The drift of GMO pollen and contamination of related varieties is sufficient cause to keep it confined to the laboratory. It is corporate terrorism will ill intent and purpose.

The deadliest GMO will be the terminator which will end any potential for viable seeds of any species. If there is any potential of the terminator gene carriage into the food chain it could very well spell the end of all life.

The only goal is global control of the food supply. There is no current knowledge of genetics to match the expressed salvation from hunger. The track record of all the corporate players should be enough to close the books on GMO development.

Between the GMOs and the chemicals we are heading towards self-destruction for the sake of profits.

I don't agree about the terminator gene, the terminator prevents the spread of the GM genome through the gene pool, if it could get into the food supply then it wouldn't be a terminator gene. When a pollen source comes into a field it is competing with the field itself to pollinate. There are ways that you can give a gene an advantage when spreading through a population (my current pet project is examining one such effect, found naturally).

I think that any time you say "only goal" you are going to be wrong, there are a lot of goals feeding into it. A major concern with GM crops was accidentally ending up with seeds from your neighbor on your land and not having the license to grow them, also genes escaping out into the wild, the terminator gene technology effectively ends both of those concerns. Yes Monsanto wants to control the world food supply, but don't belittle the efforts of scientists working to end world hunger.

GMO is a technology that can be used to benefit virtually any aspect of life, or damage it. The kinds of concerns you are raising can be raised about virtually any technology. This includes the computer, the train, clothing, and agriculture.

That Monsanto is able to sue (and win) a private farmer for using seeds contaminated with their technology is asinine. That they can now protect their tech by ensuring any plants pollinated by their plants produce sterile seed is evil.

Natural cross pollination happens and there is little anyone can do about it other than accept it happened. In my view this is different than one company being allowed to cross pollinate other people's plants with genes that render their seeds sterile and not have to pay any damages.

There is commercial value in non GMO, there is commercial value in organic. How is it that this value can be destroyed via contamination and the source of the contamination is not held liable for damages? How is it that the source of the contamination is able to successfully sue the victims?

They do not sterilize the plants, they sterilize the seeds, and there for they loose the ability to sue someone for growing the seed. If your corn cob has 300 kernles on it, and 3 were really pollinated by the crop in the next field then 297 will still be able to grow as normal. If you are having a significant portion of your plants pollinated by the next field over then you are farming wrong.

Cross polination happens, but in effect it is a tiny fraction of a percent of the pollination, if you have an acre planted in a crop the seed in the center of the field (what you should be selecting if you want your popcorn to stay popcorn) and you keep 40,000 seeds you might have half a dozen that were pollinated by the minuscule amounts of pollen that fly in. So perhaps you will only have 39,994 viable seeds, this is before all of the other things that render seeds nonviable. How much would you like to be compensated for that? When your popcorn renders 6 seeds out of your neighbors 40,000 useless for production of #2 field corn how much do you expect to owe him? Keep in mind that while the terminator corn kept 6 plants from growing in your field your hybrid useless corn did grow, and it cost your neighbor money to water and fertilize those 6 plants. The effect you are complaining about it not new to GMO's, but the terminator gene is the first and only way we have ever found to reduce the amount of damage from it. Pollen sterile is probably the desired final outcome. Most farmers buy their seed every year, so it is absolutely no harm to them to have nonviable seeds, but it is theoretically harmful to have GMO plants growing in the ditches.

The terminator gene prevents your non-gmo gene pool from becoming GMO contaminated. In effect it only reduces the productivity of your stock, and then only by a very small percentage. As I have tried to stress above contamination by non-GMO plants can be far worse than reduction in production by way of GMO pollen. Imagine you grow giant pumpkins, and unbeknownst to you your neighbor plants a few acres of tom thumb's. In the second year some of your plants have one parent that is a giant and a second that is a miniature, you don't know this until after flowers bloom and pollination occurs, then the fruit form and you find out that you are in major trouble, now an unknown but fairly large percentage of your giant pumpkins are pollinated with contaminated by (non-GMO) genetics that prevent you from getting the crop you want. Had tom thumb had a terminator gene then in year two a few extra seedlings would have shriveled up and in year three there would be a healthy stock of giant pumpkins.

We are losing too many OP seed varieties. There is no choice.

Check out the documented cases of contamination in the link below.

If the seed does not descend from pollen from the GMO then it will not have the terminator gene and will not be affected by it.

A certain small percentage of your open pollinated seeds will be contaminated (if the next field is GMO or non-GMO). With terminator seeds that small percentage will die off. the majority of your seed will live (barring really stupid plans, like taking seed from the upwind edge of your field) and it will all be pure (except for that small percentage that is contaminated by non-GMO pollen).

Again, I'm going to repeat what is obvious.

*Terminator plants CANNOT RESULT IN THE CONTINUED CONTAMINATION OF ANOTHER VARIETY.

*IF YOU ARE GROWING AN OP VARIETY IN THE OPEN NEAR ANOTHER CROP OF A COMPATIBLE VARIETY THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT YOUR STRAIN IS IF THE OTHER VARIETY HAS THE TERMINATOR GENE.

*THE ONLY DAMAGE ACTUALIZED BY TERMINATOR CROPS IS A SLIGHTLY REDUCED FERTILITY RATE.

*YOUR HEIRLOOM OP VARIETY WITH A 99.5% NORMAL GERMINATION RATE CAN BE SUSTAINED INDEFINITELY, NEXT TO ANOTHER NON-gmo VARIETY WITH A .5% CONTAMINATION RATE THEN IN 10 YEARS ONLY 6.5% OF YOUR SEED WILL BE PURE.

The eventuality is that all crops will be GMO and the corporations and the U.S. will have the world by the throat.

The USDA holds a joint patent on the Terminator technology. It is a part of the plan to gain influence over the world's food supply. Even the blind can see the leverage such a control will give in the international arena.

Yes, terminator genes do give leverage, but only in the GMO realm, in the non-GMO crops (or gmo's from different companies crops) you actually see a protective effect.

