GMOs - Continued

Ah, good, Now that the 'science' parts of GMO and kindred subjects have been hashed /bashed pretty good here, we can move to philosophical probings....like, "why do mass shootings in our country seem to happen in gun free zones?"...just kidding.

DHA may be new to me. I have heard of DHEA though. I believe many nutrients can be healthful, but for most of us most of the time a single item has limits.

The World just turned upside down.

I saw on TV this morning that a big new study has shown that Vegetarians or people that do not eat meat have a 50% greater chance of dying from Cancer and Heart attacks than do people that eat meat.

I am sure the people that believed Red Meat was the cause off death will dispute this.

Ernie

A very true statement is "nutrition science is in its infancy". A corollary, "doing nutrition science is extraordinarily difficult as there are so many variables and interactions to consider, not to mention the difficulty of finding and accurately monitoring what people eat".

The above is not meant to disparage nutrition science; it's just an acknowledgement of the issues it faces.

Ernie--the news you saw is stunning (not to be confused with "stunning corn comparisons"). The last news I caught that was that contrary to popular belief was one a few months ago that found taking vitamin supplements was pretty worthless.

I'll be long gone before we can be confident about nutritional guidance. I do believe eating lots of fresh fruits and veggies is probably good. I also believe that eating some meat is important since it is part of our evolutionary heritage. Isn't it B12 that is pretty much nowhere to be found except in meat?

Willy,.

I recall the news about Vitamins but did not hear much followup after that, I have tried them at different times but the only one that i could feel did any noticeable difference was the large doses of melt in your mouth B-12, and that gave me energy when I badly needed it. Otherwise, just never made much difference.

I just saw that about the Meat on the News today, so it will be interesting to see the Study blessed and cursed, depending on how it affects peoples income or beliefs.

Ernie

Below is an abstract I copied from a National Institutes of Health website (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9677052). It makes a number of important points:
1) About half of all chemicals tested on rodents prove to be rodent carcinogens
2) Rodent testing is conducted at the MTD (Maximum Tolerable Dose), which is far above any reasonable consumption rate, way far above.
3) Cancer death rates in the US are declining if lung cancer (mostly caused by smoking) is excluded
4) 99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants
5) More than half of the chemicals in coffee that have been tested (19 of 28) are rodent carcinogens
6) Coffee contains more than 1,000 “chemicals”.
7) There are more rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee than potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues in an average American’s diet in a year.
Some other things I’ve learned recently (if I re-find the sources, I’ll post the links)
1) The strains of rodents used for carcinogen testing have been intentionally bred to exhibit a high propensity for developing tumors. This characteristic makes it “easy” to detect potential carcinogens. Some researchers fear that the tumor propensity is getting so high that testing these rodents for carcinogens will be pointless because the rodents will always develop cancer.
2) Only 70% of the chemicals shown to produce cancer in rats also produce cancer in mice. What percent also produce cancer in humans is unknown because humans don’t consume the MTD, or anywhere close to it.
Moral of the story: The dose makes the poison.
Here is the NIH abstract:
The idea that synthetic chemicals such as DDT are major contributors to human cancer has been inspired, in part, by Rachel Carson's passionate book, Silent Spring. This chapter discusses evidence showing why this is not true. We also review research on the causes of cancer, and show why much cancer is preventable. Epidemiological evidence indicates several factors likely to have a major effect on reducing rates of cancer: reduction of smoking, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, and control of infections. Other factors are avoidance of intense sun exposure, increases in physical activity, and reduction of alcohol consumption and possibly red meat. Already, risks of many forms of cancer can be reduced and the potential for further reductions is great. If lung cancer (which is primarily due to smoking) is excluded, cancer death rates are decreasing in the United States for all other cancers combined. Pollution appears to account for less than 1% of human cancer; yet public concern and resource allocation for chemical pollution are very high, in good part because of the use of animal cancer tests in cancer risk assessment. Animal cancer tests, which are done at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), are being misinterpreted to mean that low doses of synthetic chemicals and industrial pollutants are relevant to human cancer. About half of the chemicals tested, whether synthetic or natural, are carcinogenic to rodents at these high doses. A plausible explanation for the high frequency of positive results is that testing at the MTD frequently can cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell replacement, a risk factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses. Ignoring this greatly exaggerates risks. Scientists must determine mechanisms of carcinogenesis for each substance and revise acceptable dose levels as understanding advances. The vast bulk of chemicals ingested by humans is natural. For example, 99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants to ward off insects and other predators. Half of these natural pesticides tested at the MTD are rodent carcinogens. Reducing exposure to the 0.01% that are synthetic will not reduce cancer rates. On the contrary, although fruits and vegetables contain a wide variety of naturally-occurring chemicals that are rodent carcinogens, inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables doubles the human cancer risk for most types of cancer. Making them more expensive by reducing synthetic pesticide use will increase cancer. Humans also ingest large numbers of natural chemicals from cooking food. Over a thousand chemicals have been reported in roasted coffee: more than half of those tested (19/28) are rodent carcinogens. There are more rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee than potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues in the average American diet in a year, and there are still a thousand chemicals left to test in roasted coffee. This does not mean that coffee is dangerous but rather that animal cancer tests and worst-case risk assessment, build in enormous safety factors and should not be considered true risks. The reason humans can eat the tremendous variety of natural chemical "rodent carcinogens" is that humans, like other animals, are extremely well protected by many general defense enzymes, most of which are inducible (i.e., whenever a defense enzyme is in use, more of it is made). Since the defense enzymes are equally effective against natural and synthetic chemicals one does not expect, nor does one find, a general difference between synthetic and natural chemicals in ability to cause cancer in high-dose rodent tests. The idea that there is an epidemic of human cancer caused by synthetic industrial chemicals is false. In addition, there is a steady rise in life expectancy in the developed countries. Linear extrapolation from the maximum tolerated dose in rodents to low level exposure in humans has led to grossly exaggerated mortality forecasts.

AAARRRGGGHHHHHH! I must cease this obsession of mine. I know--it's happy hour!

Willy,

I just fininshed my Happy Hour and while doing so, i saw something i am going to post over Climate Change.

