Genetically Modified Foods

[sman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv96D_ZURzs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

This is the “trailer” for a much longer video which I’ve been implored to watch - but haven’t yet.

 

A lot of fear & loathing is surrounding this issue of genetically modified foods - not all of it seems rational. I’m having a hard time finding good studies or media coverage on it.

 

TYT

a French study on the effects of Monsanto GM corn on rats, but I can’t determine the scientific voracity of the study. Like, for instance, whether or not there was a control group (an isolated group of rats fed & treated in exactly the same way, except only non-GM corn).

 

I think the prospect of genetically engineering our crops could be the most direct and efficacious way ever available to positively effect human conditions & quality of life the world over. While I appreciate caution, I’d like to do my best to tease any irrationalities out of it, like the the Naturalistic Fallacy.

 

Questions I’m researching (in my spare time! :lol:) are:

~What exactly is the difference between laboratory genetic modification & the genetic modification of foods by selective breeding that humans have been doing all along?

~What are the health & ecological risks of developing GM foods, how would we identify them & how do we deal with them?

~Why does there seem to be such disparagingly few scientific studies on it?

 

Should anyone have any information or opinion or just passing interest on the matter I’d be appreciative of comments.

[labelwench]

One of the greater factors in the case of GM foods is the holding of patents on seeds, whom holds these patents and how they are enforced.

 

I have researched this topic several times and last year I found a link to patents on seed and at that time, Monsanto held approximately 85% of the seed patents. Can't find it right now on a quick search.

 

 

 

Yet Monsanto’s position — that planting Monsanto-derived soybeans always requires Monsanto’s permission — could also have troubling consequences. In a world where 94 percent of soybeans in circulation are descended from Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds, it might be hard for farmers who didn’t want Monsanto’s seeds even to buy seeds that were not patent encumbered. Monsanto’s position would effectively place the burden on farmers to test seeds they hope to plant in order to ensure they are not covered by any patents.

 

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled, as it had on several previous occasions, that patent exhaustion did not cover second-generation seeds. The Supreme Court has now asked the Solicitor General, the official in charge of representing the Obama administration before the Court, to weigh in on the case.

 

 

http://www.wired.com...ulture-patents/

 

There is also considerable lack of trust considering the history of Monsanto, a name which is associated with PCB's, Agent Orange and recombinant bovine growth hormone.

 

Whoever controls the food chain controls the people and GM seeds and plants are viewed as a threat to biodiversity and the consumers right to choice, especially given the reluctance to date to clearly label GM foods so that consumers can make an informed choice.

 

[labelwench]

I just came across an article, released today, that is relevant to this thread. Here is an excerpt, link to entire article follows.

 

 

The question is, are GMOs safe for us and the environment? The answers are not clear. When we decided to write an article on GMOs, we quickly realized there is no evidence that GMOs are safe for humans. We also found that the Food and Drug Administration did not do its own safety testing before GMOs were put into our food supply. The “studies” done by the companies that created the seeds compared genetically modified corn to regular corn and found that they were similar and thus thought to be safe.

 

However, there are animal studies with negative findings, including organ damage, tumors, infertility and immune system changes. Toxins from GMO corn and soy have been found in the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their umbilical cords. It is clear that more research is needed.

 

The environment is another issue. What are the implications when a genetically engineered plant crossbreeds with other plants? Monarch butterflies are declining due to the destruction of milkweed. Super bugs and super weeds are already appearing. What other consequences are possible? Do we really want to irreversibly change the face of plant life with unknown consequences?

 

The bottom line is that we have a product in our food supply with unknown health and environmental implications. At the very least, we should have these foods labeled. However, try as we might, we cannot make that happen in the United States. Polls show 90 percent of people want them labeled, but the biotech companies and food manufacturers do not. If their products are beneficial and safe, why not be proud of those products and label them? Nearly 50 countries, including China, require GMO labeling, and some countries ban GMOs. Don’t we have a right to know what’s in our food?

 

 

http://www.jewishjou...oods_be_labeled

 

For balance, this publication also offers the opposition to labeling argument.

 

http://www.jewishjou...oods_be_labeled

[sman]

Thanks, Rose. Did you catch this thread in you research?

 

Surely, Monsanto and like entities are a big reason people are immediately distrustful of GM foods, but one of the issues I’d like to “tease” away from this discussion is the very pernicious problem of large corporations reaching a critical mass & un-tethering themselves from regulation - a serious matter in our world today but, I feel, a distraction from any dialogue on the benefits & risk assessments of GM foods. However, this may be difficult to do. I have a feeling that the reason there is so little governmental regulation - and so few independent studies - is emanating from the Monsanto money-pump.

[belovelife]

ok, in college i was tought that organic meant anything that grows organically

 

anyway

 

is monsanto seeds selective bread, or genetically changed by altering the dna scientifically?

that would be my first question

 

 

( and not scientifically selective bread to alter the genes, but real live dna manipulation using genes sequencing viruses or the like )

[labelwench]

Thanks, Rose. Did you catch this thread in you research?

 

Surely, Monsanto and like entities are a big reason people are immediately distrustful of GM foods, but one of the issues I’d like to “tease” away from this discussion is the very pernicious problem of large corporations reaching a critical mass & un-tethering themselves from regulation - a serious matter in our world today but, I feel, a distraction from any dialogue on the benefits & risk assessments of GM foods. However, this may be difficult to do. I have a feeling that the reason there is so little governmental regulation - and so few independent studies - is emanating from the Monsanto money-pump.

 

Not that particular thread but others that covered the same content.

