Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: passifloracaerulea] #16062213 - 04/08/12 08:49 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
Quote: passifloracaerulea said: here it's put very simply and while there may be a few proven benefits, this is clearly an assault on our liberties.
Genetically Modified Food - GM Foods List and Information Information provided by Mavis Butcher - Published: 2009-09-22
Information on Genetically Modified (GM) foods including a list of GM foods with DNA changes and the pros and cons of GM food today.
GM Foods
Genetic modification of food is not new.
For centuries, food crops and animals have been altered through selective breeding. While genes can be transferred during selective breeding, the scope for exchanging genetic material is much wider using genetic engineering. In theory, genetic engineering allows genetic material to be transferred between any organism, including between plants and animals. For example, the gene from a fish that lives in very cold seas has been inserted into a strawberry, allowing the fruit to be frost-tolerant.
By far the most common genetically modified (GM) organisms are crop plants. But the technology has now been applied to almost all forms of life, from pets that glow under UV light to bacteria which form HIV blocking "living condoms" and from pigs bearing spinach genes to goats that produce spider silk.
When did genetically modified foods originate?
Between 1997 and 1999, gene-modified (GM) ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental GM organisms have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad.
The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato (called Flavr Savr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene. The tomatoes were released into the market in 1994 without any special labeling.
In February 1996, J. Sainsbury and Safeway Stores in the United Kingdom introduced Europe's first genetically-modified food product. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. Following GM crops included insect resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans both of which were commercially available in 1996.
In 2003, countries that grew 99 % of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63 %), Argentina (21 %), Canada (6 %), Brazil (4 %), China (4 %), and South Africa (1 %) and today the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75 % of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.
Between 1995 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in Brazil.
In the US, by 2006 89 % of the planted area of soybeans, 83 % of cotton, and 61 % maize were genetically modified varieties.
Today many Gmod crops are grown in North America. India has also come aboard the bandwagon in 2002 with a rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties.
"Genetic engineering is inherently dangerous, because it greatly expands the scope for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, precisely the processes that create new viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics, and trigger cancer in cells." - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Genetically Modified Food Debates
Genetically modified foods, or GM foods, are often mentioned in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods since they were first created, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars have brought the issues of genetic engineering plants and animals to the attention of the public.
The benefits of genetically modified food crops include being able to breed disease resistant crops and herbicide tolerant strains. Genetically modified crops can also be made to include vitamins that may be lacking in some staple varieties.
According to the UK Greenpeace website - The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster. The science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another was supposed to be a giant leap forward, but instead they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production. And - The simple truth is, we don't need GM technology in order to possess future food security. Using sustainable and organic farming methods will allow us to repair the damage done by industrial farming, reducing the excessive use of fertiliser, herbicides and other man-made chemicals, and making GM crops redundant.
Many scientists argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk.
Activists are opposed to genetic engineering as with current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, plus the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments represents multiple unacceptable risks to both farmed and wild ecosystems.
In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death.
Many opponents of current genetic engineering realize that the increasing use of GM in crops has caused a power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which are gaining more control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well.
In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement – L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japan’s third largest chemical company. (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).
On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops.
In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km² planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from the Monsanto company. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for piracy. In the past few years more and more crops have started to cross-pollinate which leaves a problem that is yet to be solved.
In 2005 Environmentalists say Australia faced "the most serious genetic contamination event" in its history, after the West Australian government confirmed low levels of genetically modified canola had been found in non-GM canola. Also in 2005 a decade-long project to develop genetically modified peas with built-in pest-resistance has been abandoned after tests showed they caused allergic lung damage in mice.
"They're now turning those seeds into intellectual property, so they have a virtual lock on the seeds upon which we all depend for our food and survival." - Jeremy Rifkin
Genetically Modified Food Labels
In America, there’s no need for labeling and this has resulted in a largely uninformed populace that is ingesting “gene-altered” food.
In other parts of the world such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia consumers demand labelling so they can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins. Since its implementation in April 2004, EU Regulation 1829/2003 (labeling of genetically modified food and feed) has caused both food and feed manufacturers in Europe as well as their overseas suppliers a great deal of concern.
All genetically modified foods intended for sale in Australia and New Zealand must undergo a safety evaluation by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), an independent government agency. FSANZ will not approve a GM food unless it is safe to eat. It is mandatory for GM foods to be identified on food labels in Australia and New Zealand. These requirements became law in December 2001 and were put in place by food ministers to assist consumers to purchase or avoid GM foods, depending on their own views and beliefs.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says the industry faces huge losses if mandatory labelling is implemented. The fear is that consumers will see the labels as a warning and avoid these foods, and that food processors will reformulate their products to avoid GM foods rather than place labels. It also says labels will increase the price of foods produced and processed in Canada.
"The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." Richard Lacey: Professor of Food Safety, Leeds University.
List of genetically modified foods:
It’s virtually impossible to provide a complete list of genetically modified food (GM food) in the United States because there aren’t any laws for genetically modified crops!
Some estimates say as many as 30,000 different products on grocery store shelves are "modified." That's largely because many processed foods contain soy. Half of North America's soy crop is genetically engineered!
Rapeseed - Resistance to certain pesticides and improved rapeseed cultivars to be free of erucic acid and glucosinolates. Gluconsinolates, which were found in rapeseed meal leftover from pressing, are toxic and had prevented the use of the meal in animal feed. In Canada, where "double-zero" rapeseed was developed, the crop was renamed "canola" (Canadian oil) to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed.
Honey - Honey can be produced from GM crops. Some Canadian honey comes from bees collecting nectar from GM canola plants. This has shut down exports of Canadian honey to Europe.
Cotton - Resistant to certain pesticides - considered a food because the oil can be consumed. The introduction of genetically engineered cotton plants has had an unexpectedly effect on Chinese agriculture. The so-called Bt cotton plants that produce a chemical that kills the cotton bollworm have not only reduced the incidence of the pest in cotton fields, but also in neighboring fields of corn, soybeans, and other crops.
Rice - Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A. Rice containing human genes is to be grown in the US. Rather than end up on dinner plates, the rice will make human proteins useful for treating infant diarrhoea in the developing world.
