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/
valerief
(53,235 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)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 Londons Kings 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/
Cha
(297,553 posts)That must scare the shit outta Monsanto.. a little bit?
Trillo
(9,154 posts)Ah, such "Free Markets"!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)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
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)flamingdem
(39,319 posts)Vidar
(18,335 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)North and South
The guinea pigs of the world for GMO products
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)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/
Berlum
(7,044 posts)STOP POISONING OUR PLANET AND OUR PEOPLE.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)And trust me, that is not easy these days. We read every label.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)evirus
(852 posts)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
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.single.html
AAO
(3,300 posts)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)so you would support misinformation so long as it means Monsanto gets the shaft as a result?
AAO
(3,300 posts)evirus
(852 posts)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)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.
G_j
(40,367 posts)wow..
evirus
(852 posts)arikara
(5,562 posts)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?
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)Plus is it really inconceivable that Sanders was talking specifically about sugar content in the quote given?
Astrad
(466 posts)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)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)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)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.
AAO
(3,300 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)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
AAO
(3,300 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)well that and being far too humble.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)nebenaube
(3,496 posts)It is synthetic fructose, and no reaction proceeds 100% to product.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)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)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)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)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?
AAO
(3,300 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)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
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)India too is reconsidering....
byeya
(2,842 posts)waiting for problems to develop, and then try to ban the substance. We are doing it backwards.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)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.
G_j
(40,367 posts)is an outdated concept?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)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.
AAO
(3,300 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)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.
AAO
(3,300 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nevermind the fact that that is nothing but a red herring, anyway.
AAO
(3,300 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)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.
AAO
(3,300 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Look at those tumors!
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)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 Monsantos 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 dont understand the possible harmful outcomes of genetic engineering.
http://www.timos.com/timos/green/NoGMO/irtArticle.cfm?itemID=242
Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #51)
JohnyCanuck This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #51)
JohnyCanuck This message was self-deleted by its author.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)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.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)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.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)As a scientist looking at it and actively working on the field, I find that its very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. Arpad Pusztai, UKs 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 foodsthat 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 problemsin 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 Ministers Office.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/?p=1673
G_j
(40,367 posts)Thank you
Prometheus Bound
(3,489 posts)They sure know how to fight dirty.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's how science works. Calling him a victim because his research was flawed is not legitimate or helpful.
Pusztais Flawed Claims
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/
GM food study was 'flawed'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/346651.stm
lovuian
(19,362 posts)for farmers and Monsanto
the US will be revealed as bought by corporations
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The irony is absurd. Russia suspends use of GM corns, yet much of America still collectively engages in Soviet-style Lysenkosim.