Gmo's

[sanctus7]

Hossfeathers,
Here is the results of one study:
Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals

Huffington Post Katherine Goldstein/Gazelle Emami First Posted: 01/12/10 05:30 PM Updated: 03/18/10 05:12 AM
Read More: Food, Food Politics, Gilles-Eric Seralini, GMO Corn, Gmos, International Journal Of Biological Sciences, Monsanto, Monsanto Corn, Monsanto Corn Organ Damage, Monsanto Gm Corn, Monsanto Gmo Corn, National Food Safety, Study Links Monsanto Gm Corn To Organ Failure, The Global Report, Twilight Earth, University Of Caen, Green News


In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup

herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

*Forget the government conspiracies..it's all about money. Monsanto is a huge company that exists to make money..not help the world. Anyone that would believe the
what Monsanto's marketing department puts out to the consumer is not fully informed.
Go ahead and google GMO food and see the negative test results and impact that this *new* scientific breakthrough has had on the environment and humans. Farmers are using more pesticides not less as Monsanto states. Weeds are becoming resistant to Round Up plus studies show that Round Up stays in the environment longer than the company thought. As a nurse who has been in nursing for 25 years and now I work as an environmental nurse, I have seen the jump in allergies, autism and other health issues. Pesticides that are added to food is not a good idea and more studies are showing this.
I'm just saying........

 

[FarmrGirl]

Quote:
2X!!

Quote:
2x... Amen!

Quote:
Whoa... that's an even scarier reason not to let Monsanto, et al, mess around with the genes in my corn!


I don't believe everything I read or all the movies I watch, but many of those things spur me to do additional research - I think if I stay educated I can ask the right questions, not be lead around by the nose, and make informed choices.

One documentary I watched recently was The Vanishing Of The Bees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_of_the_Bees). OK, I'm about to ruin the plot for you here... so further research (mostly in France where they now have new laws because of it) determined that the bees were dying/disapearing due to consuming pollen from plants with the pesticiedes built right into their genes. No surprise, right? But Monsanto complained that they tested the pesticides on the bees and found that the bees didn't die when exposed. OK, but it wasn't killing in the first or even second generation but way down the line. It disrupted the bees ability to "hunt" and "home"... but gradually, over several generations.

Here's the thing that documentary never brought up but REALLY made me think about those GMO's... what's it doing to us?

Just a question.

 

[goosedragon]

I just love that ending. "I'm just saying" Is it supposed to excuse the stuff you just posted or point to the fact that you posted it and therefore it must be true?
"our data strongly suggests" are science weasel words, In a real journal, the statistics that support the conclusions would be given. I often think they must not teach statistics to Green scientists Since they usually don't report the results if they do run them. And what kind of scientist defends their studies on a blog?

 

[goosedragon]

deleted I added nothing

 

[sanctus7]

Goose dragon says:

I just love that ending. "I'm just saying" Is it supposed to excuse the stuff you just posted or point to the fact that you posted it and therefore it must be true?
"our data strongly suggests" are science weasel words, In a real journal, the statistics that support the conclusions would be given. I often think they must not teach statistics to Green scientists Since they usually don't report the results if they do run them. And what kind of scientist defends their studies on a blog?

Me:
No no....I am surrounded in a home by young adults that use the expression constantly and I guess it is wearing off on me
As for statistics, they can be manipulated and it is up to us to try to tease out the truth from the distortions.
Anyways...beside GMO's..
I do love your name...I am crazy about geese

 

[Cottage Rose]

Why Is the State Department Using Our Money to Pimp for Monsanto?

The State Department is using taxpayer money to help force genetically modified crops on other countries.

By Jill Richardson
AlterNet

Excerpts:

People in India are up in arms about eggplant. Not just any eggplant — the fight, which is also raging in the Philippines, is over Monsanto’s Bt eggplant. Even as increasing scientific evidence concludes that biotechnology and its arsenal of genetically modified crops may be doing more harm than good, companies like Monsanto are still pushing them hard and they are getting help from the U.S.

