Monsanto's Roundup disaster

[wilbur]

as the owner of a large piece of land I 've used 'roundup'. soon stopped tho when I found regrowth to be slowed and all the frogs died.

frogs didn't die from the glyphosate. no instead they died from the wetting agent fitted to the glyphosate.

so monsanto is entirely correct when it states glyphosate won't harm aquatic creatures. seems they just kinda forgot about the wetting agent.

 

[StRa]

sorry for the off topic but I'd like to share with you guys the story of kepone or chlordecone that I've just watch on tv and I didn't know about it!

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepone

Kepone, also known as chlordecone, is a carcinogenic[1] insecticide related to mirex, used between 1966 and 1975 in the USA for ant and roach baits.

so in 1975 the USA banned this insecticide beacuse in 10 years they noticed the cancerogenic "properties" of this compound!!!

but thanks to the French gov in the French Antilles they used it until 1993..........

The French island of Martinique is heavily contaminated with kepone,[5] following years of unrestricted use on banana plantations. Despite a 1990 ban of the substance by France, the island was, after intensive lobbying by the economically powerful Béké community, allowed to continue using kepone until 1993, under the since disputed argument that no alternative pesticide was available. Similarly, the nearby island of Guadeloupe is also contaminated, but to a lesser extent. Since 2003, the local authorities restricted cultivation of crops because the soil has been seriously contaminated by kepone. That may correlate with the fact that Guadeloupe has one of the highest prostate cancer rates in the world

 

[El Toker]

Here is another one specially for El Toker

A press release from Greenpeace presented as evidence. ROFLMAO. These are the people who criticised Norman Borlaug and unsucessfully tried to stop him saving over a billion lives. It's these sort of vile individuals that ensured that some African countries continue to starve for unfounded fear of the vile bullshit that they spread. When I say that ecotards make me sick to the stomach, I am understating it.

 

[El Toker]

Just because you're angry at your friend - the local doobie lunatic - who smokes too much and preaches bout illuminati, monsanto etc does not give you a reason to come here and post bullshit opinions.

No, I find the illuminati bullshit quite entertaining. It's so ridiculous that nobody on the right side of sanity believes it. However, this thread and the steaming pile of excrement that is presented as an argument is offensive.

It's self absorbed ecotards desperate to find someone guilty of being evil to boost their own self esteem. The problem is that this sort of bullshit stops progress and delays the development of genetically engineered crops that will save billions of lives from starvation in the future.

 

[StRa]

The problem is that this sort of bullshit stops progress and delays the development of genetically engineered crops that will save billions of lives from starvation in the future.

Where is the science behind the above statement??? ahhhhh yeah the magic ball science..........ahahahhahahahahahah....

in my opinion this is an excuse and they'll use and treat poor people as lab rats!!!!

I repeat once again my friend........ eat as much GMO as you can but don't try to spread it!!!!

 

[elmanito]

A press release from Greenpeace presented as evidence. ROFLMAO. These are the people who criticised Norman Borlaug and unsucessfully tried to stop him saving over a billion lives. It's these sort of vile individuals that ensured that some African countries continue to starve for unfounded fear of the vile bullshit that they spread. When I say that ecotards make me sick to the stomach, I am understating it.

I agree i'm not a big fan of Greenpeace either but your writing above about Norman Borlaug would save a billion lives is really BS.

Borlaug believed that genetic manipulation of organisms (GMO) was the only way to increase food production

This was his believe, but when we watch today it is just the opposite.Food production will never be increased by GMO, but fertile soil does.To increase food production we need fertile soil and water.Some parts of Africa are struggling with long periods of drought, so what happen no crop will grow because of the lack of water.Answer of that is the introduction of permaculture like in the vid below;

[YOUTUBEIF]8gPvsl9ni-4[/YOUTUBEIF]

The other answer to increase the soil's fertility is to add rock dust besides organic matter.

[YOUTUBEIF]uOJ9vBdHZGM[/YOUTUBEIF]

In soil we trust

Namaste

 

[StRa]

.Food production will never be increased by GMO, but fertile soil does.To increase food production we need fertile soil and water.S
In soil we trust

great post elmanito and BTW do you know them???

http://www.solutionslocales-lefilm.com/en/characters/lydia-et-claude-bourguignon

Lydia et Claude Bourguignon

“We develop methods that rehabilitate the soil and allow people to resettle on previously abandoned land.”
Lydia Bourguignon, doctor in food engineering, and Claude Bourguignon, agronomist and doctor in microbiology, left the French National Food Engineering Institute (INRA) because they disagreed with the orientation and themes the Institute favoured.

