The dangers of genetically modified food

[Christa]

Cloned Wheat Gene Boosts Nutrition – USDA

WASHINGTON - Scientists have cloned a gene from wild wheat that they hope could boost the nutritional value of bread and pasta and help fight world hunger, the US Department of Agriculture said on Friday.

Researchers at the University of California-Davis and the University of Haifa in Israel cloned the gene, GPC-B1, which increases grain protein, zinc and iron content.

The project was funded by the Agriculture Department and a bilateral US-Israeli research fund, USDA said in a statement.

"As a major crop across the globe, providing 20 percent of all calories consumed by humans, any improvement in the nutritional value of wheat would have substantial health benefits for much of the world's population," Gale Buchanan, USDA's undersecretary for research, education and economics, said in a statement.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39162/story.htm

And then this:

Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed

Several recent studies confirm fears that genetically modified (GM) foods damage human health. These studies were released as the World Trade Organization (WTO) moved toward upholding the ruling that the European Union has violated international trade rules by stopping importation of GM foods.

The study found “statistically significant” differences in kidney weights and certain blood parameters in the rats fed the GM corn as compared with the control groups. A number of scientists across Europe who saw the study (and heavily-censored summaries of it) expressed concerns about the health and safety implications if MON863 should ever enter the food chain. There was particular concern in France, where Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen has been trying (without success) for almost eighteen months to obtain full disclosure of all documents relating to the MON863 study.

Dr. Pusztai was forced by the German authorities to sign a “declaration of secrecy” before he was allowed to see the Monsanto rat feeding study, on the grounds that the document is classified as “CBI” or “confidential business interest.” While Pusztai is still bound by the declaration of secrecy, Monsanto recently declared that it does not object to the widespread dissemination of the “Pusztai Report.”

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#2

[chaska]

1. Monsanto is effin' evil....

Just read the other day about GM cotton and how it may cause disease. But we won't know for sure for another 10-20 years.

[ThomCat]

3. And they will have mountains of lawers fighting

every step of the way to deny that they're liable for all the damage that will eventually be documented.

[Gwerlain]

5. Ummm, pardon me, but...

do you have a link to an article that tells how GM cotton causes diseases? I can't find any. And I've looked. Extensively.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Of course it's dangerous.

It's messing with Mother Nature.

Not to be confused with "Playing God." That's stem cells. A completely different situation.

[Gwerlain]

17. You oughta put the "sarcasm" smilie...

in there. Although I'll admit it's kind of obvious.

So, no responses yet. I'm assuming that's basically :crickets:.

[KT2000]

2. We are now dealing with the

lack of research on the 100,000 chemicals dumped into our world in the last 50 years. We call it breast, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic cancers; heart disease; learning disabilities in children, autism, a multitude of birth defects, mental illness etc.

The corporate business plan is to limit research, deny link to product when problems occur and avoid liability by suing regulators. Monsanto does not even need to draft a new plan - its already in place.

Pathetic.

[ThomCat]

4. And our government is set up to cater to business

so it's not like anyone is really opposing them except for the victims who try to take them to court. x(

[Mugu]

6. You see 100,000 chemicals and think about things that end/complicate life,

I think 100,000 chemicals and see people living longer than ever before. 57% longer last century in the USA according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy. In the past, cancer was thought of as an old peoples disease. Today, almost everybody lives long enough to get cancer. Truly, better (at least longer) living through chemistry.

Regards,

Mugu

[laundry_queen]

7. That must be why children's cancer rates are rising.

Because so many more of them aren't dying from other things!
:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Isn't it?

[Mugu]

10. I don't know that child cancer rates are rising.

If you would be so kind as to cite a credible reference without the sarcasm. You can't argue that life expectancy in the US has steadily climbed that's a fact.


Regards,

Mugu

[KT2000]

12. here...........

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood

[Mugu]

13. This is the same data that I found when I looked,

it covers the only short periods of time say 1975-1995, or the last 20 years. They claim a small increase in cancers, but this is too short of time period to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, one of the most important points is that the mortality rate during that time has dropped significantly. And that can be attributed to new molecules (chemicals) that science has developed.

Regards,

Mugu

[KT2000]

14. BS

If you can look at ANY increase in cancer among children and not be concerned - there is not much we can discuss.
You better read up on the consequences of cancer and cancer treatment for adults who had cancer as children.

End of communication with you - we do not share the same values.

[KT2000]

11. It is very unscientific

to take the life expectancy of the generation born prior to the introduction of the chemical revolution and suppose that what killed them off has been resolved so future generations will live longer.
Pure baloney.

The challenges are new a different. "Lives long enough to get cancer???" Increasing childhood cancer is real. So is the pandemic of neurological disorders in children (check Lancet online)
Sorry but several of my friends have had cancer in their 30s and 40s - breast, ovarian, uterine and brain. Ever heard of hormone mimicking chemicals and their role in cancer?
Probably not - corporations are stalling the evaluation of chemicals for that characteristic so they do not have to have regulations.

[Mugu]

15. I missed that you had responded to me in two places

so I went out and fed the animals, cleaned the rain gutters, and started changing the oil in the truck, please forgive my slowness in responding.

We're not talking about one generation, we're talking 100 years of which the child death rate is included in the average life expectancy number and it still increased 57%. Dismiss that if you wish, but the fact remains.

“Live long enough to get cancer,” again you can mock, but the simple truth is that in the long run if something else doesn't get you, cancer will.

The data that I found and that you directed me to, only covers a short period of time say 1975-1995, and some others report the last 25 years. As you claim they do acknowledge an overall increase in the number of child cancer patients. Still the small number of victims makes it difficult to cite conclusive causes. And 20 to 25 years is a very short time to draw many meaningful conclusions as to cause with the small sample size. However, on the positive side did you notice that the mortality rate during this same period of time dropped dramatically. And much of that can all be attributed to new molecules (chemicals) that science has developed to combat these awful diseases.

I'm not unsympathetic on the topic of industrial pollution. My father is certain that he was poisoned with a compound that once was listed in the chemical dictionary, but now isn't. I was somewhat skeptical about the claim, he is getting older. But, a trip to the University of Chicago library archives proved it, in the old books it was listed, but in the new books it isn't. FOIA requests submitted to the EPA results in a response that no such chemical exists. My dad is a chemical engineer and designed the process to manufacture this chemical for his company, and the company sold it by the tank-car load to the mining industry (zinc mining I think, but I'm not sure.)

All of the men that worked with dad on the manufacturing project died shortly thereafter. Dad was the only one to be lucky enough to be under a physician's care for another aliment and during that diagnosis this condition was discovered. The doctor immediately started an aggressive drug therapy (more chemicals) to treat the condition and dad survived (only to now have dementia.)

So I have some idea of the toll that industrial toxins can cause and the resulting cover-ups. But, I also remember a few years ago a story about deformed frogs in some lake. The headlines strongly suggested that the problem was industrial pollution. But, some time later it was revealed that a naturally occurring bacteria was the real culprit. But the bacteria didn't get much press, so people could reasonably assume that pollution was the cause when it wasn't.

Regardless, my point still stands that people are living longer (dad was 78 in July,) healthier lives (he has an aortic aneurysm that is huge, but blood pressure medication has thus far prevented it from bursting) than ever before, in the majority of cases thanks to chemistry.


Regards,

Mugu

[MadHound]

16. Buy local, patronize your local farmers' market

Buy from farmers who run either Certified Naturally Grown or certified organic operations. This will reduce you chance of ingesting GM foods greatly, help your local economy, and strike a blow against corporate agriculture. If you want to prevent this nightmare of frankenfood, fight back with your bucks, before it is too late.