Your thoughts on genetically modified Food ?

jtprin

Well-Known Member
There are, you just haven't done enough research.
show the actual scientifc evidence, not just a blog which makes claims.
For example, they claim that BT corn is responsible for corn allergies. But if you dont have BT corn you will have Corn sprayed with BT. and oh btw BT is a naturally occuring bacterium, it occurs in corn populations without spraying in small amounts. Worse yet whats the alternative to BT sprayed corn ? Corn sprayed with organo phosphates?

Nonetheless prove first that people are actually allergic to BT, or BT corn versus non BT corn scientifically. Its not actually that hard to do if you really think that is the case.

I just went through all of the linked references for the section "Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death"
and ya know what NONE of the references show conclusively that GMO BT was responsible for the claim.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to get into this debate, if you want to consume GM foods, go right ahead. There's tons of evidence for the harmful effects of GMO's. You'd have to be blind to believe they're harmless.
 

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
What I'm seeing is Monsanto is creating GMO genetics and profiteering off (patents/licenses/contracts/etc), but why are they seeking protection from "adverse" effects of those genetics (if any)..? I mean, if they are really all about just creating wholesome foods for people around the globe to grow & enjoy, then why all the political mumbo jumbo about them being "not-at-fault" for their products... --that does seem a bit shady

Hey I'm all for capitalism, that is pretty much the fundamental basis of the American financial system, but it does seem "odd" to be all cloak-&-dagger about what (Monsanto) is doing behind closed doors... (unless EVERYONE is just fear mongering, and out to get Monsanto.. which really doesn't make any sense, since these sites/blogs/individuals don't gain profits for revealing these so-called false data concerning GMO... Unless they are working for companies just like Monsanto, and getting paid to discredit other GMO-type busineses.. Which is highly unlikely~
 

Trousers

Well-Known Member
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks


There are, you just haven't done enough research.
lol

Sorry, I should have said peer reviewed studies, not blogs and stories.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html
Conclusions
There are at least 42 publications extractable from the PubMed database that describe research reports of feeding studies of GM feed or food products derived from GM crops. The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species.


I am sympathetic to crazy conspiracy stories, but I am much more fond of the scientific method. I really hate junk science.
 

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/43-2004/884-pusztai-demolishes-preston-and-monsantos-safety-study-claims-15122004

Dr Arpad Pusztai critique on Dr. Christopher Preston's work

"So here you have it. Coming back to Dr Preston's list. Actually there were only 41 and not 42 articles as he stated in his list. In his list these are the commercial studies: 2, 10-14, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-33, 38-40; 23 out of 41 leaves us with 18. I have to confess that I cannot read Russian or Chinese (neither can Pryme & Lembcke and I expect Dr Preston) so I could not read articles 7, 15, 36 and 41. So we are now down to 14!

Actually, Dr Preston missed two Malatesta papers, perhaps because they both show bad effects on the liver and the pancreas of mice fed RR soya, and quite a few others, but for these he will have to read my new review next year."

---both sides make valid points, but someone is clearly BS'n... hhmm
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
---both sides make valid points, but someone is clearly BS'n... hhmm
The primary force against GMO (not talking about capitalist Monsanto that abuses plant patents to ensure farmers have to buy their seed), are "religious fanatics" GMO is a method ... something which challenges GOD and old school religion. Something which challenges humans as having the right to DESIGN and Act as a GOD on living organisms. This challenges some peoples fundamental beliefs. All the while GMO is just another method of Plant Breeding. Breeding a crop strain that produces natural insecticides like pyrethrins through traditional methods is just as dangerous as through gene splicing. The human race has been breeding since the begining of plant cultivation and animal husbandry. Thats a long fuckin time to be playing GOD (uh oh I must have offended somebody else by now).
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
don't have to be christian to oppose on the basis of playing GOD.

do any of those papers show any conclusive trials of a dangerous gmo crop? There must be a few out there, that should be avoided.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Well the FDA is pretty much $$$ vampires, but that would suck if that statement were true..
It is true. They fund it and they (and other large companies regulated by the FDA) have former high ranking employees working there. Then they go back to Monsanto (or wherever). Then they go back. It's a revolving door. You can thank political lobbies, big money and a bunch of fucked up law for this.

For example The Prescription Drug User Fee Act. This act makes it so the FDA collects fees from drug manufacturers to fund the approval process. In other words, all money that comes, comes from the companies themselves. There is a huge conflict of interest there.

Just an example. You can just look at the history of many former department heads and/or heads though, always direct ties. Often they return to previous companies after all is said and done. Again, all legal, even though the conflicts of interest are obvious and blatant.
 

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
That pretty much makes it a win-win for Monsanto~ Can't believe they would even allow that..
According to Wiki, it is the organic's militants spreading their usual tales and spin.
In 1981 he went into private practice at King & Spalding, a law firm, one client of which was the biotechnology company Monsanto,[3] where he established and led the firm's food and drug law practice.[1][2]
So what?
 

neosapien

Well-Known Member
This just showed up in my news feeds actually...

http://news.yahoo.com/monsanto-protection-act-sneaks-spending-bill-180416331.html

‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Sneaks Through Senate


When the Senate passed a budget resolution Wednesday that appears to prevent some of the potential damage from sequestration, the Continuing Resolution included several food- and agriculture-related earmarks.
But one inclusion in particular is especially controversial. The “biotech rider” would require the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled the environmental studies on the crop were inadequate. This aspect of the bill infuriated many sustainable food and agriculture groups, who nicknamed the bill the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
If signed into law by President Obama, here’s what the rider would do: It will allow farmers to plant, harvest and sell genetically engineered plants even if the crops have been ruled upon unfavorably in court. A Center for Food Safety statement called the rider “an unprecedented attack on U.S. judicial review of agency actions” and “ a major violation of the separation of powers.”


But perhaps more frightening, other critics say, is that the rider threatens the health and wellbeing of the public by undermining the federal courts’ ability to protect farmers and the environment from potentially hazardous genetically engineered (GE) crops.
The rider was slipped into the bill while it sat in the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski. According to the Center for Food Safety, the committee held no hearings on this controversial biotech rider and many Democrats were unaware of its presence in the larger bill.
“In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”
Food Democracy Now is calling on concerned citizens to call Congress and petition President Obama to remove Section 735 from the Continuing Resolution bill.
More than 100 of the nation’s top organizations and businesses have come out against this section of the bill, including the National Farmers Union, American Civil Liberties Union, Sierra Club, Environmental Working Group, Stonyfield Farm, Nature’s Path, Consumers Union, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and Public Citizen.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
The primary force against GMO (not talking about capitalist Monsanto that abuses plant patents to ensure farmers have to buy their seed), are "religious fanatics" GMO is a method ... something which challenges GOD and old school religion. Something which challenges humans as having the right to DESIGN and Act as a GOD on living organisms. This challenges some peoples fundamental beliefs. All the while GMO is just another method of Plant Breeding. Breeding a crop strain that produces natural insecticides like pyrethrins through traditional methods is just as dangerous as through gene splicing. The human race has been breeding since the begining of plant cultivation and animal husbandry. Thats a long fuckin time to be playing GOD (uh oh I must have offended somebody else by now).
Imo it poses a bigger danger to the neo-animism that has grown out of the 60s until today. Many people venerate chthonic spirit(s) without being entirely aware or up front about it. That's what I read in so many anti-GM screeds ... "we're messing with the natural order, man." That's animism in a ghillie suit. cn
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
lol

Sorry, I should have said peer reviewed studies, not blogs and stories.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html
Conclusions
There are at least 42 publications extractable from the PubMed database that describe research reports of feeding studies of GM feed or food products derived from GM crops. The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species.


I am sympathetic to crazy conspiracy stories, but I am much more fond of the scientific method. I really hate junk science.
I have noticed the unfortunate trend of locking up the peer-reviewed studies behind toll gates. Many of these gates are very expensive, since they're geared toward organizations that can pay - universities, large firms. I no longer have access to the glorious breadth nad depth of biomed and chem info, real peer-reviewed stuff, that I once did.

A peculiar effect of this is that the younger generations see only the blogs and opinion pieces and the multiply-recycled spin on the open 'Net as "all there is". I might argue that opening all those pay gates would have a short-term deleterious effect while the maintaining organizations find other ways to meet their expenses ... and a longer-term salutary effect because then actual facts will be out there. Jmo. cn
 

kinetic

Well-Known Member
It's effect is on all of us not just a group of people. Conglomorations and multinationals shouldn't be wholly in control of our food supply. Self sustaining people have a freedom others do not enjoy. Hell you can face jail time for having a front yard garden on your own property in some places. There are great gains to be made scientifically and those already made that have a positive strides in our food supply. Corporations need to be tamed a bit, because profits mean more than peoples health to them.
 
Top