Also I did my math wrong, I calculated the previous years seed % purity squared and subtracted 00.5 percentage points per year, I should have multiplied the square by .995 the true purity rate after ten years next to a normal crop with out any kind of roguing is 00.59% not 06.5%. The purity rate of seed grown next to a terminator crop still remains 99.5% after the decade.

Monsanto alone has a staff of 75 solely to investigate farmers for patent infringement.

GMOs are by definition a hybrid. The gene technology is not fixed as a part of the plant but the DNA which is expressed in the pollen. The pollen carries the patented gene and can contaminate any plant. Occurance of horizontal gene transfer does not stop the carrier virus of bacteria from continuing its horizontal transfer.

The technology is not understood adequately to have been thrust apon the market. The migration trait was known and exploited for further profit. The lack of accountability so blaitantly obtained served only to protect corporations.

I am not a genetic engineer so cannot argue the technology potential. The fact remains that the technology was exploited for financial gain. The corporate dollar was aggressively used to lobby, bribe and influence decisions. The personnel trail within the decision making bodies leads to and from the corporations. The corporations have expanded to multi-national interests and diversified to all industries spanning production, processing and mediation.

There is no social or ethical interest being served by GMOs. There is not the comprehension of the genetic results to suggest that any potential exists to save the world. They have unleashed a monster with no conscience.

Even if a farmer switched out of GMO crops, the corporate police (investigators) will know that there will be volunteers and claim you saved seed. Got you!!

Any farmer who tried to grow a non-GMO variety crop would risk contamination. The GMOs are so prodominent that cantamination is almost guarenteed. It is all part of the plan.

Can you imagine a farmer who grows corn, cotton, canola, soy or rice switching to another crop species?

Corporations selected staple crops for their GMOs knowing they would gain control with the first approved commercialization.

"Can you imagine a farmer who grows corn, cotton, canola, soy or rice switching to another crop species?"

Not only can I imagine it I see it every year. My neighbor constantly rotates his crops. Canola is often followed by a winter wheat which is followed by something else and eventually followed by alfalfa for a couple of years.

He grows GMO canola because it makes him money and he can use the stubble of the canola to protect the winter wheat. In a nutshell, it works well in a rotation. I get some volunteer canola on the edge of my field and have never been investigated by the "corporate police", EVER.

The apparent delusion and hysteria often seen in these forums is one reason why some of the moderates roll their eyes whenever this subject comes up. Although, people with no apparent knowledge of farming methods, pounding their fists on the table telling us we should never do what we do, can be amusing at times. But it does bring their credibility down to zero pretty quickly.

Lloyd

However what you say about farmers being sued does not apply at all to newcomers to the practice of growing organics.

No farmer risks contamination from terminator GMO's.

The wording of your 10:43 post doesn't make much sense, but I'll try to address what I think it says. Correct me if I am wrong.

The goal of the patents is to make money off of the plants, just like a patent on a variety that you might breed or a on a gadget or gizmo.

Yes the DNA in the pollen carries the GM code, however if there is a terminator gene that new contaminated seed WILL NOT GROW INTO A PLANT.

The horizontal transfer via virus or bacteria will happen thanks to a virus or bacteria found in nature, not by anything released from the lab. So yes nature can move a gene to Plant C that was originally from Plant B by way of our GMO Plant A, or it can move the EXACT SAME GENE TO PLANT C FROM PLANT A. once you get to this level of improbability the fact that we moved the gene ourselves STOPS MATTERING AT ALL.

The technology is not understood adequately to have been thrust [upon] the market Your own ignorance of how the technology works has no bearing on what should or should not happen. We understand the technology quite well, as well as we understand the natural mutations that occur in plants already, they pose the same risk level. Gene transfer and mutation happens in nature, we are just choosing which ones we want now.

Name literally any technology and I will find you a story of how it was used for financial gain, literally ANY technology. So is your argument that technology in itself is evil? If so please put your keyboard where your mouth is.

There is no social or ethical interest being served by GMOs. The previous statement is false

There is not the comprehension of the genetic results to suggest that any potential exists to save the world The previous statement is false

The big problem with your argument is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, when in reality there wasn't much cake to begin with.

Either GMO's will leave a genetic legacy into future crop generations or they will not (terminators). If a terminator gene is in play then contamination does not enter the gene pool in a viable host, so it is EXACTLY AS IF IT DOES NOT ENTER THE GENE POOL AT ALL. If it does not then yes there are some legal issues to be ironed out, rather than arguing for the abolition of GMO's, an argument you have thus far failed to make convincingly you ought to argue for the laws to change to reflect volunteers and allow farmers to deal with them, or you should argue for the inclusion of terminator genes in all GMO crops, which would break any hold a corporate patent might have on some land.

Given the size of monsanto 75 seems like a reasonable number, it is unlikely that they are spending all of their time chasing farmers with a few seedlings growing in a ditch, it is highly likely that one or many people are illegally using the GMO's that too so much time and money to make.

As for the winter wheat after canola, both are heavy feeders. That must require a lot of fertilizer. Does your neighbor underseed with a legume?

You misunderstood "switching to another crop species." Would a corn grower switch to cabbage... or a canola grower switch to potatoes? Hardly!! The crop is dictated by the market and soil.

Sorry about your neighbor, being locked into GMO leaves little prospect for his future. Costs of production must be terrible; seed costs rising, fertilizer and herbicides.

I believe your reference to Percy is about this. Seems none of the courts believed his story. No fear tho, I generally don't break the law so Monsanto is more than welcome to show up. (Hopefully they bring coffee and donuts.)

Fertilizer is like a tool. You use what is necessary to get the job done.

Underseed with a legume?! In RR canola?! Not that I've ever seen.

Farmers use a bunch or criteria to determine crop rotations and certainly market and type of soil are in there.

My neighbor is now fourth generation on the land and is doing quite well, but if you like, I can tell him you'd be happy to be a crop consultant for him. Don't hold your breath waiting for the call.

