Monsanto's Really needs to be STOPPED HELP

[mean mr.mustard]

I don't understand how anyone can support gm crops at least to this date. more research must be involved to reach a clear understanding or conclusion... look into monsanto and their history as a company, it speaks for itself. they are pure evil. and the revolving door between monstanto and congress is ridiculous....people at the top of monsanto working for our gov't....just creating more laws/acts enabling corporations to control everything we ingest. reminds me of all the FDA prematurely approved drugs that years later cause much damage to the consumers/guinea pigs. c'mon sheep keep within the herd!!!

in the educated scientific community there is a growing consensus (and well warranted) that mankind should not deploy any science without the capacity to recall or undo the effects of said science

this is the danger of montasano's current methodology

the conundrum is that we may not see the negative payload that may exist with these technologies until tis too late to reverse them

All I can do is look at history and wonder with wide eyed amazement at the number of the unwilling to look at the facts and draw conclusions.

Possibilities are just that.

 

[Clackamas Coot]

"The healthiest nation in the world"

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Cute kid... is he diabetic or autistic?

The M is for Monsanto!

Heeere I come to saaave the daaaaay!

 

[Weird]

All I can do is look at history and wonder with wide eyed amazement at the number of the unwilling to look at the facts and draw conclusions.

Possibilities are just that.

and so are possibilities with out known remedies

for example

there are ambient levels of pharmaceutics in the us and uk water tables because our chemical solutions don't bio degrade, an unforeseen non retractable consequence

so when it comes to homogenizing agriculture in america so it can include genetic modifications to such things and enforce corporate interest (genetic seed lock)

what is the driving motivator?

money

these are profit driven and thus influence design changing key mechanisms in our food chain

this is pure folly

they should pay to keep a percentage of agriculture sustained outside the scope of genetics mutation

imagine one key flaw collapsing the food system and having no way to recover?

cough potato famine cough

nature has redundancy and balance and while science can replicate it when you add profit into the equation you have to buffer the human greed factor

 

[mean mr.mustard]

they should pay to keep a percentage of agriculture sustained outside the scope of genetics mutation

I absolutely endorse this but the fact of the matter is to Monsanto that would be like leaving the back door to their glorious palace unlocked.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

We're not going to take it. No! We ain't going to take...

We're not going to take it. No! We ain't going to take...

From a buddy in response to my post about Egypt today ... is linking to aljazeera off limits?
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201121125158705862.html

With God's blessings it will spread to beyond just Egypt and work it's way back to the west. It is a signal to trans national corporations that make self serving deals like Monsanto preventing the poor people in Egypt and india to keep their own seeds to grow their own crops and all kinds of other corruptive deals that even occur right in front of your face in Canada. This is about the average Joe all over the workd saying F&&k you, I've had enough-I'm not going to take it anymore. Protest against every example of abuse of power in your own life by authority figures.

"Think it's a mistake to universalise this XXXX - this is not about the 'ordinary Joe' but about the Egyptian people saying they've had enough with the Mubarak regime. To see it as a symbol of something greater, if anything, diminishes their achievement.
Sure, people can - and I think should - draw inspiration from the Egyptian people. But I think claiming this as somehow being aligned to a broader anti-capitalist movement or a reawakening of subjectivity is wishful thinking. Very different battles need to be fought in the West. Am sure I'll hear a lot of wishful thinking on the Trafalgar Sq demo"

I didn't intend to diminish their achievement, they stood up against horrific odds and not many people could take that kind of violence and yet 2 days later be singing in dancing in their liberation square. Just hoping to make people see that trans national corporations are undermining freedom everywhere. I stand accused and indicted of wishfull thinking, however am proud to be a dreamer of what could and should be rather than bow my head and accept what is being dictated to me as must be.

 

[3rdEye]

I'm sorry, but i find it highly disingenuous of people to come on here and claim that GMO's are safe. Having worked in bio-engineering before (to my own chagrin) i can say with great certitude, that GMO's are -not- safe, nor has anywhere near enough testing been done to establish a credible margin of safety.

Sorry grapey, but i do have science to back me up and many years of my own research and a dark conscience to answer to for it. Don't go trying to fool people with smoke and mirrors. It's unbecoming.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I'm sorry, but i find it highly disingenuous of people to come on here and claim that GMO's are safe. Having worked in bio-engineering before (to my own chagrin) i can say with great certitude, that GMO's are -not- safe, nor has anywhere near enough testing been done to establish a credible margin of safety.

Sorry grapey, but i do have science to back me up and many years of my own research and a dark conscience to answer to for it. Don't go trying to fool people with smoke and mirrors. It's unbecoming.

Thank you kindly.