The discussion we have been having is moving up from the Amateurs to the Professionals/


Ernie

Interesting comments:

Salk Institute scientist reveals why he opposes GMOs
IN LETTER TO MEXICO’S PRESIDENT

Lic. Enrique Peña Nieto

Presidente de la República Mexicana

Palacio Nacional Edif. 10 P.B.
Col. Centro, Del. Cuauhtémoc, C.P. 06067 México, D.F. enrique.penanieto@presidencia.gob.mx

Lic. Enrique Martínez y Martínez
Secretario de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación
 Avenida Municipio Libre 377
Col. Santa Cruz Atoyac, Del. Benito Juárez, C.P. 03310 México, D.F.
enrique.martinez@sagarpa.gob.mx

Ing. Juan José Guerra Abud

Secretario de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Blvd. Adolfo Ruiz Cortines 4209
Col. Jardines en la Montaña, Del. Tlalpan, C.P. 14210 México, D.F.
juanjoseguerra@semarnat.gob.mx

My name is David Schubert. I have a doctorate in immunology and serve as a Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, considered one of the top medical research institutions in the world. As a member of this institution I actively work on the development of drugs to treat Alzheimer’s and stroke. Therefore, I possess first-hand knowledge of molecular genetics, toxicology and safety testing involving new chemical and biological entities. I am also knowledgeable about the technology of genetically modified organisms (GMOs ) and have published articles in leading scientific journals on GM plants and their effect on human health.

Recently, I've written letters, like this one, that have contributed to the debate on the introduction of GM eggplant in India and Bangladesh. In both cases, the process of introduction [of the transgenic varieties] has been suspended. Since eggplant is native to these countries, just as corn is a native crop of Mexico, the situations and problems related to the use of GM technology in both regions are nearly identical.

Therefore, I am convinced of the need for Mexico to follow the advice of scientific panels of scientists and government review in India, Bangladesh, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and the vast majority of the free countries of the world, and reject the introduction of transgenic maize. This conclusion is based on several reasons discussed below.

Points 1 through 5 are exceptionally important but have been treated by other people. I will focus, then, on the impact of GM maize on human health, which falls within my area of ​​expertise. To my knowledge, the following statements are documented in scientific and government publications:
1) No necessity. The [diverse] corn crop [in Mexico] is not severely threatened by pest infestations.

2) High environmental risk. Corn is native to Mexico and transgenes will unquestionably pollute and degrade its natural populations. In addition, Mexico is the center of biodiversity and a global treasure of plant varieties capable of fighting disease and climate change. These capabilities would be diminished if GM seeds are introduced into their territory.

3) Higher costs. The annual purchase of seeds, as opposed to seed saving, will increase production costs at all levels of the food chain. Small farmers and peasants, who are the most important nodes of the agricultural production system in Mexico, will be most affected by the high costs and potential crop failures because some varieties of GM maize are not the most appropriate in all planting sites. The transgenes entering the local populations eventually contaminate all local varieties.

4) Social and political dependency. Once the foreign companies control the seed market for any plant [in Mexico] they will continue introducing GM seeds of other species and therefore wield enormous power through political processes over the peasants who constitute a large segment of the Mexican population. This has already happened in the U.S. where the seed companies are the main financial support of both political parties (Republicans and Democrats) and have designated persons in positions of high power to dictate national and international agricultural policies.

5) Irreversible. When GM maize is introduced into Mexico, even on a small scale, it will irreversibly contaminate native varieties. This is unequivocal and the only way to prevent it is to not allow GMO plantings.

6) Bt proteins pose human health risks. Transgenic corn expressing the Bt crystal proteins is also resistant to herbicides so the chemicals required for cultivation are compound the threat to the health of those who consume it. I delve into these issues that are of great importance for a country like Mexico where maize is consumed in large quantities and often un a manner involving little or no processing. However, I would first like to dispel some myths that are used by the proponents of GM maize to argue that this is harmless.
It is claimed that, as there is no human illness associated with the consumption of Bt corn in the United States, it should be a safe food to eat. This conclusion is invalid for several reasons. In the first place, only a small fraction of Bt corn produced [in the U.S.] is consumed directly: the vast majority is used as livestock feed and to produce [vegetable] oil, high fructose syrup, and ethanol; none of these products contain the Bt proteins. The corn consumed that has Bt proteins is more than anything else likely to be eaten as an ingredient in a highly processed food, e.g., chips and other snacks that are not [supposed to be] important components of a [healthy] diet.

In contrast, the Bt proteins of GM maize cultivated in Mexico would be consumed directly and in larger quantities because corn is the staple food and is therefore an important element of the Mexican diet. Additionally, according to the richness of traditional food, GM maize will be prepared following an infinite number of recipes leading to potential chemical changes of Bt proteins and causing unknown toxicity and immunogenicity effects. In this regard, even if there have been some studies of GM maize food safety, these have not controlled for the health effects [we surmise may be associated] with different methods of food preparation [like we would expect to be the case in Mexico’s more diverse recipes involving corn].

Second, it is logically false to assert that since there is no evidence of disease related to the consumption of GM products, that these are therefore safe for human health. [This is not a scientific statement and] Making such an assertion requires a well-designed experiment with proper controls [and has not been done.] Moreover, this problem is more serious because the foods derived from GM crops will not be labeled as such [so controlled studies are nearly impossible].

Therefore, perhaps the greatest concern about the introduction of any GM product on the market should be that, even when it causes harm to human health, it would be impossible to detect due to the lack of epidemiological studies and technical limitations. For example, to detect a disease epidemic requires an incidence of at least twice the normal rate. If the GM maize was harmful and caused a disease like Parkinson’s, which has an incidence rate of almost 20 new cases per year per 100,000 people, then in Mexico some 25,000 annual new cases would be diagnosed and tabulated to identify a significant increase and yet there is no way to associate the disease directly with some GM crop consumption.

Furthermore, the symptoms of many diseases related to environmental factors take decades to appear [and are therefore cumulative effects]. Clearly, once the GM maize is released commercially there will be no way to monitor adverse health effects caused by the product itself. Biotech companies are aware that for this reason they will never be held accountable for the damage to human health that their products might cause.

Most varieties of GM maize are modified to be insect-resistant (Bt varieties) or herbicide-resistant (e.g., glyphosate). Bt protein and glyphosate have been documented to cause damage to human health which will be discussed separately [for each transgenic technology] in the following paragraphs.

Bt Corn and Human Health

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States recommended extensive testing on the safety of Bt crops [1], but due to lack of federal laws that require rigorous safety tests for GM foods in the U.S. this has never been undertaken [2]. The United States does not require any proof that GM food is safe for human consumption before marketing.

There are at least four mechanisms by which introduction of the Bt gene in the maize genome may cause damage. These include: (1) random insertion of transgenes in plant DNA and resulting unintended consequences [3]; (2) alterations in plant metabolism because of the inserted protein which results in new toxic products; (3) direct toxicity of the Bt proteins; and (4) the immune response obtained by the [presence of the] Bt protein. Documented scientific evidence for all four of these mechanisms exists.
An example of the first is the discovery of unintended alterations, such as the synthesis of nine known carcinogens in GM tobacco plants [4]. For the second mechanism, studies have documented abnormal levels of production of a molecule called Bt lignin [5]. This feature was discovered thanks to the dramatic changes that began to be observed in the hardness of the stem of this [GMO] plant. Many varieties of Bt corn possess this characteristic so it is likely that the increase in the production of lignin is related to the expression of the Bt protein itself and not due to [random] mutations caused by the same genetic modification process [2]. There are probably more unforeseen changes in GM crops, and many of them have already been registered [6]. The direct toxic and immunological dangers of Bt proteins are discussed next.

Allergies are complex responses of the immune system to foreign substances, and its symptoms can vary unpredictably from one individual to another. Bt toxins, for their part, have been used for some time as aerosol insecticide sprays for many crops, but [the toxin] can be washed off the plant and contain[s] a less toxic form of the protein than that produced by the GM plant – in which the toxin is in all consumable parts of the plant [and not just the surface]. The aerosol spore consists of Bt toxin that must be activated in the digestive tract of insects. In contrast, the Bt toxin produced in maize is an activated form of the protein that does not require any modification to become toxic. Therefore, it is much more powerful than the variety used in aerosols.

On the other hand, there is strong evidence that the Bt proteins have provoked strong immune reactions in some farm workers [7], probably because these are composed of amino acid sequences that are homologous to certain well-known allergens [ 8, 9 ]. Moreover, the concentration and quantity of active Bt toxins people would be consuming by eating Bt corn is much higher than the levels of exposure agricultural workers are subjected to.

In support of the results found among humans, when [other] animals are exposed to Bt toxins, these also act as a potent ‘immunogen’, triggering immune system responses in the blood and intestine [10, 11, 12 ]. More recently, there was a long-term feeding study in the U.S. with pigs, which have a resemblance to the human digestive system. The pigs were fed a mixed diet that included GM maize Bt proteins. After five months, drastic stomach inflammation levels in were found in the GM-fed pigs were found and females had heavier uteri than those given the no GM diet [13].

Additional studies with animals have shown that Bt toxins cause direct tissue damage. For example, Fares and El- Sayed proved that mice fed Bt potato had abnormal intestinal cells structure [14 ]. Other studies reported histopathological changes in both liver and kidney in rats consuming Bt corn [15], and changes in the levels of urea and urine proteins of rats fed Bt rice [16].

The research cited above demonstrates that the family of Bt proteins may act as allergen or toxicant in animals and some humans. This is of great importance to the health of the Mexican population because, if the introduction of Bt corn is approved since there will be such a huge [unparalleled] number of people who will consume Bt toxin at levels many thousands of times higher than ever before in the short history of GM technology.

As genetics and the health status of an individual determines the response to foreign proteins such as the Bt toxin, and Mexicans represent a very heterogeneous population with different genetic composition, age, and health, the consequences of using Bt maize will be unpredictable. The sickest people will undoubtedly be the most vulnerable to the toxic and immunological reactions. Since the ability of Bt toxin to cause allergic responses in some individuals is ambiguous, it is virtually certain that within the Mexican population, a large number of people consuming GM maize will develop such severe allergies and even immune responses resulting in anaphylaxis and possible death.

The number, however, cannot be predicted and, as there is no system to track this type of adverse reactions within a population, if Bt maize is grown commercially, their genetic presence in a food that is calorie source basic for a major section of Mexico will be irreversible. The introduction of this transgenic crop, therefore, must be prevented.

Herbicides

In addition to high levels of Bt toxins, most GM maize varieties have also been modified to be resistant to herbicides. While a large number of herbicides are in use the most studied is glyphosate since it is the active ingredient in so many different products. If corn or soybeans GMOs are introduced in Mexico, there will be a huge increase in the use of this herbicide in Mexico; after the introduction of GM crops in the United States, glyphosate use increased tenfold between 1996 and 2009 (from 27 million to 250 million pounds)[17]. A similar increase was observed in Argentina [18].

The relevance of this is that contrary to the assertions of its producers, glyphosate and its active formulation are harmful to human health. Like many environmental toxins, many years passed before we could identify the problems it causes, but these are now being documented in various scientific publications in the public domain. Some important risks are discussed immediately below along with other facts that are rarely included in the debate.

-->
1) Glyphosate spray contains more than the herbicide and instead includes a mixture of compounds that help glyphosate to penetrate all the tissues of the plant including those we eat. Additional compounds called surfactants are not disclosed (and remain as trade secrets) and therefore do not undergo safety tests nor are they monitored on plants or in human drinking water. This is the case despite the fact that the surfactants are much more abundant in the formulation of the herbicide than the glyphosate itself. These, then, are not assessed chemicals whose human and animal consumption will increase dramatically once the GM maize is introduced in Mexico [19]. In the U.S., the EPA frequently performed tests to detect glyphosate in drinking water and groundwater, but it has then several times increased the allowable limits of these residues in food at the request of chemical producers.

2) The herbicide spray applied and all its components remain inside the plant and are consumed. They are not washed away!

3) Within 10 to 15 years, the weeds will be more resistant to glyphosate, so that even more toxic herbicides will be required for the production of GM corn. The next in line is the herbicide 2,4-D, a known carcinogen [20, 21].

4) Evidence of glyphosate found in the urine of several people in certain areas [22].

5) Part of the increased levels of glyphosate in drinking water, food and animal feed is due to the fact that it is now used as a drying agent, which is applied directly on the plants before harvest [23].

6) Some of the toxic effects of glyphosate that have been published are listed below, and all of them can or have been extrapolated as a serious risk to human health:

a. When ingested in food or water, glyphosate kills bacteria that form part of the beneficial intestinal microbiota, resulting in the growth of pathogenic microbes [24].
b . In support of the first point, for nine months when pigs were fed transgenic food treated with glyphosate increased intestinal inflammation compared to control animals was observed [13].
c . A large increase in tumor formation was documented in rats fed for two years with herbicide resistant GM maize [25].
d . More and more cases of human illness related to glyphosate exposure
are being reported in countries like Argentina [18].
e . Even in small interventricular concentrations, glyphosate causes defects in embryonic development of amphibians and chickens; defects similar to those observed in studies of Argentine human populations [18, 26, 27].
f . Glyphosate has negative effects on testosterone production in rats [28, 29], and promotes the growth of cancer even in human cells in concentration at levels that are below detectable in the blood and urine of some individuals [30].

The publications cited above represent only a fraction of the extensive evidence that on the whole demonstrate real and projected harmful effects of glyphosate on human health. Glyphosate levels will quickly increase in food and the environment if GM maize is introduced to Mexico. Nothing will have served its purpose if, within 10 to 15 years, glyphosate is no longer an effective herbicide as different weeds develop resistance, as has occurred in different regions of the planet. Is it worth it, then, to take this type of risk in a country like Mexico?

My conclusion is therefore that GM maize is of no benefit to your country, but rather a great danger to the health of Mexicans.

It would be a profound mistake if GM maize was approved to enter the food supply in Mexico.

Respectfully,

Professor Dr. David Schubert
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
La Jolla , California 92037

References

1. Lewis, P., et al. (2000) Bt plant-pesticides risk and benefit assessment systems. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. SAP Report No. 2000-07, http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf.
2. Freese, W. and Schubert, D. (2004) Safety testing of genetically engineered food. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 21:299-325. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.com/files/freese_safetytestingandregulationofgeneticallyebgineeredfoods_nov212004_62269.pdf.
3. Schubert, D. (2002) A different perspective on GM food. Nature biotechnology 20, 969. http://sembremvalles.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/schubert02_5percent.pdf.
4. Mungur, R., Glass, A.D., Goodenow , D. B. and Lightfoot , D.A. (2005) Metabolite fingerprinting in transgenic Nicotiana tabacum altered by the Escherichia coli glutamate dehydrogenase gene. J Biomed Biotechnol 2005 , 198-214. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046826.
5. Saxena, D. and Stotzky , G. (2001) Bt corn has a higher lignin content as non- Bt corn . Amer J Botany 88, 1704-1706.
6. Zolla , L., Rinalducci , S., Antoniolini , P. and Righetti , PG (2008) Proteomics as a complementary tool for Identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic Modifications . Journal of Proteome Research 7, 1850-1861. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393457.
7. Bernstein IL , Bernstein , JA , Miller, M., Tierzieva , S., Bernstein, DI , Lummus , Z., Selgrade MK , Doerfler , DL and Seligy , V.L. (1999) Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environ Health Perspect 107, 575-582. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566654/.
8. Metcalfe , DD, Astwood JD, Townsend , R., Sampson , HA, Taylor , SL and Fuchs, RL (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36 Suppl, S165 -186. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8959382.
9. FAO- WHO (2001) Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods . Report of a Joint FAO / WHO expert consultation on allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology. January 22-25. http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pd/allergygm.pdf.
10. Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., De La Riva, GA and Lopez-Revilla, R. (1999) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1 Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant . Scand J Immunology 49, 578-584.
11. Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., De La Riva, GA and López-Revilla, R. (1999 ) Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis you induce systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice . Life Sciences 64, 1897-1912.
12. Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., Martinez-Gill, AF, De La Riva, GA and López-Revilla, R. (2000 ) Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res 33, 147-155.
13. Carman, JA, Vlieger, HR, Steeg, LRV, Sneller , VE, Robinson, GW, Clicnh-Jones, CA, Haynes, JI and Edwards, J. W. (2013 ) A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM ) maize am and GM diet . J Org Systems 8, 38-54.
14. Fares, N. H. and El- Sayed, A. K. (1998 ) Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice delta- endotoxin faith don -treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins 6, 219-233.
15. Kilic, A. and Akay, M. T. (2008) A three generation Study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol 46, 1164-1170.
16. Schroder, M., Poulsen, M., Wilcks , A., Kroghsbo, S., Miller , A., Frenzel, T., Danier J., Rychlik, M., Emami , K., Gatehouse, A., Shu, Q. , Engle, KH, Altosaar, I. and Knudsen, I. (2007) A 90 -day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein (Bacillus thuringiensis toxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem Toxicol 45, 339-349.
17. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2009&map=GLYPH%20OSATE%20&%20thread.
18. Report from the 1st National Meeting of Physicians In The Crop-Sprayed Towns. (English translation). Faculty of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba, Argentina. August 27-28, 2010. Print.
19. Mesnage, R., Bernay, B. and Séralini, G. E. (2012) Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology 313(2-3): 122-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283.
20. World Health Organization. (1987) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: An updating of IARC monographs volumes 1 to 42. Supplement 7. WHO, Lyon, France. Print.
21. Zahm SH, Weisenburger DD, Babbitt PA, Saal RC, Vaught , JB Cantor, K. P. and Blair , A. (1990) A case-control study of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in Eastern Nebraska. Epidemiology 1(5): 349-356.
22 . Brändli , D. and Reinacher , S. (2012) Herbicides found in human urine. Ithaka Journal 1, 270-272. http://www.ithakajournal.net/druckversionen/e052012-herbicides-urine.pdf.
23. http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/glyphosate-background-materials/agronomic%20benefits%20of%20glyphosate%20in%20europe.pdf.
24. Samsel, A. and Seneff, S. (2013) Glyphosate suppression of cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino acid biosynthesis by the gut microbiome: pathways to modern diseases. Entropy 15(4): 1416-1463. http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416.
25. Séralini, G.E. et . al. (2011) Genetically modified crops safety Assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe. http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10.
26. Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., Lopez, S.L., and Carrasco, A.E. (2010) [Online], Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling. in Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2010, 23 (10):1586–1595; http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749.
27. Antoniou, M., Habib, MEM, Howard , CV , Jennings, RC and Leifert , C. (2012) Teratogenic effects of glyphosate-based herbicides: divergence of regulatory decisions from scientific evidence . J Anal Toxicol Environ S4: 006. http://omicsonline.org/2161-0525/2161-0525-S4-006.php?aid=7453.
28. Claire, E., Mesnage, R., Travert, C. and Séralini, GE (2012) A glyphosate-based herbicide you induce necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicology in vitro 26, 269-279.
29. Yousef , MI , Salem , MH, Ibrahim, HZS , Seehy , MA and Bertheussen , K. (1995 ) Toxic effects of glyphosate on carborufan and semen characteristics in rabbits. J Environ Sci Health B 30, 513-534.
30. Thongprakaisang, S., Thiantanawat, A., Rangkadilok, N., Suriyo, T. and Stayavivad, J. (2013 ) Glyphosate you induce human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food Chem Toxicol 59, 129-136, http://appprecautionaryprinciple.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/glyphosate-induces-human-breast-cancer-cells-growth-via-estrogen-receptors/