Lloyd

I would not want to be involved with production that relies of fertilizer, herbicides or GMOs. My production is based on rotations and nutrient management. My soil feeds my plants.

I envy the position of Monsanto and the like but loath the direction they are heading for the sake of profit.

I'll let the CPP know that you would like to have them hold back the portion from your pension that Monsanto and the like profits contributed to the plan.

Lloyd

P.S. For the non-canucks, CPP is our government pension plan, they invest our money into various companies and pay us a pension. Many Canadians continuously scorn and complain about the profits of large corporations but few complain when the government cheques show up in the mail.

I've done some research and while not conclusive it seems to me Monsanto is not suing the farmers with crossover contamination. But rather those farmers who actually raise a whole crop of seeds in violation of their contract. You may disagree with the nature of those contracts, but farmers are free to go non-GMO if they wish to.
If these GMO's and Monsanto were so bad then no farmers would grow them and their wouldn't be an issue. The customer base (farmers) has decided that GMO crops, even with seed restrictions, do present some advantage. So much so in fact that they're willing to put up with the seed contract restrictions.

Percy Schmeiser Settles Small Claims Court Issue with Monsanto Canada

Someone ought to ask Percy if he ever got enough donations to pay for all his legal fees. I see the request for donations is still on his website. I bet Monsanto had no difficulty paying their legal fees, all they have to do is increase the price charged to the rest of the farmers.

Once a person really delves into this particular case they quickly realize it isn't exactly what the anti-GMO proponents claim it is.

And before anyone starts it again, I don't work for Monsanto or any chemical company.

Lloyd

Lloyd and Brendan: Bravo! Ever feel like you are beating our head against a wall? I once carried on a lengthy conversation with a rather left leaning friend. He stated his positions, many based on emotion, and I would state mine. It was all very civil. After a while, I realized that I could steer the whole conversation with logic to where his positions led him to believe mine instead of his own. He was baffled and walked away.

During my organic courses at the agricultural college I had fortune to view many of the report of gmo animal feed trials. If animals are effected by gmo feed then it is logical that the same will apply to gmo in human foods. There are gmo links to immune system disruptions, organ damage, accelerated aging, insulin disruption, gatrointestinal troubles and increased death rates. The impact of fertility and birth defects are prominent.

You see none of the reports in the media. The agencies in place to protect us are managed by past or present biotech people; Michael Taylor of FDA policy fame, was later a Monsanto vice-president and now back in the Obama FDA. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack is former chair of a biotech partnership. The former and now biotech employed people greatly influece what is done and said about gmo.

The power and reach of the biotech industry uses a heavy hand on unsupporting research. Scientists are fired and no one will do peer reviews with the same liklihood for them.

As for the aspiring genetic scientist, their education is restricted to the science and not the reality. The industry guides education and cares not to monitor the available data; it would effect the bottom line.

The technolgy does have promise but must be kept in the laboratory until adequately tested.

Regarding the industry, there is no increased yield gmo seed. It is all herbicide or pesticide tolerant so they can sell more chemicals. There is not the knowledge of DNA function to identify what happens when a section is disrupted by an insertion. Without trials and investigation they shall no know what other changes occur. Why do sheep feeding on HT cotton die? Why do animals offered gmo and conventional corn refuse the gmo?

The gmo traits are in the plant and remain in the food chain. Over 80% of processed foods now contain GMO. Some one will soon make the link between gmo and increases health problems. Who will be acoountable?

This is a gem "their education is restricted to the science and not the reality" Do you feel like what you intuit as truth is more substantial? Science questions should be answered with science.

I'd be especially interested in any studies done comparing GMO's and non-GMO's with herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, and the like controlled for. If you grow a GMO and drench it in roundup you have to account for the large level of roundup that is going to make it into the diet.

This one "There is not the knowledge of DNA function to identify what happens when a section is disrupted by an insertion. " shows that you yourself have no education in the field.

If the animals all refuse the GMO why can't we? If you generalize to all farm animals there is no sense that they all poses in greater quantity than humans do. While a sheep's sense of smell is better than a humans a chicken cannot smell as well. I've heard that claim a lot but when asked no one can find a study or any proof of it! It would seem that someone dreamed it up one day that "someone will find proof like this" and then reported that dream to a second person and through the game of telephone it transformed into a "study that proves ...".

Do not come back and report another study, point us to the study, and it's no use telling me to look them up. I have looked for solid studies and found them to be extremely wanting, the burden of proof lies with you You need to provide evidence to support your claim that GMO's are killing animals.

Not suprising is the difficulty in finding past available reports on-line.

Dan: I read through the ACGA press release and went to their web site to see what they had there currently but haven't had any time to take a close look at your other link. Found it interesting though on my preliminary reading.

Michael

Dan

Terran

Crop Case
Posted on January 15, 2010 by Heather

Monsanto Takes Center for Food Safety Legal Victory to Highest Court

"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the case before the high court will be yet another step in an ongoing battle waged by the Center for Food Safety to protect consumers and the environment from potentially harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto's flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture's approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case. In addition, CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto's insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case." ...

http://truefoodnow.org/2010/01/15/supreme-court-to-hear-first-genetica lly-engineered-crop-case/#more-849

True Food Now
http://truefoodnow.org/

Michael

Here's another article.... http://bit.ly/6gauyk
These are the people who are killing off my bees!!!!!

I'm not sure the %age of unis that have departments but no math departments exceeds 1%. And I disagree with Brendan, as it is in the corporate interest to show there is no difference.

Dan

22 January 2010 by Andy Coghlan

MONSANTO, the giant of genetically modified crops, has for the first time been forced to release raw data from toxicology studies it carried out on three strains of its modified maize. An external analysis of the data claims it shows that eating the maize could result in damage to the liver and kidneys, but this has been dismissed as unsupportable by a government agency and independent toxicologists.

...

