MPLS612
formerly ame416
- 2,454
- 52
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
This thread is
Gave me an idea for my 7 page Ethics paper.
Gave me an idea for my 7 page Ethics paper.
- 1,551
- 181
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
Goldenchild, do you cultivate with Rock Dusts?
This is something I've been reading about for a few months, a truly organic substance to increase the yields and quality
of crops.
This is something I've been reading about for a few months, a truly organic substance to increase the yields and quality
of crops.
- 803
- 115
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
Saw a dvd about Monsanto during one of the terms I served for AmeriCorps... shady, shady business.
- 1,004
- 10
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
LMAO......
calling me a "babbling idiot" when you dont even know how to use correct grammar. real intelligent kid.
nevermind though, let's pump up all the chickens, livestock, fish with GM corn and antibiotics/hormones so we can get the biggest fattest ones to mass produce them cheaply.
i dont see how wanting to eat normal fruits & vegetables relates to eating "$10 organic burgers".......i dont eat those nor could i afford to.
calling me a "babbling idiot" when you dont even know how to use correct grammar. real intelligent kid.
nevermind though, let's pump up all the chickens, livestock, fish with GM corn and antibiotics/hormones so we can get the biggest fattest ones to mass produce them cheaply.
i dont see how wanting to eat normal fruits & vegetables relates to eating "$10 organic burgers".......i dont eat those nor could i afford to.
BT cotton does have higher yield, its been studied, calculated, and reported on through non biased peer reviewed journals? Unless there has been an update to the field since mid early 2000s. So what's your point? You proved me right? I CAN LINK SEVERAL PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES WHICH HAVE ANALYZED THIS AND PROVE HIGHER YIELDS THROUGH UNBIASED QUANTITATIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. JUST ASK ME.
then why were so many indian farmers committing suicide? they signed their life away, didnt get the yields monsanto promised they would, and wound up going broke. i know you're already going to say "oh, they were committing suicide before that". not at the same rate. i would link you to a documentary but it might be on youtube and they interviewed farmers not people at MIT so it has no credibility
i never said everyone should grow their own food, that would be impossible. i said more people could grow their own food and we could focus on small scale community gardening. to tie in with your comment about an inner city single parent, there are many community gardens in the inner city including a few i have noticed here. if you have a community work together and have every person in that community working to maintain the garden this is feasible. outside volunteers can also be used. they dont need raise cattle. a packet of seeds costs less than feeding your family at mcdonalds and provides a lot more food. many farmer's markets allow food stamps.
you claim people who are against GMOs are someone stripping the planet of resources?sustainable farming cannot take place with GMOs as you cant save hybrid seeds and replant them the next season. the whole goal of these corporations is to have complete control over all the seeds
of course you are correct that we wont be able to feed people without GMOs if monsanto produces their terminator seed.
you think eating cheap foods is going to provide nutrition? practically all the food you see in a supermarket has been stripped of any nutrients it once had.
japan has a much higher rate of cancer now that they've adopted more of a western diet over there.
yes i believe in evolution. i dont believe that all these modern diseases are simply genetic though. thats a whole other topic....
The fact that we are all living longer while consuming GMOs is some what of an indicator that they aren't killing us. I know thats correlation, but still if we were all dying from consuming GMOs why are we all living longer?
yet this will be the first generation in the united states that doesnt outlive their parents. GMOs havent really been heavy until about the 1980s so this generation will be the first to live their whole lives eating GM foods.
what proof do you have that "we" are living longer thanks to GMOs? the u.s. has one of the LOWEST life expectancies for industrialized 1st world nations. GMOs happen to be most prevalent in this country
(Health.com) -- Life expectancy in most U.S. counties lags behind that of the world's healthiest nations, in some cases by 50 years or more, according to a new analysis of government data.
For instance, in Holmes County, Mississippi, which has the lowest life expectancy in the country, a woman can expect to live 73.5 years, the average life span that women in the healthiest nations had in 1957 and have since far surpassed.
To determine how American life spans stack up internationally, researchers from the U.S. and the U.K. compared life expectancies in the U.S. to a moving average of those in the 10 nations with the lowest death rates, a group that includes other affluent countries such as Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and Canada.
Health.com: How to live to 100
Between 2000 and 2007, the researchers found, more than 80% of U.S. counties fell below the life-expectancy bar set by that group of leading nations, even though the U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other country in the world.
Given the increasing life expectancy in countries like Canada and Australia, the widespread pattern of decline in the U.S. is "a huge surprise," says Christopher Murray, M.D., one of the study's coauthors and the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, in Seattle.
"We all know from previous work that there are great [life expectancy] disparities in the U.S. across counties, but I sort of expected that when we compared progress in counties to what's possible that we would be keeping up," Murray says. "And we're not."
Health.com: The best anti-aging secrets
The study, which was published in the journal Population Health Metrics, does show huge differences from one U.S. county to the next.
In 2007, life expectancies for men ranged from a high of about 81 years (in Fairfax County, Virginia.) to a low of about 66 years in Holmes County. The trends are especially concerning for women.
Since 1997, women's life expectancy has slipped or failed to rise in more than 850 counties (compared to just 84 counties for men), including 82% of the counties in Oklahoma, 66% in Tennessee, and 59% in Kentucky. In Mississippi, there are five counties where the life expectancy for women is on par with nations such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Peru.
The study's findings are in sync with a report released in January by the National Research Council that compared life spans in the U.S. with those in other high-income nations, says Samuel Preston, Ph.D., a professor of demography at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, and a co-chair of the panel that produced that report.
Health.com: The biggest myths about longevity
"The conclusion that American women are falling further behind their peers in [leading industrialized countries] certainly is correct, and if it's happening at the national level, it has to be happening in some counties as well," Preston says.
Murray and his coauthors say the county-to-county disparities can't be explained by demographic factors such as income or ethnicity -- even though, for instance, black men and women have lower life expectancies than their white counterparts in all counties.
"Ninety percent of the variation in the pace of progress is not related to either of those factors, so you need to look elsewhere to understand why some counties are keeping up and why other counties are falling behind," Murray says.
Health.com: How much does smoking shorten your life span?
The authors suggest that smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, and other behaviors and conditions that contribute to poor health and early deaths might be responsible.
Locally tailored programs that aim to help people quit smoking, lose weight, and otherwise improve their health may help reverse the troubling life-expectancy trends, they say.
"There needs to be more investments in policies and programs at local as well as state and national levels to move those metrics," agrees David Kindig, Ph.D., an emeritus professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, who was not involved in the study.
Kindig adds, however, that it's just as important to invest in programs that, for example, boost education and employment, because social and economic factors also drive health outcomes.
Copyright Health Magazine 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/H...united.states/index.html
its all false pretense
i think i'll trust the opinion of someone whose background is farming over someone in a lab coat when it comes to this subject
but yea......since i dont want my vegetables modified in a lab im making people all over the world starve
do you honestly believe GM foods are being produced to end world hunger and not for profit/control? serious question
anyways, GMOs are horrible for food allergies. i can personally attest to this....luckily i've never gone into anaphylactic shock
- 1,551
- 181
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
Almost finished with the Monsanto Documentary....
- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
then why were so many indian farmers committing suicide? they signed their life away, didnt get the yields monsanto promised they would, and wound up going broke. i know you're already going to say "oh, they were committing suicide before that". not at the same rate. i would link you to a documentary but it might be on youtube and they interviewed farmers not people at MIT so it has no credibility
i never said everyone should grow their own food, that would be impossible. i said more people could grow their own food and we could focus on small scale community gardening. to tie in with your comment about an inner city single parent, there are many community gardens in the inner city including a few i have noticed here. if you have a community work together and have every person in that community working to maintain the garden this is feasible. outside volunteers can also be used. they dont need raise cattle. a packet of seeds costs less than feeding your family at mcdonalds and provides a lot more food. many farmer's markets allow food stamps.
you claim people who are against GMOs are someone stripping the planet of resources?
of course you are correct that we wont be able to feed people without GMOs if monsanto produces their terminator seed.
you think eating cheap foods is going to provide nutrition? practically all the food you see in a supermarket has been stripped of any nutrients it once had.
japan has a much higher rate of cancer now that they've adopted more of a western diet over there.
yes i believe in evolution. i dont believe that all these modern diseases are simply genetic though. thats a whole other topic....
The fact that we are all living longer while consuming GMOs is some what of an indicator that they aren't killing us. I know thats correlation, but still if we were all dying from consuming GMOs why are we all living longer?
yet this will be the first generation in the united states that doesnt outlive their parents. GMOs havent really been heavy until about the 1980s so this generation will be the first to live their whole lives eating GM foods.
what proof do you have that "we" are living longer thanks to GMOs? the u.s. has one of the LOWEST life expectancies for industrialized 1st world nations. GMOs happen to be most prevalent in this country
(Health.com) -- Life expectancy in most U.S. counties lags behind that of the world's healthiest nations, in some cases by 50 years or more, according to a new analysis of government data.
For instance, in Holmes County, Mississippi, which has the lowest life expectancy in the country, a woman can expect to live 73.5 years, the average life span that women in the healthiest nations had in 1957 and have since far surpassed.
To determine how American life spans stack up internationally, researchers from the U.S. and the U.K. compared life expectancies in the U.S. to a moving average of those in the 10 nations with the lowest death rates, a group that includes other affluent countries such as Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and Canada.
Health.com: How to live to 100
Between 2000 and 2007, the researchers found, more than 80% of U.S. counties fell below the life-expectancy bar set by that group of leading nations, even though the U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other country in the world.
Given the increasing life expectancy in countries like Canada and Australia, the widespread pattern of decline in the U.S. is "a huge surprise," says Christopher Murray, M.D., one of the study's coauthors and the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, in Seattle.
"We all know from previous work that there are great [life expectancy] disparities in the U.S. across counties, but I sort of expected that when we compared progress in counties to what's possible that we would be keeping up," Murray says. "And we're not."
Health.com: The best anti-aging secrets
The study, which was published in the journal Population Health Metrics, does show huge differences from one U.S. county to the next.
In 2007, life expectancies for men ranged from a high of about 81 years (in Fairfax County, Virginia.) to a low of about 66 years in Holmes County. The trends are especially concerning for women.
Since 1997, women's life expectancy has slipped or failed to rise in more than 850 counties (compared to just 84 counties for men), including 82% of the counties in Oklahoma, 66% in Tennessee, and 59% in Kentucky. In Mississippi, there are five counties where the life expectancy for women is on par with nations such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Peru.
The study's findings are in sync with a report released in January by the National Research Council that compared life spans in the U.S. with those in other high-income nations, says Samuel Preston, Ph.D., a professor of demography at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, and a co-chair of the panel that produced that report.
Health.com: The biggest myths about longevity
"The conclusion that American women are falling further behind their peers in [leading industrialized countries] certainly is correct, and if it's happening at the national level, it has to be happening in some counties as well," Preston says.
Murray and his coauthors say the county-to-county disparities can't be explained by demographic factors such as income or ethnicity -- even though, for instance, black men and women have lower life expectancies than their white counterparts in all counties.
"Ninety percent of the variation in the pace of progress is not related to either of those factors, so you need to look elsewhere to understand why some counties are keeping up and why other counties are falling behind," Murray says.
Health.com: How much does smoking shorten your life span?
The authors suggest that smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, and other behaviors and conditions that contribute to poor health and early deaths might be responsible.
Locally tailored programs that aim to help people quit smoking, lose weight, and otherwise improve their health may help reverse the troubling life-expectancy trends, they say.
"There needs to be more investments in policies and programs at local as well as state and national levels to move those metrics," agrees David Kindig, Ph.D., an emeritus professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, who was not involved in the study.
Kindig adds, however, that it's just as important to invest in programs that, for example, boost education and employment, because social and economic factors also drive health outcomes.
Copyright Health Magazine 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/H...united.states/index.html
its all false pretense
i think i'll trust the opinion of someone whose background is farming over someone in a lab coat when it comes to this subject
but yea......since i dont want my vegetables modified in a lab im making people all over the world starve
do you honestly believe GM foods are being produced to end world hunger and not for profit/control? serious question
anyways, GMOs are horrible for food allergies. i can personally attest to this....luckily i've never gone into anaphylactic shock
- 7,626
- 442
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
That is something most people won't understand till its too late. The problem is in 1st world/Industrilzied Countries are always on a equal to a lost when it comes to birth rates and more for various reasons. Only reasons the american population increases is because of the immigration. Take Japan as a solid example of population decline.
- 1,004
- 10
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
then why were so many indian farmers committing suicide? they signed their life away, didnt get the yields monsanto promised they would, and wound up going broke. i know you're already going to say "oh, they were committing suicide before that". not at the same rate. i would link you to a documentary but it might be on youtube and they interviewed farmers not people at MIT so it has no credibility
i never said everyone should grow their own food, that would be impossible. i said more people could grow their own food and we could focus on small scale community gardening. to tie in with your comment about an inner city single parent, there are many community gardens in the inner city including a few i have noticed here. if you have a community work together and have every person in that community working to maintain the garden this is feasible. outside volunteers can also be used. they dont need raise cattle. a packet of seeds costs less than feeding your family at mcdonalds and provides a lot more food. many farmer's markets allow food stamps.
you claim people who are against GMOs are someone stripping the planet of resources?sustainable farming cannot take place with GMOs as you cant save hybrid seeds and replant them the next season. the whole goal of these corporations is to have complete control over all the seeds
of course you are correct that we wont be able to feed people without GMOs if monsanto produces their terminator seed.
you think eating cheap foods is going to provide nutrition? practically all the food you see in a supermarket has been stripped of any nutrients it once had.
japan has a much higher rate of cancer now that they've adopted more of a western diet over there.
yes i believe in evolution. i dont believe that all these modern diseases are simply genetic though. thats a whole other topic....
yet this will be the first generation in the united states that doesnt outlive their parents. GMOs havent really been heavy until about the 1980s so this generation will be the first to live their whole lives eating GM foods.
what proof do you have that "we" are living longer thanks to GMOs? the u.s. has one of the LOWEST life expectancies for industrialized 1st world nations. GMOs happen to be most prevalent in this country
(Health.com) -- Life expectancy in most U.S. counties lags behind that of the world's healthiest nations, in some cases by 50 years or more, according to a new analysis of government data.
For instance, in Holmes County, Mississippi, which has the lowest life expectancy in the country, a woman can expect to live 73.5 years, the average life span that women in the healthiest nations had in 1957 and have since far surpassed.
To determine how American life spans stack up internationally, researchers from the U.S. and the U.K. compared life expectancies in the U.S. to a moving average of those in the 10 nations with the lowest death rates, a group that includes other affluent countries such as Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and Canada.
