well they can blow me ....yeehaw
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
GMO getting head
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
I was talking to a native elder 80 plus while back was pretty neat actually , He Went on saying that his native tongue language will be lost within next 10 years ,,, As the younger natives do not wish to learn it, i thought fuck that is kinda sad really,
There ways, everything , will be nothing more then pictures like Geronimo, and museum pieces
We talked about shit load of stuff from fishing to hunting and this is where it really hit me
he went on saying back 25 - 50 years ago you could eat all the fish you like today your only allowed 2 - 3 a week due to mercury levels , pollution, he went on saying
that 6 - 7 moose or deer out of 10 shot will have Cancer poisoned mammals that are no good to eat he goes on now saying fist thing they do when they shoot something is cut it open and look at the heart
So even tho we pick or so many go after GMO and yes there are just one corrupt company
I believe were just picking on one person when its allot of other Companies causing just as much harm to us and the world in general
Personally were a bunch of fucking Hypocrites,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,............
We should be going after Oil companies , logging Companies you know them pulp mills polluting not only the air but the water we share for all life shit Hydro companies
countries that dump toxic waste into the ocean including USA
There ways, everything , will be nothing more then pictures like Geronimo, and museum pieces
We talked about shit load of stuff from fishing to hunting and this is where it really hit me
he went on saying back 25 - 50 years ago you could eat all the fish you like today your only allowed 2 - 3 a week due to mercury levels , pollution, he went on saying
that 6 - 7 moose or deer out of 10 shot will have Cancer poisoned mammals that are no good to eat he goes on now saying fist thing they do when they shoot something is cut it open and look at the heart
So even tho we pick or so many go after GMO and yes there are just one corrupt company
I believe were just picking on one person when its allot of other Companies causing just as much harm to us and the world in general
Personally were a bunch of fucking Hypocrites,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,............
We should be going after Oil companies , logging Companies you know them pulp mills polluting not only the air but the water we share for all life shit Hydro companies
countries that dump toxic waste into the ocean including USA
WASHINGTON/OTTAWA, Feb. 28 – Each year, mining companies dump more than 180 million tonnes of hazardous mine waste into rivers, lakes, and oceans worldwide, threatening vital bodies of water with toxic heavy metals and other chemicals poisonous to humans and wildlife, according to report released today by two leading mining reform groups.
An investigation by Earthworks and MiningWatch Canada identifies the world’s waters that are suffering the greatest harm or at greatest risk from the dumping of mine waste. The report, Troubled Waters:How Mine Waste Dumping is Poisoning our Oceans, Rivers, and Lakes, also names the leading companies that continue to use this irresponsible method of disposal.
Mine processing wastes, or tailings, can contain as many as three dozen dangerous chemicals including arsenic, lead, mercury, and cyanide. The report found that the mining industry has left mountains of such waste from Alaska and Canada to Norway and Southeast Asia.
“Polluting the world’s waters with mine tailings is unconscionable, and damage it causes is largely irreversible,” said Payal Sampat, international program director for Washington, DC-based Earthworks. “Mining companies must stop using our oceans, rivers, and lakes as dumping grounds for their toxic waste.”
An investigation by Earthworks and MiningWatch Canada identifies the world’s waters that are suffering the greatest harm or at greatest risk from the dumping of mine waste. The report, Troubled Waters:How Mine Waste Dumping is Poisoning our Oceans, Rivers, and Lakes, also names the leading companies that continue to use this irresponsible method of disposal.
Mine processing wastes, or tailings, can contain as many as three dozen dangerous chemicals including arsenic, lead, mercury, and cyanide. The report found that the mining industry has left mountains of such waste from Alaska and Canada to Norway and Southeast Asia.
“Polluting the world’s waters with mine tailings is unconscionable, and damage it causes is largely irreversible,” said Payal Sampat, international program director for Washington, DC-based Earthworks. “Mining companies must stop using our oceans, rivers, and lakes as dumping grounds for their toxic waste.”
If these conspiracy theories are right, governments want us to die relatively young so they won't have to pay out entitlement benefits. For people who believe that, how do you explain the trend with tobacco laws?
Tobacco does exactly what you're saying this conspiracy is meant to do. Tobacco smokers tend to be productive through their whole working life, then die after a short illness right when they're about to collect retirement benefits. The trend in governments (at least in the US) is to make tobacco increasingly expensive, harder to get, and harder to use. Some cities are considering banning it. Like they didn't learn anything from the failures of Prohibition.
I don't believe the governments (here) are in on some GMO conspiracy to kill us off. I believe a few companies like Monsanto are willing to abuse our patent system and use unethical business practices to force farmers into paying them. And they're willing to do whatever it takes to make money from their plants without worrying about public safety.
Tobacco does exactly what you're saying this conspiracy is meant to do. Tobacco smokers tend to be productive through their whole working life, then die after a short illness right when they're about to collect retirement benefits. The trend in governments (at least in the US) is to make tobacco increasingly expensive, harder to get, and harder to use. Some cities are considering banning it. Like they didn't learn anything from the failures of Prohibition.