Uh, maybe we are back to square one.


Ernie writes, "I recall the news about Vitamins but did not hear much followup after that, I have tried them at different times but the only one that i could feel did any noticeable difference was the large doses of melt in your mouth B-12, and that gave me energy when I badly needed it. ....."

Since so many ads are for pharmacedicals products, a lot rides on 'learning' the public to rely on them. A lot of money rides on that. Vitamins and such are small potatoes but could be a threat just as organics could be.

Some of those "studies" of vitamin proficiency are shams whether the media realizes it or not. They just like to repeat "studies that throw bad light on vitamin and other nutrients as it pleases their financial backers...pharma.

Take for example one vitamin...vitamin E. Natural vitamin E has 8 components. Those "studies' likely only used synthetic vitamin E alpha......one part of 8 and synthetic at that...likely more harmful than helpful. With ignorance like this, no wonder your One-A-Day or Centrum did little for you.

As i am not a Scientist, my comments on Professor Schubert's narrowly focused letter to Mexico's President will be limited to the Non scientific aspects of his letter.

As so often seems to happen with the Anti GMO activists, they limit their thinking to what they can see out the Laboratory Window, or what they read in the reports.

While i do not claim to know more than he does about science, it is very clear that i know a lot more about Mexico than he does. I have spent about 19 winters down there, spread over the last 55 years, and much of it in the back country where the poor people mostly eat corn.

So, assuming he is correct that the GMO might kill a few people which he says will be so few it will not be noticeable, there is so much malnourishment and probably starvation during lean years, that i am sure the increased production from GMO crops would save many times the lives that he THINKS POSSIBLY MIGHT POTENTIALLY BE LOST. So, this is just one more case that i have seen repeatedly, where Anti GMO supporters do not give a fair consideration to all the circumstances, and only focus on their fear.

Ernie

A few days ago, I asked the question as to why GMOs should inherently be dangerous; no one has responded. Let me make the point a bit more clearly. On February 13, on this very thread, I wrote about a potato variety called ‘Lenape’. ‘Lenape’, a traditionally crossed potato resulting from a standard variety bred with a wild Peruvian potato, was released by Penn State in the 1960s. Because of its “wild” ancestry, it had too much of the natural chemical compound known as glycoalkaloids and it made some people very sick. Glycoalkaloids, found to some degree in ALL potatoes, are a natural poison. ‘Lenape” was withdrawn from commercial trade for this reason.
Now, imagine that a paper was published with the following title: “Traditionally bred ‘Lenape’ potato causes poisoning”. Can you see why that title is not fair or reasonable? Are traditional breeding techniques to blame here? I don’t think so, and I’m guessing no one else reading this does either, so why should a paper published under a title like “GMO corn causes health problems” be considered unbiased? Why should the breeding method enter into the picture? Gosh, could the researcher maybe be biased? Maybe, or maybe not, a specific crop bred by GE techniques can cause a problem. Unless your goal is to discredit GE, the “GMO” reference is immaterial.
No doubt the following example is simplistic, but consider it anyway. For dinner tonight, you eat salmon and fresh tomatoes. Salmon genes and tomato genes end up in your tummy. Now, think about the goofy sounding cross between a salmon and a tomato. What are the consequences? Salmon genes (very few) and tomato genes end up in your tummy. Why should the GE version cause problems when the “regular” meal doesn’t? What happens to the genes in the tomato-salmon cross to make them bad for you as compared to the “traditional” meal?
I know the standard answer is “nature doesn’t cross salmon and tomatoes”, but why should what nature does or doesn’t do be a consideration? Do you drink treated water or do you drink “natural” water from the local swamp? Do you relish foods in your pantry that cockroaches or weevils have infested. Do you make sure your water has “natural” arsenic”? By the way, just because you drink from a well it doesn’t mean that your water doesn’t contain heavy metals or other natural (or man-made) contaminants. Do you avoid antibiotics when you have an infection because antibiotics are man-made? Do you drive a car or use a cell phone? I hope not, because most of what car and phones are made from is man-made. No doubt most of your clothes are made of materials that don’t exist in nature. Steel and aluminum alloys are not found in nature, nor are any synthetic fabrics. Nor are any of the plastics or ceramics found throughout your home. Solar panels are made from compounds that don’t exist in nature, as are most wind mill components. Radioactive materials like uranium, radon, potassium, plutonium, and carbon are natural; however.
The letter written by David Schubert reflects some things that are all too common in the anti-GMO world. First, Mr. Schubert is one of Jeffrey Smith’s consultants and is credited with helping him on his book “Seeds of Deception”. Next, some of the “papers” cited in Mr. Schubert’s letter are among those that have been widely discredited. Among them are Samsel and Sentoff and a G.E. Seralini paper. Note that the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology withdrew its publication of a Seralini anti-GMO paper in November 2013 after it was widely criticized for its poor design and bad conclusions. Jeffrey Smith cites similar folks. The world of anti-GMO sure seems quite inbred—isn’t inbreeding a genetic problem we should worry about?
As always, some of the problems Schubert identifies aren’t GMO related at all. If cross contamination threatens Mexico’s corn heritage, shouldn’t hybrid corns threaten it as well? Corn is wind pollinated and ANY corn—hybrid, heirloom, or GMO--will “contaminate” any other corn within range of its pollen.
And the idiotic mention of the cost of GMO corn arises again. Does anyone really think so poorly of farmers that they believe Monsanto leads farmers around by the nose? Golly, if only farmers were as bright as Zen Honeycutt! The issue of more expensive seed arose with hybrids many decades ago. If the yields from hybrids, or GMOs, didn’t justify the costs, farmers wouldn’t buy the hybrid or GMO seed. Here is a link that shows corn yields since 1860 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/16/a-brief-history-of-u-s-corn-in-one-chart/). The web page has nothing to do with GE crops; it just charts corn yields. Notice that beginning about 1950, yields begin to skyrocket in response to the introduction of hybrid varieties. Hybrids can’t be saved as seed corn either, thereby “forcing “farmers to buy seed every year. Given that yields rise from less than 30 bushels an acre to over 150 bushels an acre in 60 years, do you really think ANY commercial farmer saves that old 30 bushel an acre heirloom seed?! Or that any farmer is getting ripped off by being “forced” to buy seed annually? Resistance to pesticides is another issue commonly brought up by the anti-GMO crowd (any argument in a storm!). Pesticide resistance is an issue that plagues ALL pesticides, even organic ones. It is in no way an issue peculiar to GMOs.
Anti-GMO lives on lies. From Zen Honeycutt’s campaign promoting the deceitful “stunning corn comparison” to false claims that animals won’t eat GMO corn (how do the folks conducting the trials showing “enlarged pig uteri” or “blue rat testicles” get the pigs and rats to eat GMO corn?), virtually everything they say is an exaggeration or outright untruth. I’ve gone from not paying much attention to the GMO issue, but being not particularly comfortable with GMOs, to realizing that the anti-GMO leaders are mostly a bunch of fear mongers, techno-phobes, and outright crooks and publicity hounds, many of whom are either essentially zealots or simply out to make a buck. The deeper one digs, the more “stunning corn comparisons”, absurd claims of ripping farmers off, and Yoga flying lunacy one finds. If you don’t want to eat GMOs, buy organic. It’s your right. Please do realize though that there is no real science behind your refusal to accept the technology of genetic engineering.
True, the Union of Concerned Scientists says they have concerns about GMOs, although they acknowledge positives, too. But wait, who is the UCS? Maybe not who you think they are. Do any of you want to be a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists? No need to be a scientist, just send them $35 and, voila, you are a “concerned scientist”. They are actively seeking you as a member—no need for any degrees (one fellow I read about on line enrolled his cat)—so hurry up and send your check now. The president of the “scientists” is Kenneth Kimmel, an environmental lawyer. The former president (he left in 2013 to join the Government) was Kevin Knobloch, who holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration. His BS was in journalism and English. The UAC is an environmentalist lobby group, not a science organization.
The American Medical Association says GMOs are safe. The American Academy of Sciences (very, very prestigious, and, no, you can’t join this one for a $35 donation) says GMOs are safe. The US Government says GMOs are safe. The World Health Organization says GMOs are safe. Even science organizations from European countries that have banned GMOs say they’re safe: (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/29/are-gmos-safe-global-independent-science-organizations-weigh-in/). (It turn out that it’s not European scientists who are afraid of GMOs, it’s European politicians who fear them (or maybe they just fear anti-GMO voters). As a bonus, if you’ll scroll down a bit on the just mentioned link, you’ll also find an interesting discussion of the “persecuted” Tyrone Hayes.
Seriously, why would all these reputable organizations—not to mention your Government--conspire to feed you poisons? In the meantime, I’d like to ask again: what is it that is inherently and automatically dangerous about genetic engineering?

Willy,

Perhaps when NOTHING is the answer, NOTHING is what you get in the way of answers.

Be sure if the Fearful Faction had some facts, they would be glad to provide an answer to your question.

Your post was very well done, and much more sensible than a lot of the articles that have been posted from various sources.

Ernie

Thanks, Ernie. I'm really not trying to be an A^%*ole, but I am really coming to a crossroads in my understanding of "how things work". So much of what appears "logical and "common sensical" just isn't either logical or common sense. Those people, and I include (sometimes former) myself to a great degree, who pine for the good old days just don't really understand how brutal the good old days were. It hasn't been too many centuries since lice and fatal disease leading to early death were common parts of everyday life. Technology has made a world of difference for us and our comfort. This does not mean that technology is perfect or that we shouldn't watch for negative effects, but, to me, it does mean that fighting any new advance because it's new and different is pretty self-defeating. We are lucky in this country that we can choose foods (organic, non-GMO, whatever) to suit our viewpoints. Many in this world don't have any choices, much less enough to eat.

'Willy, sometimes i cannot remember where i put my car keys 30 minutes ago, but I do not have any problem remembering how Bad the Good Old Days were. We never had lice, but i can remember having to kill Bedbugs with Kerosene, and how long the smell stayed in the mattresses. And that was not several centuries ago, that was only 8 decades ago..

Everything that Evil Business men using techology have done to make our lives better has had many detractors and people campaigned against it, from Mosquito control poison to Fluoride to save your teeth, has been the cause of a Crusade to Ban Progress.

They seldom win, and when they do, time usually proves they made a mistake, like DDT, or the Spotted Owl Crisis, but I guess the Protesters keep having babies, as each genration produces a few more AGINNERS.

Ernie

New research on glyphosate focussing on the "inert" ingredients and their impact on human cells at varying concentrations:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

The Scientific American article is from 2009. Seralini is considered a "rogue" scientist and his work is widely criticized. One of his papers condemning GMOs was published in a scientific journal, then later retracted by the journal itself after the study was shown to be flawed.

The study talked about in the Scientific American article consisted of exposing human cells to inert ingredient(s)--in this case the inert is essentially a soap or detergent. If human cells were exposed to any detergent, say the Dove or Joy in your sink, they would be damaged, too. Note that the article does state that the inert ingredient in question POEA, is approved for use in organic pesticides.

About the same time as this study, maybe even earlier, Dr. Rick Relyea published a study showing glyphosate formulations did damage to aquatic life. (Note that the Round-Up label prohibits use near water) He showed damage to pond life--specifically amphibians--and (if my memory is correct) attributed that damage to the fact that algae supporting the pond life was killed, resulting in a cascade of events up the ladder of pond life. I think he attributed the damage more to the inert ingredient than to glyphosate. The level of application far exceeded a typical usage dose and, again, Round Up is prohibited for use in water.

