcing an idealogy?

>>>They should know 100% every ingredient in a product.

Part of me knows this a reasonable request- but part of me also knows that you're attempting to maniplulate the situation- you've made it very, very clear that even if GMO's were perfectly safe, you'd still oppose it, and are constantly calling for the ban of these foods- so you're not attempting to give people freedom of choice- you're attempting to create a target to call for a boycott.

>>>I am opposed to the foolishness of making something not needed simply for the purpose to make a buck when you are dealing with life.

And in your opposition of people profitting off creating more productive plants, you ensure the deaths of millions. Great that you've taken such a brave stance.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 50
GMO issue.
Posted: 5/27/2009 4:50:44 PM
I can't believe there are some people who favour GMO's.

Like the pharmaceutical corporations, Monsanto (IMHO the antichrist of corporations) and one or two other agro corporations control the planet's food supply. Their patented GMOs had disastrous consequencess for all concerned (except them of course), yet they continue to market the crap, vigorously.

Who's been harmed? Well Percy Schmeiser for one:
http://slash.autonomedia.org/node/3174

How about some farmers in India? I'm sure you heard about all the suicides by farmers devastated by their move to Monsanto's cotton, but did you also read about this?:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php

Are the employees at Monsanto worried about GMOs? Well the current ones probably aren't, or they're keeping mum because they know who butters their bread (hopefully still natural whole wheat). They probably remember the examples of guys who raised their voices in concern about the safety of it:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey14.htm

Monsanto has been trying to get a foothold in Europe and they've been making some headway, but Germany remains unconvinced about GMO safety. Monsanto's reaction? Lawsuit!

What a wonderful service they provide to humanity! Where would we be without them?

We should all eat organic, but there's a problem with that. Most organic foods are being contaminated by virtue of being grown downwind of GMO crops. So even eating organic doesn't really guarantee protection against the "Frankenfoods."
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > GMO issue.