[onoway]

A couple of people have expressed the idea that GMO's are harmless and in fact the hope for the future in terms of feeding the growing population of mankind. So I have started this thread as a way of keeping that discussion out of other threads.

I'll start first with Dustin's comment that the media is responsible for the distrust of GMOs. Not exactly true. The media IS responsible for reporting such things as Monsanto being found guilty of bribery and corruption. It reported accurately that Monsanto forced at least one farmer into bankruptcy although the farmer was eventually found not guilty of any wrongdoing. It is known to send people into farms and threaten farmers with doing the same to them, farmers who are operating perfectly legally, in at least one instance, in a seed cleaning business which was a third generation business. The media did not have to point out that for Monsanto, trespassing and stealing material is a standard business practice, it has been made abundantly clear from the court cases which have come up.

The "media" in terms of traditional reporting is not responsible for establishing that Monsanto is known to hire companies to watch for any mention of Monsanto and or GMOs and to respond to the comments, in many cases pretending to be people they are not and suggesting that they were forced to go the GMO route after repeated problems with non gmo crops. That was established by a "watchdog" company. I have run across a few of these people. In one case someone was claiming to be a permaculture teacher and what she was saying was all entirely untrue but might have sounded convincing to someone not familiar with the system.

They have successfully lobbied to be made at least temporarilly above the law in the U.S., in that it is for the time being, illegal to sue them, although they are free to use the courts however they please.

Scientists who have arrived at negative conclusions regarding GMOs and/or the chemicals which are integral to the production of GMO crops have been threatened with job loss unless they retract the findings, and preferably the whole study. This has happened to at least two I know of, a university scientist in NY who reported findings that cattle fed Roundup dessicated hay had much higher rates of abortion but also to the scientist who published results of feeding GMO corn to rats. Negative results are not widely publicised as then the grants which go to the institutions will be cut off. Many studies which were possibly pertinent to the question have "disappeared".

Years ago I ran across a Scottish study which showed that feeding gmo food to rats changed the bacteria in the gut, although at that point they were unsure what that might mean. I have been absolutely unable to find it again when I was looking to see how that fit in with a much later study in a different country which found bacterial changes in the gut to be a precursor to diabletes. The link was on a computer long gone.

There was another study done by a multinational scientific group around the same time which looked at Roundup and that family of chemicals in tomato production in Ontario. What they found was horrific, the claims of it being inert and harmless once it hit the soil were absolutely untrue and men who used it consistently in greenhouse work had a MUCH higher incidence of prostate cancer, while women had a much higher risk of miscarriage. There were also other health risks I don't now recall. To have such studies disappear is not unusual.

They refuse to allow GMO labelling because they know people do not want it. They refuse to allow/encourage independant and or long term studies (because they know/suspect the product in many cases cannot stand the scrutiny?). It seems to be impossible to track the former Monsanto scientists who left the company in dismay, saying that the downsides of GMO's outweighed whatever advantages they offered. The strong arm tactics they are known to use, put whatever positive spin on their products, including by people who have "seen the light" questionably credible, to say the least.

It has recently bought a company whose ONLY business is to supply mercenaries to whomever can afford to pay for them.(Well, ok, th media did report that.) Why does a company involved with the production of chemicals and GMOs involved with food production need a company of people whose only job is to intimidate, hurt or kill people?

These activities are not those of a company whose product so much better that we should give control over all food production to them. They are more like the Mafia trying to sell the idea that what they have is better for your health as if you don't go along with it your health will suffer (but not necessarilly from food).

Monsanto itself is responsible for 99.9% of the suspicion people have of GMO's because of their Mafia-like tactics, and that has nothing at all to do with the products.

I'll go on to that in another post or 5

[dustinst22]

Are GMO's safe?
What have world’s top independent science organizations concluded about the safety of GMOs?
http://www.forbes.co...tions-weigh-in/

Example of the media trying to scare the public about GMO's:
http://www.slate.com...cary_story.html



Or if you care to read more on the sources:

EU-Funded GMO research:
http://ec.europa.eu/...mo_research.pdf

Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security
http://www.genetics....t/188/1/11.long

About mandating labeling of GMO food:
http://www.aaas.org/...d-falsely-alarm

Interesting quote:

Quote

"While every major scientific regulatory oversight body in the world, including the National Academies of Science and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, has concluded that genetically modified foods pose no harm not also found in conventional or organic foods, the public remains deeply suspicious of them. A survey published in the same newspaper the day before Harmon’s piece ran found that 37 percent of those interviewed worried about GMOs, saying they feared that such foods cause cancer or allergies.
Those fear-based views are regularly reinforced by popular lifestyle magazines and the echo chamber of the Web."