Following their departure, Lydia and Claude created, in 1990, their own research and analysis laboratory in soil microbiology, called LAMS - Laboratory for the Analysis of Soil Microbiology. In this laboratory, they measure the biological activity in agricultural soil, and have come to the conclusion that it is getting poorer by the day, everywhere in the world; in Europe, 90% of the soil's microbiological activity has already been destroyed.

They have written "Soil, Earth and Fields", which is considered an agro-ecology reference book.

Claude Bourguignon has taught at the first organic farming school, in Malleval, France. Lydia and Claude often give lectures and lead training sessions in soil biology.

The LAMS is the only laboratory in France to offer farmers the physical, chemical and biological analysis of their soil. When other laboratories analyse ground, LAM analyses SOIL - the difference is keen. Rather than analysing samples sent by Post, the LAMS team goes to the field and studies the soil right then and there. A complete system of tests and the use of a microscope enable them to precisely conclude as to the current state of the soil life. After this first step, physical, chemical and biological analyses are led within the laboratory, on samples taken from different depths.

This analysis is positive on two grounds. Firstly, the farmers learn about their soil capital. Secondly, they are given all the information at hand to manage their land in the most economical and rational way.

By mastering the field's vocation, the farmer is then able to plan the most suitable crop rotation, adapting to it in order to optimize product quality and make yield perennial.

Ground analyses almost always conclude that more fertilizer needs to be applied. Soil analysis, on the other hand, mostly suggests that farmers need to minimize pesticides and fertilizer; sometimes that they should stop altogether, in the prospects of respecting the earth and reaching better profitability.

 

[McDankenstank]

Wow I cant believe never found this thread before! I recently wrote a research paper on genetic egineering for my english II final so the angst of Monsanto is fresh in my mind haha. Anyways I figured I would share this paragraph or two on Monsantio I had "In the world of genetic engineering there is a concern that genetically modified organisms will cross contaminate themselves with existing stable crops and in a worst case scenario will over populate the existing natural species. This concern is not just based on eerie feeling had by a couple of paranoid organic farmers fearing impending doom but rather a number of real life cases. In the early 2000’s Bio-Tech powerhouse, Monsanto Company released a GE crop of canola that was created to be roundup ready (ironically Monsanto’s popular pesticide) or resistant to herbicide, the Canadian canola oil industry but the crop right into use, but their actions led to an outcome that most farmers probably had not predicted. The genetically engineered crops quickly and unintentionally became the most commonly grown strain of Canola oil in Canada. The crops even invasively took over organic farms causing for GE crop to account for 80% of canola in Canada. In turn Japan, one of Canada’s biggest importers of canola seeds, was vastly affected by this. In 2003 Japan imported over 1.6 million seeds from Canada without the intention of importing GMO’s and then in a recent study done by the Japanese National Institute for Environmental Studies it was concluded that five of six the random crops tested positive for being genetically engineered, proving that indeed GMO’s have the risk for becoming an invasive species and unintentionally repopulating an existing crop and have in fact done just this Japan as well as Canada. Interestingly enough Monsanto Company frantically recalled the seeds of a similar genetically modified crop as the roundup ready canola because it contained unwanted genetic traits, the implications of a faulty crop invading a stable crop is devastating, not only would it have an effect on the species and farmers, but it would also have drastic effect on the economy. Although there has never been an epidemic type break out of an undesired GMO that caused mass catastrophe, there has indeed been a number of cross contamination cases, in fact there is a whole agency dedicated to the investigation and the reporting of these cases called the GM Contamination Registry Report. Since its birth in 2005 the agency has reported 216 cases of genetically modified foods contaminating existing crops all across the world."

“When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.” Cree saying

Works Cited
Rifkin, Jeremy. "From The Biotech Century - A Second Opinion : The Marriage of the Genetic Sciencesand the Technologies Reshaping Our World, by Jeremy Rifkin." The Human Nature Review Edited by Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young. 1997. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.human-nature.com/reason/books/rifkin.html>.
"GM Trees Threaten the Global Environment." SFSU. 9 Nov. 1999. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/GMtrees.html>.
Verzola, Roberto. "Genetic Engineering Debate." SFSU. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedebate.html>.
Cummins, Joe. "The Danger of Virus-Resistant Crops." SFSU. University of Western Ontario. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/Danger%20of%20Virus%20Resistant%20Crops.htm>.
Phillips, Susan C. "Genetically Engineered Foods." CQ Researcher by CQ Press. The QC Researcher Online, 5 Aug. 1994. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1994080506>.
Wieczorek, Ania. "Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture—." Hawaii.edu. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, May 2003. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
Dresbach, Sereana, Holly Fax, Amanda Sokolowski, and John Allred. "Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet." The Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms on Human Health. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5058.html>.

 

[StRa]

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=7526

Report Finds GE Drought Tolerant Corn More Hype than Help

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2012) Monsanto’s new drought tolerant corn, DroughtGard, reduces crop losses only modestly during moderate droughts, and will not reduce the crop’s water requirements, according to a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report finds that traditional breeding and improved farming practices have done more to increase drought tolerance, and that further improvements in genetic engineering are unlikely to solve the drought problem in coming years.

Monsanto’s advertising campaigns touted its intention to develop seeds that yield “more crop per drop,” but there is no evidence that DroughtGard will help the crops or farmers use water more efficiently. The report, High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering is Not Solving Agriculture’s Drought Problem in a Thirsty World, finds that during limited testing DroughtGard —the only crop genetically engineered (GE) for drought tolerance approved for commercial use, containing the engineered gene cspB— reduced crop losses by about six percent. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) analysis of data supplied by Monsanto show that DroughtGard produces only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions. The report estimates that DroughtGard does not improve water use efficiency. By comparison, breeding and improved farming practices have increased drought tolerance by roughly one percent per year over the past several decades. UCS calculates this is roughly equal to or better than what the new GM corn has demonstrated.

Agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of all water extracted from rivers and wells, making drought a serious and costly problem for farmers. An extreme drought still plaguing Texas triggered a record $5.2 billion in agricultural losses in 2011 alone. Monsanto’s new corn is not likely to provide any practical help under such conditions, even by the company’s guarded claims. In terms of crop yields, DroughtGard will increase overall corn production by about one percent because it is likely to be of practical value on only about 15 percent of U.S. corn acreage. Breeding and improved farming practices increase corn production by about 1.5 to 2 percent annually.

According to the report, DroughtGard is further handicapped by the fact that it will work well only under moderate drought conditions, and climate scientists predict that drought frequency and severity likely will increase in some regions as climate change worsens. The fact that drought is not predicable also makes it difficult for farmers to decide whether it is worthwhile to buy DroughtGard seed prior to the growing season.

“Farmers are always looking to reduce losses from drought, but the biotechnology industry has made little real-world progress on this problem,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., a senior scientist with UCS’s Food & Environment Program and author of the report. “Despite many years of research and millions of dollars in development costs, DroughtGard doesn’t outperform the non-engineered alternatives.”

Monsanto’s DroughtGard corn hybrids are in the final phase before commercialization in on-farm field trials. The company hopes to roll the product out commercially next year. The evidence suggests that alternatives to GE —classical breeding, improved farming practices, or crops naturally more drought-tolerant than corn, such as sorghum and millet— can produce better results, often at lower cost. Drought is a significant problem for agriculture in the U.S. and globally. Last year, extreme drought in Texas and throughout the U.S. South wiped out crops and left livestock without pasture or hay, with damages to the agriculture industry calculated at more than $5 billion.

The U.S. has in recent times moved to deregulate GE crops without fully understanding the human health and environmental consequences, and without sufficient evidence to support the claims made by the technology. Another recent report highlights scientific research and empirical experiences around the globe that demonstrate the failure of GE seeds and crops to deliver on their advertised promises to increase yields, reduce pesticide usage, and tolerate drought with “climate ready” traits.

Most recently, USDA is considering deregulating GE corn engineered to be tolerant to 2,4-D as a means of controlling weeds that have become resistant to Roundup (glyphosate). GE crops tolerant to Roundup have proliferated over the last decade and have directly resulted in resistant “super weeds.” Beyond Pesticides and dozens of other organic and environmental organizations wrote comments to USDA, urging the agency to not allow this new strain of GE corn to enter the environment.