Soybean - Genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides - Soy foods including, soy beverages, tofu, soy oil, soy flour, lecithin. Other products may include breads, pastries, snack foods, baked products, fried products, edible oil products and special purpose foods.
Sugar cane - Made resistant to certain pesticides. A large percentage of sweeteners used in processed food actually comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets. Genetically modified sugar cane is regarded so badly by consumers at the present time that it could not be marketed successfully.
Tomatoes - Made for a longer shelf life and to prevent a substance that causes tomatoes to rot and degrade.
Corn - Resistant to certain pesticides - Corn oil, flour, sugar or syrup. May include snack foods, baked goods, fried foods, edible oil products, confectionery, special purpose foods, and soft drinks.
Sweet corn - genetically modified to produces its own insecticide. Officials from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have said that thousands of tonnes of genetically engineered sweetcorn have made their way into the human food supply chain, even though the produce has been approved only for use in animal feed. Recently Monsanto, a biotechnology food producer, said that about half of the USA's sweetcorn acreage has been planted with genetically modified seed this year.
Canola - Canola oil. May include edible oil products, fried foods, and baked products, snack foods.
Potatoes - (Atlantic, Russett Burbank, Russet Norkatah, and Shepody) - May include snack foods, processed potato products and other processed foods containing potatoes.
Flax - More and more food products contain flax oil and seed because of their excellent nutritional properties. No genetically modified flax is currently grown. An herbicide-resistant GM flax was introduced in 2001, but was soon taken off the market because European importers refused to buy it.
Papaya - The first virus resistant papayas were commercially grown in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas now cover about one thousand hectares, or three quarters of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto, donated technology to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, for developing a papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.
Squash - (yellow crookneck) - Some zucchini and yellow crookneck squash are also GM but they are not popular with farmers.
Red-hearted chicory - (radicchio) - Chicory (Cichorium intybus var. foliosum) is popular in some regions as a salad green, especially in France and Belgium. Scientists developed a genetically modified line of chicory containing a gene that makes it male sterile, simply facilitating the production of hybrid cultivars. Today there is no genetically modified chicory on the market.
Cotton seed oil - Cottonseed oil and linters. Products may include blended vegetable oils, fried foods, baked foods, snack foods, edible oil products, and smallgoods casings.
Tobacco -The company Vector has a GMO tobacco being sold under the brand of Quest® cigarettes in the U.S. It is engineered to produce low or no nicotine.
Meat - Meat and dairy products usually come from animals that have eaten GM feed.
Peas - Genetically modified (GM) peas created immune responses in mice, suggesting that they may also create serious allergic reactions in people. The peas had been inserted with a gene from kidney beans, which creates a protein that acts as a pesticide.
Vegetable Oil - Most generic vegetable oils and margarines used in restaurants and in processed foods in North America are made from soy, corn, canola, or cottonseed. Unless these oils specifically say "Non-GMO" or "Organic," it is probably genetically modified.
Sugarbeets - May include any processed foods containing sugar.
Dairy Products - About 22 percent of cows in the U.S. are injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH).
Vitamins - Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is often made from corn, vitamin E is usually made from soy. Vitamins A, B2, B6, and B12 may be derived from GMOs as well as vitamin D and vitamin K may have "carriers" derived from GM corn sources, such as starch, glucose, and maltodextrin.
How can the public make informed decisions about genetically modified (GM) foods when there is so little information about its safety?
According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization.
Future planned applications of GMOs are diverse and may include drugs in foods, for example, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.
"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds." - Professor Wangari Mathai.
-------------------- Sit down before fact like a little child, and be pre- pared to give up every preconceivednotion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: passifloracaerulea] #16062280 - 04/08/12 09:06 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
Quote: treesniper119 said: GM food is not bad for you?
Incorrect
The increase of gluten in corn and wheat (2 most common Genetically modified food on the planet) is being blamed for a number of illnesses that in earlier generations, our grandparents and great grandparents did not suffer nearly as much.
GMOs cause Gluten Disorders, Auto-immune and Neurological Diseases Posted on March 21, 2011 by nicholascorrin Monsanto is generating new disease complexes
Teams of medical researchers in Parkville, Australia and in Albany, Ohio have identified specific proteins present in Monsanto GMO grains. These engineered proteins trigger gluten sensitivity and can instigate celiac disease.Internationally, we have been experiencing epidemic levels of gluten intolerance:over 40% – virtually half the US population – now cannot metabolize gluten. Celiac disease affects one in 133 Americans. If untreated, celiac is potentially fatal. According to CD support groups and information agencies, about 3 million Americans currently have CD, 97% of whom remain undiagnosed; moreover, 30% of the population has the genetic makeup predisposing towards CD. There is no drug which can treat CD. Meanwhile, we are seeing large numbers of infants already suffering from GERD. This breakdown of normal human digestion is directly attributable to the tampering with nature instigated Monsanto: this is clear from the studies mentioned below.
The research team at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Australia identified three proteins present in grains patented by Monsanto as disruptive to metabolic pathways, and as interfering with nearly all systems of the human body, generating inflammation and immune dysfunction.What the genetically engineered proteins do is disrupt inter-cellular communication: they prevent cells communicating with each other intelligently, as nature intended. The scrambling of this natural communication causes inflammation and disease.
Toxic Proteins in GMO grains
The offending proteins are listed as: w-5 gliadin (from wheat); g-3 hordein (from barley); and g secalins (from rye). Each of these triggers the production of anti-gliadin antibodies. This means that the body starts an immune response against these proteins. Once the antibody cascade has been triggered, inflammation sets in, normal functioning goes out the window, the immune system becomes imbalanced, and free radical cascades are fired off at the body’s own tissues. In the case of celiac disease, this last part is very serious as it can cause irreversible damage to the small intestine.
These engineered grains, courtesy of Monsanto, have been added to a vast array of everyday processed foods including crackers, seasonings (including soy sauce and tamari), chips, cereals and breads.