My observations continue to confirm my opinion that, in general, anti-Monsanto folks are ideologically motivated and their goal is more to discredit Monsanto than to do real, honest research.

The Anti-Roundup group has been infomred several times that prior to Roundup becoming available people basically had two choices for killing weeds. One was 24D, and the other one was Arsenic.

Both are many times more dangerous than Roundup, but not one time have i seen the Anti folk deny or refer to that information. They just keep harping on Roundup. If they were truly concerned about seeking the least dangerous weed killer, which is just as important to agriculture as fertilizer is, they would debate the relative weedkillers available.

Funny how some people can become so engrossed in a "CAUSE" they disconnect from realitiy.

Ernie

Whoops, I didn't even notice the date on that Scientific American article. But although the publication which featured Seralini's article withdrew it subsequently, it has been under fire from scientists all over the world for doing so because it wasn't even following its own protocol for retraction; none of the conditions listed as a basis for retraction held true in Seralini's case. Furthermore the French government was concerned enough about his findings to launch their own long-term study of GMOs, and they are taking a much harder stance against them since he published.

I'm familiar with Relyea's work; it was especially interesting that he found pathologies in the wild that didn't appear in anurans in the lab after exposure to RoundUp and its surfactants. The severe population drop in frogs is a major concern and it was posited that pesticides may have had some rôle in their disappearance. The problem with RoundUp is that even though it's not intended for use near water, it ends up in streams and water tables because of run-off.

I have debated for several days now on whether to post this or not, and I’ve finally decided to so. I mean no disrespect to those who disagree, but I frankly think you are dead wrong.
I did some more searches for Seralini and found this article that seemed to be an accurate summation of the issues surrounding Seralini’s work: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/16/flawed-seralini-gmo-study-back-in-spotlight-as-hastings-center-makes-ethical-stumbles-in-ethics-critique/.
To sum up some of the highlights:
1) Seralini is the founder of an anti-GMO organization called CRIIGEN. Not exactly an unbiased person.
2) Seralini embargoed release of his paper to all except journalists who were known to be anti-GMO and swore them to secrecy (didn’t allow them to consult other scientists) until after his press conference.
3) His release of the study coincided with the publication of his book entitled “We are All Guinea Pigs” (English translation from a French title).
4) 3) The release of the study also coincided with the release of an anti-GMO film in which he was featured
5) He is a consultant for a homeopathic company—Sevene Pharma (If you think homeopathy is valid science/medicine—do some research. Homeopaths are 100% quack)
6) A sizable portion of his funding came from organic food companies. I’m not sure the funding source matters, but when Monsanto funds studies, anti-GMO folks seem to think it does.
7) He set out on a mission to prove GMOs are bad and he “succeeded”.
Perhaps most damning of all is this quote from the highly respected science journal “Nature”, which said: “Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats, after the authors refused to withdraw it.” (Source: http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking-gm-maize-to-rat-tumours-is-retracted-1.14268). The phrase “near universal scorn” seems quite compelling when coming from a staid science journal.
Here is another seemingly sensible commentary on the Seralini affair: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/05/1275346/-The-S-ralini-Retraction-Sherman-and-Fugh-Berman-Respond#. It comes from the Daily Kos, not exactly a right-wing or pro-business site. The article condemns Serelini on three accounts: 1) unreliable findings, 2) unethical research (UNETHICAL!), and 3) failure to disclose conflicts of interests (his funding sources).
Just like the Heartland study on global warming being from a source that many feel really has little legitimate business weighing in on the science of AGW, the few anti-GMO sources are of exactly the same ilk. Like those who reject AGW, there are indeed people and scientists who defend Seralini. They are a small minority and, in my opinion, they are predisposed, and determined, to be anti-GMO. It’s interesting to see how many of the websites use the title “chorus of condemnations” when discussing the Seralini paper retraction. Gee, it seems like they all have the same headline writer?
I can find “scientists” who defend young earth creationism, scientists who insist, despite the overwhelming evidence from every branch of science that is relevant, that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I can find “scientists” who believe in UFOs, alien abductions, and the Loch Ness Monster. There are oodles of books published about Kennedy assassination conspiracies and Big Foot sightings. I choose, sensibly I believe, to reject them and the anti-GMO propaganda. I am continually finding anti-GMO organizations to be very much like the people who are convinced, despite a total lack of evidence, that Barack Obama is a non-US citizen who is a secret Muslim. No amount of evidence will ever convince them that they are wrong.
Despite the fact that GMOs are outlawed by the European Union, I offer the following contrary opinions from, amongst others, European science organizations:
The American Medical Association (Chicago) “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer- reviewed literature.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (Washington, D.C.) “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
The National Academy of sciences (Washington, D.C.) “To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.”
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (Australia & New Zealand) “Gene technology has not been shown to introduce any new or altered hazards into the food supply, therefore the potential for long term risks associated with GM foods is considered to be no different to that for conventional foods already in the food supply.”
The Royal Society of Medicine (United Kingdom) “Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.”
The Union of German Academics of Sciences And Humanities (Germany) “In consuming food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.”
The European Commission (Belgium) “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”
The French Academy of science (France) “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”
Seven of The World’s Academies of Sciences (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the Third World Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.) “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage and in principle, health promoting— bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”
World Health Organization (Switzerland) “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
Indeed, it really does seem that the Europeans who are opposed to GMOs are politicians who are afraid of voters. When it comes to believing, I’ll choose the scientists over politicians
I continue to discover that most anti-GMO work is shoddy, biased, and often untrue. Most anti-GMO literature comes from people who are already certain the GMOs are bad—no need for facts (Facts?! We don’t need no stinkin’facts!). If there was good, solid evidence of harm from GMOs, the GMO opponents wouldn’t need to resort to poor experiments, misrepresentations and lies.
I ask again, why should something that is genetically engineered be inherently unsafe to eat? What is it about genes that is unhealthy? Pretty much everything you eat has, and always has had, genes. Why do the major science organizations of the world—pretty much ALL of them--want to poison the citizens of the world?

While the topic isn't DIRECTLY related to GE things, I recommend highly the PBS program "Your Inner Fish". It does touch on genetics and the common ancestry for all life on earth and it is probably the best single science program I've ever seen--even better than "Cosmos". The second (of three) episodes is on tonight (Wednesday April 16). If you missed the first episode, you can still watch it on the PBS website, Outstanding!

http://www.growingproduce.com/vegetables/tomatoes/new-study-on-tomatoes-addresses-gm-biochemical-concerns/?utm_source=knowledgemarketing&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=avgenews%2004172014

The inert ingredients in roundup and most other herbicides are horticultural oils made up of vegetable and seed oils that assist in penetrating the waxy layer of the leaves of weeds. Adjuvants are also frequently added to many pesticides to aid in deposition, penetrating, spreading, or sticking. If the pesticide is absorbed or sticks better to the plant you have less run-off or drift. Glyphosate is a postively charged material and the soil is highly negatively charged. So Glyphosate is not mobile nor has any herbicidal activity in soil. It also can not run off into the water unless soil with glphosate is eroded away or if a recently sprayed crop has a deleuge of rain and the water carries the glyphosate without it coming in contact with soil.

This message was edited Apr 17, 2014 11:36 AM

John,

I, and I am sure many others on this site appreciate you sharing your obvious knowledge about so many of these things about agricultural chemicals and related subjects.

There is so much difference between the factual info you add and the hysterical claims and conjectures submitted by the other self styled "experts".

Thanks,
Ernie

Here are scientists who have serious concerns about GMO crops; they are not "self-styled experts" making "hysterical claims." But then, I presume that they are all totally mistaken?

And Willy says "Indeed, it really does seem that the Europeans who are opposed to GMOs are politicians who are afraid of voters. When it comes to believing, I’ll choose the scientists over politicians I continue to discover that most anti-GMO work is shoddy, biased, and often untrue. Most anti-GMO literature comes from people who are already certain the GMOs are bad—no need for facts (Facts?! We don’t need no stinkin’facts!). If there was good, solid evidence of harm from GMOs, the GMO opponents wouldn’t need to resort to poor experiments, misrepresentations and lies."

But this is a consensus from 297 international scientists - not politicians.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/

This is the statement that they all support. It addresses many of Willy's points:

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

This message was edited Apr 19, 2014 8:35 AM

There have been many general references to the fact that many Countries have banned GMO products, and Politicians are mentioned as having been the cause of it moreso than any proof of actual Danger.

I have had personal experience in two instances of products being embargoed by Politicans to protect Special Interest groups in their countries, as well as having enough interest in other embargoes to trace out the reasons.

When i had my boat in New Zealand, back in the 1980's i tried to purchase an Igloo Ice chest, but all that was available were the Polystyrene foam chests that are very fragile. As i looked for one, i was told several times that because a Manufacturer had set up to make the Foam chests, the country had raised the duty on imported ice chests to protect and reserve the market for the N Z manufacturer.

The second personal experience was when i was operating an Ornammental Tree Nursery in Idaho, 30 miles from the Canadian border. Flowering Crab Apple trees were one of the products we grew well in that area. I had developed my market in the Intermountain Western States, but several of my friends in the local Nursery association had found a rapidly expanding market in Canada. As the Canadian Nurseries began to feel the competition, simply because having milder weather in Idaho, the American Nurseries were producing better trees cheaper than the Canadians could, the Canadian States embargoed the importation of trees using as and excuse, the same diseases the trees had that were grown in Canada. That seriously affected many of my friends, and both embargoes were strictly Political to assist their home producers.

Other instances are the Japanese embargo of Washington State Apples because the Japanese farmers could not compete in price, and the Japanese embargo of Beef for the same reason.

So, as far as the safety and health issues, they have nothing to do with any embargoes that are placed on the GMO products.

Ernie

That's not what the articles I posted are talking about.

GG

i was not responding to any specific or recent posts, but there have been many statements declaring that different "Countries" have banned GMOs. While that infers the GMOs are being banned for health and Safety reasons, others have said the embargoes were done by Politicians, so i thought it was worthwhlle to provide some actual observed situations where embargoes are actually imposed by politicians to benefit specail interest groups.

If GMO embargoes had been based on proven dangers to Health, that would have been specified.

Ernie

It's been fun and educational--thanks to all of you for your posts--but I'm outta here!

I posted those articles because people are saying that there's no science behind concerns about GMOs and they derive from hype by non-experts and by politicians. I wasn't talking about embargoes. However, I have posted similar lists of concerns by scientists in the past and that hasn't seemed to affect anyone who is convinced that GMOs are fine, so I'm not sure why I bothered this time. I think I'll go spend my time elsewhere.

Just saw Willy's post; he and I are in agreement on this one! Bye.

This message was edited Apr 19, 2014 2:20 PM

GG,

The vast majority of scientists and all experimentation has shown that GMO crops are as safe as non GMO crops. They are also more ecological and more sustainable and use less pesticides and/or less toxic pesticides.

Just because some scientists are concerned doesnt mean it is unsafe. Anyone can buy a bag of GMO seed and test it.

No tests to date have proven anything more dangerous than non GMO conventional production systems. I exclude organic because GMO and conventional food is safer than organic when it comes to the number of acute deaths of people annually that consume it.

Ernie you make some great points. Much of Europe's opposing GMO's is financial. Since their Agribusiness doesnt own much GMO technology they can eliminate competition with US agricultural commodities by excluding US products.

But Europe isnt GMO free as much as one thinks. The EU has approved some GMO crops and they are grown in Spain and several eastern European nations.

I have learned a lot from some of the posts here, too, and hope the simple facts here have eased the irrational fear of GMOs for at least some of the people.

I have grown weary of this subject, too, but Willy, and John, I am going to keep an eye out for your ;future posts on other subjects as i have found them to the be most interesting and informative of all.

Ernie

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union

Europe imports 30 million tons of GMO feed each year to give to their cattle.

Two GMO crops...Bt corn and Amflora potato have been approved to grow in Europe and several more traits are being reviewed with many of them expected to be approved in the next few years.

There are 48 total GMO's approved in Europe....many of them for food processing like cheeses.

Several member countries have petitioned the European Union to permit growing GMO's.

Just came across an interesting article in a local ag paper.
There is a program called Ag Acre. A farmer pledges one acre of crop to Second Harvest Food Bank. This is then distributed to food shelves in their local area.
For every dollar the farmer donates, average $668 per acre, Monsanto matches.
Bad guy helping feed the poor!

With 350+ entries I moved this to a new thread...

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1357373/