Health.com: How to live to 100
Between 2000 and 2007, the researchers found, more than 80% of U.S. counties fell below the life-expectancy bar set by that group of leading nations, even though the U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other country in the world.
Given the increasing life expectancy in countries like Canada and Australia, the widespread pattern of decline in the U.S. is "a huge surprise," says Christopher Murray, M.D., one of the study's coauthors and the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, in Seattle.
"We all know from previous work that there are great [life expectancy] disparities in the U.S. across counties, but I sort of expected that when we compared progress in counties to what's possible that we would be keeping up," Murray says. "And we're not."
Health.com: The best anti-aging secrets
The study, which was published in the journal Population Health Metrics, does show huge differences from one U.S. county to the next.
In 2007, life expectancies for men ranged from a high of about 81 years (in Fairfax County, Virginia.) to a low of about 66 years in Holmes County. The trends are especially concerning for women.
Since 1997, women's life expectancy has slipped or failed to rise in more than 850 counties (compared to just 84 counties for men), including 82% of the counties in Oklahoma, 66% in Tennessee, and 59% in Kentucky. In Mississippi, there are five counties where the life expectancy for women is on par with nations such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Peru.
The study's findings are in sync with a report released in January by the National Research Council that compared life spans in the U.S. with those in other high-income nations, says Samuel Preston, Ph.D., a professor of demography at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, and a co-chair of the panel that produced that report.
Health.com: The biggest myths about longevity
"The conclusion that American women are falling further behind their peers in [leading industrialized countries] certainly is correct, and if it's happening at the national level, it has to be happening in some counties as well," Preston says.
Murray and his coauthors say the county-to-county disparities can't be explained by demographic factors such as income or ethnicity -- even though, for instance, black men and women have lower life expectancies than their white counterparts in all counties.
"Ninety percent of the variation in the pace of progress is not related to either of those factors, so you need to look elsewhere to understand why some counties are keeping up and why other counties are falling behind," Murray says.
Health.com: How much does smoking shorten your life span?
The authors suggest that smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, and other behaviors and conditions that contribute to poor health and early deaths might be responsible.
Locally tailored programs that aim to help people quit smoking, lose weight, and otherwise improve their health may help reverse the troubling life-expectancy trends, they say.
"There needs to be more investments in policies and programs at local as well as state and national levels to move those metrics," agrees David Kindig, Ph.D., an emeritus professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, who was not involved in the study.
Kindig adds, however, that it's just as important to invest in programs that, for example, boost education and employment, because social and economic factors also drive health outcomes.
Copyright Health Magazine 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/H...united.states/index.html
its all false pretense
i think i'll trust the opinion of someone whose background is farming over someone in a lab coat when it comes to this subject
but yea......since i dont want my vegetables modified in a lab im making people all over the world starve
do you honestly believe GM foods are being produced to end world hunger and not for profit/control? serious question
anyways, GMOs are horrible for food allergies. i can personally attest to this....luckily i've never gone into anaphylactic shock
- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
uhhhh.......thats the point. the genetically modified organism contains a peanut protein hence someone with a peanut allergy experiencing an allergic reaction to the GM even though they arent consuming peanuts.
hence GMOs causing allergies. so they arent creating new allergens as you said but introduce a new protein that may cause allergic reactions.
if you are introducing new genes from bacteria that produce proteins that provoke an unknown reaction you are creating a new (but not actually new, because its an allergy they already had) in something that previously did not trigger one.
soy allergies doubled in the UK after GM soy was introduced
whats your logical explanation for the increase in food allergies ?
[h1]Genetically Modified Foods[/h1]
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."[sup]1[/sup] 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.[sup]2[/sup]
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."[sup]3[/sup]
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."[sup]4 [/sup] 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.[sup]5 [/sup] The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.[sup]2,6,7,8,9,10,11 [/sup]
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. [sup]6,11 [/sup] 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). [sup] 7,8,10 [/sup] Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. [sup] 6,8,10 [/sup] 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.[sup]8[/sup] 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.[sup]6 [/sup]
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. [sup]11 [/sup]
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."[sup]12[/sup] 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.[sup]13 [/sup] 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."[sup]13[/sup]
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)."[sup]13[/sup]
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:
(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)
- 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.
Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.
Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM
- World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsa...0questions/en/index.html
- Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10
- Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.
- Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.
- Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.
- 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.
- 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.
- Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.
- Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.
refute that instead of telling me it doesnt come from somewhere "credible"
what are you "proving" to me with that article ? stuff i already knew? that GMOs arent good for farming?
Crop yields from India’s first genetically modified crop may have been overemphasized, as modest rises in crop yields may come at the expense of sustainable farm management, says a new study by a Washington University in St. Louis anthropologist.
modest rises at the expense of sustainable farm management
“Each new technology — hybrids, then pesticide after pesticide — brought short-term gains but further eroded farm management.
short term gains but further eroded farm management
blah blah blah....yielded more crop....blah blah blah....money....blah blah blah GMO good
the international food policy research institute?sounds like a place with its own agenda and motives. love the site though.....looks a lot like monsanto's. i get that warm and fuzzy feeling knowing world hunger will end
International Food Policy Research Institute
2033 K St, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA
they are an agency of CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) which is tied to the UN and had monsanto help with golden rice.
reminds me of the bill & melinda gates foundation
you work for the government and in turn multinational corporations. you should know they arent going to publish lots of studies publicly that dont fit their agenda. who do you think funds your research grants?
You're going to trust the word of a farmer over a PhD or MD when it comes to GMOs, health, environmental and food science? I see. Well that's great. Keep that up. While you're at it why don't you ask them for advice on health and medicine too.
i will trust them when it comes to my food and the environmental impact of GMOs (which your own article states is bad) thank you. i actually speak with both, something you dont do.
your response is very typical of scientists who think they have all the answers. they have some of the answers but they dont have all. should we ask scientists for advice on economics, the stock market, foreign policy?
if you have better solutions than i do tell us. you have all the answers to the world and i'm just a dumb heathen who didnt go to med school.
Butt hurt?
Keep focusing on my grammar and ignoring the content of my posts.
To quickly touch on the grammar though. What excuses have I made? I have said I'm not the best at writing, I admitted it. My improper grammar typing in a forum during my breaks between doing lab experiments or other things in life aren't a good reflection of my writing capability. Especially since I even have other apparent typos, and do not proof read before I post. I don't have the time when I'm running experiments in the lab. You seriously want to discuss grammar of all things being discussed during this argument? Possibly because you can't refute any of my other questions or comments. As well as you being mad about looking like an idiot yourself.
You would like to discredit my posts content by harping on my grammar. Sad.
Again, you DO NOT have any comprehension of what you read. Let me quote for you what I'm talking about since you can't seem to understand by reading on your own.
PleasurePhD wrote:
Proof that GMOs increase the life expectancy? NONE! Proof that GMOs lower the life expectancy? NONE! Proof that GMOs help save lives and allows for higher yields TONS, ie. insulin and BT cotton. (BT cotton has it's own faults though again, I will admit that, but the yields were higher.)
So by me making this statement you some how in your brain thought that I said GMOs are perfect and they are 100% healthy and safe and sustainable?
WOW man, don't even mention going to med school I bet you didn't even go to college, hell I'd bet you didn't even graduate HS.
I KNOW they aren't 100% safe and effective, WHICH IS WHY I KEEP SAYING THEY NEED TO BE FURTHER SUPPORTED AND RESEARCHED. You KEEP failing to realize that I understand GMOs aren't perfect but they hold SO MUCH POTENTIAL to save millions of starving people across the world. And, if not other method is working why not use them to save these people?