Disrupted Frequencies
The research team at the Sound Health Research Center in Albany, using BioAcoustic Biology was able to translate the proteins from the Anderson study into bio-frequency markers. That is, they were able to identify specific frequencies emitted by these proteins. It is these frequencies that disrupt normal cellular communications.
In a way, this is analogous to what is going on at an environmental level with the proliferation of cell phone towers etc. The profusion of “dissonant” frequencies in the biosphere is part of a general electro-magnetic field pollution that is toxic to plants and animals, not just humans.
Glutamine Disturbance
For the technically minded, the research has discovered that the engineered genes distort the way the body processes key amino acids. The worst case involves L-Glutamine, which, amongst other things, maintains the integrity of the intestinal wall. The genes therefore also interfere with the production and metabolism of glutamate, the most abundant excitatory neurotransmitter in our nervous systems, and which is also toxic at elevated levels. The Monsanto genes disturb the actions of a key enzyme responsible for utilizing L-glutamine. This enzyme is glutamate-decarboxylase (GAD). Glutamate needs to be converted by GAD into GABA.
GABA, it should be remembered, is an essential neurotransmitter that we require for remaining calm and balanced. Without adequate levels of GABA, we will likely suffer sleep deprivation and gnawing levels of anxiety. GABA is a natural tranquilizer and it helps to regulate minute sensors on cells that coordinate the delicate orchestration of signals running through us, including electrical and magnetic signals. These teeny tiny receptors are known as nanosensors as they are so minute. And GMOs disturb them and in so doing can induce disease pathways as varied as MS, Parkinson’s, Arthritis, Crohn’s, Celiac, Ulcerative Colitis, Seasonal allergies, Lupus, Schizophrenia, Bipolar and Autism. In truth, just abut any serious condition can begin with disturbance of the nanosensors. It is disturbance of nanosensor functioning which throws off the body’s intelligence in a big way. And this is exactly what occurs with chemical and heavy metal toxins too, as has been demonstrated with mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium.
The two genes present in mammals that encode for GAD are Gad 1 and Gad 2. Gad 1 is expressed in the brain, whilst Gad 2 is expressed in the pancreas. So what we are really seeing is that the Monsanto grains mess with our brains (central nervous systems) and our digestive organs by disturbing GAD, an absolutely vital enzyme. This disturbance is also highly carcinogenic as GAD interacts with the hormone calcitonin to protect against cancers. Without proper interaction with GAD, the calcitonin cannot do its protective work. So eating Monsanto grains also predispose us to cancer, thank you very much Texas.
So disturbances to GAD will lead to elevated levels of glutamate and decreased levels of GABA. In terms of frequencies, according to James Osman in his book, Energy Medicine, glutamate and aspartame emit very similar frequency signals. In other words, glutamate and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame tell cells to bring in specific biochemicals to receptor sites. If you like, these can be seen as rogue commands which destabilize health, just as we have seen that certain sounds or types of music can damage or destroy plant life.
Incidentally, aspartame is a part of MSG, which is also used as a stabilizer in certain vaccines.
How can we protect ourselves against these menaces to our health? As always, in health matters, there are two answers: public and private. Publicly, we must apply constant pressure to our politicians and legislators to rein in sociopathic enterprises such as Monsanto. Privately, to prevent GMO driven disease, we must turn to advanced alternative medicine practitioners who understand how to detoxify and restore our systems and protect against severe genetic, electromagnetic and bio-chemical disruption.
Anyone interested in reading further on the subject of engineered gluten peptides can find original articles in the August 14th 2010 edition of Science News, and the July 21st, 201 edition of Science Translational Medicine.
Quote: passifloracaerulea said: here's a rat study eating 3 types of gmo corn, where there was considerably more stress on their kidneys and livers. http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others [4]. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types.In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
-------------------- Sit down before fact like a little child, and be pre- pared to give up every preconceivednotion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: treesniper119] #16062295 - 04/08/12 09:09 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
(From the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology)
Fate of food DNA
Evaluation of the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops seems to be hampered by the unwillingness of regulators recognize and to evaluate the impact of genetic effects that are outside simplistic models of genes and their behavior. It has been presumed that the organism destroys food genes during digestion and excretion. However, studies on DNA immunization showed that DNA could be delivered to the immune system through oral uptake. A few daring German researchers have also explored the fate of orally ingested genetic material. The papers below show that ingested DNA is not only circulated through the animal body but may be associated with nucleus and chromosomes.
The first paper "The fate of forage DNA in farm animals" by Einspanier et al (2001), studies ingestion of maize DNA and of GM maize DNA, while the second is an earlier study "On the fate of foreign DNA in mice" by Shubbert et al (1998) that showed that ingested DNA from a bacterial virus or from a plasmid transgene is incorporated in chromosomes and is passed from mother to fetus. The authors of the study ask "is maternally ingested foreign DNA a potential mutagen for developing fetus?" If food DNA sequences are randomly incorporated into coding sequences including introns, exons or promoters they will certainly act as mutagens.
These two studies show that food DNA is circulated to the tissues of animals and may even be transmitted from the mother to the fetal tissues. Studies of the type described above should be repeated and extended. Mainly, however, the studies should stand out as a clear warning to regulators that they cannot ignore a major paradigm shift in the way that DNA and genes evaluated.
In one of the two studiestransgenic DNA from a plasmid is clearly circulated to tissues while in the other transgenic DNA was not detected in tissues. However, the latter study involved a lower relative input of the transgene and should be repeated with higher resolution of the transgene and using high relative input of the transgene say by feeding concentrated Bt plasmid. Experiments of that type can be undertaken using human volunteers as well as farm and experimental animals.
The available evidence is sufficient to support a moratorium on the massive intake of GM crops by human populations until the genetic consequences are resolved in the laboratory. It is not sane to suggest that the huge populations fed unlabeled GM crops are a sufficient test of the safety of the genetic constructions. No method is available to readily quantify the intake and exposure of humans to unlabeled GM foods.
The impact of bacterial DNA on the immune system (the CpG effect)
Essentially all of the GM crops marketed or being field tested presently contain bacterial sequences as a part of the plasmids used for delivering genes and many of the primary crop protection genes are of bacterial origin. Such genes include Bt and most herbicide tolerance genes.