 

Much of the concern with the GMO foods arises because there has not been long term research done and much of the testing has been of short duration, on animals not people and performed by agencies which are not perceived to be at arm's length. GMO foods have been introduced widely into the food chain because they are cost efficient, yet the public was not consulted or informed.

 

Now, when people are requesting that at least labeling reflect the presence of GMO's (and a range of other allergens and ingredients of concern) they are met with resistance and explanations that 'it costs too much money'.

 

I work in the food industry and I call 'BS'. The industry resizes, repackages and relaunches products all the time, most often down-sizing the amount of product without reducing the price or making some grandiose claim to 'improved'. All costs are passed on to the consumer in the end so why the dragging heels? People are entitled to the information they request to enable them to make informed decisions.

 

If the science is so good for GMO's then trot it out and brag on it. The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of questions are not getting answered and the credibility of the proponents is in question based on past performance.

[labelwench]

ok, in college i was tought that organic meant anything that grows organically

 

anyway

 

is monsanto seeds selective bread, or genetically changed by altering the dna scientifically?

that would be my first question

 

 

( and not scientifically selective bread to alter the genes, but real live dna manipulation using genes sequencing viruses or the like )

 

Perhaps this will partially answer your question.

 

 

 

Monsanto Co. produces 90 percent of the world’s transgenic crops, using a complex marriage between ancient techniques — cross-breeding different plants to produce a desired trait — and the most modern technologies available, from genomic research to NASA-caliber mechanical engineering.

 

Originally a chemical company, Monsanto produced some of the world’s most controversial substances — saccharine, DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange — before evolving into the biotech giant it is today. That evolution has been marked by controversy, including lawsuits against farmers, allegations of unfair trade practices, and more. The company produces the herbicide Roundup, and also seeds whose genes have been engineered to survive Roundup's active plant-killing ingredient. Now the vast majority of this country’s soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola possess those engineered genes.

 

 

http://www.popsci.co...y-modified-seed

 

Since the public has expressed more concern about engineered seed than hybrid seed (natural cross-pollination) I noted in one article I read tonight that Monsanto was stating that their 4000 seed varieties across some 20 types have all been derived by 'natural methods.' They are starting to pay attention to the public dialogue and reshape their image. They seem to have backed away on their 'Terminator Gene' technology as well, in response to public concern/alarm.

[sman]

TYT

a French study on the effects of Monsanto GM corn on rats, but I can’t determine the scientific voracity of the study. Like, for instance, whether or not there was a control group (an isolated group of rats fed & treated in exactly the same way, except only non-GM corn).

 

I hate it when I'm right.

 

EU panel says Caen study of Monsanto GM corn inadequate

 

Among other criticisms, the panel of EFSA scientists that reviewed the paper said the authors had failed to establish appropriate control groups as part of the study, and had chosen a strain of rat that is prone to developing tumors during its normal lifespan.

[labelwench]

Another concern regarding GM crops is that they may contaminate organic and non-GM crops which much of the global market prefers, instead of the GM products that are creeping onto the scene.

 

 

</h1>

<h1>Greens urge protection for non-GM farmers

Posted Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:40pm AEST

 

Map: WA The Greens says Western Australian canola crops need to be protected from contamination as international demand plummets for genetically modified (GM) crops.

 

This week it was revealed CBH is paying up to $45 a tonne less for GM canola than its organic counterpart.

 

The markdown has prompted the Australian Wheat Board to offer to buy GM canola at a guaranteed price of only $10 a tonne less than non-GM canola.

 

Ten per cent of WA's canola crop is now GM and Greens' Senator Rachel Siewert says there needs to be liability insurance for farmers at risk of GM crop contamination.

 

"Farmers that grow non-GM canola need to be protected, so that their crops aren't getting contaminated and therefore there needs to be a liability insurance where farmers who choose to grow genetically modified crops need to bear the cost of contamination," she said.

 

"I'm not at all surprised that farmers are getting less for GM canola than non-GM canola.

 

"This is something that we predicted because we were looking at overseas, what consumers expect, and they expect to be able to access non-genetically modified canola."

 

http://www.abc.net.a...farmers/3976402

 

 

 

Rigorous testing of Gm compared to non-GM crops has not yet been adequately done although there is plenty of evidence that the GM crops are not living up to their billing when it comes to dealing with adverse and drought conditions.

 

 

 

Farmers ask why GM crops perform worse in drought

 

 

 

The Network of Concerned Farmers, an alliance of farmers with concerns regarding genetically modified crops, are calling for research to determine why GM crops perform worse during droughts.

 

 

 

"There is more than enough evidence to reveal that GM crops perform worse than non-GM crops during drought conditions but this vital information is being ignored," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers.

 

 

 

"Farmers worldwide have complained that GM crops perform worse than non-GM crops during drought including GM cotton in India and Indonesia, GM soy in the United States and Brazil and GM canola in Canada. Australian farmers have even stated that they use an additional irrigation for GM cotton so it appears there is evidence that GM crops need more water," she said.

 

 

 

"Our Federal Minister for Agriculture is making outrageous statements wanting states to ignore economic risk and claiming we need GM crops to counter drought when reality shows GM crops perform worse in drought. Australia is known for adverse conditions and may be totally unsuitable for GM crops but nobody seems to care about this vital detail."

 

 

http://www.non-gm-fa...ils.asp?ID=2253

Edited October 6, 2012 by Under the Rose

[labelwench]

What effect are GM foods having on people?

 

Here's a study with some interesting observations and findings.

 

 

</h1>

<h1>Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.

Aris A, Leblanc S.

Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. [email protected]

 

 

Abstract

Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.

 

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670