I don't believe the governments (here) are in on some GMO conspiracy to kill us off. I believe a few companies like Monsanto are willing to abuse our patent system and use unethical business practices to force farmers into paying them. And they're willing to do whatever it takes to make money from their plants without worrying about public safety.
First, let's dismiss any idea that the great culling is some sort of fanciful conspiracy theory. World power brokers like Bill Gates and Ted Turner openly discuss reducing the world population by 90%. Bill Gates, in particular, happily funds infertility technologies, vaccines and GMOs, all of which are purposely designed to cause infertility and halt new baby births, thereby sharply contracting the human population.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example provided significant funding to the University of North Carolina to develop ultrasound infertility technology that could render human sperm unviable for up to six months. Reported by the BBC, this technology was proven effective on rats, and it's only one of 78 different research projects the Gates Foundation has funded under the guise of "global health programs."
That this is the desire of the global controllers is no secret. It's not debated. This is what today's politicians, bureaucrats and even some misinformed activists of the "environmental" movement wish to achieve -- the reduction of world population to under one billion people. To them, humanity is seen as a threat to the planet and even to itself.
From one point of view, this analysis may actually be correct. It's difficult to see how today's mindless masses of dumbed-down consumers -- steeped in video games, television and junk food -- can offer any meaningful contributions to the future of human civilization. So, from the point of view of the global controllers, "culling the herd" of humanity is actually a good thing. It makes humanity stronger, they say, in much the same way that culling the weaklings from a herd of wild animals improves the aggregate gene pool of the targeted species as a whole.
The globalists argue that today's human gene pool is stalled. The weak and the stupid reproduce just as much as everybody else -- if not more so. The human gene pool is actually devolving, they say, and the only way to bring it back to a point where we have a species capable of reaching for the stars is to eliminate those who aren't smart enough to deserve a spot in the human gene pool.
The word for this is, of course, eugenics. Adolf Hitler pursued the same philosophy: Improve the human race through genocide. Eliminate the weak, the ugly, the stupid. Fire up the incinerators, disarm the target race to be exterminated, and herd them into gas chambers or open pits.
Modern eugenics
Toda's eugenicists are more subtle. They've learned, through experience, that openly gassing entire populations doesn't win over the hearts and minds of the public. So they've developed covert methods of accomplishing the same thing. These coverts methods include convincing people to eat genetically modified foods -- which promote infertility -- to drink fluoride, take vaccines, use synthetic chemicals, increase abortions and pursue other actions that either kill people outright or drastically reduce rates of reproduction.
The idea behind these is that, first off, the culling of the human race can now be accomplished without all the horrifying images of Nazi Germany's gas chambers. While the Jews in World War II had to be forcibly lined up and herded into railroad cars, today's eugenics victims willfully line up at pharmacies to be injected with flu vaccines containing stealth cancer viruses that accomplish the same thing: Death.
Importantly, the genocidal properties of vaccines, GMOs, chemical food additives, medications and other synthetic chemicals function as a sort of intelligence test for the population. Those who routinely take vaccines are, of course, stupid. Removing the stupid people -- the "useless eaters" -- from the gene pool is one of the goals of the global controllers. Thus, vaccine propaganda serves as the perfect filter for removing "stupid genes" from the human gene pool. This is no doubt why globalists so aggressively push vaccines on low-income families -- they equate "low income" with "not qualified to reproduce."
Importantly, vaccines contain stealth cancer viruses that are passed along through multiple generations. The SV40 viruses introduced to the population through polio vaccines in the 1950's still exists today in the grandchildren of those who were first vaccinated. This is openly admitted by top scientists who helped develop these vaccines
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example provided significant funding to the University of North Carolina to develop ultrasound infertility technology that could render human sperm unviable for up to six months. Reported by the BBC, this technology was proven effective on rats, and it's only one of 78 different research projects the Gates Foundation has funded under the guise of "global health programs."
That this is the desire of the global controllers is no secret. It's not debated. This is what today's politicians, bureaucrats and even some misinformed activists of the "environmental" movement wish to achieve -- the reduction of world population to under one billion people. To them, humanity is seen as a threat to the planet and even to itself.
From one point of view, this analysis may actually be correct. It's difficult to see how today's mindless masses of dumbed-down consumers -- steeped in video games, television and junk food -- can offer any meaningful contributions to the future of human civilization. So, from the point of view of the global controllers, "culling the herd" of humanity is actually a good thing. It makes humanity stronger, they say, in much the same way that culling the weaklings from a herd of wild animals improves the aggregate gene pool of the targeted species as a whole.
The globalists argue that today's human gene pool is stalled. The weak and the stupid reproduce just as much as everybody else -- if not more so. The human gene pool is actually devolving, they say, and the only way to bring it back to a point where we have a species capable of reaching for the stars is to eliminate those who aren't smart enough to deserve a spot in the human gene pool.
The word for this is, of course, eugenics. Adolf Hitler pursued the same philosophy: Improve the human race through genocide. Eliminate the weak, the ugly, the stupid. Fire up the incinerators, disarm the target race to be exterminated, and herd them into gas chambers or open pits.
Modern eugenics
Toda's eugenicists are more subtle. They've learned, through experience, that openly gassing entire populations doesn't win over the hearts and minds of the public. So they've developed covert methods of accomplishing the same thing. These coverts methods include convincing people to eat genetically modified foods -- which promote infertility -- to drink fluoride, take vaccines, use synthetic chemicals, increase abortions and pursue other actions that either kill people outright or drastically reduce rates of reproduction.
The idea behind these is that, first off, the culling of the human race can now be accomplished without all the horrifying images of Nazi Germany's gas chambers. While the Jews in World War II had to be forcibly lined up and herded into railroad cars, today's eugenics victims willfully line up at pharmacies to be injected with flu vaccines containing stealth cancer viruses that accomplish the same thing: Death.
Importantly, the genocidal properties of vaccines, GMOs, chemical food additives, medications and other synthetic chemicals function as a sort of intelligence test for the population. Those who routinely take vaccines are, of course, stupid. Removing the stupid people -- the "useless eaters" -- from the gene pool is one of the goals of the global controllers. Thus, vaccine propaganda serves as the perfect filter for removing "stupid genes" from the human gene pool. This is no doubt why globalists so aggressively push vaccines on low-income families -- they equate "low income" with "not qualified to reproduce."
Importantly, vaccines contain stealth cancer viruses that are passed along through multiple generations. The SV40 viruses introduced to the population through polio vaccines in the 1950's still exists today in the grandchildren of those who were first vaccinated. This is openly admitted by top scientists who helped develop these vaccines
Maybe tobacco kills people too fast. Someone who is dependant on meds for a long period is worth a lot more. And the food we eat is good enough to create this situation. Diabetes is the cash disease eventually leading to other costly conditions.
You should see the amount of pills the elder generation pops. Even those considered healthy have at least two types of medication, like anti anxiety and blood pressure reducers.
In a country like ours, healthcare pays every kind of med or treatment, even gastric bypass for those too lazy to eat right, and everyone pays his share of the healthcare, like a rock chained to our necks.
Just one small aspect of capitalist slavery..
The scary part is nobody really knows the long term impact of these so called engineered plants. What affect will they have on similar plants that have not been engineered? What affect will they have on the surrounding flora and fauna? I believe these are some of the fundamental reasons GMO is banned in the EU.
“Genetic drift is a statistical effect that results from the influence that chance has on the survival of alleles. Whereas natural selection is the tendency of beneficial alleles to become more common over time (and detrimental ones less common), genetic drift is the fundamental tendency of any allele to vary randomly in frequency over time due to statistical variation alone.”
For one they don’t want people to know that the product contains GMO components which in itself is a bit conflicting. If it’s so good why not let people know what they are getting. What is their main argument against the labeling…it will cost the food industry to much money to implement?
http://articles.*******.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/05/18/gmo-foods-inflammation.aspx
Large Pig Study Reveals Significant Inflammatory Response to Genetically Engineered Foods
Pig Study Reveals Significant Stomach Inflammation
The sad reality though is that pigs are not just fed one GE crop at a time. As mentioned earlier, they're fed combinations of GE crops, typically GE soy and corn. Dr. Carman used Roundup-ready soy – designed to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, so that the herbicide will only kill surrounding weeds—along with a couple of different GE corn varieties. "We were in effect feeding three GM genes and their protein products to these pigs at the same time," she explains.
This was also done in order to simulate the diet of a typical American who, just like pigs raised in a conventional piggery, will eat a variety of different GE corn crops, not just one specific one at a time.Besides the fact that there are different kinds of GE crops, such as Roundup Ready and Bt, more than 37 percent of the GE crops grown in the US are "stacked" gene crops, meaning they're not just resistant to Roundup, they also have one or two Bt genes in it. So eating foods that have two or more genetically modified genes in it is pretty standard in terms of what you'll find in the typical American diet.
"These pigs were eating the Roundup-ready gene, its protein product, two Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins, and the proteins from the two Bt genes, which are designed to produce insecticidal proteins. I suspect that the reason why we got such strong stomach inflammation was the interaction between the proteins that the animals were eating," she says.
At the end of the study, Dr. Carman's team discovered a significant increase in stomach inflammation in the pigs fed a GE diet. Overall, inflammation levels were 2.6 times higher in GE-fed pigs than those fed a non-GE diet, and male pigs fared worse than the females. While sows were 2.2 times more likely to have severe stomach inflammation on a GE diet, male pigs were four times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation.
"And when I say 'severe,' I'm talking about a stomach that is swollen and cherry red in color over almost the entire surface of the stomach. This is not the sort of stomach that you or I would want to have at all," she says.
To see the results for yourself, visit GMOJudyCarman.org. The uterus was also 25 percent heavier in sows fed GE feed. Both of these findings were biologically and statistically significant. In their paper, Dr. Carman et.al. discuss the disease states this kind of uterine enlargement might represent.
"The two main things that we were looking at here and the two main things that Howard Vlieger flagged as a problem—as things that he was seeing in livestock, particularly in pigs—were both things we found statistical significance for: (1) digestive health problems, particularly inflammation in the stomach, and also (2) reproductive issues. In this case, we've found this increased uterus weight," she says.
more...
http://articles.*******.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/05/18/gmo-foods-inflammation.aspx
Large Pig Study Reveals Significant Inflammatory Response to Genetically Engineered Foods
Pig Study Reveals Significant Stomach Inflammation
The sad reality though is that pigs are not just fed one GE crop at a time. As mentioned earlier, they're fed combinations of GE crops, typically GE soy and corn. Dr. Carman used Roundup-ready soy – designed to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, so that the herbicide will only kill surrounding weeds—along with a couple of different GE corn varieties. "We were in effect feeding three GM genes and their protein products to these pigs at the same time," she explains.
This was also done in order to simulate the diet of a typical American who, just like pigs raised in a conventional piggery, will eat a variety of different GE corn crops, not just one specific one at a time.Besides the fact that there are different kinds of GE crops, such as Roundup Ready and Bt, more than 37 percent of the GE crops grown in the US are "stacked" gene crops, meaning they're not just resistant to Roundup, they also have one or two Bt genes in it. So eating foods that have two or more genetically modified genes in it is pretty standard in terms of what you'll find in the typical American diet.
"These pigs were eating the Roundup-ready gene, its protein product, two Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins, and the proteins from the two Bt genes, which are designed to produce insecticidal proteins. I suspect that the reason why we got such strong stomach inflammation was the interaction between the proteins that the animals were eating," she says.
At the end of the study, Dr. Carman's team discovered a significant increase in stomach inflammation in the pigs fed a GE diet. Overall, inflammation levels were 2.6 times higher in GE-fed pigs than those fed a non-GE diet, and male pigs fared worse than the females. While sows were 2.2 times more likely to have severe stomach inflammation on a GE diet, male pigs were four times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation.
"And when I say 'severe,' I'm talking about a stomach that is swollen and cherry red in color over almost the entire surface of the stomach. This is not the sort of stomach that you or I would want to have at all," she says.
To see the results for yourself, visit GMOJudyCarman.org. The uterus was also 25 percent heavier in sows fed GE feed. Both of these findings were biologically and statistically significant. In their paper, Dr. Carman et.al. discuss the disease states this kind of uterine enlargement might represent.
"The two main things that we were looking at here and the two main things that Howard Vlieger flagged as a problem—as things that he was seeing in livestock, particularly in pigs—were both things we found statistical significance for: (1) digestive health problems, particularly inflammation in the stomach, and also (2) reproductive issues. In this case, we've found this increased uterus weight," she says.
more...
http://articles.*******.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/05/18/gmo-foods-inflammation.aspx
Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops
January 21, 2013 Biotechnology, Commentaries, Health 150 Comments
by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson
How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?
In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus
What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).
The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.
In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.
The Choices for Regulators
The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.
It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.
Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).
Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.
Can the presence of a fragment of virus DNA really be that significant? Below is an independent analysis of Gene VI and its known properties and their safety implications. This analysis clearly illustrates the regulators’ dilemma.
The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:
1) Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing
RNA silencing is a mechanism for the control of gene expression at the level of RNA abundance (Bartel 2004). It is also an important antiviral defense mechanism in both plants and animals, and therefore most viruses have evolved genes (like Gene VI) that disable it (Dunoyer and Voinnet 2006).
Cauliflower mosaic virus genome
Gene VI (upper left) precedes the start of the 35S RNA
This attribute of Gene VI raises two obvious biosafety concerns: 1) Gene VI will lead to aberrant gene expression in GMO crop plants, with unknown consequences and, 2) Gene VI will interfere with the ability of plants to defend themselves against viral pathogens. There are numerous experiments showing that, in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses (Latham and Wilson 2008).
2) Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression
Multicellular organisms make proteins by a mechanism in which only one protein is produced by each passage of a ribosome along a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once that protein is completed the ribosome dissociates from the mRNA. However, in a CaMV-infected plant cell, or as a transgene, Gene VI intervenes in this process and directs the ribosome to get back on an mRNA (reinitiate) and produce the next protein in line on the mRNA, if there is one. This property of Gene VI enables Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to produce multiple proteins from a single long RNA (the 35S RNA). Importantly, this function of Gene VI (which is called transactivation) is not limited to the 35S RNA. Gene VI seems able to transactivate any cellular mRNA (Futterer and Hohn 1991; Ryabova et al. 2002). There are likely to be thousands of mRNA molecules having a short or long protein coding sequence following the primary one. These secondary coding sequences could be expressed in cells where Gene VI is expressed. The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted.
3) Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses
A very recent finding, not known by Podevin and du Jardin, is that Gene VI has a second mechanism by which it interferes with plant anti-pathogen defenses (Love et al. 2012). It is too early to be sure about the mechanistic details, but the result is to make plants carrying Gene VI more susceptible to certain pathogens, and less susceptible to others. Obviously, this could impact farmers, however the discovery of an entirely new function for gene VI while EFSA’s paper was in press, also makes clear that a full appraisal of all the likely effects of Gene VI is not currently achievable.
Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.
Is Gene VI Protein Produced in GMO Crops?
Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm, a crucial issue is whether the actual inserted transgene sequences found in commercial GMO crops will produce any functional protein from the fragment of Gene VI present within the CaMV sequence.
There are two aspects to this question. One is the length of Gene VI accidentally introduced by developers. This appears to vary but most of the 54 approved transgenes contain the same 528 base pairs of the CaMV 35S promoter sequence. This corresponds to approximately the final third of Gene VI. Deleted fragments of Gene VI are active when expressed in plant cells and functions of Gene VI are believed to reside in this final third. Therefore, there is clear potential for unintended effects if this fragment is expressed (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993; Ryabova et al. 2002; Kobayashi and Hohn 2003).
The second aspect of this question is what quantity of Gene VI could be produced in GMO crops? Once again, this can ultimately only be resolved by direct quantitative experiments. Nevertheless, we can theorize that the amount of Gene VI produced will be specific to each independent insertion event. This is because significant Gene VI expression probably would require specific sequences (such as the presence of a gene promoter and an ATG [a protein start codon]) to precede it and so is likely to be heavily dependent on variables such as the details of the inserted transgenic DNA and where in the plant genome the transgene inserted.
Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.
Even direct quantitative measurements of Gene VI protein in individual crop authorizations would not fully resolve the scientific questions, however. No-one knows, for example, what quantity, location or timing of protein production would be of significance for risk assessment, and so answers necessary to perform science-based risk assessment are unlikely to emerge soon.
Big Lessons for Biotechnology
It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information. We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.
This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.
This sense of a generic failure is reinforced by the fact that this is not an isolated event. There exist other examples of commercially approved viral sequences having overlapping genes that were never subjected to risk assessment. These include numerous commercial GMOs containing promoter regions of the closely related virus figwort mosaic virus (FMV) which were not considered by Podevin and du Jardin. Inspection of commercial sequence data shows that the commonly used FMV promoter overlaps its own Gene VI (Richins et al 1987). A third example is the virus-resistant potato NewLeaf Plus (RBMT-22-82). This transgene contains approximately 90% of the P0 gene of potato leaf roll virus. The known function of this gene, whose existence was discovered only after US approval, is to inhibit the anti-pathogen defenses of its host (Pfeffer et al 2002). Fortunately, this potato variety was never actively marketed.
A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.
Biotechnology, it is often forgotten, is not just a technology. It is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on novel living organisms. Rather than treat that question as primarily a daunting scientific one, we should for now consider that the primary obstacle will be overcoming the much more mundane trap of human complacency and incompetence. We are not there yet, and therefore this incident will serve to reinforce the demands for GMO labeling in places where it is absent.
What Regulators Should Do Now
This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.
Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.
But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.
To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.
Footnotes
1) EFSA regulators might now be regretting their failure to implement meaningful GMO monitoring. It would be a good question for European politicians to ask EFSA and for the board of EFSA to ask the GMO panel, whose job it is to implement monitoring.
References
Bartel P (2004) MicroRNAs: Genomics, Biogenesis, Mechanism, and Function. Cell: 116, 281-297.
Dasgupta R , Garcia BH, Goodman RM (2001) Systemic spread of an RNA insect virus in plants expressing plant viral movement protein genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 4910-4915.
De Tapia M, Himmelbach A, and Hohn T (1993) Molecular dissection of the cauliflower mosaic virus translation transactivator. EMBO J 12: 3305-14.
Dunoyer P, and O Voinnet (2006) The complex interplay between plant viruses and host RNA-silencing pathways. Curr Opinion in Plant Biology 8: 415–423.
Franck A, H Guilley, G Jonard, K Richards and L Hirth (1980) Nucleotide sequence of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA. Cell 2: 285-294.
Futterer J, and T Hohn (1991) Translation of a polycistronic mRNA in presence of the cauliflower mosaic virus transactivator protein. EMBO J. 10: 3887-3896.
Haas G, Azevedo J, Moissiard G, Geldreich A, Himber C, Bureau M, et al. (2008) Nuclear import of CaMV P6 is required for infection and suppression of the RNA silencing factor DRB4. EMBO J 27: 2102-12.
Kobayashi K, and T Hohn (2003) Dissection of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Transactivator/Viroplasmin Reveals Distinct Essential Functions in Basic Virus Replication. J. Virol. 77: 8577–8583.
