Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cory777

(1,384 posts)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:40 AM Sep 2012

Russia Suspends Use of Genetically Modified Corn

Source: Dow Jones

LONDON--Russia's consumer rights watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, said Tuesday it has suspended the import and use of genetically modified corn made by Monsanto Co. (MON) following a study's allegations that the crop causes cancer.

Rospotrebnadzor said the country's Institute of Nutrition has been asked to assess the validity of the study, while the European Commission's Directorate General for Health & Consumers has also been contacted to explain the European Union's position.

The study, conducted by the University of Caen in France, alleged that rats fed over a two-year period with the U.S. chemical company's genetically modified NK603 corn, developed more tumors and other severe diseases than a test group fed with regular corn.

The study also alleged that rats fed with NK603 and exposed to Monsanto's Roundup weed killer suffered from more pathologies than the test group.



Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/russia-suspends-import-use-of-genetically-modified-corn-20120925-00065



Activist News http://activistnews.org/
82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Russia Suspends Use of Genetically Modified Corn (Original Post) cory777 Sep 2012 OP
Maybe after Somalia suspends it, the U.S. MIGHT consider suspending it, too. nt valerief Sep 2012 #1
Really. gateley Sep 2012 #6
Dream on. dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12
Thank you, Russia! Cha Sep 2012 #2
Russia has access to whether corn is GMO, or not? But U.S. citizens purchasing it don't? Trillo Sep 2012 #3
Whoa! This is fantastic & very hopeful. 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #4
k&r avaistheone1 Sep 2012 #5
wow! nt flamingdem Sep 2012 #7
Bravo, Russia. Vidar Sep 2012 #8
the Americas LiberalLovinLug Sep 2012 #9
I know I'm a broken record here Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #10
K&R DeSwiss Sep 2012 #11
Free clue for Monsanto and other Republican Corps. Berlum Sep 2012 #13
Another reason to avoid HF corn syrup, and any food or beverage that contains it peacebird Sep 2012 #14
beet sugar too now lunasun Sep 2012 #21
How is this any different than the occasional bad study put out by climate denialists? evirus Sep 2012 #15
The luddites alleady "know" that GMOs are teh evil, they are just looking for verification. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #16
Indeed. HuckleB Sep 2012 #53
You don't happen to work for Monsanto, do you? AAO Sep 2012 #17
The lessor of two evils is still evil. evirus Sep 2012 #18
Absolutely! Monsanto is evil. n/t AAO Sep 2012 #19
But to blame an entire industry on the actions of a few bad examples? evirus Sep 2012 #22
I DON'T WANT GMO FOOD - IT RISKS GLOBAL CATASTROPHE! AAO Sep 2012 #28
you are comparing Monsanto to the Democratic party? G_j Sep 2012 #36
I'm comparing GMO to the democratic party evirus Sep 2012 #50
Truth would be preferable arikara Sep 2012 #47
Tom Sanders Astrad Sep 2012 #20
It's only suprising if you believe in guilt by association. evirus Sep 2012 #23
I don't think his association Astrad Sep 2012 #25
Um . . . fruit is high in sugar 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #27
Coke doesn't use sugar, but HFCS. AAO Sep 2012 #31
HFCS is sugar 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #33
It is "a" sugar, but it is definatley not "sugar". n/t AAO Sep 2012 #38
That is scientifically inacurrate 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #41
You got me there. I still think GMO's should be banned. n/t AAO Sep 2012 #44
Agree to disagree then. 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #45
I love to agree to disagree - I wish we could all do that! Thanks... n/t AAO Sep 2012 #48
You are far too kind. HuckleB Sep 2012 #59
I've been told this is my only fault 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #60
LOL! HuckleB Sep 2012 #61
It's not fructose either... nebenaube Sep 2012 #79
So what? HuckleB Sep 2012 #58
Which has more artificial coloring bitchkitty Sep 2012 #32
Wow a 1000 times! 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #34
There are more than calories bitchkitty Sep 2012 #54
The actual quote we're responding to: 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #56
Who drinks a litre of apple juice a day? Maybe Johnny Appleseed, but come'on! n/t AAO Sep 2012 #29
+1,000,000,000,000 HuckleB Sep 2012 #52
Scientist: GM food safety testing is “woefully inadequate” JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #24
Not so good for Monsanto riverbendviewgal Sep 2012 #26
All substances should be proven safe before they are allowed into the environment not byeya Sep 2012 #30
How do you "prove" something is safe? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #35
I guess to err on the side of safety G_j Sep 2012 #39
Which means what in this context? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #42
How about longer than 3 months? n/t AAO Sep 2012 #40
Give me a time period. 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #43
That is for scientists to quibble about. I guess we can agree to disagree once again! n/t AAO Sep 2012 #49
You don't accept what the scientists say now, so why you would accept something different? HuckleB Sep 2012 #62
Monsanto scientists? No I don't trust them. They are paid by Mosanto to produce an outcome. AAO Sep 2012 #72
So, you're saying that all GE Food research is paid for by Monsanto? HuckleB Sep 2012 #73
Well if you thnik it's a red herring, then the discussion is over. Agree to disagree... AAO Sep 2012 #75
You seem to be jumping from one thing to another without addressing the last points. HuckleB Sep 2012 #76
I disagree. n/t AAO Sep 2012 #82
Genetic Roulette FULL Movie G_j Sep 2012 #37
Poor rats! Quantess Sep 2012 #46
Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #65
This message was self-deleted by its author JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #66
We have the right to know what we are eating. limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #55
Looks like Russia isn't going with the consensus. HuckleB Sep 2012 #57
Just out of curiousity what's your reaction to the Stanford organics study? JackRiddler Sep 2012 #63
The one where they said that there is no difference between organic and genetically modified food? darkangel218 Sep 2012 #64
Peer review and scientific consensus makes it appear to be quite sound. HuckleB Sep 2012 #70
Scientists Under Attack (when their research shows health related problems with eating GMOs) JohnyCanuck Sep 2012 #67
enlightening G_j Sep 2012 #71
Quite an article. GM promoters aren't just anti-science, they're anti-people. Prometheus Bound Sep 2012 #80
His research was debunked. HuckleB Sep 2012 #81
Soon US crops won't be bought and disaster in the making lovuian Sep 2012 #68
The irony is absurd. LanternWaste Sep 2012 #69
"Lamarckism" is not all dead and all wrong tama Sep 2012 #74
The Guardian: The GM debate is growing up HuckleB Sep 2012 #77
K&R n/t Smickey Sep 2012 #78