PLEASE TELL ME? Also you still have yet to address the production of medicine though use of GMOs. This is I think at least the 3rd time I've asked you.
It's like the damn false Stem Cell controversy. Yes, they might not be perfect as of yet, and they might carry some stigma depending on your beliefs, but EFFIN HELL, IF WE CAN SAVE LIVES BY USING THEM WHY THE EFF NOT?!!!!!
YOUR JUST STIFLING THE RESEARCH BY ARGUING AGAINST IT FOR WHAT CAUSE?
BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU DON'T WANT THEM SO EVERYONE SHOULDN'T? WHO THE EFF ARE YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR PEOPLE? I'VE STATED THAT CHOICE IS BEST, BUT DON'T STIFLE THE RESEARCH. CHOOSE GMO OR NATURAL.
I MEAN CAN'T YOU SEE HOW MANY LIVES CAN BE SAVED? YOU'D RATHER THEM DIE OF STARVATION THAN LIVE TO BE EVEN 30 YRS OLD ON GMOS LIKE YOU CLAIM TO BELIEVE, THAT PEOPLE WILL LIVE SHORTER. AGAIN WITH NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT IDIOTIC CLAIM.
THEN YOU ASK ME TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE WHEN I HAVE GIVEN YOU EVIDENCE ALREADY AND ALSO STATED THAT MORE OF WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEORETICAL AND NEEDS TO BE RESEARCHED FURTHER. BUT THE BENEFITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEEN IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
Look, think of GMOs as a CURE to world hunger, and with any treatment there are side effects. Nothing is perfect. Hell even your natural remedies have caused deaths. People are allergic to foods all the time without being exposed to GMOs.
Your logical reasoning for GMOs CAUSING allergic reactions is the fact that you are allergic to PEANUTS and get allergic reactions from products containing SOY, which is POSSIBLY GMO. Nice job attributing correlation to causation. Shows how strong your deductive reasoning and critical logic are.
Did you even read the article you posted? It's hilarious. Trying to manipulate naive individuals with no backing or evidence. let me post a quote:
Soy linked to peanut allergies http://www.seedsofdecepti...owArticle/?objectID=1007
There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[sup][1[/sup] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.
So because soy has a NATURAL protein which can trigger peanut allergies AND soy has been genetically modified that means GMOs are causing increasing in peanut allergies? LMAO great reasoning and proof of causation.
Could it be that more products are containing soy in general and/or more people are consuming soy, and that is causing it. Not because of the genes which have been modified which have nothing to do with peanuts? NO, no that can't be. That would mean that Piffy MD, PhD, and psychic could be naive and misinterpreting the facts.
UHHHH That's the point? The point is that they test for these possible side effect. IE. with the Brazil nut which by YOUR posted article was never put on the market.
Genetic engineering may provoke increased allergies to soy http://www.seedsofdecepti...owArticle/?objectID=1007
The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[sup][7][/sup] It was fortunately never put on the market.
In addition, the FDA requires them to label their products with corresponding allergens so if the product has a peanut protein, the company would have to label it as such.
Again, READ THE ARTICLES THAT YOU POST.
[h3]What are the nutritional concerns of consuming genetically modified organisms? [/h3]
The most obvious nutrition concern with genetically modified organisms is the risk of allergic reactions. More than 90% of food allergies occur in response to specific proteins in milk, eggs, wheat, fish, tree nuts, peanuts, soybeans, and shellfish (3). The risk for allergic reaction stems from a protein from one of these foods incorporated into a food that does not cause a known allergic reaction. For example, if an individual who has a known allergy to peanuts unsuspectingly consumed a genetically modified organism that contained the allergenic protein from the peanut, conceivably the individual would experience an allergic reaction. This concern has been addressed with FDA measures put into place to prevent such a scenario. The FDA requires that each presenter of a genetically modified organism show scientific evidence that they have not incorporated an allergenic substance into their product. If the presenter cannot produce this evidence, the FDA requires a label on the product to alert the consumer of its possible allergic reaction (4).
What is my explanation of a supposed increase in food allergies?
Follow this link and read it pretty much sums up my thought on the topic. http://www.nature.com/emb...v7/n11/full/7400846.html
To highlight some sentences though:
"Despite a lack of data, many scientists believe that the number of people with food allergies is rising,..."
"But it is not clear if this figure indicates an equivalent increase in food allergies, or reflects an increase in the awareness of food allergies and in the quality of healthcare during this period..."
"Although the influence of a Western diet could explain some of the increases in food allergies worldwide, this cannot account for the increase in allergies within the USA itself. Peanut allergies in US children doubled from 1997 to 2002 (Sicherer et al, 2003), but there is no indication that the consumption of peanuts—or the awareness of food allergies—increased as significantly during the same period. Instead, changes in food manufacturing might be to blame. Dry-roasting peanuts, common in the USA, UK and Australia, increases allergenicity compared with boiling or frying peanuts, as is common in China (Beyer et al, 2001; Chung et al, 2003; Schmitt & Maleki, 2004). “The Chinese eat the same amount of peanut per capita as we do, they introduce it early in a sort of a boiled/mushed type form, as they do in many African countries, and they have very low rates of peanut allergies,
- 1,679
- 43
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2011
I'm currently in an economic botany class and there's a lot of misinformed statements in this thread.
I agree with some of OP's sentiments, though he sells a lot of his points in a sensationalistic way. PleasurePHD raises a lot of valid points, which OP just strikes out and close-mindedly reverts to petty grammar remarks.
Atmosphere in this thread doesn't lend itself to learning and sharing of information but force-feeding one's assertions regardless of how one-sided and erroneous some of it is.
I'll just stay out of this one and have a good chuckle.
The real satan is lamar smith, though.
I agree with some of OP's sentiments, though he sells a lot of his points in a sensationalistic way. PleasurePHD raises a lot of valid points, which OP just strikes out and close-mindedly reverts to petty grammar remarks.
Atmosphere in this thread doesn't lend itself to learning and sharing of information but force-feeding one's assertions regardless of how one-sided and erroneous some of it is.
I'll just stay out of this one and have a good chuckle.
The real satan is lamar smith, though.
- 1,004
- 10
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
calm down buddy boy. are you ashkenazi?
i've already read about natural soybean and peanut allergies. if you actually read my post you would see that i've never been allergic to soy before and consumed non GMO soy without having an allergic reaction. GM soy was introduced in 1996.
soy is "possibly" GMO now?
no, its 100% certain of being GMO. all soy is genetically engineered unless it states that it is non GMO.
the FDA aint labelling GM ingredients so who the heck cares what they say
they didnt market the brazil nut gene soy but they did bring to market GM soy with a new protein.
i've already read about natural soybean and peanut allergies. if you actually read my post you would see that i've never been allergic to soy before and consumed non GMO soy without having an allergic reaction. GM soy was introduced in 1996.
soy is "possibly" GMO now?
the FDA aint labelling GM ingredients so who the heck cares what they say
they didnt market the brazil nut gene soy but they did bring to market GM soy with a new protein.
Beginning in 1996, genes from bacteria and viruses have been forced into the DNA of soy, corn, cotton, and canola plants, which are used for food. Ohio allergist John Boyles is one of a growing number of experts who believe that these genetically modified (GM) foods are contributing to the huge jump in food allergies in the US, especially among children.
The UK is one of the few countries that conduct a yearly food allergy evaluation. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year.
Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods."
those ingredients are all GM and in 99% of food
Could it be that more products are containing soy in general and/or more people are consuming soy, and that is causing it.
could be, i dont know. could also be that the GM soy is increasing reactions. soy isnt good anyways but i've never had a reaction with non GMO.
food related illnesses are way up between the time genetically modified foods came to the market and now. is that just a coincidence?
must be the way peanuts are preparedthat made me chuckle
In USA, between 1994 and 1999, the rate of illnesses caused by food has increased tenfold regarding diseases of diagnosed as viral. As a comparison, the rate of the same diseases in Sweden in 1999 was about the same as it was in the US in 1994. In Sweden, GE foods were not available during that time period.
It seems likely that GE foods are the reason.
[h3]Why this great increase of virus-caused diseases in the US?[/h3]
Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institue of Science in the Society, and an expert on food biotechnology notes in a recent report that there is a very pronounced difference between Sweden and the US in one respect - the rate of virus-caused illnesses. While in Sweden, viruses were the cause in only 9% of the cases, they were so in 80% of the cases in the USA.
The reason for this increase is unknown. But Mae-Wan Ho points out that the use of genetically engineered foods has increased enormously in the US since 1994. By comparison, in Sweden, almost no GE foods were used in 1999.
[size=+2]Horizontal transfer of viral and bacteria DNA facilitated by GE organisms?[/size]
Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genes by vectors such as viruses and other infectious agents. It is exploited by genetic engineers to make transgenic organisms. While natural vectors respect species barriers, the barrage of artificial vectors made by genetic engineers are designed to cross species barriers, thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, and spreading drug and antibiotic resistance.
Biologically "crippled" laboratory strains of bacteria can often survive in the environment to exchange genes with other organisms. Genetic material (DNA) released from dead and living cells, far from being rapidly broken down, actually persists in the environment and transfer to other organisms. Naked viral DNA may be more infectious, and have a wider host range than the virus. Viral DNA resists digestion in the gut of mice, enter the blood stream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells, and may even integrate into the mouse cell genome.
[table][tr][td] [h3][/h3]
Potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer from genetic engineering
[/td][/tr][/table]
- Antibiotic resistance genes spreading to pathogenic bacteria.
- Disease-associated genes spreading and recombining to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases.
- Transgenic DNA inserting into human cells, triggering cancer.
Ho suspects that a possible reason might be that GE foods may give rise to new viruses. This has been well established scientifically (even the biotech firm Monsanto has acknowledged this). The reason is that every cell in a GE plants contains parts of virus genes that can combine with the genes of infecting viruses. In a very large proportion of GE crop varietes, the virus genes come from a virus (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus - CaMV) related to human viruses. Therefore some scientists have warned that GE plants may give rise to new human viruses.
[h3]Comment[/h3]
We agree that the large scale cultivation of GE crops brings with it a definite risk for the emergence of new viruses. But if this were the cause of a major part of foodborne disease increase, it should also have caused a considerable increase of virus diseases affecting other organs. We are not aware that this has happened. So we assume that, if new viruses have contibuted to the increase of foodborne diseaes, it is likely to be to a minor extent.
We propose another explanation how GE foods might be the cause. It is based on the remarkable fact that 82 % of the foodborne diseases and 25% of the death cases were caused by "unknown pathogens", assumed to be viruses, in the american study that Ho refers to, (Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V et al.Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis 5:607-25; 1999).
This could be explained by the fact that, in practical medicine, the diagnosis of severe diarrhea occurs through exclusion. That is, if no common pathogens causing severe diarrhea, like salmonella, shigella etc. are found, and systemtic diseases (Mb Crohn, ulcerating colitis) are ruled out, it is commonly assumed that the disease is caused by a virus. But as it is costly, not useful and in practice impossible to detect all possible viral pathogens, little or no viral testing is done (as there is no specific therapy for viral diseases, specific diagnosis is of no help).
We suggest that the increase may have been caused by GE foods in two possible ways:
- By the Bt-toxin, found in most commonly eaten genetically engineered food.
- By bacterial DNA used for genetic engineering in almost all GE foods.
[h4]Explanation[/h4]
1. Major GE crops have been genetically engineered to produce the Bt toxin for its insecticidal ability.
Professor Joe Cummins has pointed out that an Egyptian study indicates that the Bt toxin causes intestinal irritation which may case acute as well as chronic gastrointestinal illnes ("Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on -Endotoxin-Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes" Natural Toxins Volume 6, Issue 6, 1998. Pages: 219-233 Published Online: 29 Jun 1999 Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed). This study found that mice, fed with genetically engineered potatoes, developed significant intestinal changes indicating an irritative effect of the toxin. For more, see Cummins, J.: "Comments on the human health impact of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene product in genetically modified crops".
In addition, a number of field reports indicate severe and in many cases lethal, gastrointestinal damage in cows and sheep eating GE plants containing Bt-toxin, see for example Cows ate GM Maize and died and Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton.
As the Bt-toxin demonstratedly affects animal intestines, it cannot be excluded that it might cause disturbances in humans as well, manifesting as "foodborne disease with unknown origin". Biotech proponents assert that this toxin is degraded by stomach acid. However this is contradicted by the studies and experiences reporting severe gastrointestinal damage from eating GE-food containng Bt-toxin. This toxin is actually quite acid resistant and, moreover, people may have a low level of gastric acid because of disease or because of the very common use of Losec or similar potent antacid preparations. So even if it were degraded by a normal level of gastric acid, a considerable proportion of the population would be at risk.
As the foods are not labelled as GE, the connection is not apparent to the consumer. According to Cummins, no studies have been done that reliably exclude that Bt-toxin in the food can cause gastrointestinal damage.
2. Professor Joe Cummins has pointed out that certain bacterial DNA sequences present in practically all GE crops may incearase the risk for inflammatory disorders. These socalled CpG sequences are found in the DNA used for enabling gene insertion (vectors) and in many of the primary crop protection genes including Bt and most herbicide tolerance genes. This bacterial DNA contains considerable amounts of the CpG sequence (higher forms of life, so called eukaryocytes, have little of this sequence and it is in a different state). It has been established that this sequence induces inflammation (it has been found to adversely affect autoimmune inflammatory diseases ).
Inflammation induced in the bowel by this bacterial DNA in GE foods is likely to mimic foodborne diarrhea. As no bacterial pathogen is found, and if the diarrhea is persistent, the routine is, as explained above, to assume that it is caused by one of the many viruses that cause diarrhea.
For more, see "The fate of food genes and the DNA CpG motif and its impact".
[h4]Conclusion[/h4]
There are two conceivable ways in which GE foods may cause gastrointestinal disturbances in addition to those proposed by Ho. It is through the action of the Bt toxin in common GE foods, including maize and soy, and through the action of the CpG DNA sequence that induces inflammation.