Latham JR, and AK Wilson (2008) Transcomplementation and Synergism in Plants: Implications for Viral Transgenes? Molecular Plant Pathology 9: 85-103.
Park H-S, Himmelbach A, Browning KS, Hohn T, and Ryabova LA (2001). A plant viral ‘‘reinitiation’’ factor interacts with the host translational machinery. Cell 106: 723–733.
Pfeffer S, P Dunoyer, F Heim, KE Richards, G Jonard, V Ziegler-Graff (2002) P0 of Beet Western Yellows Virus Is a Suppressor of Posttranscriptional Gene Silencing. J. Virol. 76: 6815–6824.
Podevin N and du Jardin P (2012) Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. GM Crops and Food 3: 1-5.
Love AJ , C Geri, J Laird, C Carr, BW Yun, GJ Loake et al (2012) Cauliflower mosaic virus Protein P6 Inhibits Signaling Responses to Salicylic Acid and Regulates Innate Immunity. PLoS One. 7(10): e47535.
Richins R, H Scholthof, RJ Shepherd (1987) Sequence of figwort mosaic virus DNA (caulimovirus group). NAR 15: 8451-8466.
Ryabova LA , Pooggin, MH and Hohn, T (2002) Viral strategies of translation initiation: Ribosomal shunt and reinitiation. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 72: 1-39.
Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vendômois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol.
Takahashi H, K Shimamoto, Y Ehara (1989) Cauliflower mosaic virus gene VI causes growth suppression, development of necrotic spots and expression of defence-related genes in transgenic tobacco plants. Molecular and General Genetics 216:188-194.
Wilson AK, JR Latham and RA Steinbrecher (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 23: 209-234.
Zijlstra C, Schärer-Hernández N, Gal S, Hohn T. Arabidopsis thaliana expressing the cauliflower mosaic virus ORF VI transgene has a late flowering phenotype. Virus Genes 1996; 13:5-17.
http://www.independentsciencenews.o...-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/
January 21, 2013 Biotechnology, Commentaries, Health 150 Comments
by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson
How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?
In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus
What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).
The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.
In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.
The Choices for Regulators
The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.
It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.
Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).
Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.
Can the presence of a fragment of virus DNA really be that significant? Below is an independent analysis of Gene VI and its known properties and their safety implications. This analysis clearly illustrates the regulators’ dilemma.
The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:
1) Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing
RNA silencing is a mechanism for the control of gene expression at the level of RNA abundance (Bartel 2004). It is also an important antiviral defense mechanism in both plants and animals, and therefore most viruses have evolved genes (like Gene VI) that disable it (Dunoyer and Voinnet 2006).
Cauliflower mosaic virus genome
Gene VI (upper left) precedes the start of the 35S RNA
This attribute of Gene VI raises two obvious biosafety concerns: 1) Gene VI will lead to aberrant gene expression in GMO crop plants, with unknown consequences and, 2) Gene VI will interfere with the ability of plants to defend themselves against viral pathogens. There are numerous experiments showing that, in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses (Latham and Wilson 2008).
2) Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression
Multicellular organisms make proteins by a mechanism in which only one protein is produced by each passage of a ribosome along a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once that protein is completed the ribosome dissociates from the mRNA. However, in a CaMV-infected plant cell, or as a transgene, Gene VI intervenes in this process and directs the ribosome to get back on an mRNA (reinitiate) and produce the next protein in line on the mRNA, if there is one. This property of Gene VI enables Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to produce multiple proteins from a single long RNA (the 35S RNA). Importantly, this function of Gene VI (which is called transactivation) is not limited to the 35S RNA. Gene VI seems able to transactivate any cellular mRNA (Futterer and Hohn 1991; Ryabova et al. 2002). There are likely to be thousands of mRNA molecules having a short or long protein coding sequence following the primary one. These secondary coding sequences could be expressed in cells where Gene VI is expressed. The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted.
3) Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses
A very recent finding, not known by Podevin and du Jardin, is that Gene VI has a second mechanism by which it interferes with plant anti-pathogen defenses (Love et al. 2012). It is too early to be sure about the mechanistic details, but the result is to make plants carrying Gene VI more susceptible to certain pathogens, and less susceptible to others. Obviously, this could impact farmers, however the discovery of an entirely new function for gene VI while EFSA’s paper was in press, also makes clear that a full appraisal of all the likely effects of Gene VI is not currently achievable.
Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.
Is Gene VI Protein Produced in GMO Crops?
Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm, a crucial issue is whether the actual inserted transgene sequences found in commercial GMO crops will produce any functional protein from the fragment of Gene VI present within the CaMV sequence.
There are two aspects to this question. One is the length of Gene VI accidentally introduced by developers. This appears to vary but most of the 54 approved transgenes contain the same 528 base pairs of the CaMV 35S promoter sequence. This corresponds to approximately the final third of Gene VI. Deleted fragments of Gene VI are active when expressed in plant cells and functions of Gene VI are believed to reside in this final third. Therefore, there is clear potential for unintended effects if this fragment is expressed (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993; Ryabova et al. 2002; Kobayashi and Hohn 2003).