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
12. Dream on.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:40 AM
Sep 2012

Nice thought but hardly likely.

l'm wary of issues here too :

GM crop grant planted in UK: Britons wary.

UK scientists have received a US$10 million grant for research into GM crops in one of the biggest investments in the field. The British public remains skeptical of GM foods, a recent report suggesting they pose both environmental and health threats.

The multi-million investment from UK-based charity the Gates Foundation will be used to cultivate GM modified corn, wheat and rice.

>

GM crops are a bone of contention in the UK and it is currently illegal to cultivate them. Opponents of the controversial research maintain that it will be years before tests yield any practical results and then food shortages could be dealt with by cutting down on wastage.

Moreover, a study published recently in the UK by a genetic engineer from London’s King’s College of Medicine signaled that GM foods pose a more serious threat than advocates of research would have the public believe

http://rt.com/news/gm-uk-genetically-modified-claims-221/

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
3. Russia has access to whether corn is GMO, or not? But U.S. citizens purchasing it don't?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:16 AM
Sep 2012

Ah, such "Free Markets"!

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
4. Whoa! This is fantastic & very hopeful.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:17 AM
Sep 2012

I mean, wtf? Is the USofA going to sit back and allow this poison to be foisted on it
(without even labeling it so it is recognizable), until the WHOLE WORLD has already
banned it.

We should be ashamed we've waited this long. Obama needs to start by replacing that
Michael Taylor jerk he appointed to head up the FDA, who came straight from being Vice
President of Monsanto for Christ sake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
10. I know I'm a broken record here
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:46 AM
Sep 2012

but just a reminder to Californians to vote "Yes on 37" -- the proposition to label GMO's here in CA.

Monsanto, et al have poured over $32 million into the "No on 37" campaign. The "Yes on 37" campaign has only raised about $4 million in small donations.

If you can volunteer or if you can donate the campaign could sure use it. We're fighting the big boys and big boy money. All we have here are feet on the ground.

Californians, even if you don't have time to volunteer for the campaign, maybe you can purchase a car magnet, bumper sticker, yard sign or a T-shirt. ALL the money goes to the campaign.

Here's the website:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
14. Another reason to avoid HF corn syrup, and any food or beverage that contains it
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:49 AM
Sep 2012

And trust me, that is not easy these days. We read every label.

evirus

(852 posts)
15. How is this any different than the occasional bad study put out by climate denialists?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:01 AM
Sep 2012

The study referenced is heavily flawed;

-the rats used are known for developing cancer under a wide range of conditions.

-no data was provided regarding the amount of food given or if it was treated for fungal agents which is known to contribute to cancer development in that species).

- the sample sizes are considerably low (lower than 50 rats in each group)

-inconsistent results among the multiple test groups.

-unconventional statistical analysis.

-etc
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html
 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
17. You don't happen to work for Monsanto, do you?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:56 AM
Sep 2012

Do we really want Monsanto to conduct these tests and tell us there are no problems seen after 3 months? I am much more inclined to believe this study over Monsanto's coverups.

evirus

(852 posts)
18. The lessor of two evils is still evil.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:02 AM
Sep 2012

so you would support misinformation so long as it means Monsanto gets the shaft as a result?

evirus

(852 posts)
22. But to blame an entire industry on the actions of a few bad examples?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:36 AM
Sep 2012

That's like pointing to a democrat who's found guilty of ethics violations and saying that because of them, all democrats aren't to be trusted.

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
28. I DON'T WANT GMO FOOD - IT RISKS GLOBAL CATASTROPHE!
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:10 AM
Sep 2012

At the very least it should be labelled as such so I can avoid it like the plague it may someday become. I can see you disagree, and that's fine.

arikara

(5,562 posts)
47. Truth would be preferable
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:01 PM
Sep 2012

and that won't happen until Monsatano and their ilk no longer control the testing and the regulatory bodies. Until then my family and I prefer not to ingest it.

And on another note, since you seem sympathetic to their cause, what's their problem with labelling anyhow. If their altered food is so good they should be proud of it. Why not label?

Astrad

(466 posts)
20. Tom Sanders
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:15 AM
Sep 2012

The scientist cited in the New Scientist article has a history of defending Monsanto.

He testified in defense of artificial sweetners saying they have health benefits while at the same time criticizing fresh fruit as being unhealthy.

"Though Sanders believes aspartame can help people live healthier lives (above), he is not so impressed by the health benefits of fresh fruit. In an article titled "The myths of fruit", Sanders was quoted as saying that drinking liquidised fresh fruit compared unfavourably to drinking Coke:

If you liquidise it into goo it's just like drinking ordinary Coke. Or worse, actually. It's still a sugary drink. A lot of people on diets don't realise that if they're drinking loads of apple juice or orange juice, it's got a lot of calories in. If you drink a litre of apple juice a day, it'll be 400 calories.[6]

However, this claim only takes into consideration the one factor of calories - not vitamins and minerals, which are arguably a more important factor in choosing a drink. People on a diet still need their nutrients - one could say, more than those eating an unrestricted diet."

He was a 'professional consultant' to Nutrasweet which is owned by Monsanto.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Tom_Sanders

I'm surprised New Scientist would publish this.

evirus

(852 posts)
23. It's only suprising if you believe in guilt by association.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:43 AM
Sep 2012

Plus is it really inconceivable that Sanders was talking specifically about sugar content in the quote given?

Astrad

(466 posts)
25. I don't think his association
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:18 AM
Sep 2012

disqualifies him from commenting or makes it impossible for him to be impartial. But it should give one pause and maybe dissuade one from using it as a basis to trash the original report as on par with the 'science' of climate denialists.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
27. Um . . . fruit is high in sugar
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:48 AM
Sep 2012

people tend to forget that and assume "it's a plant it must be healthy".

Which contains more calories: a glass of coke containing 200 calories of sugar or a glass of fresh OJ containing 200 calories?

/bu bu it's natural!

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
31. Coke doesn't use sugar, but HFCS.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:17 AM
Sep 2012

And anyone that doesn't keep track (at least vaguely) of their daily calorie intake, really should be doing that. Calories, and the nutritional value derived from them, should be understood if you really want to live a healthful life.

All calories are not the same...

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
33. HFCS is sugar
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:20 AM
Sep 2012

There are many different kinds of sugar. Sucrose is the one people think of but that is far from the only one. Fructose for instance is another sugar (the F in HFCS).


And anyone that doesn't keep track (at least vaguely) of their daily calorie intake, really should be doing that. Calories, and the nutritional value derived from them, should be understood if you really want to live a healthful life.


I believe that is what he was saying in his quote that you took issue with.
 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
41. That is scientifically inacurrate
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:48 AM
Sep 2012

Fructose is present naturally in fruits and other plants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

Sucrose (real sugar I suppose) is made up of fructose and glucose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

bitchkitty

(7,349 posts)
32. Which has more artificial coloring
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:18 AM
Sep 2012

and less vitamins?

And yes, fresh squeezed orange juice is about 1000 times better than a glass of coke, nutrition wise. Don't be stupid.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
34. Wow a 1000 times!
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:21 AM
Sep 2012

That's incredible.

As in "without credibility"

This kind of goes with what was being discussed: where people blindly assume that natural = good. It grew on a tree, those calories don't count.

bitchkitty

(7,349 posts)
54. There are more than calories
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:17 PM
Sep 2012

in fresh squeezed orange juice, dear. There are also vitamins and if they don't strain it out, fiber.

With Coke you have more than calories too. You have high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, caffeine, phosphoric acid - sooooooooo healthy!

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
56. The actual quote we're responding to:
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:22 PM
Sep 2012
If you liquidise it into goo it's just like drinking ordinary Coke. Or worse, actually. It's still a sugary drink. A lot of people on diets don't realise that if they're drinking loads of apple juice or orange juice, it's got a lot of calories in. If you drink a litre of apple juice a day, it'll be 400 calories.


You can be overweight and getting all your necessary vitamins. Or not. Or you can be thin and not getting all your necessary vitamins.

You're equating two different things.

When discussing obesity it doesn't matter that you have plenty of vitamin C in your diet if you are consuming 3000+ calories per day. Do you understand this?

JohnyCanuck

(9,922 posts)
24. Scientist: GM food safety testing is “woefully inadequate”
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:57 AM
Sep 2012

Dr. Carman is director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Inc., a non-profit research institute based in Australia focusing on the safety of genetically modified food. She earned a doctorate degree in medicine from the University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolic regulation, nutritional biochemistry, and cancer. She has investigated outbreaks of disease for an Australian state government.

Ken Roseboro, editor of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, interviewed Dr. Carman during her recent visit to the United States.

Can you tell me a about your research on the health impacts of GM foods?
We are conducting one of the very few first long-term, independent animal feeding studies with GM foods. To date, most of these types of studies have been done by biotechnology companies or scientists associated with biotechnology companies.

Of the few independent studies being done, a study by the Austrian government recently made public found reduced fertility in mice fed GM corn. Another recent study done in Italy showed immune system problems in mice fed GM corn.

The studies done by biotechnology companies tend to show no health problems associated with eating GM food. The independent studies are finding adverse effects.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/dec08/gm_food_safey_testing_inadequate.php

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
30. All substances should be proven safe before they are allowed into the environment not
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:16 AM
Sep 2012

waiting for problems to develop, and then try to ban the substance. We are doing it backwards.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
35. How do you "prove" something is safe?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:23 AM
Sep 2012

What time period does that encompass? A year? A decade? A century?

Some things only become evident as problems a long way down the line. Like say DDT. Of course in the interim no one was complaining about not dying of malaria.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
42. Which means what in this context?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:50 AM
Sep 2012

I have a new drug that will save lives by preventing let's say strokes.

4thlawacil. How long should it be tested before it can go on the market? What should the population size be?

The point I'm getting at is that nothing is ever "proven" safe. That's why drugs are measured in LD50s not LD1s.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
43. Give me a time period.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:50 AM
Sep 2012

Easy enough to say "longer". But time is finite. At some point that has to bump up against practicality.

Aspirin isn't proven safe. People occasionally die of it. Same with vaccines.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
73. So, you're saying that all GE Food research is paid for by Monsanto?
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:34 PM
Sep 2012

Nevermind the fact that that is nothing but a red herring, anyway.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
76. You seem to be jumping from one thing to another without addressing the last points.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:40 PM
Sep 2012

In other words, it doesn't appear that actual discussion is something you're trying to have here.

"Agree to disagree" is meaningless, btw. It completely ignores science and the scientific process.

JohnyCanuck

(9,922 posts)
51. Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:32 PM
Sep 2012

In 1997, a few months after he was set straight by the Monsanto Vice President at headquarters, a company scientist told him that GM Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended proteins that had likely resulted from the gene insertion process. No safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near his home, were being fed to cattle.

Azevedo “was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic.” Azevedo asked the PhD in charge of the test plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle. He argued that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows’ milk or meat could be harmful. The scientist refused.

He approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about the unknown protein, but no one was interested. “Once they understood my perspective, I was somewhat ostracized,” he said. “Once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. I lost cooperation with other team members. Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside.”

Azevedo believed that Monsanto’s irresponsible practices might devastate the health of consumers. “These Monsanto scientists are very knowledgeable about traditional products, like chemicals, herbicides, and pesticides,” he said, “but they don’t understand the possible harmful outcomes of genetic engineering.”

http://www.timos.com/timos/green/NoGMO/irtArticle.cfm?itemID=242

Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #51)

Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #51)

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
57. Looks like Russia isn't going with the consensus.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:32 PM
Sep 2012

Society of Biology responds to latest GM food study
http://www.societyofbiology.org/newsandevents/news/view/467

Expert reaction to GM maize causing tumours in rats
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm\\

Under Controlled: Why the New GMO Panic Is More Sensational Than Sense
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/09/21/under-controlled-why-the-new-gmo-panic-is-more-sensational-than-sense/

GM Corn-Tumor Link Based on Poor Science
http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-corn-tumor-study-120920.html

Rats, Tumors and Critical Assessment of Science
http://kfolta.blogspot.be/2012/09/rats-tumors-and-critical-assessment-of.html

And then there's the study's author who did not want the press to be able to assess the study beforehand, and who happens to be having a book come out soon. Hmm.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
64. The one where they said that there is no difference between organic and genetically modified food?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:22 PM
Sep 2012

They're fool off s***( or greed ).

genetically modified /chemically contaminated food is extremely dangerous. I personally cant always afford organic, especially lately, but at least I'm aware of the dangers.

BTW, kudos to Russia for taking this step. I hope U.S. will follow.

JohnyCanuck

(9,922 posts)
67. Scientists Under Attack (when their research shows health related problems with eating GMOs)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:46 AM
Sep 2012
The insect-killing, career-ending potato

“As a scientist looking at it and actively working on the field, I find that it’s very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs.”— Arpad Pusztai, UK’s World in Action TV show

When Dr. Pusztai voiced his concerns about the health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods during a nationally televised interview in August 1998, his was not simply just another voice in a contentious debate. Pusztai was the world leader in his field, and he had received major government funding to come up with the official method for testing the safety of GM foods. His protocols were supposed to become the required tests before any new GMO entered the European market. Pusztai was an insider, and an advocate of GM foods—that is until he actually ran those tests on supposedly harmless GM potatoes.

The high-tech spuds were engineered to produce their own pesticide. “The point of the whole genetic modification experiment was to protect the potato against aphids, which are one of the major pests in Scotland,” he said. His team inserted a gene from the snowdrop plant into the potatoes, which did in fact protect the GM crop from the insects.

As part of his safety studies, he fed that insecticide producing GM potato to rats, along with a complete and balanced diet. Another group of rats ate natural potatoes. A third was fed not only the natural potatoes, but they also received a dose of the same insecticide that the GM potato produced. This way, if the insecticide was harmful, he would see the same health problems in both the group that ate the GM potatoes, and those that ate the diet spiked with the insecticide. To his surprise, only those that ate the GM potato had severe problems—in every organ and every system he looked at.

Massive health problems linked to GMOs

“After the animals were killed and dissected,” Pusztai recalled, “we found out that in comparison with the non-genetically modified potatoes, their internal organs developed differently.” The intestines and stomach lining, for example, increased in size, the liver and kidneys were smaller, and the overall rate of growth was retarded. And the immune system suffered. Pusztai emphasized, “They found in those data 36 – 36! – very highly significant differences between the GM-fed animals and the non-GM fed animals.”

snip

After the TV show aired, Pusztai was a hero at his prestigious Rowett Institute, where the director praised his work to the press, calling it world-class research. After two days of high-profile media coverage throughout Europe, however, the director received two phone calls from the UK Prime Minister’s Office.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/?p=1673

Prometheus Bound

(3,489 posts)
80. Quite an article. GM promoters aren't just anti-science, they're anti-people.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:21 PM
Sep 2012

They sure know how to fight dirty.

lovuian

(19,362 posts)
68. Soon US crops won't be bought and disaster in the making
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:11 AM
Sep 2012

for farmers and Monsanto

the US will be revealed as bought by corporations

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
69. The irony is absurd.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:42 AM
Sep 2012

The irony is absurd. Russia suspends use of GM corns, yet much of America still collectively engages in Soviet-style Lysenkosim.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Russia Suspends Use of Ge...