Two of the maize varieties, MON 810 and MON 863, contain genes for the bacterial Bt protein, which protects against corn borer larvae. The third, NK 603, is resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate...

...

The re-analysis of the data, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France, concludes that the rats showed statistically significant signs of liver and kidney toxicity (International Journal of Biological Sciences, vol 5, p 706).

With each of the three strains of maize, researchers say they found unusual concentrations of hormones and other compounds in the blood and urine of the tested rats, suggesting each strain impaired kidney and liver function. By the end of the trials, the female rats that were fed MON 863 had elevated blood-sugar levels and raised concentrations of fatty substances called triglycerides. Both are potential precursors of diabetes, according to Séralini. And there were further signs that the kidneys of rats fed NK 603 were impaired, he says.

"What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity," says Séralini. "I'm sure there's no acute toxicity, but who's to say there are no chronic effects?" He wants longer studies on more species to check for such effects.

Unsurprisingly, Monsanto has refuted the findings, saying they do not demonstrate that there is any risk to the consumer. France's High Council of Biotechnology, too, has said that the study provides no new evidence of toxicity from the three maizes. Independent toxicologists contacted by New Scientist said Séralini's analysis overplays the importance of minor variations that most experienced toxicologists would consider to be random background noise.

...

Dan

While I’ll certainly agree that genetically modifying crops like soybeans so they can withstand repeated applications of herbicides certainly isn’t the ideal application of this technology, it isn’t the only application.

A must read!! It is outright criminal that we are not told of GM content, that scientists are muzzled against release of contrary studies, and that the industry can obtain managerial level control of regulatory bodies.

None of the GM foods are safety tested. The industry is in control and has no accountability other than to its shareholders.

Animal tests since squashed revealed tragic and devastating implications in weeks and over four generations. With our longer life spans and the lack of GM investigation as a cause, will realization come too late?

Read the linked!! Appreciate the potential and eventual probability.

a) They fed the animals crops covered in herbicides, unwashed, and the leafy parts. I would highly recommend that you not use roundup as dressing on your salad, yes it will kill animals, no it has nothing to do with GMO technology, the GMO genes in these crops reduce the amount of herbicide by breaking it down. (or some other chemical)

b) They used only a few animals to prove anything, (if you have three animals and one dies you haven't done anything to show why it died)

c) GMO's really are killing animals that eat them

A spoiler for those of you who want to look at the studies yourself, Category C was completely empty, no studies referenced in this thread have shown that GMO's cause animal death.

Dadhaslonglegs: DNA is broken down pretty apidly by the digestive system, when a cow eats a gmo plant it does not get the GMO genes any more than you get the genes needed to grow corn from your backside when you eat corn on the cob. Some fungicides, pesticides, and herbicides will lodge in the cows system and will go on to you, but none of these are being inserted into plant genomes. Bt GMO's are no more likely to cause you problems than Bt sprayed onto a crop as part of an organic pest control regime, which is about a zero likelihood assuming your father did not have six long legs (get it, a joke!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrobacterium

Also:

This abstract in US National Academy of Sciences Journal cited below demonstrates that biotech's efforts to use 'Agrobacterium' to insert genes into GE crop plants might have negative health effects on those ingesting the engineered plants. 'Tumefaciens' means tumor inducing.

Microbiology
Genetic Transformation Of Hela Cells By Agrobacterium

Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.041327598

Talya Kunik, Tzvi Tzfira, Yoram Kapulnik, Yedidya Gafni, Colin Dingwall, and Vitaly Citovsky. Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5215; Institute of Field and Garden Crops, Agricultural Research Organization, P.O. Box 6, Bet-Dagan 50250, Israel; and Department of Pharmacology, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8651

Edited by Eugene W. Nester, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved December 8, 2000 (received for review July 13, 2000)

Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a soil phytopathogen that elicits neoplastic growths [ie. cancer] on the host plant species. In nature, however, Agrobacterium also may encounter organisms belonging to other kingdoms such as insects and animals that feed on the infected plants. Can Agrobacterium, then, also infect animal cells? Here, we report that Agrobacterium attaches to and genetically transforms several types of human cells. In stably transformed HeLa cells, the integration event occurred at the right border of the tumor-inducing plasmid's transferred-DNA (T-DNA), suggesting bona fide T-DNA transfer and lending support to the notion that Agrobacterium transforms human cells by a mechanism similar to that which it uses for transformation of plants cells. Collectively, our results suggest that Agrobacterium can transport its T-DNA to human cells and integrate it into their genome.

M. Tilton

There is not conscious testing or oversight. The singular goal is to market the creations. Every step of approval is infested with industry people or those soon to be in return for support.

The industry is more or less self-regulated. Any corporate initiated studies conducted are reviewed by internal PR and legal departments.

Every level of scientific, trade and regulation body has been stocked with supporters. Any decent or contrary research is countered by any means. What kind of science is guiding food security.

I question the analogy of silent genes. An inactive (silent) gene may carry a reaction code triggered by unknowns. It is known that plants react to pests and disease to intiate defences; are these not the silent genes being activated?

Science cannot follow economics. The laws of nature must be stringently followed.

All other terrible acts in history will be nothing when compared with this conspiracy.

Organicdan You are making things up! Everything is tested extensively, it takes a few hours to transfer a gene once you know which one you want to transfer, yet these products don't hit the market for 4-7 years, what did you think they were doing with that time? Why do you think it costs so much to get a product to market? It is because they are doing in house testing. There are two to four seasons per year with any given annual crop, each time you get between 30 and 600 times your seed grain, they can hit industrial seed production levels in two years.

It is okay if you morally object to the concept, but you are not allowed to make up whatever you darn well please and pass it off as any kind of fact in order to get your way. Yes some of the business practices are immoral, and perhaps you should rail against them instead of railing against the technology (look at the title of the thread, it isn't immoral business practice threat, you are making GMO's a scape goat).