The second aspect of this question is what quantity of Gene VI could be produced in GMO crops? Once again, this can ultimately only be resolved by direct quantitative experiments. Nevertheless, we can theorize that the amount of Gene VI produced will be specific to each independent insertion event. This is because significant Gene VI expression probably would require specific sequences (such as the presence of a gene promoter and an ATG [a protein start codon]) to precede it and so is likely to be heavily dependent on variables such as the details of the inserted transgenic DNA and where in the plant genome the transgene inserted.
Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.
Even direct quantitative measurements of Gene VI protein in individual crop authorizations would not fully resolve the scientific questions, however. No-one knows, for example, what quantity, location or timing of protein production would be of significance for risk assessment, and so answers necessary to perform science-based risk assessment are unlikely to emerge soon.
Big Lessons for Biotechnology
It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information. We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.
This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.
This sense of a generic failure is reinforced by the fact that this is not an isolated event. There exist other examples of commercially approved viral sequences having overlapping genes that were never subjected to risk assessment. These include numerous commercial GMOs containing promoter regions of the closely related virus figwort mosaic virus (FMV) which were not considered by Podevin and du Jardin. Inspection of commercial sequence data shows that the commonly used FMV promoter overlaps its own Gene VI (Richins et al 1987). A third example is the virus-resistant potato NewLeaf Plus (RBMT-22-82). This transgene contains approximately 90% of the P0 gene of potato leaf roll virus. The known function of this gene, whose existence was discovered only after US approval, is to inhibit the anti-pathogen defenses of its host (Pfeffer et al 2002). Fortunately, this potato variety was never actively marketed.
A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.
Biotechnology, it is often forgotten, is not just a technology. It is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on novel living organisms. Rather than treat that question as primarily a daunting scientific one, we should for now consider that the primary obstacle will be overcoming the much more mundane trap of human complacency and incompetence. We are not there yet, and therefore this incident will serve to reinforce the demands for GMO labeling in places where it is absent.
What Regulators Should Do Now
This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.
Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.
But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.
To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.
Footnotes
1) EFSA regulators might now be regretting their failure to implement meaningful GMO monitoring. It would be a good question for European politicians to ask EFSA and for the board of EFSA to ask the GMO panel, whose job it is to implement monitoring.
References
Bartel P (2004) MicroRNAs: Genomics, Biogenesis, Mechanism, and Function. Cell: 116, 281-297.
Dasgupta R , Garcia BH, Goodman RM (2001) Systemic spread of an RNA insect virus in plants expressing plant viral movement protein genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 4910-4915.
De Tapia M, Himmelbach A, and Hohn T (1993) Molecular dissection of the cauliflower mosaic virus translation transactivator. EMBO J 12: 3305-14.
Dunoyer P, and O Voinnet (2006) The complex interplay between plant viruses and host RNA-silencing pathways. Curr Opinion in Plant Biology 8: 415–423.
Franck A, H Guilley, G Jonard, K Richards and L Hirth (1980) Nucleotide sequence of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA. Cell 2: 285-294.
Futterer J, and T Hohn (1991) Translation of a polycistronic mRNA in presence of the cauliflower mosaic virus transactivator protein. EMBO J. 10: 3887-3896.
Haas G, Azevedo J, Moissiard G, Geldreich A, Himber C, Bureau M, et al. (2008) Nuclear import of CaMV P6 is required for infection and suppression of the RNA silencing factor DRB4. EMBO J 27: 2102-12.
Kobayashi K, and T Hohn (2003) Dissection of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Transactivator/Viroplasmin Reveals Distinct Essential Functions in Basic Virus Replication. J. Virol. 77: 8577–8583.
Latham JR, and AK Wilson (2008) Transcomplementation and Synergism in Plants: Implications for Viral Transgenes? Molecular Plant Pathology 9: 85-103.
Park H-S, Himmelbach A, Browning KS, Hohn T, and Ryabova LA (2001). A plant viral ‘‘reinitiation’’ factor interacts with the host translational machinery. Cell 106: 723–733.
Pfeffer S, P Dunoyer, F Heim, KE Richards, G Jonard, V Ziegler-Graff (2002) P0 of Beet Western Yellows Virus Is a Suppressor of Posttranscriptional Gene Silencing. J. Virol. 76: 6815–6824.
Podevin N and du Jardin P (2012) Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. GM Crops and Food 3: 1-5.
Love AJ , C Geri, J Laird, C Carr, BW Yun, GJ Loake et al (2012) Cauliflower mosaic virus Protein P6 Inhibits Signaling Responses to Salicylic Acid and Regulates Innate Immunity. PLoS One. 7(10): e47535.
Richins R, H Scholthof, RJ Shepherd (1987) Sequence of figwort mosaic virus DNA (caulimovirus group). NAR 15: 8451-8466.