The U.S. decision to welcome and deregulate GM crops fails to take into account several scientifically-validated environmental concerns, such as the indiscriminate nature of genetically modified gene flow in crops, a heavy reliance on faulty data, and a high degree of uncertainties in making safety determinations. It also overlooks the problem of herbicide-resistant weeds and insects, as well as the widespread corruption of conventional seed varieties by GE strains, along with documented severe economic injury to farmers and markets. There is also an oversight of possible health consequences from eating GE foods, despite the fact that long-term health effects of consuming GM food are still largely unstudied and unknown.

Fortunately, GE crops are not permitted in organic food production. For more information about why organic is the right choice, see our Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience Guide and visit the Organic Program page. For more information on the failure of genetically engineered food, read “Genetically Engineered Food: Failed promises and hazardous outcomes,” from the Summer 2011 issue of Pesticides and You, or go to our Genetic Engineering web page.

Source:
Union of Concerned Scientists, Reuters

 

[StRa]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88J0MS20120920

(Reuters) - In a study that prompted sharp criticism from other experts, French scientists said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumors and multiple organ damage.

The French government asked the country's health watchdog to investigate the findings further, although a number of scientists questioned the study's basic methods and Monsanto said it felt confident its products had been proven safe.

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller - or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet.

Experts not involved in the study were skeptical, with one accusing the French scientists of going on a "statistical fishing trip" and others describing its methods as well below standard.

The animals on the genetically modified (GM) diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage, according to the peer-reviewed study which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.

The researchers said 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the company would review the study thoroughly. However, he added: "Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies performed on biotech crops to date, including more than a hundred feeding studies, have continuously confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world."

EXPERTS SCEPTICAL

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are deeply unpopular in Europe but dominate major crops in the United States after Monsanto introduced a soybean genetically altered to tolerate Roundup in 1996.

Experts asked by reporters to review the scientific paper advised caution in drawing conclusions from it.

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.

"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.

LONG-TERM EFFECTS?

While supporters of GM crops say previous studies have overwhelmingly pointed to their safety, critics argue there is still limited information about the long-term effects since the crops have only been around for just over 15 years.

In France, where opposition to GMOs has led to a ban on growing such crops, the government said it had asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency (EFSA).

"Based on the conclusion ..., the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union," the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement.

Seralini, the scientist at the centre of the latest research, previously raised safety concerns based on a shorter rat study in 2009. His new study takes things a step further by tracking the animals throughout their two-year lifespan.

Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies".

"I feel this data is strong enough to withdraw the marketing approval for this variety of GM maize temporarily, until this study is followed up and repeated with larger number of animals to get the full statistical power that we want," he said.

Seralini believes his latest lifetime rat tests give a more realistic and authoritative view of risks than the 90-day feeding trials that form the basis of GM crop approvals, since three months is only the equivalent of early adulthood in rats.

France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he said in a statement.

The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply.

(Adiitional reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide in Paris and Carey Gillam in Kansas City, editing by Anna Willard and Janet McBride)

 

[StRa]

http://grist.org/food/the-latest-gmo-study-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/

The latest GMO study raises more questions than it answers

By Tom Laskawy

It’s been hard to avoid hearing about the recent study [PDF] linking GMO corn and pesticide (Roundup) exposure to tumor growth and early death in rats. Most major news organizations have picked it up, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, NPR, and the LA Times.

The study itself, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was performed by Gilles-Eric Seralini, head of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering and a scientist who is a self-described opponent of genetically modified food.

The group that co-sponsored the research, the U.K.’s Sustainable Food Trust, declared it to be the first “lifetime feeding trial” of GMOs’ effects in rats; Seralini and his team followed the rats for two years — the full lifespan of the animal. Most GMO rat feeding studies last no longer than 90 days — the equivalent to a much longer period in human terms, of course.

Still, it’s worth noting that GMOs entered the marketplace less than 20 years ago, and there haven’t been any lifetime feeding studies of their effects in humans. So it’s worth paying attention to what Seralini has done. Here’s how he constructed the study, as summarized by The New York Times:

The rats in the study were split into 10 groups, each containing 10 male and 10 female rats. Six of the groups were fed different amounts of a corn developed by Monsanto to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. In some cases the corn had been sprayed in the field with Roundup.

Three other groups were given different doses of Roundup in their drinking water, with the lowest dose corresponding to what might be found in tap water in the United States, the authors said.