"Since GMOs were introduced into the food supply almost 20 years ago, there has not been one documented case of any health problem in humans—not even so much as a sniffle—linked to GMOs. The American Medical Association, whose physician members would have long ago picked up on a GMO-allergy connection, definitively rejects such speculation. “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature,” it has stated. That scientific consensus has been endorsed by every major science oversight body in the world."

[dustinst22]

The issues/debates/controversies and politics involving Monsanto are another sub-subject altogether. Really I was just interested in the debate about the known risks (by the scientific community) tied to GMO produced food.

[Cyberyeti]

It's not just the risks to humans that are the problem, there are the risks to the environment with things like roundup tolerant strains. The farming model in the UK is very different to the US with smaller fields, lots of hedgerows etc. Roundup stays toxic for about 3 days after spraying, heavy rain in the UK will cause much more collateral damage than it will in the US. There is also a disputed study that shows it's toxic to earthworms which is really bad for the soil.

[onoway]

dustinst22, on 2014-February-24, 21:38, said:

Are GMO's safe?
What have world’s top independent science organizations concluded about the safety of GMOs?
http://www.forbes.co...tions-weigh-in/

I spent 2 hours replying to this post and it all vanished when I tried to correct having the wrong number of quotation marks, so this will be a shorter version.


The Forbes story is an excellent example of propaganda bullshit. The appeal to authority, if "all the scientists everywhere" is supposed to be convincing, is not. I suggest you look up Dr Vandana Shiva's 2010 Sidney Peace Prize acceptance speech (I had the link but don't feel like getting it again).

India has banned GMOs in a very large area as a RESULT OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY WHOLEHEARTEDLY ADOPTED THEM, not as some sort of media caused hysteria. THOUSANDS of farmer suicides. Wells running dry every year or two and needing to be redug. Land which had been highly productive for untold generations now sterile and unable to grow anything without massive doses of chemicals. THIS is what GMO agriculture did for India. This isn't theory and tidy experiments in labs by scientists, this is what happened in the real world.


Example of the media trying to scare the public about GMO's:
http://www.slate.com...cary_story.html


Where are the long term studies showing that GMO foods are safe? We are supposed to take the word of a company owned by the biotech companies for this? Are you familiar with the disclosures of the drug companies, of studies gone missing, edited, misrepresented which only came to light when so many people died that someone took notice and forced the issue? You and Slate would have us believe that a company owned by companies which make billions of dollars annually selling these crops with their essential chemical adjuncts, are actively and honestly searching for evidence that such crops and chemicals might be antithetical to human life? Really???

The chemicals used to produce these crops are in some instances so toxic that hazmat equipment is stipulated to handle them. Residues of these poisons as well as the systemic poisons actually embedded in the genetic material show up in the food we eat. Those chemicals in many cases were originally designed to harm people in times of war. Suddenly they become safe when used on food crops? And don't try to suggest there is no residue; the USDA has recently approved an INCREASE in the amount of poisonous residue allowed in food crops. This was needed because the insects and bacteria have become resistant or immune to the poisons so more lethal doses and chemicals are now required to do the same job.

As far as the appeal to authority nonsense of all scientists (which is not true in any case): even if it was true, remember that at one time the public was being told that virtually all scientists AND the medical profession were absolutely certain there was no problem with thalidomide for pregnant women. They vigorously said so, equally vigorously attacking the one who stood firm and prevented its release in the US. Turned out she was right, and and "oops, sorrry about that" would hardly have sufficed to make it up to the hundreds of thousands of children who would have otherwise been born with flippers instead of arms, or no limbs at all. You would think that the medical profession's opinion would be more likely to be valid in that area than in agriculture and they couldn't even get that right - even when confronted with such dramatic anomolies!

Allergies are notoriously difficult to track especially if they are, as most obviously are, somewhat less dramatic than being born with flippers or collapsing in a heap unable to breathe. Many develop over time. This is why LONG term studies are so crucial to the decision about GMOs, 90 day studies, which are the norm, simply don't cut it. To say that nobody has died of GMO;s is an absurd thing to say, a tiny dose of arsenic won't kill you either but take it day after day and see what happens. 90 days in you will likely still be alive but you won't be doing well...but the arsenic hasn't killed you. Yet.

Even the fertilizers so essential to growing GMO crops are harmful not only to the soil but to people as virtually all fertilizers contain contaminants such as cadmium, lead, arsenic and dioxins. Some of these are accummulative in the soil, so they don't wash away to pollute the waterways but stick around to be taken up by the plants. This isn't a problem if the fertilizers are used occassionally, but when the crops require it to be heavilly applied every year, it can become a problem, especially for children eating food grown in such soil.

GMO's cannot be considered apart from the practices essential for producing them and too often that is the case. IF they were able to be produced without the need for poisons, they might be able to become a viable source of food. Since that is not the case, a system which necessitates the poisoning of the plant, the earth it grows in, the water which falls on the field and the consumer is hardly sustainable or even remotely sensible.

I don't have time...this has taken more time than I wanted to spend because of losing the original reply which was much better but I will get to the rest of it another time.

[mike777]

As I understand it basically all foods are genetically modified but perhaps you are referring to something more?
I assume foods evolve over time. I assume man as a part of nature impacts this evolution over time. Clearly this goes back thousands of years to at least time of the Sumerians.

In any event I think it is a good thing we have watchdogs such as Onoway to ask when more harm than good is being done.

"...the public remains deeply suspicious of them..."

I agree with this quote but then we humans are not very good at accessing different types of risk.

[dustinst22]

mike777, on 2014-February-25, 16:47, said:

As I understand it basically all foods are genetically modified but perhaps you are referring to something more?
I assume foods evolve over time. I assume man as a part of nature impacts this evolution over time. Clearly this goes back thousands of years to at least time of the Sumerians.

In any event I think it is a good thing we have watchdogs such as Onoway to ask when more harm than good is being done.

"...the public remains deeply suspicious of them..."

I agree with this quote but then we humans are not very good at accessing different types of risk.

I think Pam is referring to genetically modified organism in the sense that the genetic code is manipulated via biotechnology (i.e. using cloned or synthesized DNA and then inserting that into the genome). Clearly this is much different than what has happened for thousands of years.

But she is correct, we still don't know the long term implications of GMO produced food. However, isn't this true for almost anything involving science, and hasn't this been the case for centuries as we have progressed technologically? We should be careful of what we read and see in the media, especially with a subject like this one which is an easy target for the media to play off people's fears that we are acting as "God". In my opinion it's much more important to read what the scientific communities have to say on the matter.

[mike777]

OK so basically all food has been genetically modified for thousands of years.

If the discussion is limited to only "cloned or synthesized DNA and then inserting that into the genome"

OK IT may help to back up a second and tell us just what that is.

[dustinst22]

mike777, on 2014-February-25, 18:19, said:

OK so basically all food has been genetically modified for thousands of years.

If the discussion is limited to only "cloned or synthesized DNA and then inserting that into the genome"

OK IT may help to back up a second and tell us just what that is.

I'm not sure if food has been genetically modified for thousands of years. Can you explain what you mean by that?

But to answer your question, yes that's what GMO refers to.

[mike777]

OK I thought all dna is "cloned or synthesized DNA and then inserting that into the genome"


Are there other types of dna and if so what is the difference?

[blackshoe]

In response to the title of this thread, my answer would be "probably neither".

[onoway]

mike777, on 2014-February-25, 16:47, said:

As I understand it basically all foods are genetically modified but perhaps you are referring to something more?
I assume foods evolve over time. I assume man as a part of nature impacts this evolution over time. Clearly this goes back thousands of years to at least time of the Sumerians.

Plants and animals have always freely hybridized between close relatives...such as the horse and donkey producing a mule, or squash plants freely interbreeding to produce new and unique squash offspring. Generally for mammals these are sterile and so they don't become much of an issue in the long term scheme of things.

Any mutation..(which is an entirely different thing than a hybrid and reflects a change in the DNA or RNA), which shows up in the course of time in any species either copes better with the environment in which it finds itself or it doesn't, those which can't cope with the environment generally don't get to produce offspring and die out. However, nowhere in nature is there ever any such thing as a fish and a tomato sharing genetic material. This sort of thing is the basis of patents being awarded for life forms designed by biotech companies.

Genetic modification is an attempt to short circuit the process and develop species according to our desires, and without consideration of how they fit into the larger scheme of things. There is enormous potential in the idea but the allowing of patents has meant that largely any altruistic effort has been superceded by the opportunity to make massive amounts of money.

An example of just one of the problems is that many of these species have absolutely no resilience. They are carefully and artificially supported, so that they don't react appropriately to stresses that non gmo plants have learned to cope with.It's the same thing as raising pigs or poultry in biosafe environments..one germ gets in and it can wipe out the entire bunch, they have no resistance, it's like bringing smallpox to America.

So companies such as Monsanto said, fine, we'll make sure that no germs (weeds, bugs) get to bother our plants, we'll embed poisons in their genetics that'll kill the bugs that try to eat them, or include genes which prevent the plant from dying when it takes up the poisons sprayed on the ground to kill off anything but the crop.

Thus chemicals which became redundant if a war wasn't being fought somewhere could now be embedded in plants and they would be able to produce more as they wouldn't be bothered by competition from weeds, or bugs and so forth. A win win for the company with excess chemical and for the producer...maybe.

That worked for quite a while but then it became apparent that the bugs and weeds had not only come back but had come back with immunity to the poisons and a vigor they hadn't had before. The same sort of thing that's happened with warfarin resistant superrats or the diseases which are now returning which are not affected by antibiotics anymore.

So now these companies will modify the genetics of the plants yet again to contain more virulent poisons and to resist succumbing to those poisons. This, as well as embedding genes from totally unrelated species such as jellyfish genes into potatoes is the sort of genetic modification people object to and isn't found anywhere outside a lab.

There's a whole lot more to it but that's the core of it. There are a whole lot of issues which come up out of it all but will leave it there for now.

[mike777]

Ok

For starters I thought homo sapiens and Neanderthals shared genetic material. I thought sharing genetic material was very common between species. In any event....

"...Genetic modification is an attempt to short circuit the process and develop species according to our desires, and without consideration of how they fit into the larger scheme of things. There is enormous potential in the idea but the allowing of patents has meant that largely any altruistic effort has been superceded by the opportunity to make massive amounts of money...."


It sounds like this is your main point.

It does sound like some of this does not fit into the larger scheme of things and that some are doing this for massive amounts of money. Based on your posts it does sound like some are not doing this for mainly altruistic reasons. I Totally agree that mankind is trying to bend Nature to its will or desire to use your word.
---------------

"...So now these companies will modify the genetics of the plants yet again to contain more virulent poisons and to resist succumbing to those poisons. This, as well as embedding genes from totally unrelated species such as jellyfish genes into potatoes is the sort of genetic modification people object to and isn't found anywhere outside a lab.

There's a whole lot more to it but that's the core of it. There are a whole lot of issues which come up out of it all but will leave it there for now. "

As for genetic modification of people I thought that has been going on forever...literally.

[Vampyr]

I agree that engineering plants to be immune to poisons and then spraying poisons on the crops is very bad, as are Monsanto's practices. But plants can be modified to be drought-resistant, or to contain extra nutrients, like the "golden rice" which contains Vitamin A.

Farming practice, whether involving GM or conventional crops, should be organic and as little damaging to biodiversity as possible.

[mike777]

ok but why is organic better than other

ok but why is damage to bioversity more important than say starvation or other issues?

vamp you may be correct but you make zero case...


we all agree horrible is bad...but let us not think with one mind. That leads to stagnation and that leads to ruin.

At some point we must accept innovation leads to destruction. destruction hurts.

[onoway]

mike777, on 2014-February-25, 21:51, said:

ok but why is organic better than other

ok but why is damage to bioversity more important than say starvation or other issues?

vamp you may be correct but you make zero case...


we all agree horrible is bad...but let us not think with one mind. That leads to stagnation and that leads to ruin.

At some point we must accept innovation leads to destruction. destruction hurts.

short answer: lack of biodiversity leads to starvation. That hurts too. The Irish potato famine is a prime example.

[mike777]

onoway, on 2014-February-25, 23:00, said:

short answer: lack of biodiversity leads to starvation. That hurts too. The Irish potato famine is a prime example.

thanks I am irish

I never understood how irish starve on an island with fish lots of fish.

fwiw I understand the irish starved due to English policy but I understand many disagree

lack of biodiversity=English govt to starve us

I know you may hate to say that government policy lead to starvation

fwiw I am irish so bias

[onoway]

Just a quick note: the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
has requested that Geoff Lawton of the Permaculture Institute run a course for their clients. This as a result of feedback from a course he ran last year, and as an acknowlegment that what the US exports most of is soil and that desperately needs to be stopped. Permaculture is a scientifically based design system which goes far beyond soil reclamation but that is often the primary and most urgent reason for looking at it.