Ryabova LA , Pooggin, MH and Hohn, T (2002) Viral strategies of translation initiation: Ribosomal shunt and reinitiation. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 72: 1-39.
Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vendômois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol.
Takahashi H, K Shimamoto, Y Ehara (1989) Cauliflower mosaic virus gene VI causes growth suppression, development of necrotic spots and expression of defence-related genes in transgenic tobacco plants. Molecular and General Genetics 216:188-194.
Wilson AK, JR Latham and RA Steinbrecher (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 23: 209-234.
Zijlstra C, Schärer-Hernández N, Gal S, Hohn T. Arabidopsis thaliana expressing the cauliflower mosaic virus ORF VI transgene has a late flowering phenotype. Virus Genes 1996; 13:5-17.
http://www.independentsciencenews.o...-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/
https://jhaines6a.wordpress.com/201...formaldehyde-in-our-gut-by-f-william-engdahl/
you gots to quit eating wheat, corn and soybeans unless you know they are organic as all three are almost entirely gmo products. all three can make you sick and actually eventually kill you.
84% of Americans want to know what is in their food, yet the house of rep corporations just voted to make it ILLEGAL for states to require gmo labeling, they can call gmo natural WTF...
painting us into a corner...grow your own!
for several years i've been making and stashing food seedstock and would recommend everyone do the same.
there are still non-gmo seed to be had and all it takes is to source them, germinate and take to seed anything you can find that is non-gmo.
more or less an end of the world scenario, and i don't imagine i'll ever need use them, but i sleep better knowing monsanto and ilk are not profiting from me.
for several years i've been making and stashing food seedstock and would recommend everyone do the same.
there are still non-gmo seed to be had and all it takes is to source them, germinate and take to seed anything you can find that is non-gmo.
more or less an end of the world scenario, and i don't imagine i'll ever need use them, but i sleep better knowing monsanto and ilk are not profiting from me.
Its a lot easier said than done to get organic heirloom seeds.and if you do find them,it will cost money.most seeds from stores are garbage.you have to know someone to get the good stock.and a lot of people dont wanna give them up.its understandable
patience pays off. been doing this for several years now...and it's worth the trouble to be certain.
there are still heirloom seeds to be found.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...om+seed&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
there are still heirloom seeds to be found.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...om+seed&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
I like my organisms unmodified..they sneak GM stuff into everything nowadays..hard to avoid it in the usa..I try and eat local fresh stuff as much as possible...y..theres a lot of heirloom stuff out there... you can thank the amish and some hardy souls who don't buy into the bullshit...yeehaw.... when I lived in pa I had all kinds of heirloom seeds ..theres quite a few that don't want to be monsantos biotch...
Do a google search, there are tons of small commercial seedmakers out there.
I grow organic but don't see the point in getting organic seeds though. I don't think chemical feeding and spraying affects the genes, unless there's actual breeding work being done.
Wow what a bunch of fear mongering....
I am not for GMO plants, or crops, or GMO Cannabis, I do not buy or use them but what the anti-GMO people here call science is a joke.
An example is BT and BTi, I have used them for years, they are not toxic at all to me.
I have never smoked Cannabis with BT's in them, as it does not exist, but I have surely smoked or eaten some BT's on my plants at one time or another, I used Kgs of them. I use Bt's without fear of any harm to me or the environment, after 40 years of constant use I am not sensitive to it in the slightest bit. On my skin or even if I breath some in when I use it.
I do understand the reasons you don't want GMO BT's in the food, and I agree with some, but the anti-GMO folks are just blind to science, they do not want to hear any science that disagrees with their established views. But unpublished science or studies that have been proved wrong or in error are used over and over by them to try and prove their point of view.
Most of both sides here do not want the truth, they just want to prove their point, their side, and ignore all the rest.
Really sad.....
"read Engdahl's book mate"
I have, what a waste of paper and ink.....
Not surprising when you see his back round and associates. I love where he thinks oil comes from.....
-SamS
I am not for GMO plants, or crops, or GMO Cannabis, I do not buy or use them but what the anti-GMO people here call science is a joke.
An example is BT and BTi, I have used them for years, they are not toxic at all to me.
I have never smoked Cannabis with BT's in them, as it does not exist, but I have surely smoked or eaten some BT's on my plants at one time or another, I used Kgs of them. I use Bt's without fear of any harm to me or the environment, after 40 years of constant use I am not sensitive to it in the slightest bit. On my skin or even if I breath some in when I use it.
I do understand the reasons you don't want GMO BT's in the food, and I agree with some, but the anti-GMO folks are just blind to science, they do not want to hear any science that disagrees with their established views. But unpublished science or studies that have been proved wrong or in error are used over and over by them to try and prove their point of view.
Most of both sides here do not want the truth, they just want to prove their point, their side, and ignore all the rest.
Really sad.....
"read Engdahl's book mate"
I have, what a waste of paper and ink.....
Not surprising when you see his back round and associates. I love where he thinks oil comes from.....
-SamS