 

[grapeman]

I'm sorry, but i find it highly disingenuous of people to come on here and claim that GMO's are safe. Having worked in bio-engineering before (to my own chagrin) i can say with great certitude, that GMO's are -not- safe, nor has anywhere near enough testing been done to establish a credible margin of safety.

Sorry grapey, but i do have science to back me up and many years of my own research and a dark conscience to answer to for it. Don't go trying to fool people with smoke and mirrors. It's unbecoming.

So you have a science backround? Yet, you say with "great certitude" that GMO's are not safe.

Thanks for that earth shattering dribble on how un-safe it really is. Tons of good science in your post to back up your claim. You, along with many others here offer nothing to back up this shit. Good science.... very clear, concise and well thought out to prove just how un-safe it really is. Phfft.
Reminds me of the global warming shit and the emails from MM on how the temps just don't show any warming so they had to fudge the numbers. That too was overwhelmingly good science.

 

[DocLeaf]

Monsanto falls into bed with Codex Alimentarius

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhON1WN48tQ


fritillary seed collective formed in reaction to the above in 2006. Since then we've been cultivating, procreating, and distributing inbred varieties of heirloom organic seed stocks to home growers all over the world (click the butterfly below for organic IBL veggie seed multipacks).

Food is the future of ALL people

Keep it organic people..!

 

[Gooey]

Better question...what proves they are??? in science it is not if you can prove it right its weather you can prove it wrong....i think we all want peer based research to back up our opinions but sometimes it is not available when we must make a decision about what we put in our body...i will be erring on the safe side...thanks for the lively talk...down with Monsanto and its monopoly ways...peace n puffs

 

[dagnabit]

Better question...what proves they are??? in science it is not if you can prove it right its weather you can prove it wrong...

science is used solely to prove a negative?
is that a typo?

 

[Lazyman]

Better question...what proves they are??? in science it is not if you can prove it right its weather you can prove it wrong....i think we all want peer based research to back up our opinions but sometimes it is not available when we must make a decision about what we put in our body...i will be erring on the safe side...thanks for the lively talk...down with Monsanto and its monopoly ways...peace n puffs

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. The scientific method cannot be used to prove a negative. This is why creationists and scientists are at odds, among other things. The scientific method is to develop hypothesis from provable, testable facts. If you want to prove someone wrong, do it yourself. If you can't ,then you're the wrong one.

 

[3rdEye]

So you have a science backround? Yet, you say with "great certitude" that GMO's are not safe.

Thanks for that earth shattering dribble on how un-safe it really is. Tons of good science in your post to back up your claim. You, along with many others here offer nothing to back up this shit. Good science.... very clear, concise and well thought out to prove just how un-safe it really is. Phfft.
Reminds me of the global warming shit and the emails from MM on how the temps just don't show any warming so they had to fudge the numbers. That too was overwhelmingly good science.

I'm somewhat curious as to what criteria you use to determine th terms "credible", "science", and "evidence" grapeman. Perhaps, if you shine some light on what these words mean to you we might be able to have a more germane discussion.

I'm sorry if you feel that my experience isn't credible, however, i stand firmly behind my statements. I don't believe that more "science" needs to be brought into to this debate, because there is already plenty of published data that backs up most of the assertions that have been put forth by more cautious members here.

Fact: it is unpredictable technology being applied in a very haphazard setting and fashion (sorry the great outdoors is anything but controlled.. yes it has been mentioned before)

Fact: we can't even accurately predict how -well mapped- genomes change and react to environmental changes, let alone completely novel gene sequences that have -no natural counterparts

These two very broad categories are replete with safety and efficacy questions that have simply not been addressed by the biotech industry.

 

[grapeman]

I'm somewhat curious as to what criteria you use to determine th terms "credible", "science", and "evidence" grapeman. Perhaps, if you shine some light on what these words mean to you we might be able to have a more germane discussion.

I'm sorry if you feel that my experience isn't credible, however, i stand firmly behind my statements. I don't believe that more "science" needs to be brought into to this debate, because there is already plenty of published data that backs up most of the assertions that have been put forth by more cautious members here.

Fact: it is unpredictable technology being applied in a very haphazard setting and fashion (sorry the great outdoors is anything but controlled.. yes it has been mentioned before)

Fact: we can't even accurately predict how -well mapped- genomes change and react to environmental changes, let alone completely novel gene sequences that have -no natural counterparts

These two very broad categories are replete with safety and efficacy questions that have not simply not been addressing by the biotech industry.

Don't get me wrong, I believe you may have a science back-round.

BUT - what you and others have NOT done, is back up your scary stories on how bad GM is for civilization with any fucking science.

All you have done is say "yep, I do science and GM is bad, very bad".