DNA vaccines have generated a huge literature and clinical applications showing the activity and cellular incorporation of DNA administered by oral, inhalation, injection, vaginal or dermal application (Molling 1997,Donnoley et al 1997 and Gurunathan et al 2000). Ingestion of bacteria does not appear to be an effective means of delivering DNA because the bacterial cell walls effectively contain the nucleic acid (for example, in yogurt the milk products are digested but the bacteria of the culture are passed intact). Lysis genes have been found necessary and effective in triggering release of DNA for mucosal vaccine delivery (Jani and Mekalanos 200). In contrast , the crops eaten by animals release oligonucleotides and DNA peptide complexes during digestion and such molecules circulate to a significant degree.
The bacterial genes used in constructing GM crops have a property that impacts on the immune system over and above the ability to produce antibodies. Eukaryote DNA has relatively low frequencies of the dinuleotide motif CpG and that motif is methylated and plays a role in gene regulation while bacteria and their viruses have a high frequency of the CpG motif that is usually unmethylated. Apparently the CpG motif in DNA molecules and oligonucleotides provides a signal that the immune system recognizes and initiates a primary sequence of reactions leading to activation of the immune system leading to inflammation (Manders and Thomas 2000 and Gurunathan et al 2000). Gung et al (1999) found that bacterial DNA CpG caused septic arthritis. Hemmi et al (2000) found that there is a receptor protein that recognizes bacterial DNA. Oligonucleotides rich in the CpG motif are used to enhance immunization. Inflammation is an essential part of the immune response but it adversely affects existing conditions such as autoimmune disease. Furthermore, it has been found that CpG oligonucleotides rescue B cell lymphoma cells from anti-IgM mediated growth inhibition (Han et al 1999). The oligonucleotide acts as a promoter of lymphoma.
Finally, Gorecki and Simons (1999) pointed out a danger to the fetus in DNA vaccination of the mother. That danger was the creation of tolerance in the fetus leading to individuals more susceptible to infection and/or they may become carriers. The introduction of genes with bacterial CpG motif to the fetus is likely to have untoward consequences.
In conclusion, the bacterial genes used in GM crops have been found to have significant impacts on the individuals ingesting GM crops. The impacts include inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma promotion.The consequence of GM food genes being incorporated into the chromosomes of somatic cells of those consuming GM food and their unborn has been ignored by those charged with evaluating the hazards of GM crops.
References
Deng G, Nilsson A, Verdrengh M, Collins L, Tarkowski A "intra-articularly located bacteria containing CpG motifs induces arthritis" 1999 Nature Medicine 5,702-6
Donnelly J,Ulmer U,Shiver J and Lui M. "DNA Vaccines"1997 Annu Rev Immunol 15,617-48
Einspanier R, Klotz A, Kraft J et al (2001). European Food Research and Technology Abstract Volume 212 Issue 2 (2001) pp 129-134 The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals: a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material
Gorecki D and Simons J "The dangers of DNA vaccination" 1999 Nature Medicine 5,126
Guunathan S, Klinman D and Seder R. "DNA Vaccines" 2000 Annu Rev. Immunol 18,927-74
Hemmi H,Takeuchi O, Kawai T, Kaisho T, Sato S, Sanjo H, Matsumoto M, Hoshino K, Wagner H, Takeda K, Akira, S "A Toll-like receptor recognizes bacterial DNA"2000 Nature 408, 740 - 745
Hsu S, Chung S, Robertson D, Ralph L, Chelvarajan R, Bondada S (1999) "CpG oligodeoxynucleotides rescue BKS-2 immature B cell lymphoma from anti-Ig-M-mediated growth inhibition by up-regulating of egr-1" International Immunology 6,871-9
Jain V and Mekalanos J "Use of lambda phage S and R gene products in an inducible lysis system from Vibrio cholerae and Salmonella enterica servovar Typhimurium-Based vaccine delivery systems" (2000) Infection and Immunity 68,986-9
Manders P and Thomas R "Immunology of DNA vaccines: CpG motifs and antigen presentation" Inflamm Res 49,199-205
Molling K "Naked DNA for vaccine or therapy" (1997) JMolMed 75,242-6
Schubbert R, Hohlweg U, Renz D and Doerfler W (1998). "On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus" (1998) Mol Gen Genet 259: 569-576
Schubbert R,Renz D, Schmitz B and Doerfler W, "Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leucocytes, spleen,and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA" (1997) Proc. Natnl Acad Sci USA 94,961-6
So...
Monsanto does not actually care about science, though, and has actually made it a point to just arbitrarily deny the need for actual GMO testing in humans to prove its claims. In concluding its unsubstantiated diatribe about why human testing of GMOs is unnecessary, the agri-giant says there is simply "no need, or value" in testing the safety of GMOs -- in other words, if Monsanto says they are safe, then they are safe!
The fact that anyone considers this blind, self-serving declaration to be scientifically sound is frightening in and of itself, let alone the fact that the US government openly approves of such nonsense and has used it to form food policy. To put it more simply, GMOs have never been properly safety tested in humans because Monsanto does not feel it is necessary, and most of those in control of food policy are perfectly content with this.
More studies...
This abstract in US National Academy of Sciences Journal cited below demonstrates that biotech's efforts to use 'Agrobacterium' to insert genes into GE crop plants might have negative health effects on those ingesting the engineered plants. Note: 'tumefaciens' means tumor inducing.
Microbiology Genetic Transformation Of Hela Cells By Agrobacterium
Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.041327598
Talya Kunik*, [dagger ] , [Dagger ] , Tzvi Tzfira*, Yoram Kapulnik [dagger ] , Yedidya Gafni [dagger ] , Colin Dingwall [Dagger ] ,b, and Vitaly Citovsky*,x * Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5215; [dagger ] Institute of Field and Garden Crops, Agricultural Research Organization, P.O. Box 6, Bet-Dagan 50250, Israel; and [Dagger ] Department of Pharmacology, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8651
Edited by Eugene W. Nester, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved December 8, 2000 (received for review July 13, 2000)
Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a soil phytopathogen that elicits neoplastic growths [ie. cancer] on the host plant species. In nature, however, Agrobacterium also may encounter organisms belonging to other kingdoms such as insects and animals that feed on the infected plants. Can Agrobacterium, then, also infect animal cells? Here, we report that Agrobacterium attaches to and genetically transforms several types of human cells. In stably transformed HeLa cells, the integration event occurred at the right border of the tumor-inducing plasmid's transferred-DNA (T-DNA), suggesting bona fide T-DNA transfer and lending support to the notion that Agrobacterium transforms human cells by a mechanism similar to that which it uses for transformation of plants cells. Collectively, our results suggest that Agrobacterium can transport its T-DNA to human cells and integrate it into their genome.
UK's Food Standards Agency dismissed its new research findings that GM DNA in food has transferred to bacteria in the human gut. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reveals how the experiment was designed to bias against positive findings, so the actual transfer of GM DNA could be much more extensive. There should now be a comprehensive ban on all GM crops, she says.
That GM DNA should transfer to bacteria in the human gut is not at all unexpected. We already know that DNA persists in the gut, and that bacteria can readily take up foreign DNA. Why did our regulators wait so long to do the experiment? And an experiment that's designed against making positive findings?
The research in question is the final part of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) project on evaluating the risks of GMOs in human foods, commissioned by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).
A single meal containing GM soya was fed to human subjects. It consisted of commercial soya meal - 150g El Corte Ingles, batch number and GM content unspecified - mixed in the burgers and soya protein supplement – 100g Holland and Barrett, batch number and GM content again unspecified -mixed in 'milk' shakes. No data were presented on how much DNA was present in the commercial samples, and whether the DNA was broken down and to what degree. Needless to say, the GM DNA inserts were not characterised at all.
The method of detecting GM DNA is highly flawed. It depends on amplifying a small part – 180bp - of the entire GM DNA insert that was at least ten or twenty times as long. So, any other fragment of the insert would not be detected, nor would a fragment that did not overlap the whole 180bp amplified, or that had been rearranged. The chance of getting a positive result is 5% at best, and likely to be much, much less. Thus, a negative finding with this detection method most probably does not indicate the absence of GM DNA.
More revealing still, the researchers checked for GM DNA only in the gut contents, but failed to check if the DNA has passed through the gut into the blood stream and blood cells. This omission is inexcusable, as a series of experiments in mice dating back to 1997 had already documented that GM DNA can pass through the gut wall into the bloodstream, to be taken up by cells in the blood, liver and spleen. When fed to pregnant mice, the GM DNA also passed through the placenta to be taken up by the cells of the foetus and the newborn.
In the first trial, the GM meal was fed to seven subjects that had part of their lower bowel removed from a previous operation and wearing a colostomy bag. The digested food from the colostomy bag was analysed, and GM DNA was detected in all seven subjects. As much as 3.7% of the GM DNA was recovered in one subject. Bearing in mind the limitation of the method used for detecting GM DNA, all the values are probably gross underestimates.
In the second trial, the meal was fed to 12 human volunteers with intact bowels. No GM DNA was detected in the faeces, which the researchers claimed, indicated that the nucleic acid did not survive passage through the complete intestine. But this claim is most likely to be false, due to the limitation of the GM DNA detection method.
Microbes in the digested food that had passed through the small intestine were cultured through 6 passages in broth containing glyphosate. Bacteria grew to a density of 108/ml in each sub-culturing. In each sub-culture derived from samples taken from 3 subjects at 180, 240 and 300 min after eating, the transgene was found. This is yet another gross underestimate. The method depends on the bacteria having taken up an intact gene coding for glyphosate tolerance, and would not have detected bacteria that have taken up fragments of that gene, or other parts of the GM DNA containing other genes or gene fragments.
Although GM DNA was not detected in samples taken from these 3 subjects prior to GM soya consumption, when the microbes in this material were cultured in broth containing glyphosate, the transgene was detected in a sample collected before the GM meal, though at very low concentrations. This suggests that the subject may already have GM DNA in the gut prior to the experiment, possibly from consuming GM soya. The bacteria harbouring the transgene could not be isolated, so the researchers concluded that, "although present, the bacterium represented a very small proportion of the indigenous intestinal microflora". But as bacteria are capable of multiplying, even rare gene transfer events cannot be ignored.
The researchers were disingenuous when they expressed surprise at the relatively large proportion of GM soya DNA that has survived passage through the small bowel. But in earlier research already published, the same group had found that DNA in food or mixed up with food was much slower to degrade than naked DNA.
Despite the severe limitations placed on detecting GM DNA, and an experimental design both biased towards negative results, irrefutable positive evidence was nevertheless obtained. That means the transfer of GM DNA in the human gut could be much more extensive than the data indicate. This makes it all the more astonishing for the FSA to have reportedly claimed that "the findings had been assessed by several Government experts who had ruled that humans were not at risk". Those experts should now be named and made to defend their ruling.
In a statement on its website, the FSA said that the study had concluded it is "extremely unlikely" that GM genes can end up in the gut of people who eat them. This statement is highly misleading and very likely to be false.
Our government's scientific advisers have been guilty of persistent denial in the face of mounting evidence that horizontal gene transfer can happen and has happened. They are guilty of bad scientific research that misleads the public, of downplaying positive evidence, and of taking the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
I first pointed out the dangers of horizontal gene transfer to MAFF in a series of correspondence in 1996. Their scientific advisers said there was no evidence it could happen. When it became clear that horizontal transfer of GM DNA from GM plants to bacteria can readily happen in the laboratory, the scientific advisors said "just because it happens in the laboratory does not mean it will happen in the field". When positive findings turned up in the only field monitoring experiment in the world that has ever been performed, the scientific advisors dismissed that too, and explained it away by a 'cautious' interpretation of the evidence.
This latest finding is the last piece of damning evidence that horizontal transfer of GM DNA can indeed happen, has already been happening, and cannot be controlled if GM crops continue to be released to the environment. GM DNA, as opposed to natural DNA, is in many respects optimised for horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer of GM DNA can create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, spread drug and antibiotic resistance among pathogens, and trigger cancer by jumping into genomes of mammalian cells. New 'pharm' crops are being developed that poison our water and soil, affecting all organisms in our food web. The ecological impacts are unthinkable. What more do we need for an immediate comprehensive ban on GM crops?