So there are a number of likely explanations how the large increase of foodborne diseases in the US could have been caused by GE foods, while in Sweden, where no GE foods were available during the same time period, there was no increase of the same disorders, although the food habits are similar.
bacillus thuringiensis turns your gut into a human pesticide factory
if corn is being genetically engineered to produce its own pesticides you think by ingesting it your gut wont become a breeding ground for those pesticides? one form of corn or another is in everything and pretty much all corn is now genetically engineered corn.
rats tested with GMs reported organ failure
all of this is related to gastrointestinal issues
you said it yourself that they arent 100% safe and effective so why arent they thoroughly tested? how do you want me to support GMO research, by being a guinea pig for genetically engineered food? you want cancer, allergies, autoimmune disease, liver and kidney failure, IBS, leaky gut so that it supposedly feeds the world. it is not being researched, there is no extensive research being done on GM foods, its being pushed on the consumers without complex testing and without the regulation of labels. why is this?
you really think these people are trying to save livesi actually feel sorry for you now
how the hell can i choose GMO or choose natural when biotech companies dont want me to have a choice? they dont even want me to have the seeds to grow my own food naturally. they want to control every single seed with their genetically modified seeds.
who has the biggest interest in GMOs? bioagrapharma companies. GM foods only benefit biotechs, not humanity.
now get back in the lab dexter
sleaze jar omens
Banned
- 938
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/21-1
Published on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 by Common Dreams
[h2]France to EU: Stop Monsanto's Corn[/h2]
- Common Dreams staff
France has asked the European regulators to suspend the authorization to plant Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) MON810 corn. France's ecology minister says the decision is based on studies showing GM crops "pose significant risks for the environment."
(SIPA/Durand Florence) Agence France-Presse reports:
France tv info writes that six countries in the EU also ban the cultivation of genetically modified corn: Germany, Hungary, Greece, Luxembourg, Austria et Bulgaria.
* * *
Last week a French court found Monsanto legally responsible for the 2004 poisoning of a farmer with one of its herbicides.
Published on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 by Common Dreams
[h2]France to EU: Stop Monsanto's Corn[/h2]
- Common Dreams staff
France has asked the European regulators to suspend the authorization to plant Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) MON810 corn. France's ecology minister says the decision is based on studies showing GM crops "pose significant risks for the environment."
France tv info writes that six countries in the EU also ban the cultivation of genetically modified corn: Germany, Hungary, Greece, Luxembourg, Austria et Bulgaria.
* * *
Last week a French court found Monsanto legally responsible for the 2004 poisoning of a farmer with one of its herbicides.
- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
those ingredients are all GM and in 99% of foodOriginally Posted by 59 Piffy
calm down buddy boy. are you ashkenazi?
i've already read about natural soybean and peanut allergies. if you actually read my post you would see that i've never been allergic to soy before and consumed non GMO soy without having an allergic reaction. GM soy was introduced in 1996.
soy is "possibly" GMO now?no, its 100% certain of being GMO. all soy is genetically engineered unless it states that it is non GMO.
the FDA aint labelling GM ingredients so who the heck cares what they say
they didnt market the brazil nut gene soy but they did bring to market GM soy with a new protein.
Could it be that more products are containing soy in general and/or more people are consuming soy, and that is causing it.
could be, i dont know. could also be that the GM soy is increasing reactions. soy isnt good anyways but i've never had a reaction with non GMO.
food related illnesses are way up between the time genetically modified foods came to the market and now. is that just a coincidence?
must be the way peanuts are preparedthat made me chuckle
In USA, between 1994 and 1999, the rate of illnesses caused by food has increased tenfold regarding diseases of diagnosed as viral. As a comparison, the rate of the same diseases in Sweden in 1999 was about the same as it was in the US in 1994. In Sweden, GE foods were not available during that time period.
It seems likely that GE foods are the reason.
[h3]Why this great increase of virus-caused diseases in the US?[/h3]
Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institue of Science in the Society, and an expert on food biotechnology notes in a recent report that there is a very pronounced difference between Sweden and the US in one respect - the rate of virus-caused illnesses. While in Sweden, viruses were the cause in only 9% of the cases, they were so in 80% of the cases in the USA.
The reason for this increase is unknown. But Mae-Wan Ho points out that the use of genetically engineered foods has increased enormously in the US since 1994. By comparison, in Sweden, almost no GE foods were used in 1999.
[size=+2]Horizontal transfer of viral and bacteria DNA facilitated by GE organisms?[/size]
Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genes by vectors such as viruses and other infectious agents. It is exploited by genetic engineers to make transgenic organisms. While natural vectors respect species barriers, the barrage of artificial vectors made by genetic engineers are designed to cross species barriers, thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, and spreading drug and antibiotic resistance.
Biologically "crippled" laboratory strains of bacteria can often survive in the environment to exchange genes with other organisms. Genetic material (DNA) released from dead and living cells, far from being rapidly broken down, actually persists in the environment and transfer to other organisms. Naked viral DNA may be more infectious, and have a wider host range than the virus. Viral DNA resists digestion in the gut of mice, enter the blood stream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells, and may even integrate into the mouse cell genome.
[table][tr][td] [h3][/h3]
Potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer from genetic engineering
[/td][/tr][/table]
- Antibiotic resistance genes spreading to pathogenic bacteria.
- Disease-associated genes spreading and recombining to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases.
- Transgenic DNA inserting into human cells, triggering cancer.
Ho suspects that a possible reason might be that GE foods may give rise to new viruses. This has been well established scientifically (even the biotech firm Monsanto has acknowledged this). The reason is that every cell in a GE plants contains parts of virus genes that can combine with the genes of infecting viruses. In a very large proportion of GE crop varietes, the virus genes come from a virus (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus - CaMV) related to human viruses. Therefore some scientists have warned that GE plants may give rise to new human viruses.
[h3]Comment[/h3]
We agree that the large scale cultivation of GE crops brings with it a definite risk for the emergence of new viruses. But if this were the cause of a major part of foodborne disease increase, it should also have caused a considerable increase of virus diseases affecting other organs. We are not aware that this has happened. So we assume that, if new viruses have contibuted to the increase of foodborne diseaes, it is likely to be to a minor extent.
We propose another explanation how GE foods might be the cause. It is based on the remarkable fact that 82 % of the foodborne diseases and 25% of the death cases were caused by "unknown pathogens", assumed to be viruses, in the american study that Ho refers to, (Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V et al.Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis 5:607-25; 1999).
This could be explained by the fact that, in practical medicine, the diagnosis of severe diarrhea occurs through exclusion. That is, if no common pathogens causing severe diarrhea, like salmonella, shigella etc. are found, and systemtic diseases (Mb Crohn, ulcerating colitis) are ruled out, it is commonly assumed that the disease is caused by a virus. But as it is costly, not useful and in practice impossible to detect all possible viral pathogens, little or no viral testing is done (as there is no specific therapy for viral diseases, specific diagnosis is of no help).
We suggest that the increase may have been caused by GE foods in two possible ways:
- By the Bt-toxin, found in most commonly eaten genetically engineered food.
- By bacterial DNA used for genetic engineering in almost all GE foods.
[h4]Explanation[/h4]
1. Major GE crops have been genetically engineered to produce the Bt toxin for its insecticidal ability.
Professor Joe Cummins has pointed out that an Egyptian study indicates that the Bt toxin causes intestinal irritation which may case acute as well as chronic gastrointestinal illnes ("Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on -Endotoxin-Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes" Natural Toxins Volume 6, Issue 6, 1998. Pages: 219-233 Published Online: 29 Jun 1999 Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed). This study found that mice, fed with genetically engineered potatoes, developed significant intestinal changes indicating an irritative effect of the toxin. For more, see Cummins, J.: "Comments on the human health impact of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene product in genetically modified crops".
In addition, a number of field reports indicate severe and in many cases lethal, gastrointestinal damage in cows and sheep eating GE plants containing Bt-toxin, see for example Cows ate GM Maize and died and Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton.