The 10th group, the control, was fed nonengineered corn and plain water.

The study found that in groups that ate the engineered corn, up to 50 percent of the males and 70 percent of the females died before they would have from normal aging, compared with 30 percent of the males and 20 percent of the females in the control group.

Some 50 to 80 percent of the female rats developed tumors compared with only 30 percent of the controls. And there were several times as many cases of liver and kidney injury in the exposed rats.

Other scientists immediately criticized the structure of the study, the findings, and Seralini himself. Both Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration responded with a more guarded “we’ll review it and get back to you.”

Needless to say, California’s GMO-labeling campaign embraced the study, and it has already incorporated the findings into the political battle over Prop 37, the state’s GMO-labeling referendum.

This is not Seralini’s first study to claim toxicity from GMO corn consumption — it just appears to be the first one that has made headlines. In 2009, he found evidence of liver and other organ damage in rats in an analysis of Monsanto’s own research.

In Grist’s coverage of that study, which looked at short-term effects, Tom Philpott pointed to a peer-reviewed report [PDF] on the GMO literature published in the International Journal of the Sociology of Food and Agriculture. As Philpott put it, the report revealed that “there has actually been shockingly little research done on the long-term effects of eating GMO food — and most of what has been was conducted by the industry itself.”

Whether these foods cause toxicity of any kind in humans or livestock remains unknown. There is not evidence that industrially raised cows that eat GMO feed are as riddled with tumors as these rats were. However, there has been some evidence that Roundup, at least, may have serious and underreported health effects for livestock.

Seralini is also one of the few scientists who routinely uses actual Roundup in his research. Most studies of the safety of Roundup study its ingredients in isolation, whether it’s the active ingredient, glyphosate, or the “inert” ingredients in the formulation. Seralini earlier collaborated on a study that found evidence that Roundup’s “market formula” may have effects not captured by research that tests its individual ingredients.

And that’s why this latest study is important. It’s not that it “proves” GMOs are harmful to humans. It’s that a single study like this one can represent the only lifetime study of the effects of eating GMOs.

The fact that the study found anything different between the groups fed GMO corn and the control group demands further research. Yes, the results could be due to poor research design or simply “bad luck” for those rats. But the only way to know is to perform more research.

Why is this “difference” so key? Because the whole GMO approval regime here and abroad is predicated on the concept of “substantial equivalence” between GMO crops and their conventional brethren. The law assumes that GMO seeds are just another breed, no different from seeds produced through conventional hybridization techniques. As a result, the government has no need to require elaborate safety testing.

You’d think that scientists and our government would respond to this study by encouraging other scientists to replicate Seralini’s findings, if for no other reason than this study’s suggestion that GMO crops may not be “substantially equivalent” to other crops. Had Seralini fed rats various strains of conventional hybrid corn, no one would expect the kinds of results he found. The question is why he found what he found. It may have had nothing to do with the corn. But it would be nice if scientists agreed that we should find out.

I suspect many scientists tend to reject these findings outright out of fear of being perceived as politicized — Seralini himself is dismissed by critics in many of the above articles for his lack of objectivity. But remember that even cold fusion, one of the great scientific hoaxes of all time, wasn’t totally rejected until other scientists were unable to replicate the findings. Why isn’t that the attitude with GMOs?

Perhaps many scientists are still stuck on an old view of toxicity — one based on the idea that the “dose makes the poison.” Have they learned nothing from the new field of epigenetics? Substances that are not themselves conventionally toxic are now known to turn genes on and off at miniscule doses — and have subtle effects that are difficult to tease out of the “noise” of the complex real-world interactions of chemicals and biology.

I’m deeply disappointed in the failure of imagination that I’m seeing from mainstream scientists, in particular the easy dismissal of a study that raises questions about GMO safety. Unlike many of the industrial products that surround us (and permeate us), GMOs are still novel by historical standard.

My disappointment with the scientific community and my concern over the results of this study arises not because I know that GMOs are harmful to our health. On the contrary, it’s exactly because I don’t know. And I don’t think I’m the only one who would like to find out.

* The wonks among you should see this previous post for a discussion of the history of GMO regulation.

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic.

