Eating GM foods is a health risk

[nosmokes]

original-theage

Eating GM foods is a health risk


Jeffrey Smith
November 28, 2007

The Premier's decision to allow genetically modified crops is also bad for the economy.

JOHN Brumby's announcement to allow genetically modified (GM) foods to grow in Victoria threatens more than just the income of Australia's farmers and food companies. There is irrefutable evidence that GM foods are unsafe to eat.

Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in laboratory animals.

Government safety assessments, including those of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, do not identify many of the dangers, and a careful analysis reveals that industry's superficial studies submitted to FSANZ are designed to avoid finding them. The process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a genetically engineered crop produces hundreds of thousands of mutations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This massive collateral damage is why GM soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen, and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen. It also may explain why British soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.

But there is another possible cause. Genes inserted into GM soy produce a protein with allergenic properties. Moreover, the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM foods found that those genes had transferred into the DNA of our gut bacteria and remained functional. This means that long after we stop eating a GM food, its potentially dangerous protein may be produced continuously inside our intestines.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. So then GM a soy without the allergen.

Problem solved.

[RC]

3. You either don't get it or you

forgot the :sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. I get it.

Somebody GMed some soy. It contains allergens. So GM soy without the allergens.

It's not that hard to get.

[nosmokes]

13. Nature did that already before Agbiotech fecked with it.

You are clueless sometimes in your adoration of the Monsanto, aincha?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Yeah, but Mother Nature forgot the Bt gene.

Who's clueless now?

[MiniMe]

2. I thought GM made cars

:shrug:

:rofl: couldn't resist

[nosmokes]

7. wow! your clever originality leaves me thwacked.

Genetic engineering/Genetic modification (GE/GM) has been an issue for a while now, yet the number of folks that still think they're being *oh so cute and clever* by making jokes lamer than my 3 legged dog about- *I thought GE made light bulbs* or *I though GM made cars* for the ten thousandth time and actually think it was funny the first time need to take a remedial comedy 101 class.

[TZ]

8. be sure to never let anyone you care about

benefit from having their disease treated or CURED by stem cells/gene therapy.
Same damn technology.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. I hear somebody once had an allergic reaction to a vaccine.

What have vaccines ever done for society?

Jonas "Judas" Salk can just go to hell.

[Tesha]

35. Give it up; the paranoia cases will never relent. (NT)

[nosmokes]

16. It's not about the technology it's about how it's being misused.

Even many researchers in gene therapy are opposed to aAgbiotech and just putting this out in the open. There simply hasn't been enough research on it. And much of the research has shown troubling results but the profit motive has overruled science and moved ahead. There has never been a study thay concludes GMOs are safe for human consumption, never mind the realted issues of owning life forms in the form of patents and environmental contamination.

Yes it's the same basic technology but it's being used vastly disparate ways.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. That's just anti-vaccine looney arguments, rehashed.

"Some 'researchers' are against it."

Argument from authority.

"There hasn't been enough research."

How much research would be good enough for you?

"And much of the research has shown troubling results but the profit motive has overruled science and moved ahead."

Conspiracy theory.

"There has never been a study that concludes it's safe."

Abject nonsense.

[nosmokes]

27. When you can't argue anything substantive try to redirect. This has ZERO

to do with vaccines.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Except the phony nature of the arguments.

[Tumbulu]

31. Not true

Eating food from plants that have been genetically engineered has nothing to do with medical biotechnology.

Medical biotechnology is tested- right? Don't you guys test your products and get results that suggest some semblance of safety before you release them? And the engineering is done on bacterial cells, not plant cells. And the cells are contained and not just released willy nilly all over the place free to cross pollinate with wilder relatives (canola for example).

Engineered food plants have been released without knowledge or testing.

[Beetwasher]

5. Tell Me About It!!

[Cha]

6. Thanks nosmokes, for

your unwavering dedication in working for a healthier Planet. Unfortunately, greed and power are trumping so many people's common sense that it's one freaking battle after another!

Of course it's a health risk but millions smoke cigs and they know that's gonna get them eventually. No long range planning..instant gratification is what it's all about.

[nosmokes]

9. Thanks Zidzi!

WTH, it helps keep me off the streets and outta the bars...:hi:

[Cha]

12. You're the

best! :hi:

[Prefer]

11. What about selectively bred plants?

Are they dangerous too?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. No.

Nobody's ever had allergy's from non-GM foods.

[Prefer]

17. I know people that are allergic to foods

that have nothing to do with GM.

One is allergic to peanuts and chocolate, another, shrimp.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. You must work for Monsatan.

You Monsatanist.

[Tumbulu]

32. food allergies are serious

We don't need more allergens. GMO plants and their products need to be tested like any other technology. Period.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

20. How does that connect

to GMO's?

Selective breeding and genetic engineering are two completely different processes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Selective breeding is genetic engineering.

:shrug:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

22. In what ways?

n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. In that you manipulate the genes of the organism /offspring

in order to reach a desired genotype/phenotype.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

24. Tell me more

about how that is done in each case;

1) Selective Breeding

2) Genetic Manipulation

Please, if you would, use one or more specific examples.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Well, OK.

Let's take corn.

It started out like this:



Ancient genetic engineers planted a bunch of it. Thanks to genetic variation and random mutation and other genetic process, horizontal gene transfer, sexual reproduction, and so on, you ended up with kernels that were bigger the others.

Finally, you ended up with corn with lots of genes that say "bigger" and or "sweeter" and you end up with something completely different than the original. Like this:



or this



or this



Or take dogs.

You start with this:



Fiddle around with the genes, pick the ones you want, and you end up with these:



You can also take something that's mostly good, like papaya, but let's say you want papaya with resistance to the ringspot virus, so instead of fiddling around with selective breeding for two thousand years, you just stick the gene in directly, and you get this:



(guess which ones are resistant)

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. You didn't explain anything

Again please just explain the scientific processes involved.

1) Selective Breeding

2) Genetic Manipulation


Genetic manipulation and conventional breeding are worlds apart. Breeding does not manipulate genes; it involves crossing of selected parents of the same or closely related species. In contrast, Genetic manipulation involves extracting selected genes from one organism (e.g. animals, plants, insects, bacteria) and/or viruses, or synthesising copies, and artificially inserting them into another completely different organism (eg. food crops). Genetic manipulation usually employs virus genes to smuggle in and promote the inserted genes, and antibiotic resistance genes to act as markers. All these inserted genes are present in every cell of the plant.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. I did, but you don't understand.

"Breeding does not manipulate genes."

Sure it does. The genes in the great dane and the chihuahua are different from each other and from the genes in the wolf. You are certainly manipulating genes, that's the whole point.

"Genetic (engineering) involves extracting selected genes from one organism (e.g. animals, plants, insects, bacteria) and/or viruses, or synthesising copies, and artificially inserting them into another completely different organism (eg. food crops). Genetic manipulation usually employs virus genes to smuggle in and promote the inserted genes, and antibiotic resistance genes to act as markers. All these inserted genes are present in every cell of the plant."

Yes, in vitro GE involves viruses or other vectors, in selective breeding you use sperm and eggs.

What's your point?

[whopis01]

44. Of course breeding manipulates genes.

Do you realize what a gene is or how they come into play throughout the breeding process?

[Evoman]

28. Awesome post.

I am in awe.

[Tumbulu]

33. It is immoral to mislead people and call it science

I saw this slide show at the gmo EPA hearing in 1999. It was a promo from Monsanto. Slick and misleading.

Corn: Ancient plant breeders, not ancient genetic engineers developed corn. Unless you are now claiming that they spliced genes back then. Is this a sort of reverse creationism?

Papaya: Inserting a gene, all by itself, no promoter? No promiscuous virus? If genetic engineering is the same as plant breeding why do plant breeders only get PVP's instead of patents?

Please correct it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. I agree with your subject line.

It is indeed immoral to mislead people and call it science.

Which is why I take issue with the OP.

"I saw this slide show at the gmo EPA hearing in 1999. It was a promo from Monsanto. Slick and misleading."

I find that statement hard to believe since

1. I just made it up, just now, with google images.

2. The picture with the great danes is from a cover of a 2007 Nature issue.

3. The papaya picture's from 2002.

Talk about misleading.

"Ancient plant breeders, not ancient genetic engineers developed corn. Unless you are now claiming that they spliced genes back then. Is this a sort of reverse creationism?"

Essentially yes. They used different methods than "splicing" but they still engineered a desired genotype.

"Papaya: Inserting a gene, all by itself, no promoter? No promiscuous virus?"

I believe they did use a promoter, although I don't know the details. No viral vector, gene gun approach.

"If genetic engineering is the same as plant breeding why do plant breeders only get PVP's instead of patents?"

Some technicality in patent law, I'd imagine. I don't see a major difference between PVP's and regular patents, and it kind of takes a lot of steam out of the anti-GM patent arguments.

"Please correct it."

Correct what? I don't believe I made any errors. You're welcome to point any out.

[Tumbulu]

51. I stand by it

Perhaps new pictures for the same old wish-tales.

If you do not understand the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering, then please read what the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say about it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/

[Tumbulu]

30. It most certainly is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Selective breeding works with the variation that nature expresses. Humans select the variants with the most potential for usefulness.

Genetic Engineering of plants is an entirely new process- so new that patents are granted. Genes are taken from one species and inserted into another via viruses along with other genetic material.

However toxicity testing of any sort has not been required before release into the environment of these engineered plants in the US. Hmmm, a bit odd, wouldn't you say?

Shame on you for making this outlandishly false statement. Where did you study plant breeding?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Sure it is.

"Selective breeding works with the variation that nature expresses. Humans select the variants with the most potential for usefulness. "

And?

"Genetic Engineering of plants is an entirely new process- so new that patents are granted."

I don't think the "newness" of GE has much to do with patent law.

"Genes are taken from one species and inserted into another via viruses along with other genetic material."

What's your point?

"However toxicity testing of any sort has not been required before release into the environment of these engineered plants in the US. Hmmm, a bit odd, wouldn't you say?"

It would be odd if it were true. But it's not true. GE organisms go under extensive testing.

"Shame on you for making this outlandishly false statement. "

Shame on you for making outlandishly false statements, then accusing me of the same without backing them up.

"Where did you study plant breeding?"

College. You?

[Tumbulu]

49. You need a better education on the difference between plant breeding and genetic engineering

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a good place to start:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/

Your posts are so out there I will not respond.

[The2ndWheel]

46. "Humans select the variants with the most potential for usefulness."

Usefulness for who?

"Genetic Engineering of plants is an entirely new process- so new that patents are granted."

That's not why patents are granted. Our institutions want to own the DNA of food.

"Humans select"

"Genetic Engineering"

Other than the scale at which we're able to select, there is no difference.

I say we shouldn't be selecting anything for any other species, especially in terms of their usefulness to us(no other reason to do any selecting though). However, we've been doing that for thousands of years. Actual genetic engineering(not just the broad "breeding") is simply allowing us to control more of life in the narrow desires of a single species. We don't like diversity. We like predictability. That's why we do it, that's why we've been doing it, and that's why it doesn't matter what anyone wants, you're not going to stop thousands of years of momentum in this area. We're going to kill more diversity(unless it's useful to us, but the further you get from the number 1, the more chance is involved). We're going to attempt to control every aspect of life. That just isn't going to stop.

[Evoman]

29. GM foods are fine.

I'd eat them (and do) without hesitation.

[nosmokes]

34. You're welcome to all the frankenfood you wan, but those of us that don't

want it should have the option of not having it forced upon us and having our taxes go to subsidise the industry that makes it, grows, it, promotes it, and contaminates our food with the goddamn stuff. thus forcing up the price of what we pay for unadulterated food that's not poisoning the planet.Y'all are the ones that should be paying the premium. No one *ever* asked for this bullshit to be done to their food.Not the farmer, not the consumer, not the grocer.And the *only* people benefitting are those in the Agbiotech industry.

[Tumbulu]

38. well said

Thanks nosmokes.

[Eurobabe]

36. Think the Bees already know that

I still swear this is a player in the colony collapse disorder.

[GliderGuider]

37. The Precautionary Principle and the Law of Unintended Consequences

Both those principles say we are in very dangerous territory. The systems we are tinkering with are too complex for us to be able to predict the full outcome, and the consequences of a mistake could be enormous.

Humanity is twice too clever and not half smart enough. We sure don't lack that endearingly invincible self-confidence of a teenage boy out for a Saturday night with his buddies, a case of beer and his parents' car, though. What could possibly go wrong?

[donsu]

40. true - bad for you - I haven't eaten corn since they first modified it

I know corn sugar is in everything they can possible put it in. so I seldom buy pre prepared/packaged food.

I like corn - grew many a cob in my veg. gardens, pre modified corn, of yester year. and I miss eating corn. several years ago I asked at grocery which corn was modified and they didn't even know what I was talking about.

[Johonny]

45. yawn

Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in laboratory animals.


You could write the very same paragraph about organic food and it would be true.

[nosmokes]

47. Nonsense.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Touche?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

50. Studies

I'm interested to see some studies done on the safety of GMO's. Got some info on that?

Some links perhaps?