That's not fucking science. Nor have I seen ANYONE here claiming the sky is falling because of GM, post anything.... anything that comes close to being science.

Of course, maybe my understanding of science is more clear and concise then others. But in the end, someone needs to post up some fucking science. Even an Abstract would be helpful in trying to make a point. Instead all I see is emotional bullshit.

I can do what you do. Here.
Fact: "Our stupid president tried to ride the news cycle on Egypt even though he doesn't know if the resulting government will be friendly to U.S. interests".

See, anyone can make these types of claims about anything. And although I may feel the above statement is true, my saying so does not make it fact (of course when Egypt turns into an Iranian like state contrary to U.S. interests, I'll be able to say "see, I stated facts").

I'll bet my scenario example comes true before the sky falls on GM.

Bring science if you can.

 

[Paco]

I can't see any benefit in GMO's, with a history and horticulture background. I'd say the fact that major corporations involved in things like terminator gene and femmd seeds can pose a deleterious effect on any gene pool, especially whose sole purpose is to sell seed. Yet folks who say they (GMOS) are of no harm provide a much less convincing argument. with or with out science...

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

Bring science if you can.

Read up or stop trolling. I assume since you are such a scientist (with your business degree lol) that you know how to track down full text peer review literature.
http://www.ebr-journal.org/index.ph...articles/ebr/abs/2008/01/ebr0726/ebr0726.html

Identification of potentially hazardous human gene products in GMO risk assessment

Hans Bergmans1, Colin Logie2, Kees Van Maanen3, Harm Hermsen4, Michelle Meredyth5 and Cécile Van Der Vlugt1

1 GMO Office, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
2 Nijmegen Department of Molecular Biology, Nijmegen Center for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3 Animal Health Service, Deventer, The Netherlands
4 Centre for Biological Medicines and Medical Technology, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
5 Departments of Genomics, Biotech and Internal Medicine I, Technical University Dresden, Germany

(Received May 18, 2007; accepted December 21, 2007; published online 3 April 2008)
Abstract - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), e.g. viral vectors, could threaten the environment if by their release they spread hazardous gene products. Even in contained use, to prevent adverse consequences, viral vectors carrying genes from mammals or humans should be especially scrutinized as to whether gene products that they synthesize could be hazardous in their new context. Examples of such potentially hazardous gene products (PHGPs) are: protein toxins, products of dominant alleles that have a role in hereditary diseases, gene products and sequences involved in genome rearrangements, gene products involved in immunomodulation or with an endocrine function, gene products involved in apoptosis, activated proto-oncogenes. For contained use of a GMO that carries a construct encoding a PHGP, the precautionary principle dictates that safety measures should be applied on a "worst case" basis, until the risks of the specific case have been assessed. The potential hazard of cloned genes can be estimated before empirical data on the actual GMO become available. Preliminary data may be used to focus hazard identification and risk assessment. Both predictive and empirical data may also help to identify what further information is needed to assess the risk of the GMO. A two-step approach, whereby a PHGP is evaluated for its conceptual dangers, then checked by data bank searches, is delineated here.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

http://csaweb107v.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/review.pdf

For grapey: follow the citations, mr. scientician, or should I post them for you as full text?
hint: it's called google scholar. lol

What are some of the criticisms against GM foods?

Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional as-
sociations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about
GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential
hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It
seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican19 and the
Prince of Wales20 have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into
three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns.
Environmental hazards

• Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in
Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch
butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but
the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in
neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Na-
ture study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to
support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae
indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-
damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexam-
ined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-
government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the
original study may have been flawed.22,23 This topic is the subject of acrimonious de-
bate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently,

CSA Discovery Guides
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/discoveryguides-main.php Released April 2000
6

there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm
to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.

• Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes devel-
oped resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that
insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-
modified to produce their own pesticides.

• Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for
herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbi-
cide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then
be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-
modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown
by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed
patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops.
Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an un-
known source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their
unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field
or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.

There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are
exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not
receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do
not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the in-
troduced gene.24,25,26 Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as
monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive.

Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops.27,28,29 For
example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the
non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge
in the non-GM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and
would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops
would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone.
Estimates of the necessary width of buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or

24
New tools for chloroplast genetic engineering (Nature Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 9, pp 855-856, Sep
1999)
25
Tandem constructs: preventing the rise of superweeds (Trends in Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 9, pp 361-
366, Sep 1999)
26
Containment of herbicide resistance through genetic engineering of the chloroplast genome (Nature Bio-
technology, Vol 16, No 4, pp 345-348, Apr 1998)
27
Efforts to bioengineer intrinsic resistance to insect pests into crop plants have made use of a natural bac-
terial toxin, Bt, from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Science, Vol 284, No 5416, p 873, May 1999)
28
Inheritance of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer (Sci-
ence, Vol 284, No 5416, pp 965-967, May 1999)
29
Buffers urged around Bt corn fields (Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/enn-news-
archive/1999/07/071499/btbuffer_4342.asp)
Deborah Whitman: Genetically Modified Foods

CSA Discovery Guides
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/discoveryguides-main.php Released April 2000
7

more.30 This planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required for the
buffer zones.

Human health risks

• Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening
allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into
a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible indi-
viduals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was aban-
doned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions.31 Extensive test-
ing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with
food allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire new importance,
which I shall discuss later.

• Unknown effects on human health There is a growing concern that introducing for-
eign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human
health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on
the digestive tract in rats.32,33 This study claimed that there were appreciable differ-
ences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet
critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold
up to scientific scrutiny.34 Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a
snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists
who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the meth-
odology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption.

On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM
foods do not present a risk to human health.

Economic concerns

Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech
companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic
engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a
big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these
new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world
countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between
the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and

30
GM crops: public perception and scientific solutions (Trends in Plant Science, Vol 4, No 12, pp 467-469,
Dec 1999)
31
Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans (New England Journal of Medicine, Vol
334, No 11, pp 688-692, 1996)
32
Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small
intestine (Lancet, Vol 354, No 9187, pp 1353-1354, Oct 1999)
33
Safety of genetically modified food questioned: Interview with gene scientist, Dr Arpad Pusz-
tai(http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/gmo-j03.shtml )
34
The Lancet scolded over Pusztai paper (Science, Vol 286, p 656, Oct 1999)
Deborah Whitman: Genetically Modified Foods

non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at
reduced cost to impoverished nations.

Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they invol-
untarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows.
One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM
plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce
sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds
each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world coun-
tries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their
harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to the public, Monsanto has
pledged to abandon all research using this suicide gene technology.35

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

This is interesting. In response to consumer concerns over ingesting GMO food this research is being conducted. So we may be able to choose GMO-free food. GMO testing means GMO exclusion, and I'm all for that.

http://nepjol.info/index.php/JFSTN/article/viewArticle/1989

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and Its Detection Method
Gyan Sundar Sahukhal, Bina Laxmi Jayana, Nirmal Dhungana, Nawa Raj Dahal, Ganesh Dawadi, Shova Shrestha, Vishwanath Prasad Agrawal

Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) crops currently account for 29% of crop production worldwide. Despite a lack of regulations to provide for food labelling that allows for consumer preference, many products carry negative or positive labels with regard to genetic modification. Regulatory demands of labelling and traceability of GMOs in the food chain need suitable sampling protocols and analytical methods. At present, two main techniques, the DNA-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are most widely used, although new technologies, such as microarrays, have been also developed. The main objective of this review paper is to assess the detection methods both protein based and PCR based as described by different researchers, which represents the state-of-the-art technique for GMO detection in food.

Key words: GMO; Beneficial Aspects; Harmful Aspects; Detection Strategy

Journal of Food Science & Technology Nepal Vol 4, September, 2008, Page: 18-22

 

[Mountain]

Reminds me of the global warming shit and the emails from MM on how the temps just don't show any warming so they had to fudge the numbers. That too was overwhelmingly good science.

Today...

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) – Thawing permafrost is triggering mudslides onto a key road traveled by busloads of sightseers. Tall bushes newly sprouted on the tundra are blocking panoramic views. And glaciers are receding from convenient viewing areas, while their rapid summer melt poses new flood risks. These are just a few of the ways that a rapidly warming climate is reshaping Denali, Kenai Fjords and other national parks comprising the crown jewels of Alaska's heritage as America's last frontier.

These and some better-known impacts -- proliferation of invasive plants and fish, greater frequency and intensity of wildfires, and declines in wildlife populations that depend on sea ice and glaciers -- are outlined in a recent National Park Service report.

Since the mid-1970s, Alaska has warmed at three times the rate of the Lower 48 states, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And with nearly two-thirds of U.S. national parkland located in Alaska, the issue of climate change is especially pressing there, officials say.

In some far northern parks such as Gates of the Arctic, average temperatures are expected to shift in coming years from below freezing to above freezing, crossing a crucial threshold, said Bob Winfree, Alaska science adviser for the Park Service.

"The effects of melting ice and thawing permafrost, I think, will be major," Winfree said.

Over 5 years ago took a gig for a short period locally and I dealt with a lot of tourists coming through town in the summer. Talked to a few peeps from Alaska, and this was before the global warming thing was really in full swing, and they were saying how dramatically things were changing in Alaska and that people were just not getting it. This from those that have lived in that area long term.

Nothing to do with Monsanto though...