It has been estimated by scientists that traditional agriculture, monocropping, etc is responsible for the loss of up to an inch a year of topsoil. American land that had topsoil meters thick lost much of it during the "dirty thirties" but the loss continues unabated. It's been suggested that the natural resources, including the massive amounts of fertile soils which the Europeans found when they colonized America, is the main reason why America grew so quickly and became so prosperous. Losing the topsoil threatens the ability of the country to feed itself, and has been implicated in the fall of various empires and civilisations before now.

Permaculture methods have been proven not only to produce equal or higher amounts of food per acre but will create and build healthy topsoil and often increase both water quality and quantity while doing so. It has been proven in deserts and jungles and temperate climates from China to the Dead Sea to Austria to Australia. It has been proven to work in very large farms and small lots and can even be applied to growing things in apartment balconies, and in all these diverse areas adherance to the principles of permaculture design has had a positive affect on lives and soil and water.

The only thing it doesn't have is a huge budget to promote it, because it is a system which first of all calls for ethical treatment of the earth and of people and that means a creative commons approach to things. People make a living consulting, practicing and teaching it, but for anyone willing to put in the time and effort, all the information is available for free.

[onoway]

To respond directly to the claim that the medical profession and all scientists are all in favor of GMO foods. a couple of quotes:(my highlighting)

British Medical Association, “Governments should ensure that non-genetically modified foods continue to be widely available and affordable to consumers, and that GM foods are labelled in a consistent and understandable manner.” and “The precautionary principle should be applied in developing genetically modified crops or foodstuffs, as we cannot at present know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing GM crops or consuming GM food products.

Adverse effects are likely to be irreversible; once GMOs are released into the environment they cannot be subject to control. It is therefore essential that release does not take place until the level of scientific certainty is sufficient to make the risk acceptable.”http://www.twnside.o.../genmo-cn.htm3.
xxxxxx

Public Health Association of Australia : “GM foods should not be assessed as safe to eat unless they have undergone long-term animal safety assessments utilizing endpoints relevant to human health and conducted by independent researchers.”, “The labelling system should be improved to the standards desired by consumers, so that consumers can easily identify foods containing ingredients originating from GM animals and plants, and from animals fed GM feed.”,

“There are no surveillance systems set-up to determine the effects of GM foods on health, and no-one is paid to look in existing surveillance systems for problems.” and, “The precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM food as it is not certain whether there are serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing or consuming GM foods or their products.” http://www.phaa.net....licy/GMFood.pdf
xxxxxxxx

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health(CIEH) : “there are no robust techniques available to monitor the impact of genetic engineering in the food industry or on health or on the environment. Genetic engineering should not be used in the production of human food or animal feeding stuffs or released into the environment until such techniques are in place.” http://www.cieh.org/...e_GM_final.pdf.
xxxxxxxxx

World Health Organization(WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) co-sponsored WHO, FAO and UNEP report involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world :

The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods.

The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible.

Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety”

“There is little consensus among the findings from the assessments of economic and environmental impacts of GMOs.” – Global Report http://www.unep.org/...3/Default.aspx/
xxxxxxx

Technical Expert Committee (TEC) : ”TEC recommends a ten year moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenics in all food cops(those used directly for human consumption)” http://www.indiaenvi...ee-in-gmos-pil/

Over 250 scientists support this committee. http://indiagminfo.org/?p=649
xxxxxxx

Viennese Doctors’ Chamber : ”The release of transgenic species in nature must still be strictly opposed as the results can neither be estimated nor reversed.”
http://www.wallstree...sults-to-humans

*
*......~~~~~~~~
I can supply more..and there are even more of them which call for clear and obvious labelling of GMO foods.. but this clearly shows that the claim that there is consensus about GMOs being safe and that they are supported by all respected organizations is an outright lie. This is equalled by the lie that GMOs are the hope for the future or agriculture as they are not sustainable in any form presently being used to grow them, and they have a violently NEGATIVE effect on soil health and fertility. I will go on to those when I have some time.
*

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

thanks I am irish

I never understood how irish starve on an island with fish lots of fish.

fwiw I understand the irish starved due to English policy but I understand many disagree

lack of biodiversity=English govt to starve us

I know you may hate to say that government policy lead to starvation

fwiw I am irish so bias

Bit of both, Ireland was exporting vast amounts of food for absentee landlords, and subsisting on potatoes. Then all the potatoes got blight ...

Natural genetic mutation done by selective breeding is fine by most people (for food crops anyway, not so good for show dogs), but it's the artificial mutation that is up for debate.