Who are you to make a judgement about how responsibly they are testing things? you base your opinion on the fact that they are huge corporations, did you ever stop to think about the liability and how huge corporations like to avoid liability? Or how about thinking about the fact that it is huge corporations doing it? Why not small ones, the physical lab needed to make a GMO can really fit inside of a small room, it is the testing that needs big corporate backing, just like with pharmaceuticals (phase three trails cost something on the order of 50 million dollars apiece).

The laws of nature allow for horizontal gene transfer.

How about this duzy

"All other terrible acts in history will be nothing when compared with this conspiracy."

Hyperbole much? You think that a little rape seed with a gene that actually hurts it unless it is drenched with an expensive chemical compares with say the Rape of Berlin on the scale of human tragedy?

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too on GMO's, and the reality is that what you are claiming of them is impossible for them to do (both spread and terminate), and your arguments have all fallen apart under the weight of their own fallacies.

Rail on about the business practices, no one will stop you, but don't try and muddy the scientific discussion with your personal philosophical views.

GMOs do and have escaped. The use of promoters made that an expected occurrence. With no liability, responsibility or accountability the developers reap the profits.

It is a certainty that every commercial crop will be contaminated. The multi-national corporations with their fingers in every industry from seeds to pharmaceuticals will have achieve their goal of total control and unlimited profits. Sadly there will be fewer people to share the wealth.

This is a strong example of uncontrolled use of a high potential science. The industry has infiltrated the agency with the potential to regulate it.

Respectfully, there is no stopping current GMO transfers. The known harmful traits seen in animals will appear in humans. It is puzzling why the denial exists.

GMO seed is being dumped as aide in disaster relief programs. It suffices only to destroy local farming. GMOs are on the move and nothing can stop them. No seed is safe. from contamination.

Now such news doesn't faze us. Perhaps due to outrage fatigue, but we must remember it is in corporations' interest to ensure that the populace in general doesn't get all uppity. Momentum and inertia are powerful tools.

Dan

"Monsanto, the developer of Roundup Ready canola, one of the modified plants, said the new findings were neither surprising nor worrisome. Even before biotech crops were developed, canola grew on roadsides, it said; now that 90 percent of the canola planted by farmers is engineered, it would be reasonable to expect a similar percentage in roadside samples."

HUH! WHAT KIND OF NONSENSICAL DRIVEL IS THIS FROM MONSANTO?

Greg
Southern Nevada

Grain trucks and grain carts aren't sealed. Combines and other machinery are not sterilized when we leave a field to head home and yes we do drive on the roads. Our machinery will drop some material as it travels hitting bumps, having wind gusts blow through it etc. I've seen those small dust devils pick up large amounts of crops laying in windrows and twist off over other fields. Wasn't there just some tornadoes reported in ND last week that went through fields?

Seeds, GMO or non-GMO, will be deposited in various areas, there is no economical way to prevent it.

Lloyd

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793308/

I feel that a manuscript on a topic such as this would have been treated very seriously by the editor, and therefore sent for review to the top scientists in the field.

In science anyone who feels that a paper is incorrect can submit there own manuscript to the same or similar reviewed scientific journal. Google Scientific reports who has cited each published paper. This 2009 paper has been cited by 7 more recent papers.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3661119272352849363&as_sdt=800 000000005&sciodt=800000000000&hl=en

Of particular interest is the 2010 letter to Shri Jairam Ramesh Honourable Minister of State (Independent Charge)
Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India titled: "Concerned Health Professionals for Biosafety in Food"

This letter is based on their review of the scientific literature ("We have reviewed the literature and would like to raise our concerns on the following issues:......").

See:
http://www.indiagminfo.org/four/concerned health professionals-guj arat.pdf

http://www.countercurrents.org/ananda030110.htm

------------------------------------------------
A second 2009 reviewed full paper from the "Seralini" group is at the following link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706426/

The real point is if it can happen in a mouse, it can happen in us. In several generations we will be sterile and the only people allowed to reproduce are 3rd world countries lucky enough not to be able to afford our food types.

It has proven already in many researches to effect local surrounding plant life and has been literally ripped out of the ground during the middle of its season so not to contaminate any further.

The gene terminates everything, including nearby forestry that it can mix with. There are rules to what it can mix with, it's own type, so corn, rice, and wheat is a grass, now all grasses will become sterile.

It is a problem, it was let go into main stream without official testing for the required length of time, and now it's proven to cause physical damage, maybe autism.

I was raised in the 80s and is it like me that the only person with autism I knew was in Rain Man with Tom Cruise? My nephew has autism, couldn't speak until he was 4 or 5, still having problems at the age of 7, but it's a common household problem in many households. What about ADHD? Schizphrenia? Never has any of these things been so popular? Diabetes is a plague, but in a day long ago it was not common at all.

Chemicals in the water are probably a part of it being the fluoride in the water can cause diabetes, cause IQs to drop, so not all of it can be blamed on GMO because it started in the 80s when they started using the seeds, the Autism is likely though. How much are people paying for sterility treatments? IVF? Test tube children, artificial insemination? There is lots wrong, but everyone runs to corporates side to side where the money is going.

Hollywood was liberal until the corporates sided with Republicans, now we see Nazi comebacks, National socialism from people who never believed in it. Because of money! When it's not a fad the same people arguing for Monsanto, will oppose it. Right now they are riding the authority train, feeding their ego with that can be taken by their followings.

Well, the choice I've made is to grow most of my own vegetables. In time, that will probably be regulate.

Then it won't be long before Soylent Green.

He__ yeah, it is too much to ask when corporations don't want you to make an informed choice.

Dan

May God help us all.

Thank you.

Greg
Southern Nevada

Lloyd

Step-by-step: 1. Arable farming leads to loss of soil carbon. This has been measured at between 50% and 75% of levels in pre-ag soils. 2. Pre-industrial farmers partially mitigated the loss by manuring and returning crop residues to the soil. 3. Encouraged by Liebig's thesis, modern farmers relied on artificial fertilizers to maintain soil fertility and forgot about manuring and crop residues, because the immediate crop response to fertilizers is so marked. So trace minerals, obtained from farm wastes were ignored or replaced by importation from off-farm sources. 4. Thus soil carbon was allowed to fall to very low levels. Since soil carbon holds moisture and is the domicile of soil micro-organisms, natural fertility declined -- masked by artificial fertility. (Not a sustainable state of affairs.) 5. It gets worse: the thrust of seed breeding has been to make plants more responsive to irrigation and fertilizers, rather than to provide resiliant diversity and innate resistance to drought and insects. 6. Loss of natural fertility coupled with atificial pest control resulted in plants that have lost their natural pest resitance.

Please pick this apart; I'm always learning. Regards, Peter.

Blaming society's woes on food alone is a fallacy and anyone who doesn't challenge a statement like that is being dishonest in IMO.

As far as your points, sure there are problems in ag. Ag is changing every year. I see farmers, old and young, trying different methods all the time. Some examples being, reduced tillage, different crops, different equipment, different rotations etc etc. Nothing in ag is static anymore and just like any industry, mistakes are made (Toyoto uncommanded acceleration comes to mind), and methods change or get abondoned. To decry one practise as if it is the only practise throughout the world is once again being dishonest IMO.

But as I stated in another thread, I ought to learn to just bite my tongue. :-)

Lloyd

Lloyd, my neighbor to the north. True it is not food alone. Toxins in the air and water, even poisons used in household applications and even furnishings as well as toxic lawn applications play a part to be sure. You could surely list many more (side effects of drugs comes to mind).

I really have to give credit here though to Dr. Weston A. Price who proved once and for all the failings of what he called "foods of commerce". He was a Harvard trained dentist who noticed in the 1920's and 30's that there was a rampant increase in tooth decay with all of the other associated dental maladies. He then searched out people groups on every continent but antartica to find the healthiest people left out there who had not yet been exposed to refined and processed foods. What he found was astounding. Villages and groups of people with virtually no cavities among them, while adjacent villages where modern foods had been introduced were ravaged with not only tooth decay but generationally they started giving birth to increasingly not only unhealthy offspring but an increase in birth defects, the list goes on since it seems the health of the teeth is a visible sign of the health of the whole body. One more thing, he documented the only variable- their diet. Diets were documented, food samples sent to labs for analysis. He also took an abundance of photos where the traditional diet adherents stood side by side with the refined food consumers and smiled for the camera. The photos don't lie. The difference was night and day. His work is a masterpiece, over 500 pages. It was discovered that it was practiced among some native groups to pass on dietary wisdom generationally. Some groups even fed engaged females a special high nutrition diet for six months before the wedding so they would procreate in the most healthy manner.

He even used the dietary knowledge he learned about overseas in studies with patients back in the states. Results were once again astounding. The food was definitely the difference maker. Further cavitations were virtually completely halted on the traditional diet which he replicated. When the diet was no longer adhered to, cavitations resumed again.

I sincerely hope this helps anyone who happens to read it. Once again, the book is "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price.

In addition please let me state here that I am not anti-farmer (although I am not so keen on Monsanto) I fully understand that the paradigm for the longest time has been getting paid on volume. Bushels per acre if you will. Unfortunately the long term health of our soil has taken a back seat to paying the bills today. I also lived on a farm for 10 years of my life which, not making me an expert by any stretch I do have some exposure. Malcolm Beck, another national treasure as far as I am concerned, tells in his book Lessons in Nature how a farmer he knows in North Texas went to organic methods for growing cotton since he was falling behind financially. With organic methods the farmer was able to forego irrigation and still maintain a viable crop. While the crop was not quite as abundant as the neighbor's, he made more money overall becaue his expenses were lower. Just an example here of what we are talking about.

All the best.

I actually have no data to base my next comment on, and am not trying to be inflammatory either, but is this not the first generation that can detect fetal abnormalaties and/or diseases which then may or may not prompt some to terminate their pregnancies? Does this skew the infant mortality rate and/or life expectancy rate? I have no idea. Sorry, didn't want to be morbid there but it may have an impact on the numbers.

It is one thing for people born 70 to 80 years ago to still be alive today, but it remains to be seen how long of a life span people born today will live. I have heard estimates that one in three children born today will have diabetes in their lifetime. Again, I really do not in any way relish to bring this up, but if this estimate in remotely accurate, then I think we may in for a significant swing in the other direction as far as longevity. Diabetics on average do not live long life spans. One thing all centenarians have in common is that they have stable blood sugar.

Anyway, as I said previously, I hope someone finds the references I stated earlier helpful. I am more interested in seeing someone regain or improve their health. For me organic gardening is a big part of that. (not only enjoying the healthy fruits of your labor, but enjoying the entire process out there in nature). There are plenty of smarter people out there than myself who can engage in the debates. Organic Dan for example has done a heck of a job in my opinion, and Greg from Southern Nevada just to name a few- I always enjoy your posts as well. (That said, I will probably get drawn in again to this thread.) :)

To your health

It is one thing for people born 70 to 80 years ago to still be alive today, but it remains to be seen how long of a life span people born today will live.
Yet another good point.

Read the linked article. The process and implications are explained. This is one scary venture.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with agriculture but reading your points leads me to believe it is not first hand experience. Some things that you might not be aware of (please do not construe this to be all encompassing, it is just a couple of examples in relation to your points)....

Farmers I know, including myself, are very aware of crop residue. We very often return huge amounts to the land when harvesting is done.

Plant breeding looks at much much more than just tolerance to chemicals and drought resistance. (please note I am not talking about herbicide tolerant wheat).

Lloyd

So yes, there are farmers who know residue. There are still others who are on a schedule and plow fence line to fence line and play futures.

There are plenty also who have totally lost the ability to be resilient and resourceful, as we see with the GM sugar beet halt and the stories of folks who don't know what to do now because all their equipment is set up for GM crops.

Dan

On the gardening front I make an effort to have something growing most of the year. Even before the harvest I have a cover crop seeded. Spring is my tillage time with the cover crop and stubble tilled under. Straw mulch adds to the carbon for spring incorporation with transplanting after 2-3 weeks as the weather dictates.

It may be decades before we see the impact of GMOs in our food chain. Far too much of the science advancements are accepted without full trials. So many of the early scientists warned of the impact on soil prior to the 'green' revolution. Our processed foods are filled with artificial nutrients that by-pass many of the natural interaction processes. It is no wonder there is an increase in disease and associated costs.

Well that about says it all, doesn't it?

Greg
Southern Nevada

I've read this statement about "feeding the world" many times in many posts here on GW. I've always had an interest in this but up until now I've refrained from commenting. Now before anyone labels me as a cold hearted -uncaring person based on what I'm about to write, I'd like to say that you would be wrong. It's because I do care that I say what I say.

I just have to ask: Since when was it deemed that the USA and it's citizens are responsible for "feeding the world?" Granted we are a nation of over-consumption, and have been gifted with the ability - knowledge, and resources to be totally self-sustaining. Many people have worked very hard through the years to get us to that point. However, there are still areas in the US where people are going to bed hungry and this shouldn't be happening. Why is it that when I go to the grocery store I read where the vegetables have been grown and shipped from Mexico - Guadamala - South America - etc. Why are they not from California and other American farming areas? I then learn that much of the produce grown here is shipped to foreign countries - Huh? Whenever there is a natural disaster in another country the US is the first there with ships and planes loaded with relief supplies and the manpower to distribute it. Whenever "We" have a natural disaster you see nothing (or very little) from those we have helped many times in the past. All we get from them is bad-mouthing us for who we are.

I feel that it's long past the time that we start taking care of the hungry people here in the US, and to build this country back-up to what it once was. If we have extra then by all means help-out those in other countries who need the help. But until that happens, let's take care of the needy here first.

So let the flaming begin...

Greg
Southern Nevada

Dan

"as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant." (my bold added)

And what about GM canola products?

I find it humorous that anyone could fall for this stuff and even more humorous that others nod their head in agreement of it. It's all about marketing.

Lloyd

With all due respect here, there is nothing funny to me about GMO foods being so ubiquitous that it is not "practicable" to serve up meals GMO free. If it is "all about marketing", I guess the GMO side is not doing such a hot job, otherwise they would not have to veil their foodstuffs in secrecy rather than labeling GMO foods so as to give the consumer a choice. And they have the big bucks for marketing dollars, too! Interesting...

The "all about marketing" is about making people think they are consuming a GMO free product. The particular story linked by Dan obviously fooled some and they bought it lock stock and barrel. Think of the "better for the environment" claim....being "better" doesn't mean it's good for the environment. Marketers love to use that one, especially targeted at children.

It's all about marketing.

Lloyd

P.S. Now that I think of it, I wonder how many fall for the "zero percent interest" car loan?

(Yet the truth remains, we are not told on the label if a product or ingredient is GMO) Let's hear it for truth in labeling. Boy, I bet you would see a drop in GMO crop production then baby! :)

Getting slightly back to the topic, I wish people would take steps to grow and consume their own organic produce. Even a few carrots, spuds, beans and peas in a small garden area isn't all that difficult and would go a long way to changing the direction we are heading right now. Getting to that point will require calm, sensible persuasion and running around tilting at windmills will only alienate those that can be helped. Small, easily attained goals will impress and convince people of the validity of the program. Constantly attacking big chem, big pharma, big government will do nothing to convince people, it just riles them up. Show people what you do and how successful you are, that is what reasonable people will pay attention to. After all it's difficult to argue against success.

Lloyd

Thanks!

Dan

Lloyd

But, no Lloyd you don't have it straight. The abstract clearly states that the genetically altered protein has escaped into the environment. It is not a by-product per se of the original organism.

And the 'soil' non-sequitur kinda sends a signal about more than faulty rhetoric.

Dan

And if it has "escaped", why in only 13% of the streams tested when 86% of the streams had corn residue in them?

Something doesn't seem to add up. Or is this one of those issues that a person needs several degrees to fully understand?

Lloyd

The abstract does not give possible reasons for the incidence of "Cry1Ab protein in stream-channel maize at 13% of sites and in the water column at 23% of sites". This conclusion: I don't get that it has been used in the U.S. since 1958 and only now has been discovered to have escaped into the environment. does not follow from the premises explicit and implicit in the paper.

OK, back to much simpler thought processes in setting cobblestones

Dan

The random nature of GM insertion can have immeasurable implications. Viral promoters and the antibiotic-resistant markers have unleashed unlimited horizontal gene transfer potential.

No living organism can resist genetic mutation under this technology abuse. Nobody can be held accountable.

Here is a qoute from him.

"There is no evidence to indicate that biotechnology is dangerous. After all, mother nature has been doing this kind of thing for God knows how long," he said. Told a packed hall consisting of researchers and food scientists in the Kenyan capital.

He dismissed the critics of GMOs as people who had not produced even a kg of food and yet were yelping about bio-safety and the dangers involved in the technology.

"he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production"

This is a very wide range of proteins found in virus encoding from HIV to mosaic virus...these proteins are also found in the smoke of burning meat and tobacco. It's a very wide range. In this case, one of the biggest dangers would be a chance encoding to re-invigorate the "dead" version of cauliflower mosaic virus (or P6 residues) that's very commonly used as a carrier string for DNA/RNA insertion that it's inserted into. This could lead to some allergy problems, too, even if it doesn't fully express the mosaic virus but still overlaps enough to express P6 proteins. P6 is a known allergen, though it's not one that everyone is sensitive to.