As the Bt-toxin demonstratedly affects animal intestines, it cannot be excluded that it might cause disturbances in humans as well, manifesting as "foodborne disease with unknown origin". Biotech proponents assert that this toxin is degraded by stomach acid. However this is contradicted by the studies and experiences reporting severe gastrointestinal damage from eating GE-food containng Bt-toxin. This toxin is actually quite acid resistant and, moreover, people may have a low level of gastric acid because of disease or because of the very common use of Losec or similar potent antacid preparations. So even if it were degraded by a normal level of gastric acid, a considerable proportion of the population would be at risk.
As the foods are not labelled as GE, the connection is not apparent to the consumer. According to Cummins, no studies have been done that reliably exclude that Bt-toxin in the food can cause gastrointestinal damage.
2. Professor Joe Cummins has pointed out that certain bacterial DNA sequences present in practically all GE crops may incearase the risk for inflammatory disorders. These socalled CpG sequences are found in the DNA used for enabling gene insertion (vectors) and in many of the primary crop protection genes including Bt and most herbicide tolerance genes. This bacterial DNA contains considerable amounts of the CpG sequence (higher forms of life, so called eukaryocytes, have little of this sequence and it is in a different state). It has been established that this sequence induces inflammation (it has been found to adversely affect autoimmune inflammatory diseases ).
Inflammation induced in the bowel by this bacterial DNA in GE foods is likely to mimic foodborne diarrhea. As no bacterial pathogen is found, and if the diarrhea is persistent, the routine is, as explained above, to assume that it is caused by one of the many viruses that cause diarrhea.
For more, see "The fate of food genes and the DNA CpG motif and its impact".
[h4]Conclusion[/h4]
There are two conceivable ways in which GE foods may cause gastrointestinal disturbances in addition to those proposed by Ho. It is through the action of the Bt toxin in common GE foods, including maize and soy, and through the action of the CpG DNA sequence that induces inflammation.
So there are a number of likely explanations how the large increase of foodborne diseases in the US could have been caused by GE foods, while in Sweden, where no GE foods were available during the same time period, there was no increase of the same disorders, although the food habits are similar.
bacillus thuringiensis turns your gut into a human pesticide factory
if corn is being genetically engineered to produce its own pesticides you think by ingesting it your gut wont become a breeding ground for those pesticides? one form of corn or another is in everything and pretty much all corn is now genetically engineered corn.
rats tested with GMs reported organ failure
all of this is related to gastrointestinal issues
you said it yourself that they arent 100% safe and effective so why arent they thoroughly tested? how do you want me to support GMO research, by being a guinea pig for genetically engineered food? you want cancer, allergies, autoimmune disease, liver and kidney failure, IBS, leaky gut so that it supposedly feeds the world. it is not being researched, there is no extensive research being done on GM foods, its being pushed on the consumers without complex testing and without the regulation of labels. why is this?
you really think these people are trying to save livesi actually feel sorry for you now
how the hell can i choose GMO or choose natural when biotech companies dont want me to have a choice? they dont even want me to have the seeds to grow my own food naturally. they want to control every single seed with their genetically modified seeds.
who has the biggest interest in GMOs? bioagrapharma companies. GM foods only benefit biotechs, not humanity.
now get back in the lab dexter
Sigh... Well we're back to square one. You discussing the corporations decisions and capitalism, not the actual GMO products OR the possible ways in which to support the world without GMOs. You still have yet to answer my questions when it comes to medicine and other products synthesized from GMOs, as well as propose your own logical idea of how to overcome the needs of the world.
GMOs are also used in research to find cures for many different diseases. Additionally, genetic engineering is still a very intriguing method which has lots of potential to save lives with direct use as a therapy. I'm sure you would like to stifle that research too and let all those people die who don't have the right disease, since they have a disease which can only be cured by use of GE or GE products.
You just want to stifle science research and allow people to die.
The sources you quoted to back your statements of GMOs being unsafe are still all speculation and correlation NOT causation. There is some merit to the reports and as a scientist I can and will admit this. Just like I said with any "CURE" there is potential side effects. It doesn't mean that it's an ineffective solution, it's just not the BEST, but with additional research we can perfect it.
Like I said I'll give you that GMOs aren't perfect, neither is genetic engineering in and of itself, but again, should this mean that we should halt research on potentially lives saving ideas and technology? No.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
See the difference between us is that I am all about progression, the evolution of our planet and species, both genetic evolution and societal evolution. I can see the problems of the world and I can see what ways we can solve these problems, leaving no one behind and benefiting our planet and our people. I acknowledge faults of my own ideals, I accept them and try to improve them because I know of the CURRENT and POTENTIAL life saving capabilities that have.
You on the other hand are a "conservative" you would like to conserve and preserve what we already have and know; what you ASSUME to work because you can't see outside your own little box nor can you make rational predictions of the future outcomes of your actions. You REFUSE to acknowledge ANY negative aspects of your ideas, which in and of itself shows how simplistic your mind is. You can't see how your ideas and propositions can fail and how many people you are basically just saying, "oh well too bad for you, starve to death. We can't feed you naturally and "sustainably" and I don't want you to eat GMOs so just die." You say you want choice, but it's actually your way or the highway, NO choice. If you can't see how I can make that assertion then you're quite hopeless. In the grand scheme of things what you propose will NOT work, and therefore we NEED better technologies. You also can't see how most people don't have the choice you do here in good ole dumb *+%+ America (as you would probably put it, as an American too. LOL) and so we should help them by researching ways to create cheaper and nutritious food. Basically, you'd rather smash the potential life saving research being conducted on GMOs in attempt to preserve what is "natural" and how things are "suppose to be". Let's just hope that you don't align with other "conservative" ideologies.
Now get back to taking advantage of all that science AND America has done for you: sitting there in front of your computer, vaccinated (or taking advantage of herd immunity), having the choice of all natural foods or GMOs, etc... Continue to not support a field which has supported you so much.
- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/21-1
Published on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 by Common Dreams
[h2]France to EU: Stop Monsanto's Corn[/h2]
- Common Dreams staff
France has asked the European regulators to suspend the authorization to plant Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) MON810 corn. France's ecology minister says the decision is based on studies showing GM crops "pose significant risks for the environment."
(SIPA/Durand Florence) Agence France-Presse reports:
France tv info writes that six countries in the EU also ban the cultivation of genetically modified corn: Germany, Hungary, Greece, Luxembourg, Austria et Bulgaria.
* * *
Last week a French court found Monsanto legally responsible for the 2004 poisoning of a farmer with one of its herbicides.
France asks EU to suspend GM crop authorisation
(AFP)–1 day ago
PARIS — France's ecology ministry said Monday it had asked European regulators to suspend authorisation for the use of genetically modified MON 810 maize crops from US company Monsanto based on new studies.
The request is "based on the latest scientific studies" which show that the use of the GM crops "pose significant risks for the environment," the ministry said in a statement.
The ministry pointed to a recent study by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that raised concerns with another form of GM crop, BT11, that it said could also be applied to MON 810.
"If the European Union does not act, we can invoke the safeguard clause" which allows EU nations to independently restrict or prohibit the sales of products, it said.
President Nicolas Sarkozy in November pledged to seek new legal measures after the European Court of Justice and France's top administrative court overturned a French ban on GM crops from US agriculture giant Monsanto.
France's agriculture ministry imposed a ban in February 2008 amid concerns over public safety, but the French State Council said the government had failed to prove that Monsanto crops "present a particularly elevated level of risk to either human health or the environment".
Monsanto markets MON 810 maize -- which has been modified at a genetic level to include DNA from a bacteria -- under the trade name YieldGuard as being resistant to insect pests that can threaten harvests.
But some governments believe it could pose a danger to plants and animals.
Not taking the side of the company or the corn. Just providing the full article and all the relevant statements to the argument. Nothing out of context.
[h2]Court: Monsanto Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in France[/h2]
- Common Dreams staff
A French court Monday found US agriculture giant Monsanto legally responsible for the poisoning of a farmer with one of its herbicides in 2004.
Paul François, a cereal farmer in the southwestern department of Charente "Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois' suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product... and must entirely compensate him," said the judgement from the court in the southeastern city of Lyon.
In 2004, Paul François, a cereal farmer in the southwestern department of Charente, opened the tank of his pulveriser machine. He inhaled fumes of Lasso, a weedkiller manufactured by Monsanto, and fainted.
He was taken to hospital and stopped work for almost a year, reports radio station France Info. He suffers from memory loss and often feels faint.
* * *
Reuters is reporting:
A French court on Monday declared U.S. biotech giant Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer, a judgment that could lend weight to other health claims against pesticides.
Farmer mixing Lasso, a Monsanto herbicideIn the first such case heard in court in France, grain grower Paul Francois says he suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto's Lasso weedkiller in 2004.
He blames the agri-business giant for not providing adequate warnings on the product label.
The ruling was given by a court in Lyon, southeast France, which ordered an expert opinion of Francois's losses to establish the sum of damages. [...]
"I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this," Francois, 47, told Reuters.
"I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this"He and other farmers suffering from illness set up an association last year to make a case that their health problems should be linked to their use of crop protection products.
The agricultural branch of the French social security system says that since 1996, it has gathered farmers' reports of sickness potentially related to pesticides, with about 200 alerts a year.
Sticking your head into a vat of chemicals usually isn't the best idea. Reminds me of the individual who sued Mcdonalds cause that person spilled coffee on themselves.
- 1,551
- 181
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
That individual won over McDonalds FYI.
The enlarged text in the last article P.PHD posted proved nothing.
Earth doesn't need GMO's, it needs re-mineralization.
The enlarged text in the last article P.PHD posted proved nothing.
Earth doesn't need GMO's, it needs re-mineralization.
- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
LOL really you don't say? That person won? I had no idea. That wasn't my point at all. My point wasn't to show how and idiot could hurt themselves and then could sue AND WIN over a company; like the company threw coffee at them or stuck their heads into a vat of chemicals. That person won over McDonalds for spilling THEIR coffee on THEMSELVES. Just like this guy stuck HIS head into HIS vat of chemicals and won over another company.
In case you missed it again, that was the point genius.
The bold text in those articles proves that you shouldn't take things out of context and should read the entire story before making a conclusion or assumption. That's all. I wasn't defending the company nor the corn.
So what's your point?
sleaze jar omens
Banned
- 938
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
I read the entire article. One part says the request is based on the latest scientific studies. Seems pretty relevant. I'm trying to find more info but posting via phone sucks.
- 1,374
- 13
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
Damn it I hate when topics are too far gone to make valid points in the argument. After 2-3 pages in a decent thread on here it's just dude's posting 3 paragraphs, desperately trying to prove their points.
- 1,551
- 181
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
First of all, this is why resolutions almost never occur on NT, because you (and many others in a debate on NT) reply with so much hostility it becomes a name calling match. I saw your point, it was however irrelevant (for this thread topic). "Genius"? I'm not going to be that poster and add another e-battle, complete with name calling and enlarging text so much that it's legible from my living room to the naked eye.
As for the case with the farmer I'm neither here nor there, but if the law is on his side (regardless of what you or I think) the common man with any drive for money would capitalize on a huge mistake like M. not putting those "Do not..." notices on their products.
Edit: @ Troy, No way I'm reading pages of bickering with essays.
enyceking
Banned
- 1,299
- 24
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
p4l
- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
I never said you didnt. I was just posting it for others. And if you do find those studies then feel free to share, I am open to seeing the negative aspects of these GMO food products. As a scientist it's quite fun to analyze two sets of contradicting data and proving someones hypothesis wrong. In this case whether the corn is safe or not, I don't care as long as the truth comes out and we understand that genetic engineering still has it's place in research and pushing our society forward.
Individuals arguing with me act like I think these GMO products can do no wrong. I am merely stating facts on how they DO and WILL help, now and into the future. Never once said they don't have their faults.
Anything to do with genetic engineering can be risky and so much more needs to be studied when it comes to that technology. But, eventually we will perfect it and it will save so many lives. Well, as long as people opposed to it (right now, won't be opposed once it cures many terminal illnesses) don't stifle the research.
That's my whole point. Just because you are against something doesn't mean you have to ruin the potential it has for so many other people. Allow choice don't force your beliefs on to them.
- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
True. I apologize. I am still heated, I guess, from my discussion with piffy. But, how can you say my post and quotes are invalid? My point is invalid?
My point that you can't make conclusions/assumptions that a company is evil and killing/harming people intentionally when someone sticks their own head into a vat of chemicals and gets hurt is irrelevant to the topic about how a company is evil?
Thread title = Wanna know who Satan really is?
1st post = Monsanto
My post = Can't call a company evil/satan after you stick your own head into a vat of chemicals and get hurt.
Irrelevant?
Anyway, lets not get into it though.
Our law system is flawed, but lets not get into that topic either, anymore than we have.
- 8,821
- 1,636
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
zzzzzz
sleaze jar omens
Banned
- 938
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/wh...house-monsanto-peer-991/
wheres the chart with the big name Monsanto employees?
wheres the chart with the big name Monsanto employees?
- 1,787
- 58
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
Monsanto and GMO's are bad news. Bad for consumption, bad for the environment and bad for the farmers that do it the right way (e.g. Organic Valley, Stoneyfield- both, along with Whole Foods have battled Monsanto for years).
The sad thing is it starts at the top. Weak-kneed Obama appointing Vilsack (A Monsanto shill and ardent supporter of biotech crops) in 2009 as Dept. of Agriculture was a terrible move (he did this despite 100,000 letters of protest - yet another instance of Obama ignoring the people. Just as he ignored them in formulating ObamaCare).
I invite everyone to look up the personnel of the USDA. It's laden with ex-Monsanto lawyers and lobbyists. Also, to my count the US Supreme court currently seats an ex-Monsanto lawyer in Clarence Thomas and Obama appointee Elena Kagan who sided with Monsanto in a 9th Circuit Court decision to ban Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa. This is how Monsanto rolls. Deep pockets an ex-personnel in high places. Yet another reason why my conscious won't let me vote Democrat or Republican because they allow and encourage this garbage.
The sad thing is it starts at the top. Weak-kneed Obama appointing Vilsack (A Monsanto shill and ardent supporter of biotech crops) in 2009 as Dept. of Agriculture was a terrible move (he did this despite 100,000 letters of protest - yet another instance of Obama ignoring the people. Just as he ignored them in formulating ObamaCare).
I invite everyone to look up the personnel of the USDA. It's laden with ex-Monsanto lawyers and lobbyists. Also, to my count the US Supreme court currently seats an ex-Monsanto lawyer in Clarence Thomas and Obama appointee Elena Kagan who sided with Monsanto in a 9th Circuit Court decision to ban Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa. This is how Monsanto rolls. Deep pockets an ex-personnel in high places. Yet another reason why my conscious won't let me vote Democrat or Republican because they allow and encourage this garbage.