The State Department is using taxpayer money to help push the agenda of Monsanto and its friends all across the world. Here’s a recent example: Assistant Secretary of State Jose W. Fernandez, addressing an event of high-level government officials from around the world, agribusiness CEOs, leaders from international organizations, and anti-hunger groups said, “Without agricultural biotechnology, our world would look vastly different. One of our challenges is how to grow more crops on the same land. This is where biotechnology plays a role.”

Many scientists would disagree with these statements, which are more controversial than Fernandez let on. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that biotech crops did not lead to reliable yield increases compared to conventional, non-GMO crops and that biotech crops actually required more pesticides than conventional crops. These conclusions are reiterated by the scientists who authored the “International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development” (IAASTD) report, a 2008 study written by 400 scientists from around the world concluding that agroecology was the best way to feed the world. And a recent 30-year study by the Rodale Institute found that organic methods provided excellent drought protection, whereas drought-tolerant GMOs are mostly still an idea of the future.

So why is Fernandez making speeches that sound like Monsanto talking points? His background prior to working at the State Department was as a lawyer specializing in international finance and mergers and acquisitions, particularly in Latin America. Now he heads up the State Department’s Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs (EEB), which works “to promote economic security and prosperity at home and abroad.” And part of such prosperity, according to EEB, includes promoting GMOs around the world.

Within EEB lies the Office of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Textile Trade Affairs (ABT), which has worked to promote biotechnology for nearly a decade, at least. The word “biotechnology” was added to the office’s name in 2003. ABT seeks to address “barriers and opening markets for American farm products, contributing to the development of effective food aid policies, promoting rural development and increasing agricultural productivity through biotechnology.”

Among other things, ABT is responsible for doling out half a million dollars per year in Biotechnology Outreach Funds.

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.alternet.org/story/15292...ng_our_money_to_pimp_for_monsanto?page=entire

 

[goosedragon]

You, Cottage Rose, seem to be making a common error in thinking that Biotech is only about GMO. If you are able to produce more food with less inputs, that could be [and is] called Biotech. Finding the right strains of micro-organisms to produce compost either faster or richer is Biotech. Breeding plants and animals that are more disease resistant is biotech and yes GMOs are biotech, but only a tiny part of a vast area of Biological Technology which can be defined as the application of science to real world problems. If you breed a hybrid that produces more or better crops [think golden rice] and no genetics are modified is that a good or a bad thing? I know of farmers that are growing 60 pound turkeys using AI is that a bad thing? People tend to get wound up about one little problem [GMO] and go about trashing a whole field of knowledge because they don’t have the knowledge or the experience to understand it.
We went through the same type of mess in Chemistry the last 3 decades. If a little fertilizer helps, 3 or 4 times the recommended amount is better. If a pesticide helps control a pest lets use more and completely wipe out the pest. Even the doctors that should know better give antibiotics for viruses that can’t be killed by antibiotics. So now we are suffering from the backlash, Organic products are all the rage mostly due to the huge overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, and people that were too dumb or lazy to read labels and recommendations, or thought they knew more than the people that wrote them.
We have authors, journalists, and talking heads that never studied science or statistics who are trying to tell us who to believe. So trash GMOs if you must, I don’t think you are all wrong, but don’t talk like all Biotech is the same as GMOs.

 

[Cottage Rose]

I didn't write that article...just thought it was interesting.

 

[Miss Lydia]

Quote:
And it was interesting.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...view-april-24.aspx?e_cid=20111108_DNL_HTL_gmo

 

[sanctus7]

Goosedragon..I am sure Cottage Rose was not lumping all biotech together with GMO.
Correct me if I am wrong but your response sound like you don't like GMO either? You make a good point about the over use of fertilizer...with the GmO they just put it into the plant itself. ..pretty scary.

Cottage Rose:

The government is very closely connected to Monsanto through it's employees that had previously worked for Monsanto and have been hired to work for the FDA.
Check out this link: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor