General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRegulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops - January 21, 2013
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.
http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/
where's the zombie apocalypse smilie? 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)but, you summed up what I was thinking rather nicely.
2naSalit
(86,691 posts)something like that to be found out. I have been suspicious about GMO sh*t for this very reason, and I'm sure there's more bad news to come. It's getting so that it's not even safe to eat anymore. But it will be big business for the medical industrial complex while it takes them decades to find out what the origin of the new disease they're surely going to discover soon.
littlemissmartypants
(22,721 posts)
2naSalit
(86,691 posts)I already have a small cache of "safe" seeds, could use some more... and a place to plant them where they will grow and not freeze in winter. That picture gives me some ideas, thanks!!
KT2000
(20,585 posts)they will support the "bad research" canard and fast track whatever Monsanto wants.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)so science was better in 1989? they've been undiscovering things?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)by a guy with a master's in genetics and virology.
you are a guy on a chat board with bad manners...
decisions, decisions...who to believe?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)From the author of the paper:
"To answer you[r] questions I am not planning to work on this topic further. It is difficult how headlines on toxic genes in GMOs can be seen to be linked to our paper as we concluded that there are no indications for toxicity of the encoded protein. This virus has been infecting Cauliflower and related plants with no recorded health effect."
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Per the goddamn author of the study herself.
Emoticon all you want, the ball is in your court to show there is a problem here.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)When a scientific study was published in September last year showing that a genetically modified maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is designed to be grown with damaged the health of rats, Corinne Lepage MEP called it "a bomb".
The study, by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini's team at the University of Caen, France, was the first to test the effects of eating a GM food and its associated pesticide over the animals' lifetime of two years.
The study found that GM maize and Roundup caused severe organ damage and increased tumour rates, as well as earlier death....
HUGE STINKING TANTRUM BY "Scientists" immediately thereafter gets MASSIVE corporate media play.
"...But all was not as it seemed. Many of the critics were subsequently exposed as having commercial or career interests in GM technology – interests that went undisclosed in media articles that quoted them.
The Science Media Centre itself has taken funding from GM and agrochemical companies.
Government agencies that condemned the study, such as the EFSA, had been involved in GM crop approvals and so were simply defending their own decisions.
Read more: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2937/citizens-were-lied-to-over-gm-study#ixzz2IjCiUj00
wisechoice
(180 posts)I was told that Gene IV discovery is the issue here.
Since there is no labeling of GMOs there is no way to record health effects.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's what spawned this whole thing.
wisechoice
(180 posts)I think that is the issue here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Or if it had allergenic properties. So far, that doesn't. And this paper looked for that and explicitly stated it didn't find it.
So if the protein isn't produced, is there a problem with there being overlap between CaMV 35S and Gene IV? Remember, CaMV lives quite happily in the wild, feeding on cruciferous veggies already, and we eat those by the metric ton.
wisechoice
(180 posts)that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene...
Significantly, the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI 'might result in unintended phenotypic changes'.
Such changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans. They could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more vulnerable to pests.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Didn't find it in the plants.
The protein isn't being produced. It does suggest a possible vector that needs to be examined, along with the rest of the testing we put GMO products through, for safety.
This is actually a pretty cool report, because it's one more piece in the volume of discoveries we have made as a species, in this field, that can be used to make, predict, or evaluate the safety of changes we are inducing in these plants.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
KT2000
(20,585 posts)But their surrogates muddy the waters with their accusations and the regulators accept it.
AllyCat
(16,197 posts)knows no bounds. They don't care what they kill or who they poison, as long as they are making money for those at the top.
butterfly77
(17,609 posts)then they pay someone to come and steal your internal organs,clean youthful ones.Dirty,evil,bastards!
littlemissmartypants
(22,721 posts)was the first day of this evil, IMHScientificO
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,603 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1985
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/17770331/reload=0;jsessionid=SY64O3k1HZ5Ld0j3FpKq.20
1987
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC401147/
1989
This gene wasn't hidden. It's supposed to be there. You don't just inject the payload modified gene sequence, you also need a promoter to enable the sequence. That's what this is used for.
This is not new, hidden, shocking, or even unusual.
snot
(10,530 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Meanwhile, if you read through this Slashdot thread in the comments, you will find lots of useful links to research that was conducted over the last 20+ years on this, and background info on why it was done.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/01/22/2324246/hidden-viral-gene-discovered-in-gmo-crops
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)instead of saying 'read through 50 articles that don't apply'?
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)About Independent Science News
Why Independent Science News?
A truly public interest perspective on science and the science media is urgently needed. As our society has become more technologically oriented and our effects on the planet more pronounced, science has increasingly become the key battleground determining the social acceptability and official approval of new (and old) products and technologies. On top of that, science is also the battleground of the ideas, such as the true origins of disease, the cause of gender differences, how to feed the world, and the merits of natural foods, that are no less important to future global possibilities.
Because of its role, science is a tempting target of manipulation for commercial entities, governments, and other powerful institutions. Not only does it offer a decisive opportunity to tilt the playing field in their favour, but also scientific decisions are often both complex and hidden from view (even from other scientists). Manipulation can therefore occur entirely unnoticed. Manipulation is further aided by the fact that scientists have constructed for themselves a mythology of impartiality and rigour that deters questioning.
Scientific facts and ideas are not always what they seem, however. From counting the future world population or quantifying the deaths following the Chernobyl nuclear accident to preventing independent research on GMOs to the safety or the effectiveness of just about any product, including pharmaceuticals and basic foodstuffs, powerful interests often succeed in controlling the output of science. When data is manipulated on this scale, then truth, the public, and democracy all suffer. It becomes effectively impossible for a society to function and decide rationally and thoughtfully.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,721 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Since the initial elucidation of the structure of DNA in 1953, and despite some market resistance
(non-GMO attitudes, government and academic restrictions) the market for GMO products has
rapidly expanded. Agricultural, chemical, pharmaceutical, industrial biotechnology (including
energy) fields have all benefited from GMO activities and experienced levels of growth that
outpaced other national employment.19 In 2009, commercial growth in the U.S. produced income
of $75 billion dollars to a group of approximately 650 bioscience companies.20
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/CTNSP-DTP%2082.pdf
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)OP- ('takedown was of article in BOLD)
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
*** (you, atheistcrusader, are not even talking about the article in the OP with your 'takedown')
from the WRITER of the OP article-
jrlatham says:
January 22, 2013 at 12:11 am
Hi Karen
I hope the article is clear that the viral promoter is there on purpose but Gene VI is not. Re your point about the methods used to make GMOs, our paper (Wilson et al. 2006) and another one that is shorter and more concise (The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation) are the best resources we know of to find out the gruesome details of the different methods.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In theory. On a computer. No such evidence is found in the actual plants in the field, trials, etc. For almost 30 years.
"It should also be noted that this promoter [has] an ORF overlaps with Gene VI but that no functional gene is present. So in most cases this gene fragment will not lead to the production of a protein."
So far it has only been shown to do what it is supposed to do, and has not produced any known toxin or allergen, or any problem at all, and even if it were present, humans can digest it just fine anyway, have been for probably as long as humans have been eating cauliflower.
Peas share one of three human hemoglobin genes, that doesn't make eating peas cannibalism.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)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.
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/dasgupta/publicat.pdf
so now you are arguing with OXFORD university.
good luck!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)CaMV naturally infects these plants anyway.
Is cauliflower thus susceptible to animal viruses?
There is an enormous body of evidence that this particular promoter is safe for this purpose. There is zero evidence showing toxicity or allergen potential. With 30 years of use in the field.
Hm. What to conclude...
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)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.
don't make me sic Vanadana Shiva on you...
There is an enormous body of evidence that this particular promoter is safe for this purpose. There is zero evidence showing toxicity or allergen potential. With 30 years of use in the field.
the above statement is glaringly preposterous, when compared to the link above.
why can't you post any of this evidence?
i will just say now that any evidence you have is funded by big M, and not waste time refuting your links.
they have paid drones on university boards. and chat boards.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not even viruses, but even the plants themselves. And?
You still have not shown CaMV 35S used in this fashion poses any risk at all. Not Oxford, not anyone. If you have it, bring it.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)references-(link to article at end of post)
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/references-to-section-5
5.12 MYTH:
Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops is unlikely or of no consequence
TRUTH:
GM genes can escape into the environment by horizontal gene transfer with potentially serious consequences
Most GM contamination incidents occur through cross-pollination, contamination of seed stocks, or failure to segregate GM from non-GM crops after harvest. But for years, scientists have warned that GM genes could also escape from GM crops into other organisms through a mechanism called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). HGT is the movement of genetic material between unrelated species through a mechanism other than reproduction. Reproduction, in contrast, is known as vertical gene transfer because the genes are passed down through the generations from parent to offspring.
GM proponents and government regulators often claim that, based on available experimental data, HGT is rare. The EU-supported website GMO Compass states, “So far, horizontal gene transfer can only be demonstrated under optimised laboratory conditions.”164 Alternatively, they argue that if it does happen, it does not matter, as GM DNA is no more dangerous than non-GM DNA.
But there are several mechanisms through which HGT can occur, some of which are more likely than others. HGT via some of these mechanisms occurs easily and frequently in nature. The consequences of HGT from GM crops are potentially serious, yet have not been adequately taken into account by regulators.
The basic mechanisms by which HGT could occur are:
Uptake of GM DNA by bacteria
Uptake of DNA from the digestive tract into the tissues of the organism
Transmission of GM DNA via Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a bacterium that is often used to introduce GM genes into plants because of its natural ability to carry and transfer foreign DNA and to infect plants through wounds in their outer layer
Gene transfer by viruses.
The following sections outline these mechanisms and provide a perspective on the frequency at which these events can occur, as well as their potential impacts.
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-12-myth-horizontal-gene-transfer-from-gm-crops-is-unlikely-or-of-no-consequence
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I am also aware of the biological diversity risks around that. In fact, that's a big part of how evolution works. It can produce new things, and kill off by out-competing old things.
And?
Is CaMV 35S WITH Gene IV a problem here or not? (Science so far says 'not')
wisechoice
(180 posts)It is in fact saying there is potential for harm
"Significantly, the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI 'might result in unintended phenotypic changes'.
Such changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans. They could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more vulnerable to pests. "
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, insofar as Science 'concludes' anything, the conclusion here is this is not a problem. It might signal a need for new testing on other products though. A potential risk that should be looked for elsewhere. Ok, cool beans. And?
wisechoice
(180 posts)They in fact found the gene IV sequences.
They concluded that there is some serious concern here and that it needs to be monitored before they can declare all is well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Gene sequences can be deactivated, and not produce anything at all. Or fragmentary. Lots of reasons the gene is there. The important thing is, the plants are not producing the protein that gene IV represents in it's entirety. So the gene can be there all it wants, as long as it isn't expressed by the plant.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Is this why the EU is raising concern?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sure. So far, this method has been in use for just a hair shy of 30 years. So maybe we just got lucky I guess. But so far there's no known expression of that gene in this context.
I don't know how many products that means they should evaluate. Possibly all of them.
wisechoice
(180 posts)with GMOs. There is no way we can recall a crop once it is introduced in farming. None of them are tested for long term effects. They don't yet fully understand the genes and how they interact. They are just beginning to understand and let us not be hasty.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)For drug candidates, the first challenge is usually getting into the patient's bloodstream.
Alan Dove, ...
www.dddmag.com, 20 Sept 2007 [cached]
Alan Dove, PhDContributing Editor
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=367554710&targetid=profile
so you click 'about' on this drug discovery and development site-
ABM owns DDD and Vicon, which puts out-
ALN World™ is a publication of resources, products, and information to design, build, and equip today’s research animal facilities worldwide.
hmm. doesn't look so 'great', now does it? that's who's paying him to publish this obviously biased thing?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Oh no, a contributing editor/journalist versed in biotech works for a magazine IN HIS FIELD.
Clearly a conspiracy.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)enjoying your GMO lunch? extra-tasty and nutritious, i'm sure!
after all monsanto tested it for a grand total of 3 months, and then started suing scientists they didn't like.
keep pretending, and ignoring, you seem to enjoy it.
the 'freelance' guy works for a big pharma mag, owned by the animal testing mag people. get it?
not good cred in my book. plus, his article is an opinion, so...
edit: not a conspiracy, i typed his name into google and clicked 3 or 4 times
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)cafeterias. That's really all I need to know. But yes, I could use a little better understanding of the particulars myself.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)older one-
Moral Blackmail
Many opponents argue that biotech companies are using world hunger as a form of "moral blackmail" to sell GMOs. Consumers feel they have to accept biotechnology or else they feel guilty about standing in the way of progress to help stop world hunger (Knee, 2000). The companies make themselves out to be the saviors of hungry people throughout the world, but do not actually use their expertise to help developing nations because they have no profit incentive.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring01/denlinger/problems.html
***
new-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynne-peeples/gulf-oil-spill-schistosomiasis-gmo-salmon_b_2533568.html
As debate continues over the safety and merits of genetically modified grains and vegetables, a GM animal is making headway towards your plate. The U.S. biotechnology firm, AquaBounty, has designed a fish that would look like its natural Atlantic salmon cousin yet reach market size in half the time. In its recent assessment, the FDA declared that the all-female, sterile salmon would have "no significant food safety hazards or risks." Still, some environmentalists remain concerned, suggesting that the meat would be nutritionally inferior and contain harmful hormones. They also warn that a small percentage of the "frankenfish" could remain fertile and escape into the wild. The BBC reports:
There is still a brief period to voice objections, but Dr David Edwards of the Biotechnology Industry Organization is certain of the outcome: "From my read of the review it looks like it should be approved." The AquAdvantage salmon, reared from the eggs of wild Atlantic salmon, sports some extra genes from the Pacific Chinook salmon and an eel, the ocean pout. Together they make the fish grow faster and all-year round.
***
Farmers took their battle against Monsanto to Washington, D.C. last week, asking the federal court to reconsider granting legal protection from lawsuits filed by the biotech giant. Monsanto patents GMO seeds, and when those seeds end up on an unlicensed farm -- intentionally, or via the wind -- the company often takes legal action against those growers. This particularly frustrates organic farmers, who say that the wind-blown GM pollen threatens their crops. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the 200-some protesters had further demands:
Protesters announced that another rally will take place on Jan. 21 with a march on the National Mall demanding that Obama follow through with what they say was his promise in 2007 to seek labeling of food with genetically modified ingredients... Creve Coeur-based Monsanto spent at least $8 million in an industry-wide effort to sink the California proposition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynne-peeples/gmo-labeling-washington-farmers-monsanto_b_2472083.html
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)so what does this wonderful gene promote?
in layman's terms?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, you inject the thing you wanted to tweak, and that's great and all, but that doesn't mean the organism will actually express that gene. The promoter does that, it turns on or enables the modified bit.
This particular viral sequence is quite useful for that.
Particularly since we can eat even the plants the actual live virus infects, while infected, with no harm to humans.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)got credentials?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)CaMV is a natural virus. Do you eat broccoli or cauliflower or any of it's cousins? Even stuff from known non-gmo distributors that you grew in your own 100% organic backyard?
Then you have eaten the gene we are talking about here. In large quantities.
It is harmless to homo sapiens sapiens.
I don't really care if you believe me or not, because I can see your agenda here quite clearly. Anyone reading this thread can verify what I have stated with a simple google or bing search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauliflower_mosaic_virus
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)you are completely wrong about the virus being the same.
inserted IN the DNA artificially is TOTALLY different than the everyday virus.
you seem to be ignoring this fact
you can't seem to show anything about any benefit of GMOs agriculturally, much less health-wise
Such comments
seem
to be crude efforts at obfuscation. The CaM virus never integrated
into the DNA of the chromosome and it is circular. The virus
replicates from RNA copies in the cytoplasm to make protein bound
virus particles in the plant cell cytoplasm. In contrast the CaMV
promoter used in most genetic constructions is integrated into the
chromosome from a bacterial plasmid and its neighboring genes
are most
frequently synthetic transgenes along with the bacterial
sequences.The
CaMV promoter in the chromosome is a hot spot for genetic
recombination ( presumably a consequence of transcription related
recombination and mutation). It is not reasonable and certainly not
good science to claim the eating CaM virus is equivalent to eating
the
viral promoter inserted into the plant chromosome
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In the virus, the full gene is present. The researchers hypothesized two potential (I stress POTENTIAL) allergens and no toxins that might be produced as a protein from the expression of that gene. (Does the virus express that gene? I don't know. Didn't catch that in the literature. Certainly it has the potential to, even if it does not in nature at the moment)
If it is either not happening 'in the wild' with the fully functioning natural virus, or it does, and no one cares because it's not actually an allergen, win-win.
Could that gene recombine with something ELSE, totally unpredicted, and produce an allergen or toxin the researchers didn't predict? I suppose. 30 years of that material in production hasn't resulted in anything that anyone has actually discovered, either via direct research on the genotype of the products, or via epidemiology working backward from some disease or allergic reaction, to discover the products as the root cause.
So, the end result is, the decision to go into production with these altered products ~30 years ago is now known to have been riskier than we thought. Ok. Stupendous. Now future products can be better studied, now that we know this is a risk. Neato. Progress!
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)The old assumption of risk analysis of HGT was that it was essentially impossible and that
the consequences need not be considered. Now that evidence is steadily accumulating that
HGT is likely to occur the onus must shift to an examination of the likely consequences.
For those transgenes for which we do not already have an a priori expectation for
potential positive selection in some recipients of HGT, it should be necessary, in our
opinion, for those wishing to commercialise GM varities to argue and provide
experimental data that such selection cannot (or is very unlikely) to occur. Given that
scientific understanding of soil and other microbial ecosystems is practically non-existent
we do not believe that this, in any scientific sense, is currently feasible.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.182.4491%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=gMsAUfiJOqTL2QXK5oHQBg&usg=AFQjCNGlRAhssY0OQyOWGJzFvwJH1bCVbA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.b2I&cad=rja
***
Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death
Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and reproductive problems.[34]
Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[35]
About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.[36]
Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.[37]
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.[38]
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)why?
what point is there in saying 'you are nuts these things are safe'?
do you recieve $$ compensation?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Every time I go to the fucking grocery store, I receive compensation in the form of products on the shelf. You do too.
Grow your own plants in your own backyard if you want. You'll still be eating CaMV.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)we have over 6 trailer loads of non-GMO crops in the barn.
and you are not making sense.
you are actually giving them money at the grocery.
for questionable goods.
i can live for weeks on raw milk, squash, and chocolate (cocoa not GMO, yet...)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Everything carries risks. There are lots of entirely natural things that would love to dine on me as well. I do what I can to manage risks.
Having reviewed the literature, I rate this risk as infinitesimal to me and the people I care about. I reserve the right to revise that estimate at a future date if the science is credibly called into question, or worse, fraud/deception is exposed. That didn't happen here in this thread today. I rate this no riskier than consuming plants that naturally contain a virus that evolved naturally to attack the Brassicaceae family.
Again, if the science supports it, I will revise that stance.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Recognition (wiki)
In 1993, Vandana received the Right Livelihood Award "...For placing women and ecology at the heart of modern development discourse."[15] Other awards she has received include the Global 500 Award of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1993,[16] and the Earth Day International Award of the United Nations (UN) for her dedicated commitment to the preservation of the planet as demonstrated by her actions, leadership and by setting an example for the rest of the world.
***
Vandana Shiva on the Problem with Genetically Modified Seeds
July 13, 2012
Bill (Moyers, that renown purveyor of woo)talks to scientist and philosopher Vandana Shiva, who’s become a rock star in the global battle over genetically modified seeds. These seeds — considered “intellectual property” by the big companies who own the patents — are globally marketed to monopolize food production and profits. Opponents challenge the safety of genetically modified seeds, claiming they also harm the environment, are more costly, and leave local farmers deep in debt as well as dependent on suppliers. Shiva, who founded a movement in India to promote native seeds, links genetic tinkering to problems in our ecology, economy, and humanity, and sees this as the latest battleground in the war on Planet Earth.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/vandana-shiva-on-the-problem-with-genetically-modified-seeds/
***
http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2013/01/food-as-weapon-2/
“I have followed Gandhi’s footsteps of Swaraj, self rule, and Satyagraha, the force of truth and the refusal to obey unjust laws,” she explains. “We have practiced seed satyagraha, the refusal to obey patent laws on seed, since seed is not an invention, and seed monopolies are immoral and unethical.”
The biggest myth
Shiva wishes to dispel the misconception that industrial agriculture produces more food. In reality, “Industrial agriculture promotes monocultures, which are nutritionally impoverished,” she says. Monocultures (growing a single crop every year on the same land without rotation) and GE crops use 10 times more water than ecological agriculture, and are the single biggest reason for the water crisis, according to Shiva. She adds that genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)fun times.
Edit: If you'd like to take a step BACK from this particular issue with CaMV 35S/Gene IV, and look at GMO in general, then yes, I agree with the person you have cited. There are risks here from a biological standpoint, as well as an exploitation/economic standpoint. I actually agree with you. I just probably disagree with you on the balance of risk/reward here.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)and stop dismissing serious people as if they have a hidden agenda.
one one side we have corporations and profits and lawyers, on the other side poor people, the environment, and scientists getting sued.
if big M goes after family farms blatantly, why WOULDN'T they suppress science?
don't forget these are the people that brought you agent orange (white, pink, blue, purple, et al.) AND those good ol' PCBs!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)#76 shows no evidence of a problem with CaMV 35S WITH Gene IV.
Try again.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)the OP shows the problems with CaMV, by referencing this-
Possible unintended
effects that are linked to the use of extended versions of
the P35S have been determined.
http://agrariancrisis.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012-GMcrops-Podevin.pdf
#76 shows the problems with ALL OF THEM.
if you don't want to read it, stop wasting my time.
but dig deeper and read-
Following Stanley Ewan's comments on the safety of CaMV
promoter a
number of plant genetic engineering "authorities" have rebutted
Ewan's
comments by a bizarre comments to the effect that the CaMV
promoter in
the CaM virus is a safe and probably nutritious food because virus
infected cauliflower are a popular food in UK and cabbage,
cauliflower
and broccoli are believed to be anti-cancer foods. Such comments
seem
to be crude efforts at obfuscation. The CaM virus never integrated
into the DNA of the chromosome and it is circular. The virus
replicates from RNA copies in the cytoplasm to make protein bound
virus particles in the plant cell cytoplasm. In contrast the CaMV
promoter used in most genetic constructions is integrated into the
chromosome from a bacterial plasmid and its neighboring genes
are most
frequently synthetic transgenes along with the bacterial
sequences.The
CaMV promoter in the chromosome is a hot spot for genetic
recombination ( presumably a consequence of transcription related
recombination and mutation). It is not reasonable and certainly not
good science to claim the eating CaM virus is equivalent to eating
the
viral promoter inserted into the plant chromosome chromosome.
What
should have been done , prior to the extensive release of GM crops
with CaMV promoter was to study ingestion of the CaMV promoter
DNA in
the configuration with which it is used in GM crops. Finally, Denise
Murphy seems to have put together a story on the nice features of
cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower that is totally unrelated to the
real issues of CaMV promoter use in GM crops. Of course the whole
story may be a dry satire, like a Monty Python sketch?
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/Dec/msg00036.html
Our board
Since one of our board members, a university professor, was fired because of critisism of Genetic Engineering, we have decided not to disclose the names of our board and other scientific members. A number of scientists who are critical against GMOs have been harrassed or lost their jobs in recent years so there is evidently a systematic campaign to silence them, see for example "Suppression of the truth about GMO hazards".
http://www.psrast.org/aboutus.htm
***
http://www.psrast.org/virhaz.htm
The virus hazard
Summary
Viruses are packages of hereditary material, DNA or RNA. They can get into the cells and take over the command over the cells activities and make it produce new copies of viruses. This commonly kills the infected cells. Dangerous viruses have a great ability to penetrate into cells and to spread and multiply so that extensive damage is caused. While many viruses are species-specific, some viruses may cross species borders.
Practically all genetically engineered crops contain genetic material from viruses. Research has shown that these virus genes may combine with genes from infecting viruses. The serious thing is that experimental evidence indicate the new viruses created in this way may be more infectious, may cause more serious diseases, and may have a tendency to cross species borders.
There is not enough knowledge to assess the risk for the emergence of new virus diseases from genetically engineered crops.
There is no scientific basis for excluding the possiblility that the risk for creation of dangerous viruses in GE crops (and related weeds) is large enough to represent a significant threat when large numbers of crop plants are cultivated.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are. The study attempted to answer the question I posed to you, and failed to answer it in a manner that showed an actual problem.
"Multiple allergen databases and search algo- rithms, described in the EFSA GMO Panel opinion,20 were used to determine if any of the translated ORFs in the two selected P35S sequences showed similarity to known allergens (Table 1). As described in the Materials and Methods section, the search algorithms recom- mended by the FAO/WHO 2001 expert panel were used in combination with the FARRP, Allermatch™ allergen and Allergome data- base. The ADFS was used with the sliding win- dow, word match, and the MEME motif-based method.23 In addition to these databases, com- bined with routinely used tools based on per- centage identity, the AlgPred database and all provided web tools were used.24 None of the searches identified similarities to known allergens. The AlgPred also allows the use of algorithms based on statistical and optimising theory. The vector support machines (SVM) in AlgPred indicated on the basis of the dipeptide composition that the ORF that encoded part of P6 might have some allergenic properties. The sensitivity and specificity of this method is 88.87% and 81.86% respectively and should therefore always be used in combination with other tools. Further analysis of the P6 pro- tein using the SVM method suggested that the potential allergenicity was spread along the pro- tein, except in domain D1 (data not shown). Determine if ORFs within P35S show simi- larity to toxic proteins. The toxin database was obtained by selecting a subset of sequences from the GenBank non-redundant protein database. No significant hits were obtained to the toxin database using the DNA sequences of the two 35S promoters; all hits had e-values higher than 0.6 (Table 1). "
tl;dr No problem.
"There is no scientific basis for excluding the possiblility that the risk for creation of dangerous viruses in GE crops (and related weeds) is large enough to represent a significant threat when large numbers of crop plants are cultivated."
Yes there is. These plants are in the field large-scale right now. The very study in the OP looked for a problem and didn't find it.
You are using the creationist 'prove god didn't do it'/'prove GMO's are safe' misplacement of the burden of proof.
You can't prove GMO's are safe. It's impossible. PLANTS aren't necessarily safe either. But you keep looking until you find a problem. We're doing that. No problem yet found with this particular issue. Yay us!
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)one thing at a time.
you are most definitely obfuscating, and approaching full-on blather.
so what happened to 'THE VIRUS IS IN EVERYTHING IT IS SO SAFE!!!'???
you have nothing to say about how the virus being OUTSIDE the cells instead of inserted genetically INTO the INSIDE of the cell is completely different on a biological level?
'they are planted everywhere so they are safe' doesn't even count as an argument. seriously.
you 'can't prove they are safe' doesn't fly either.
who is this 'we' you speak of? you also ignore that FACT that big M suppresses scientists.
got any insight on the below? comments on how, if cows don't WANT to eat the stuff, they are in reality, being FORCED to eat it when a farmer plants nothing but GMOs? much like we are being forced by big M?
from this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dL9yPwAACAAJ&dq=seed+of+deception&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BlYAUdbkOenM2gWWqYCQAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA
Geese, being creatures of habit, returned to the same spot the next year to again feast on his soybeans. But this time, the geese ate only from a specific part of this field. There, as a result of their feasting, the beans grew only ankle high. The geese, it seemed, were boycotting the other part of the same field where the beans were able to grow waist-high.
The reason: this year, the farmer had tried the new, genetically engineered soybeans. And you can see exactly where they were planted, for there is a line right down the middle of his field with the natural beans on one side, and the genetically engineered soybeans, untouched by the geese, on the other.
***
A couple of years later, Vlieger joined a room full of farmers in Ames, Iowa to hear presidential candidate Al Gore. Troubled by Gore's unquestioning acceptance of GM foods, Vlieger asked Gore to support a recently introduced bill in Congress requiring that GM foods be labeled. Gore replied that scientists said there is no difference between GM and non-GM foods. Vlieger said he respectfully disagreed and described how his cows refused to eat the GM corn. He added, "My cows are smarter than those scientists were." The room erupted in applause. Gore asked if any other farmers noticed a difference in the way their animals responded to GM food. About twelve to fifteen hands went up. 1
"If a field contained GM and non-GM maize, cattle would always eat the non-GM first." -Gale Lush, Nebraska
"A neighbor had been growing Pioneer Bt corn. When the cattle were turned out onto the stalks they just wouldn't eat them." 2 -Gary Smith, Montana
"While my cows show a preference for open-pollinated corn over the hybrid varieties, they both beat Bt-corn hands down." -Tim Eisenbeis, South Dakota
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"so what happened to 'THE VIRUS IS IN EVERYTHING IT IS SO SAFE!!!'???"
That's one aspect of it. That tells me the protein it can produce is not a major allergen or toxin to humans.
But that doesn't matter, because even though part of the gene is found in P35S sequences used in these products, the protein is not found in the product in the wild, because that aspect of the gene is not expressed.
"'they are planted everywhere so they are safe' doesn't even count as an argument. seriously."
It isn't an argument when you artificially scope it down like that. These products have been live in the wild, so to speak, for up to thirty years. Plenty of opportunity for a change in the product to express that protein that might be an allergen. It so far has not been found. So it's basically like an enormous trial. So far successful.
"you 'can't prove they are safe' doesn't fly either."
Yes, because it's terribly inconvenient for you. You can god of the gaps all day long about 'MIGHT' do this or that, but until it is observed in at least a trial, you're just background noise. Sorry. It just is. Natural plants aren't entirely safe either. Plenty of natural plants contain allergens and toxins to humans. I presume you didn't have any hemlock for breakfast, yes?
"who is this 'we' you speak of? you also ignore that FACT that big M suppresses scientists."
In 'we' I mean people who are interested in this form of science and willing to use these products. On the suppression piece, I don't entirely buy that as a general rule, BUT I am willing to fund an independent FDA-like agency and pay it bounties for finding actual problems in these products. Give it a monetary incentive to show a real problem. Show a real problem that the producer missed in their trials, fine them hard. Hell, use the fines to fund the agency bonuses. They could make billions. What company could out-bid that to corrupt them?
Beyond that, I don't base my opinions on cherry picked anecdotes. Sorry.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)not true.
Plenty of opportunity for a change in the product to express that protein that might be an allergen. It so far has not been found. So it's basically like an enormous trial. So far successful.
also not true
Natural plants aren't entirely safe either. Plenty of natural plants contain allergens and toxins to humans. I presume you didn't have any hemlock for breakfast, yes?
not even really sure what to call that. backwards?
people don't eat poisonous plants. that would be counter-productive. so you are saying that since there are studies proving safety (which there aren't) and NO studies proving danger (which there are) it isn't provable, and that means they are safe.
really, that's what you are saying. see how it doesn't make sense?
Give it a monetary incentive to show a real problem. Show a real problem that the producer missed in their trials, fine them hard.
funny you should mention that-
Gloeckner, who lost an earlier civil law case asking damages from the company in the Frankfurt Regional Court, has now filed a criminal case against Syngenta.
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13926-syngenta-charged-with-lying-over-cattle-deaths
***
With these factors in mind, the present oft reiterated banal statement by regulatory authorities that many billions have eaten GM food with no reported ill effect seems misleading. As I commented at the recent WHO/FAO expert consultation in Geneva, diseases with a biological history measured in decades, such as cancer, would not be observed to be significantly increasing in the elderly or occurring in the young until several years of careful analysis of records had been compared.
http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/NewZealand/nz-stanley.htm
***
Even scepticism is not tolerated by them. For them this is almost
like a religious crusade. The establishment must crush anyone who
appears to be standing in their way. If this had happened 500 years
ago, I would have probably been put to the stake and burnt. They
did to me the equivalent—what they could do in our age. They
certainly went out of their way to destroy me, both as a person and
deŽ nitely as a scientist.
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Pusztai/Pusztai-GM-Food-Safety-Issues-2002.pdf
***
Any suggestion that problems could arise from putting millions of copies of an aggressive viral promoter into every mouthful of our food have been reasoned out of existence by the biotech industry and regulators. Their argument goes something like: humanity has been eating such DNA in its natural form forever, besides which it won't survive processing, cooking and digestion, and, even if it did survive, it is plant-specific and so can't turn on the genes in mammals including humans, or gut bacteria, and, even if it did survive and get into such cells, it will only activate the gene to which it is attached ...
The Institute for Science in Society and other scientists have been warning of the inherent risk in using CaMV 35S in GM food for a decade (see references below). The scientific questions which GM proponents have reasoned they don't need to ask include can intact, functional CaMV 35S end up inside our cells and our intestinal flora, and if it gets there can it cause harm?
As industry and regulators look determinedly in the opposite direction, answers to these questions are gradually seeping out of the laboratory, and they are not reassuring.
http://gmfreescotland.blogspot.com/2011/02/viral-dna-dangers.html
***
Dr. Earl Beaver, who was Monsanto’s waste director during the Bain period, says that Bain was certainly “aware” of the “PCB and dioxin scandals” because they created “a negative public perception that was costing the company money.” So Bain recommended focusing “on the businesses that didn’t have those perceptions,” Beaver recalls, starting with “life science products that were biologically based,” including genetically engineered crops, as well as Roundup, the hugely profitable weed-killer. “These were the products that Bain gave their go-ahead to,” Beaver contends, noting that Romney was a key player, “reviewing the data collected by other people and developing alternatives,” talking mostly to “the higher muckety-mucks.”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11531-mitt-romney-monsanto-man
***
As debate continues over the safety and merits of genetically modified grains and vegetables, a GM animal is making headway towards your plate. The U.S. biotechnology firm, AquaBounty, has designed a fish that would look like its natural Atlantic salmon cousin yet reach market size in half the time. In its recent assessment, the FDA declared that the all-female, sterile salmon would have "no significant food safety hazards or risks." Still, some environmentalists remain concerned, suggesting that the meat would be nutritionally inferior and contain harmful hormones. They also warn that a small percentage of the "frankenfish" could remain fertile and escape into the wild. The BBC reports:
There is still a brief period to voice objections, but Dr David Edwards of the Biotechnology Industry Organization is certain of the outcome: "From my read of the review it looks like it should be approved." The AquAdvantage salmon, reared from the eggs of wild Atlantic salmon, sports some extra genes from the Pacific Chinook salmon and an eel, the ocean pout. Together they make the fish grow faster and all-year round.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynne-peeples/gulf-oil-spill-schistosomiasis-gmo-salmon_b_2533568.html
***
canadian study, gmos in babies:
http://ddococktailhour.com/files/0/8/7/4/3/244299-234780/BTinpregnantwomen.pdf
***
http://www.munlochygmvigil.org.uk/Mortality_in_Sheep.pdf
***
before you try to feign confusion, all of those links prove the same point. i tried to bold it up for you...
In 'we' I mean people who are interested in this form of science
what form? please post some science not funded by big M, if you want to have a discussion.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"ignore most of what i post"
The only thing I 'ignored' was a book link, to a book I do not possess, and a list of useless anecdotes, presumably from the book. Nor did I 'ignore it' I flat out stated I wasn't going to bother with your anecdotes.
Anecdotes do not a sound argument make. I addressed everything else in your post. So I would categorize that as a lie.
And there goes the randomness again, spinning up to full RPM's. Frankenfish had nothing to do with this discussion, unless P35S is utilized in modifying the fish.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)you seem to have a cauliflower fetish. yet your only point about it is a non-point.
frankenfish is just ANOTHER example of how these things get called 'safe' with no testing done at all.
see, you ignore the FACT that it can take decades for problems to show up, yet big M rams their crap down our throats without a second thought.
and suppresses info.
like you think you are doing, but in reality you are proving the crap is dangerous by the weakness of your 'argument'.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the fact the virus gets around in our flora already, suggests it does not produce an allergen when 'working as intended'. It would have to recombine with something unknown to produce something unexpected, if the gene expresses itself at all.
'Frankenfish' has had testing. Biased in favor of 'just doing it'? Perhaps. As I mentioned earlier, I support the creation of a watchdog entity whose motive is profit, by way of enormous fines, giving it incentive to find problems. Fines large enough to make business unprofitable if it doesn't honestly and vigorously test these products. I don't think the FDA is necessarily toothless, but the MMS example at Deepwater Horizon is certainly troubling. Government agencies certainly have the potential to be defanged and corrupted. If you construct such an entity with a financial incentive, ranging into the billions, for finding a problem, it becomes much more difficult for a corrupt corporation to out-bid the watchdog agency employees. (And attempts to corrupt them might give them a heads-up exactly where to go looking for fine-worthy problems)
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)and totally untested.
a for- profit watchdog is what we have. it is called monsanto. get it?
you keep blathering on. i guess other people might read what i post so, there's that...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's an unqualified absolute.
You yourself pointed to an issue in testing where a particular maize that included this partial gene may have caused tumors in the rats.
That isn't 'untested' even if the CaMV components aren't responsible.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)i have to go to a solar power meeting.
check some of my links.
or try and post one that says it is safe.
i'll be back in 5 hours.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)More examples of how Monsanto rigged their study:
Using older animals: Monsanto researchers tested the GM soy on mature animals, not young ones. "With a nutritional study on mature animals," says Pusztai, "you would never see any difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."
Never weighing organs: But even if there were organ development problems, the study wouldn't have picked it up. That's because the researchers didn't even weigh the organs, "they just looked at them, what they call 'eyeballing,'" says Pusztai. "I must have done thousands of postmortems, so I know that even if there is a difference in organ weights of as much as 25 percent, you wouldn't see it."
Omitting data: In fact, according to Nutrition and Health, "No data were given for most of the parameters." The paper didn't even describe the exact feed composition used in the trials—normally a journal requirement.
Obscuring findings: When Monsanto analyzed the composition of GM versus non-GM soy, instead of comparing test plots grown side-by-side, Monsanto pooled data from many sites and climates. This makes it extremely difficult to achieve statistically significant differences, due to the high variability.
Hiding incriminating evidence: Although the paper referred to one side-by-side test plot, for some reason the data from that study was not in the article. Years later, medical writer Barbara Keeler discovered the missing data from the journal archives and found out why it had been kept hidden. The omitted evidence not only demonstrated that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and an essential amino acid, their toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a soy lectin, which can interfere with the body's ability to assimilate nutrients. Furthermore, a known soy allergen called trypsin inhibitor was as much as 7 times higher in the toasted GM soy, compared to non-GMO soy! According to Keeler's opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times, the study had several red flags and "should have prompted researchers and the FDA to call for more testing." But the FDA never got the data.
It's no wonder why GMO expert Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union, the organization that publishes Consumer Reports, concluded that Dr. Pusztai's potato research is "a much better-designed study than the industry-sponsored feeding studies I have seen in peer-reviewed literature that deal with Round-Up Ready soybeans or Bt corn."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/biotech-propaganda-cooks_b_675957.html
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,721 posts)get on it! Edible bugs please.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)I found this comment "I am a bit numb and distrustful of anything that doesn’t clearly and concisely link back to sources I find credible" and could not have said it better myself.
Journalist need to be educated in science if they want to write about it.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)and what does it mean?
Jonathan R Latham, PhD Co-founder and Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project; Editor of the Independent Science News website. Dr. Latham holds a Masters degree in Crop Genetics and a PhD in Virology. He was subsequently a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Prior to heading the Bioscience Resource Project he published scientific papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, plant virology and genetics. He regularly presents at scientific conferences on papers published by the Bioscience Resource Project. He is also a fellow of the 21st Century Trust.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)and this article iterates that very well. Context discerning who is writing what we read is always helpful.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Not sure what was meant by 'virus' and 'not safe for human consumption' but (screwing on the 
) .... what if they encode something that, rather than being anti-allergy, causes allergy attacks that their pals in the pharma industry just happen to be developing a med for?
A little 'V for Vendetta', I know, but ... wouldn't put anything past these greedy fucks.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Considering that the honey bee has been sequenced, how long before we bear witness to a genetically modified bee? I’ve been saying this since 2008 for the record!
… Introducing pesticide-resistant SUPER BEE Patent # 2457842149…
If seeds are any indication, Apis Melifera may also soon belong to Monsanto. Kill the bees with GM and pesticides, offer a band aid solution by creating a bee that is resistant to all the crap peddled on the market and then persuade/force beekeepers to buy Monsanto bees or else. It’s wicked genius.
But surely Monsanto and many others would call all of this paranoid phooey.
http://truth-out.org/article/item/6661:the-buzz-behind-the-monsantobeeolgics-acquisition
***
MK: It wasn't until June of 2011 that the FDA issued its sternest warning about these medications. According to a New York Times report, the FDA said that the drugs "used to treat anemia in both kidney and cancer patients were so dangerous to the heart that doctors should consider avoiding the medicines altogether and using less of them in others." Why didn't the FDA just take them off the market?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/6253:blowing-the-whistle-on-big-pharma
***
A year before Romney began to work with Monsanto, Congress passed a 1976 bill banning PCBs, a liquid chemical monopoly of Monsanto’s, exposing the company to an onslaught of litigation throughout the Bain years. Monsanto was also besieged by charges that its decade of Vietnam War defoliation with Agent Orange dioxins—branded by a Yale environmentalist “the largest chemical warfare operation” in human history—had contaminated as many as 10 million Vietnamese and American people, leading to a $180 million settlement covering the claims of 52,000 troops in 1984.
Dr. Earl Beaver, who was Monsanto’s waste director during the Bain period, says that Bain was certainly “aware” of the “PCB and dioxin scandals” because they created “a negative public perception that was costing the company money.” So Bain recommended focusing “on the businesses that didn’t have those perceptions,” Beaver recalls, starting with “life science products that were biologically based,” including genetically engineered crops, as well as Roundup, the hugely profitable weed-killer. “These were the products that Bain gave their go-ahead to,” Beaver contends, noting that Romney was a key player, “reviewing the data collected by other people and developing alternatives,” talking mostly to “the higher muckety-mucks.”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11531-mitt-romney-monsanto-man
***
http://truth-out.org/news/item/9060-monsantos-minions-in-california
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Independent Science News is an anti-science, biased advocacy group masquerading as science reporting-- they only report stuff that bolsters their anti-science agenda and it appears that they'll print any claptrap that does, no matter how ridiculous. The article in question is full of creative speculation, maybe effect, things that "might" happen but never seem to actually occur. Get back to us when someone finds some actual harmful expression products from those gene fragments rather than paranoid fear.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Jonathan R Latham, PhD Co-founder and Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project; Editor of the Independent Science News website. Dr. Latham holds a Masters degree in Crop Genetics and a PhD in Virology. He was subsequently a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Prior to heading the Bioscience Resource Project he published scientific papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, plant virology and genetics. He regularly presents at scientific conferences on papers published by the Bioscience Resource Project. He is also a fellow of the 21st Century Trust.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)really, try and contribute!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've seen this effect before in a different subforum... hmmm. I wonder which one.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)IMHFO. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Promoting or opposing GMO's is non-overlapping magesteria with politics on either the right or the left.
This debate seems to mimic the creationism/evolution debate, again, not political, but rather cultural.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)but in this case, they are BOTH anti-GMO, so... 
wisechoice
(180 posts)Is European Food Safety Authority anti-science?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Monsanto stock is a very profitable investment, or so I understand. This kind of thing could hurt a lot of people's portfolios.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)
No, I don't own stock, in Monsanto or anyone else. And no, I don't have any grants or other financial support from the food industry or any other industry. I'm a biologist and professor of zoology. I understand the technology, so I don't have paranoid fear of GMOs.
wisechoice
(180 posts)What kind of testing has been done for GMOs? Long term on human beings and on animals. Who has done it? Who has verified it?
Do you know all about gene(sequences) and how they mutate? Can you control gene precisely? We still don't know how to kill a cold virus and you pretend you know all.
Do you agree that we have technology to create GMO crops that can be very dangerous? If so then I see that you place your trust in Monsanto a lot to not scr@$up their GMO plants.
Being cautious is not equal to fear.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Though I was not referring to you, particularly, in any case, I'm happy you have had success. Good for you.
However, to characterize concerns about the possible health effects of GMOs as "paranoid fear" seems condescendingly dismissive. Won't you feel like a fool if such "paranoid fears" end up being validated?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)How about those tumors developing in lab rats fed the viral gene, noted in an earlier post (above). I find that more than a little troubling.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, NK603 maize might cause tumors in rats. It does contain CaMV 35S. That does not mean CaMV 35S is responsible for those tumors, as there is a lot of other stuff in NK603 maize.
What other CaMV 35S plant-containing studies showed tumors as a possible result?
Correlation != causation.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Good point. Science is tough stuff, isn't it?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's so much info behind it all, even selecting a trustworthy guide on either side is problematic.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...that anti-GMO zealots and folks with poor science literacy keep resurrecting because they don't care that it's wrong, as long as it supports their preconceived fears, or simply because they don't know any better.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You should not attack the intelligence or knowledge level of your fellow posters on DU. Even a little of that sort of thing can get your post "hidden" and cause you all sorts of other problems.
And that, my friend, is a word to the wise.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)In a study that could lead to new ways to prevent infection by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and similar organisms, Purdue University researchers have been able to genetically modify a plant to halt reproduction of a related virus.
Cauliflower mosaic virus attacks a group of plants that includes the largest number of agriculturally important plants in the world. The plant virus and HIV, which causes AIDS, use the same process to multiply in their victims' cells and spread disease.
https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007b/070730ChenMosaicvirus.html
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)that's 5 years old.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Is it necessary to mention that this was, of course, bound to happen?
"Allow no one to touch the seed grain for next Spring's planting." Hermann Hesse.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)There is more than one way to adulterate food stuff to increase profit margins. The essentials of life should not be in the hands of privateers. They are separated from the effects of how their way of making money harms the environment, people, animals and community.
I don't know how much of the pressure is from the different nations' governments and corporations responding in the only way they know how to a burgeoning human population. You hear of people shooting animals that eat fish, etc. They say it to save them from ravenous hordes of bears, seals or wolves devouring them.
Ironically, they are doing it to give the same food to ravenous hordes of people to devour, until the diversity is gone and there is nothing left in nature's larder for future generations.
Meanwhile we have wackjob preachers, politicians and media persuading people to reproduce like rats. It's a good thing we get old and die off because I am not going to fit in well with Planet Agrobiz, where everything is rigidly conrolled.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)...because it is 'science' driven by greed and hubris, not at all in the public interest and with no respect for the Precautionary Principle.
Evoman
(8,040 posts)Man, a I applied for a Scientific Journalist position once. I have a Master's degree in Biology, a Bachelor's in Biochemisty, and minor in sociology. I've also had plenty of articles published in journals, and I'm a fairly good writer (maybe not astounding, but not bad either). The job went to a women with a sociology degree and a minor in General Biology with less experience than me. She is a good writer, but sometimes fumbles with the science.
Oh well....the position pretty much vanished about six months later.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)why wouldn't monsanto either hire or attack legally any 'good' or 'known' writer, to protect themselves?
they sue farmers, of course they sue scientists. all the time.
are you trying to say that there is nothing to worry about because the writing isn't up to your standards?
are you pro-GMO? and if so, why?
monsanto's 3 month study is the WORD?
DearHeart
(692 posts)Very eye opening and very, very scary!
[link:
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Dr. Pusztai's story in more detail in the first chapter of Seeds of Deception; his findings are also featured among the 65 documented health risks of genetically modified organisms
Sure enough, due to "the insertion of a single gene into a [corn] genome," 43 proteins were significantly increased or decreased. "Moreover, transgenic plants reacted differentially to the same environmental conditions, . . . supporting the hypothesis that they had a strongly rearranged genome after particle bombardment" by a gene gun.
Science in the Corporate Interest
Dr. Pusztai warns:
"We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods."
The bastardization of science is not unique to GMOs. It's pervasive. Consider these numbers. One third of the 500 UK scientists surveyed had been asked to change their research conclusions by their sponsoring customer. And these folks worked in government or recently privatized institutes. "A study of major research centers in the field of engineering," according to The Atlantic, "found that 35 percent would allow corporate sponsors to delete information from papers prior to publication." And a Tufts University study of 800 scientific papers showed that "more than a third of the authors had a significant [undisclosed] financial interest in their reports."
We have seen how corporatized research of drugs has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and disease. But hazards in our food supply, especially those that persist in the environment generation after generation, may dwarf the other problems we've seen. Exposing the truth about GMOs is absolutely urgent. Again in Dr. Pusztai's words:
"The problems with GM foods may be irreversible and the true effects may only be seen well in the future. The situation is like the tobacco industry. They knew about it but they suppressed that information. They created misleading evidence that showed that the problem wasn't so serious. And all the time they knew how bad it was. Tobacco is bad enough. But genetic modification, if it is going to be problematic, if it is going to cause us real health problems, then tobacco will be nothing in comparison with this."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversary-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html
MindMover
(5,016 posts)[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/6685665955/][img]
[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/6685665955/]monsantoland[/url]