 

[dizzlekush]

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was mod- ified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

And some pictures of the poor little mousies fed the corn note that the mouse on the left was only given the GMO corn that WASN'T treated with roundup, So the effects in the 1st picture are from the GMO corn alone, and cannot be attributed to roundup exposure.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Monsanto’s Roundup, Glyphosate Linked to Parkinson’s and Similar Diseases


We already know the links between herbicides and sterility in men, birth defects, mental illness, obesity and possibly cancer—but now we have something new to add to the nasty effects of pesticides list — Parkinson’s disease and similar neurodegenerative conditions.

New research, published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology, indicates a connection between a component in Monsanto’s Roundup and Parkinson’s disease. Glyphosate is said to induce cell death, with frightening repercussions.

GreenMedInfo.com reports the study was investigating the links between herbicides (weed killers) and brain damage. These chemicals, the study’s authors say, “have been recognized as the main environmental factor associated with neurodegenerative disorders,” like Parkinson’s.

Parkinson’s disease is a degenerative nervous system disease. It slowly progresses as time goes on with common symptoms like tremors, rigidity, difficulty walking, poor posture, lack of movement, and slowness of movement, according to the University of Maryland Medical Center.

The CDC reports Parkinson’s as the 14th leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2010 (the last year for which data is available), there was 4.6% increase in the number of deaths attributed to this disease. One has to wonder if there is a connection between this jump and the ever-growing prevalence of herbicides like Roundup in our air, food, and water.

Studies indicate that glyphosate is toxic to human DNA “at concentrations diluted 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications.” Worded differently—the levels considered safe by our government are 450 times the levels at which glyphosate has been found to damage and destroy human DNA. Yes, it’s that serious.

One case study found a woman who was exposed to glyphosate in the workplace for 3 years at a chemical factory. She wore gloves and a face mask. She was initially a healthy, middle-aged women. But, she developed “rigidity, slowness, and resting tremor in all four limbs.” She was also experiencing severe dizziness, weakness, and blurred vision. And hers isn’t the only such case.

What’s so scary about the growing body of research on Monsanto’s Roundup, its components, and their presence in nearly everything around us, is that the federal government refuses to recognize the risk. Despite a growing concern on an international level, the powers-that-be are seemingly content to turn their eyes while the people demand accountability and safe food.

Until pesticides and herbicides are no longer used on a mass scale, the growth of these diseases will likely continue. Eat 100% organic produce whenever possible to bypass exposure to destructive pesticides and herbicides.

http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-roundup-glyphosate-parkinsons-neurodegenerative/

Keep on growing

 

[Goldy]

from my own personal experience, in areas that have been cleared using roundup the soil has become dry and dusty..not just due to water content..rather the texture is damaged i assume because of the denatured microorganisms. good post OP. Indeed Monsanto are really scary...almost unbelievably so.

 

[Granger2]

And let's not forget. These crops have been marketed and have taken over the seed market before being tested. Bass ackwards especially when public health is concerned. And let's not forget either that no one can control where the pollen goes. Monsanto has taken full advantage of this.

They've sued thousands of farmers in Canada and the US for having MonSatan's genes in their fields. These farmers can't afford to go to court with a $multibillion giant, so they settle out of court on Monsanto's terms, including a provision that these farmers can't speak publicly about the case.

Throughout the Americas, ancient land race genetics are being polluted with GMO genes. These land races are necessary insurance in case of a devastating blight. Capitalism at its most sinister. -granger

 

[ozman]

Monsanto,well they are giving lots of money to the government for the right to poison the country nay the world with its poison.The govt and the epa and so and so forth dont care what they do so long as the depts. get their money from evil monsanto.
ALL GMO foods need to be declared on the packaging so we know what we are eating,oh wait we already know what we are eating and monsanto loves it.
The Government does not care about its citizens it only cares about its pocketbooks and how deep they are filled with cash from monsanto.
So until WE THE PEOPLE stand up and say no more GMO food,no more gmo seeds,this is what we get.
I will have my glass of posion with a lemon thank you,since I am being forced to consume this garbage that is being processed and sold for food.We dont know where the gmo food is since nothing is labled about the use of gmo,eat it,drink it,whatever you need to do to make your masters happy.
Dont mean to vent,but this is some serious sh*t we are being force fed here and until WE THE PEOPLE stand up and say no more,this is what we will have to do.I imagine that they will label gmo food about the same time the federal government removes all legalities from marijuana,I dont think I will live in my life time long enough to see gmo food labled,I hope I am wrong.