I posted all these again to remove the spam and add the intelligence back to the conversation, Please pay attention to the highlighted and underlined areas, their to help you so you don't have to hurt yourself straining to read.
Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 1,791 Last seen: 1 month, 1 day
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: treesniper119] #16065199 - 04/09/12 02:53 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
The only part in that wall of text that actually talks about any actual reported bad effects in humans is this part:
Quote: Internationally, we have been experiencing epidemic levels of gluten intolerance: over 40% – virtually half the US population – now cannot metabolize gluten. Celiac disease affects one in 133 Americans. If untreated, celiac is potentially fatal. According to CD support groups and information agencies, about 3 million Americans currently have CD, 97% of whom remain undiagnosed; moreover, 30% of the population has the genetic makeup predisposing towards CD. There is no drug which can treat CD. Meanwhile, we are seeing large numbers of infants already suffering from GERD. This breakdown of normal human digestion is directly attributable to the tampering with nature instigated Monsanto: this is clear from the studies mentioned below.
To which I refer you back to this rebuttal I posted 5 pages ago which you never responded to:
Quote:
Quote: treesniper119 said: Internationally, we have been experiencing epidemic levels of gluten intolerance: over 40% – virtually half the US population – now cannot metabolize gluten.
This claim has no source; wikipedia (which lists its sources) lists the rate of occurence for gluten intolerance at 6% of the US population. I am confused as to why there could be such a difference in reported rates of occurence. Not that 40% is half the population anyway. Nor does gluten intolerance mean that you cannot metabolize gluten.
Quote: Celiac disease affects one in 133 Americans. If untreated, celiac is potentially fatal. According to CD support groups and information agencies, about 3 million Americans currently have CD, 97% of whom remain undiagnosed;
Wait, so this deadly and crippling (and rare) disease is so benign that 97% of people who have it get by just fine? Sounds like a damning indictment of GM food.
Do you have any arguments that haven't been shot down? How many times do we have to repeat ourselves?
Quote: sonamdrukpa said: Look, I'll make it real simple: Your argument is incomplete.
You don't actually have any reported rates of disease in human populations caused by GM food, do you?
Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 1,791 Last seen: 1 month, 1 day
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: treesniper119] #16065214 - 04/09/12 02:58 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
Quote: treesniper119 said: I posted all these again to remove the spam and add the intelligence back to the conversation, Please pay attention to the highlighted and underlined areas, their they are to help you so you don't have to hurt yourself straining to read.
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: sonamdrukpa] #16067560 - 04/09/12 11:44 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
"There is evidence of health risks for animals like rats, which have been fed GM plants under test conditions. Some of the health impacts identified in animal feeding studies include increased organ size, reduced fertility and increased allergic responses. The CSIRO’s own animal feeding study documented that GM caused an allergic response in mice and prevented the animals from gaining weight."
"It is never safe to test GM products on humans, because GM crops are subject to unexpected and unpredictable results. That means that no amount of preliminary testing can guarantee the ongoing safety of GM products"
Quote: HerbBaker said: "It is never safe to test GM products on humans, because GM crops are subject to unexpected and unpredictable results. That means that no amount of preliminary testing can guarantee the ongoing safety of GM products"
But you could say that about any wild mushroom or plant.
All the food we eat has all sorts of strange chemicals in it. Even the good food.
Its not like they are modifying the food to add toxins or harmful proteins. Or are they?
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: Alan Rockefeller] #16068938 - 04/10/12 08:43 AM (1 year, 1 month ago)
Given the fact that GM food has been consumed in ridiculous amounts for so long, I don't think it's at all "pulling at straws" to expect the anti-GM crowd to have actual evidence of disease in people or other effects caused by GM food at this point. If GM food is really bad for us, shouldn't it be doing bad things to people?
In your rat study, the authors say they suspect the deleterious effects were due to the pesticides sprayed on the crops than to anything about the corn itself.
Also, while we're at it, some other problems with these articles you guys keep bringing up:
From the article on GM DNA transfer:
Quote: The available evidence is sufficient to support a moratorium on the massive intake of GM crops by human populations until the genetic consequences are resolved in the laboratory.
This is pure opinion - it is not a scientific fact and can't be simply underlined and assumed as fact. To me, poor evidence that a food that might be more likely to create pathogens that might increase some people's odds of cancer is absolutely not sufficient evidence to support a moratorium on anything.
Quote: It is not sane to suggest that the huge populations fed unlabeled GM crops are a sufficient test of the safety of the genetic constructions.No method is available to readily quantify the intake and exposure of humans to unlabeled GM foods.
In one sense, it is strictly true that the introduction of GM crops into our food system does not constitute a scientifically valid test. On the other hand, scientific trials have been done with people eating GM food, with no ill result - the fact that there hasn't been a health crisis in these past decades is just confirmation of the fact that GM food is fine to eat. Put another way, if there aren't problems caused by GM food in the real world, then GM food doesn't cause problems. To go out on the branch this author is going onto is like saying that we can't evaluate the safety of our nation's highway system because we haven't studied people doing their morning commute for a year on a track in a lab.
From the article on gluten peptides:
Quote: The research team at the Sound Health Research Center in Albany, using BioAcoustic Biology was able to translate the proteins from the Anderson study into bio-frequency markers. That is, they were able to identify specific frequencies emitted by these proteins. It is these frequencies that disrupt normal cellular communications.
In a way, this is analogous to what is going on at an environmental level with the proliferation of cell phone towers etc. The profusion of “dissonant” frequencies in the biosphere is part of a general electro-magnetic field pollution that is toxic to plants and animals, not just humans.
Are you kidding me? This is utter nonsense. How can you believe anything from this article after that?
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: sonamdrukpa] #16075902 - 04/11/12 04:49 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
How would you measure a quantifiable health risk in the general population due to GMO's?
What type of proof are you looking for?
The fact that most of our food crop is using GMO's, don't you think it might be a little be late in the game to simply wait for this type of evidence?