The expression of this gene is highly unlikely, though...and would be regulated to a single (or very small groups) of plants doing this replication rather than entire seed source or a field suddenly replicating mosaic virus or P6 residues. If it is the case that encoding suddenly made it large-scale available it would show up heavily in the research stage and it wouldn't make it out into the consumer market since it's showing inferior/bad genetic expression. One of the biggest parts of GMO research is tossing out 99%+ of everything you're actually trying to create because positive effects of expression aren't stable enough to sell it as seed...or it's showing "bad" expressions.

There's a lot of otherwise harmful viruses (to plants or humans) used to insert GMO traits for start/end points into a genetic change that are made inert (and distinctly different) from their original genetic package, but still contain large parts of what makes up the virus, itself. Viruses can easily carry genetic information and they're ideal vehicles for transferring it. The genetic carriers of the virus are merely vehicles. Once you change the "genetic package" inside a virus it's not even what you started with. The "guts" are changed dramatically. If you put a Dodge Neon engine in a Porsche very few people would still consider it a Porsche. That's the level of dramatic change in sequencing going on inside of these packages. You can take certain virus types, depending on what you're trying to achieve, and precisely insert genetic information with start/termination points into existing DNA/RNA...totally turning it's genetic information into something totally different in both makeup and application.

Btw, to those with P6 protein sensitivities...this would be a big deal. I'm not trying to knock the research at all. I'm just saying it's overlapping expression would most likely be contained to a very few plants in a field, not widespread. While genetic start/termination points are very good with insertion and replication once stable, nothing is perfect when you're exchanging genes...we see it even natural breeding. The major problem with this particular chain of insertion is the overlapping of the 2 sequences given as example in the paper and what could happen as a consequence of them being genetically linked so closely together...even if there's a very small chance of it happening as defined.

It's also worth mentioning we're talking a single virus carrier, not the 100s of types (or the 20-ish most commonly used) carriers. It would also be greatly influenced by the new information inserted, what was cut out, and where the start/termination points overlap (if there is any replication overlap). There's more than 1 way to insert genetic information into virus and the chances of overlap encoding or reversion is different depending on the type of method used.

A couple years ago some friends of mine had a crazy neighbor who "thought" he had rights to their land and came and sprayed it in preparation for planting GM corn.

Before the spray, the field was native grasses and plants, filled with insects that would buzz around your head and drive you crazy if you stood at the edge of it. (It was actually being used as an experimental field where they were trying to dig out invasive species and leave only native plants.) It was beautiful.

After the spray I went to stand by the field, and it was empty of all life. Not only were all the weeds and grasses dead, but ALL of the insects were GONE as well. Deathly quiet. Not even a single annoying gnat.

Multiply that times many, many acres . . . doesn't feel like a good thing to me. Is this what is killing the bees?

If we kill too many of the pollinators, we won't be able to feed the world.
If too many acres of farmland are taken over by Roundup resistant weeds, we won't be able to feed the world.

I, for one, am rooting for the pig weed.

If you think it's hard to control in chemical agriculture lands you should see how much of a pest in organic systems.

It grows fast, doesn't need much nutrients, and quickly shades/out-competes everything.

RoundUp is here-today-gone-tomorrow. We've over-used it too quickly without proper rotations of other resistant crops. A couple of decades from now RoundUp's replacement...whatever that may be, if it's found...will be needed. We've hastened the evolution of too many plants over using it.

2,4-D crops (which is next to impossible for pest weeds to build a resistance to, not counting escaped GMO 2,4-D crops) are the stop-gap GMO. Aside from cotton production, I'm not that much of a fan of it systemically produced in food. So far the only "superweed" known to 2,4-D is waterhemp...which isn't very wide-spread on a noxious level (though found in almost every state). It is related to "pig weed." There's something about amaranth that makes it a highly adaptive plant...go figure.

Also, aside from tree fruit/nut crops and squash/melons/pumpkins we actually don't rely on bees for much of what we eat. Most of our food comes from wind pollinated and self-fertile plants.

What makes a plant 2,4-D tolerant is the GMO insertion of a soil bacteria that breaks down 2,4-D. The isolated enzyme of this bacteria is the GMO addition to the plant. It takes 2,4-D (which moves systemically through the plant) and quickly breaks it down into phenols...which are handled rather well by our body as harmless. This works differently from RoundUp resistant crops because very little breakdown of RoundUp is done...it simply is tolerant to it's application thanks to the inserted enzyme which makes it tolerant. Theoretically, 2,4-D "should" be a bit safer because in addition to taking in the herbicide, it goes through the extra process of breaking it down into inert compounds within the plant.

My main concern is the plant not breaking down all the 2,4-D. I'm really interested to see some research on how much residual 2,4-D is left in the plant after the conversion of most of the 2,4-D into phenols.

While 2,4-D is mostly human safe (and the most widely used herbicide in the world for many decades), I'm a bit concerned about residual 2,4-D in plant materials considering how much of it will be in our food supply.

I'll feel a lot better (or worse) about 2,4-D GMOs when I see some real science about residues...but so far it's so tightly held by the companies developing them (mostly Monsanto and Dow) that very little peer review outside of the companies have been done.

nuts, fruit and squash . . . sounds like my diet! (just add potatoes)

Also, the owner of that technology (believe it or not) doesn't have much interest in producing terminator seeds.

GMO seed makers have absolutely no trouble getting customers to return and "seed saving" is a whole lot less of an issue than some would have you believe. Anyone growing GMO seed signs a slew of legal contracts plainly spelling out the penalties for saving/selling seed they've bought and contracted from a GMO seed supplier. You can't just go buy a bag of GMO corn in/out the door like you can "normal" or hybrid seed.

There also is some confusion about the word "terminator" because it's also used in GMO seed production that has -nothing- to do with plants producing "dead" seed. In a GMO insertion a termination/terminator site marks the end point of where a GMO insertion goes into the DNA/RNA. It's a chemical signal that says "stop replicating yourself here" in order to keep the insertion from producing way more copies of the insertion than necessary. A start point and an end point (terminator site) is common in any GMO insertion, though it has nothing to do with producing "dead" seed.