Peace out All

 

[Manivelle]

monsanto is probably one of the top 5 evils in this world... the more you read the nastier it gets... and thats just the known shit think about everything they are hiding

+1000

 

[mexcurandero420]

GM woes: no water, no birds, no butterflies, and we’re coughing at harvest time

A farmer with land near us next to Silver Lake in southern Michigan (Branch County) dug a deep well two years ago about 600 feet from the lake shore. He did it in the dead of winter, going through snow and frozen ground after the summer crowd left for the season. When everyone returned in the spring, we and some of our neighbours found that our water pipes often sucked air. The farmer used immense irrigation systems the whole summer on his GM crops. Another GM farmer near a pond that our friend owns a few miles away in the same county also drilled a well to irrigate his fields and the pond went dry.

The first farmer started planting GM crops about 3 or 4 years ago. We knew he did it because he put out signs indicating that they were GM when he planted his corn that year. Then in the fall, when he began to harvest, he actually flew a skull-and-crossbones flag on his combine and harvester! My husband and I started coughing, and we coughed our way through his harvest, as we do every fall now, and getting worse every year.

The other thing that’s happened is that we have almost no birds here anymore. I have bird feeders out, for both songbirds and hummingbirds. For years I’ve enjoyed a wide variety of birds outside my window. But sadly, this year I never once had to replenish my bag of feed. The birds are gone. So are the butterflies. I saw zero butterflies this summer, and there were hardly any bees.

The bees used to battle the hummingbirds for food, but the two lonely hummingbirds that visited our feeder this year had very little competition from the handful of bees that came around. I used to enjoy flocks of hummingbirds, but this year my hummingbird feeder actually went sour before I had to change it. The wild deer are gone too. In other parts of our country, people are blaming the drought for low bird populations. But we’re sitting on a lake.

There’s plenty of water here. And there are no birds. Again, the only thing that’s changed is we’re surrounded by GM fields.

Cindy, Coldwater Michigan, USA
http://farmwars.info/?p=9517

Keep on growing your own food

 

[StRa]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/jan/03/is-gm-food-safe-and-beneficial

Are you convinced that GM food is both safe and beneficial?

In a speech, Conservative environment secretary Owen Paterson has made a renewed case for genetically modified food, while admitting that 'we owe a duty to the public to reassure them that it is a safe and beneficial innovation'. Are you convinced yet?

 

[mexcurandero420]

The New GMOs: More Chemicals, More Dangerous

An upcoming GMO could be adding millions of pounds of toxic pesticides to the food chain and environment.

A global pesticide company announced in early 2012 that it plans to start selling a new GMO, a.k.a. genetically engineered, product to farmers as early as the 2014 growing season, a move weed scientists have been predicting for years, since weeds have been growing increasingly resistant to the chemical glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

Monsanto said its Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans are genetically engineered to withstand sprayings of not just the Roundup weedkiller, but also dicamba, a chemical weedkiller that disrupts plants' hormonal system and causes them to grow in abnormal ways that usually lead to death. (Dicamba is a developmental toxin.)

The introduction of GMOs in the 1990s was supposed to lower pesticide use in the United States, but it’s done anything but that. In 2009 alone, farmers dumped more than 57 million pounds of glyphosate on food crops, according to the USDA. Just as overusing antibiotics in farm animals causes antibiotic resistance, pesticide abuse causes weed resistance, resulting in massive, hard-to-kill superweeds. Because of this, nonorganic farmers are forced to use more pesticides, sometimes even reverting to older, even more dangerous types.

While Monsanto is pairing dicamba with Roundup—which, by the way, is already detected inside of the nonorganic food we eat—other companies are rushing to bring new GMOs to the market. Dow Agrosciences is hoping to introduce its 2,4-D–tolerant corn and soy. (2,4-D has been classified as a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the European Union classifies it as an endocrine disruptor.)

Last year, veteran weed scientist David Mortensen, Ph.D., weed ecologist at Penn State University, crunched the numbers and found that commercial introduction of crops genetically engineered to withstand dicamba and 2,4-D will likely lead to an increase of 60 to 100 percent in the amount of herbicides used, adding millions of pounds of toxic pesticides into the food chain and environment.

Organic sounds pretty tasty about now, doesn't it?

http://www.organicgardening.com/living/new-gmos-more-chemicals-more-dangerous

[YOUTUBEIF]EJA1IzitcRI[/YOUTUBEIF]

Keep on growing