Wouldn't you agree that a serious risk assessment needs to take place before we continue to unleash these type of modifications on the general public?
The chaos theory tells use there is no way to be sure what types of serious health issues may result from such practices, because it cant be predicted.
The scary part is, once these health issues become completely clear, it will be likely irreversible. It's creating a potentially cascading set of events that will have far reaching and extreme consequences.
It's not a good idea to fuck with nature in this way.
Who are you gonna believe? Money grubbing executives in suits in ties, or people that just want the right to choose what they put in their bodies and who are pushing for more research?
Quote: HerbBaker said: How would you measure a quantifiable health risk in the general population due to GMO's?
The rates of certain health conditions would go up as certain GMO foods are consumed.
Quote: What type of proof are you looking for?
Numbers probably, not just fear based hand waving.
Since GMO foods are not labeled, the numbers will remain elusive.
Quote: The fact that most of our food crop is using GMO's, don't you think it might be a little be late in the game to simply wait for this type of evidence?
Not all GMO's are equal, there is an infinite number of things that can be done. Some are good and others bad.
Quote: Wouldn't you agree that a serious risk assessment needs to take place before we continue to unleash these type of modifications on the general public?
No, I think we should let the free market take care of the problem if it exists. GMO foods should be labeled, and if they cause problems for people then people won't buy them.
Quote: The chaos theory tells use there is no way to be sure what types of serious health issues may result from such practices, because it cant be predicted.
Both GMO and non-gmo foods have random unpredictable health risks.
Quote: The scary part is, once these health issues become completely clear, it will be likely irreversible. It's creating a potentially cascading set of events that will have far reaching and extreme consequences.
That sounds a bit extreme. I think most gmo food is fine.
Quote: It's not a good idea to fuck with nature in this way.
That depends on what you are changing. Could be good or bad or both.
Quote: Who are you gonna believe? Money grubbing executives in suits in ties, or people that just want the right to choose what they put in their bodies and who are pushing for more research?
If it is hippies vs. scientists, I would go with the scientists opinion.
Quote: The choice is yours, choose wisely.
Since GMO food is nto labeled, the choice isn't really mine. Someone has chosen for me and I have no say in the matter.
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: Alan Rockefeller] #16078395 - 04/12/12 02:01 AM (1 year, 1 month ago)
Registered: 03/10/07 Posts: 31,341 Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: HerbBaker] 1 #16078665 - 04/12/12 04:42 AM (1 year, 1 month ago)
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: Alan Rockefeller] #16079279 - 04/12/12 11:11 AM (1 year, 1 month ago)
.Monsanto Now Owns Blackwater (Xe) A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.
Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.
One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.
Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to
keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater.”
However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.” Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.
No wonder that a company engaged in the “science of death” as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.
Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.
It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.
Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.
Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.
Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: passifloracaerulea] #16081084 - 04/12/12 06:13 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
In its latest act as the world’s biggest corporate bully, Monsanto recently threatened to sue Vermont if the state dares to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law.
Backed by tremendous support from the state’s consumers and food producers, the Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (H. 722), would make Vermont the first of the United States to require labeling of genetically engineered food: a prospect biotech giant Monsanto finds terrifying. According to a 2010 poll by Reuters and National Public Radio, 93 percent of the American public wants genetically modified food to be labeled.
Although the bill is backed by representative Kate Webb, and was progressing nicely toward passage near the end of March, progress has been halted thanks to Monsanto’s threat of legal action. Alternet reports:
Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, .despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote
Instead, they’re calling for more public hearings on April 12, in the apparent hope that they can run out the clock until the legislative session ends in early May.
Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a “low appetite” for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to “go it alone” against Monsanto in court.
This cautious statement doesn’t jive with the state’s long history of standing up for accurate food labeling: just last year the state’s Agency of Agriculture threatened to sue McDonald’s over due to its Fruit & Maple Oatmeal not actually containing any real natural maple syrup. And in the 1990s, Vermont led the charge against Monsanto by labeling bovine growth hormone in milk. Monsanto eventually won that lawsuit on the grounds that it had first amendment rights to “remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH.”
Although it would be the first to pass a GMO labeling bill, Vermont isn’t the only state to propose such a measure. As of February, almost 20 states were considering such legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. If Vermont is brave enough to stand up to the corporate pressure, they may find other states quickly falling in step beside them, instead of hanging them out to dry.
"As a rule, scientists and medical researchers make poor players in the complex game of special interest politics, although they often think otherwise. They are not well endowed with the stamina, patience, and shrewdness that this game requires, and deep down they view it as an anti-intellectual activity beneath their scholarly dignity. . . This is more a reflection of the unsuitedness of their training and temperament to the political arena than it is a mark of weakness of conviction." --The Research Smokescreen: Moving from Academic Debate to Action on Smoking, New York State Journal of Medicine (1983).
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have not been properly tested and when they are tested, they are found to be chronically or acutely toxic.
Even worse they replicate on their own from inside each cell of a plant, and are doing so in unexpected and unintended ways. For example toxic genes that had been forced into soy, have been found to have transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside the intestines of the people who ate the soy.
The scariest thing is that the DNA continues to function even though it is no longer in the soy where it had been implanted, but now in the bacteria of the gut. From inside the human being it continues to express the Bt toxin. Is this mad or is this is evil? Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally occurring organism which produces a toxin. Corporate scientists are adding genes for Bt toxins to a wide array of high value crops to enable the plants to produce their own insecticide.
The genetically engineered Bt crops continuously express the Bt toxin throughout the growing season. It is known that GMOs harbouring Bt endotoxins cause unintended direct adverse effects, including but not limited to mammals including human beings, insects, aquatic life, soil microbes, and their food web dynamics, The primary justifications for the genetic engineering of Bt into crops is that this will reduce the use of insecticides.
This is a great goal because of the negative impacts of these dangerous chemicals on ecosystems and humans is huge. However, despite the promising claims - that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will decrease usage of chemical pesticides (insecticides and herbicides) - this has not been the case. Where these crops are grown the use of pesticides has, after a short period, increased.
It has become apparent, as was predicted by scientists, that long term exposure to Bt toxins promotes development of resistance in insect populations. The first eight species of insects recorded to have developed resistance to Bt toxins, either in the field or laboratory, include the diamond back moth, Indian meal moth, tobacco budworm, Colorado potato beetle, and two species of mosquitoes.
Increased chemical usage is causing pest and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them.. A survey in India, for example, conducted by Navdanya in Vidharbha showed that pesticide use has increased 13-fold there since Bt cotton was introduced. A study published in the Review of Agrarian Studies in 2011 showed that small farmers had a higher expenditure on chemical pesticides for Bt cotton than for other varieties.
Non-target pest populations in Bt cotton fields have exploded; it is expected that this will likely counteract any decrease in pesticide use. In China, where Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of mirid bugs, pests that previously posed only a minor problem, have increased 12-fold since 1997.
A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any financial benefits of planting Bt cotton had been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat non-target pests. The same study found that in 2008, GM crops required 26 percent more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted with conventional varieties; it is projected that this trend will continue.
Bt cotton is among the 'miracles' being pushed by corporations like Monsanto as a solution to the pesticide crisis. However, in Texas, Monsanto faced a lawsuit filed by 25 farmers over Bt cotton planted on 18,000 acres which suffered cotton bollworm damage and on which farmers had to use pesticides in spite of corporate propaganda that genetic engineering meant an end to the pesticide era.
Not only did the genetically engineered cotton not survive cotton bollworm attack, the strategy is creating bugs which are resistant.. The question is not whether super-pests will be created, but when they will become dominant. Correction: A reader in New Zealand, an applied ecologist Dr. L. R. B.
Mann wrote to explain that "Many GM-mutants have been created from canola by gene-tampering this past dozen years, but canola itself was bred earlier (selecting for low erucic acid with a view to making the oil fit for human consumption). Much of the North American canola for this past half-decade has been GM mutants; but canola itself is not inherently GM."
^^^^whats that say? USDA tested GMO soy and as it turns out, it disrupts your hormones and are now known carcinogens. Pretty much sums up everything we've been saying here. Its just a Lil extra proof to show you naysayers that advertisers and marketers are pulling their GMO products as more and more studies are proving how dangerous they truly are to the human body and to nature at large
...this is what has been repeatedly posted here sonmadrukpa.
Glutamine Disturbance
For the technically minded, the research has discovered that the engineered genes distort the way the body processes key amino acids. The worst case involves L-Glutamine, which, amongst other things, maintains the integrity of the intestinal wall. The genes therefore also interfere with the production and metabolism of glutamate, the most abundant excitatory neurotransmitter in our nervous systems, and which is also toxic at elevated levels. The Monsanto genes disturb the actions of a key enzyme responsible for utilizing L-glutamine. This enzyme is glutamate-decarboxylase (GAD). Glutamate needs to be converted by GAD into GABA.
GABA, it should be remembered, is an essential neurotransmitter that we require for remaining calm and balanced. Without adequate levels of GABA, we will likely suffer sleep deprivation and gnawing levels of anxiety. GABA is a natural tranquilizer and it helps to regulate minute sensors on cells that coordinate the delicate orchestration of signals running through us, including electrical and magnetic signals. These teeny tiny receptors are known as nanosensors as they are so minute. And GMOs disturb them and in so doing can induce disease pathways as varied as MS, Parkinson’s, Arthritis, Crohn’s, Celiac, Ulcerative Colitis, Seasonal allergies, Lupus, Schizophrenia, Bipolar and Autism. In truth, just abut any serious condition can begin with disturbance of the nanosensors. It is disturbance of nanosensor functioning which throws off the body’s intelligence in a big way. And this is exactly what occurs with chemical and heavy metal toxins too, as has been demonstrated with mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium.
The two genes present in mammals that encode for GAD are Gad 1 and Gad 2. Gad 1 is expressed in the brain, whilst Gad 2 is expressed in the pancreas. So what we are really seeing is that the Monsanto grains mess with our brains (central nervous systems) and our digestive organs by disturbing GAD, an absolutely vital enzyme. This disturbance is also highly carcinogenic as GAD interacts with the hormone calcitonin to protect against cancers. Without proper interaction with GAD, the calcitonin cannot do its protective work. So eating Monsanto grains also predispose us to cancer, thank you very much Texas.
So disturbances to GAD will lead to elevated levels of glutamate and decreased levels of GABA. In terms of frequencies, according to James Osman in his book, Energy Medicine, glutamate and aspartame emit very similar frequency signals. In other words, glutamate and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame tell cells to bring in specific biochemicals to receptor sites. If you like, these can be seen as rogue commands which destabilize health, just as we have seen that certain sounds or types of music can damage or destroy plant life.
Anyone interested in reading further on the subject of engineered gluten peptides can find original articles in the August 14th 2010 edition of Science News, and the July 21st, 201 edition of Science Translational Medicine.
This product and others had been sold in an organic health food store for a while... all the while being labeled as "organic"... now they're pulled along with others in the same category.
The times are changing fast, you better catch up with the rest of the class or count yourself out early.
Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 1,791 Last seen: 1 month, 1 day
Re: Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science [Re: treesniper119] 2 #16132813 - 04/24/12 01:03 PM (1 year, 1 month ago)
Do you have a link to this? Because going to google news and typing in "GM Soy Carcinogen" only returns one article talking about how a grocery store decided the pesticides used on soy have been found to be carcinogens. A similar search for "USDA GM soy" brings up zero articles on the topic except for the one from the other search.
Quote: These two issues came to a head recently in a New England grocery store, Green Grocer, who made the decision to remove Kashi from their shelves and post a sign in its place. This sign read, "You might be wondering where your favorite Kashi cereals have gone. It has recently come to our attention that 100% of the soy used in Kashi products is genetically modified, and that when the USDA tested the grains used there were found to be pesticides that are known carcinogens and hormone disruptors."
Even if you do manage to pull up a study that shows that GM Soybeans cause cancer, it's not going to be any big indictment of GM food - there are oodles of studies out there that linking regular soybeans to increased (or decreased, the research is pretty scattershot) risk of cancer and hormonal disruption:
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Alan Rockefeller 6,844 topic views. 7 members, 48 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop for: 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
