Could Monsanto Destroy Irelands Farmers

zenno

As we know at the moment, monsanto have had trials here in Ireland and in my opinion this is serious and it will be a serious problem for us and farmers in the near future if monsanto get a hold of Ireland just like in the united states.

I won't harp on, but I would like Irish people and farmers to take a look at this video in relation to monsanto and make your own mind up as to the benefits/damage that could exist in relation to monsanto using Ireland as a GM waste-ground and hindering the natural growth of organics as well as taking ownership of said farmers land and crops because of contamination from monsanto GM.

Have a look at this documentary and add your comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1A31gCeOA4

djpbarry

zenno wrote: »

As we know at the moment, monsanto have trials here in Ireland...

That's news to me - do you have a source for that?

zenno wrote: »

Have a look at this documentary and add your comments.

I'm afraid I don't have an hour to spare and I doubt many other posters do either. What's the documentary about?

Oldtree

seems clear from here that there is no commercial company involved in our gm potatoes research:

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/gm_potato_research/irish-examiner_20120903.asp

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/proposed_gm_potato_research.asp

zenno

That should have been "Have Had Trials Here In Ireland"

In 1998, a GM crop trial in Wexford run by Monsanto was sabotaged by environmental campaigners. A 2006 BASF attempt to trial GM potatoes was also halted after a prolonged campaign. What will happen in Ireland remains to be seen. Irish Examiner.

Oldtree

These 5 year old gm eucalyptus trees have a gene taken from the common, fast-growing Arabidopsis weed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/15/gm-trees-bred-world-energy

Ballantine

I've never understood why GM foods are so terrible for humans. Anyone who eats tomato puree eats GM foods, for example, and many varieties of imported rice are GM. The only evidence we have as to their effects on health is we are all living longer and in better health than our parents or grandparents.

Where is the problem?

RUCKING FETARD

Ballantine wrote: »

I've never understood why GM foods are so terrible for humans. Anyone who eats tomato puree eats GM foods, for example, and many varieties of imported rice are GM. The only evidence we have as to their effects on health is we are all living longer and in better health than our parents or grandparents.

Where is the problem?

In better health is questionably? Lingering on with some kind(s) of chronic illness be more like it.

Last 5 people I know that died, all died from Cancer. Near two thirds of Cancers are caused by diet, so says literature I've read. How do you know it's not GM?

It should never have got to the stage where it's near impossible to avoid it if you wanted to with the limited studies done on it. 90 day studies and they're good to go!:eek:

Not to mention Bee/Butterfly deaths, cross pollination, suicide seeds. Round up resistant so they shower it in the stuff and it runs off everywhere.

Uh, this is back in the news.

djpbarry

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Last 5 people I know that died, all died from Cancer. Near two thirds of Cancers are caused by diet...

I really, really doubt that. Got a source?

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

How do you know it's not GM?

How do you know it's not flying spaghetti monsters?

Oldtree

:D;)



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

Ballantine

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

In better health is questionably? Lingering on with some kind(s) of chronic illness be more like it.

Last 5 people I know that died, all died from Cancer. Near two thirds of Cancers are caused by diet, so says literature I've read. How do you know it's not GM?

If you believe that humans in the USA and Europe are not living longer, and healthier, lives than did our ancestors, then we disagree.

I'm afraid you are simply incorrect to claim that "nearly two thirds" of cancers are caused by diet. Ironically, many cancers are now "caused" by the fact that we are simply living longer and longer.

It's also ironic that you imply that it's ok for science to try to cure cancers, or to try to treat patients with cancer with all sorts of treatments, but not ok for science to try to find ways of producing foods more efficiently or in ways which necessitate less pesticides which, in turn, mean less pesticide residues ingested by the very humans you say you are concerned for. More especially when you claim, incorrectly, that "nearly two thirds of cancers are caused by diet".

Judgement Day

Is it science that's driving GM research though? To me it's just corporate greed from faceless multi-nationals like Monsanto who don't give a fig whether you live or die as long as they make their percentage

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is it science that's driving GM research though?

Genetic modification is used extensively in scientific research, if that's what you mean. Cancer research, for example, would not be where it is today without GM technology.

Ballantine

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is it science that's driving GM research though? To me it's just corporate greed from faceless multi-nationals like Monsanto who don't give a fig whether you live or die as long as they make their percentage

Are you saying its ok if it's science and carried out by individuals, but not if the science is carried out by corporations?

Whats wrong with corporations making profits? Is it all corporations you are against making profits, or just ones involved in scientific research into GM?

shedweller

I would have thought that with food, something so fundamental to life,
there would be a bit more transparency and a bit less ruthlessness. We've all seen how so many farmers got sued for accidently having gm seed on their farms. How do we know that won't happen here? Do we suddenly know everything about this thing we have only just created? (In the bigger picture)
What will we say about this in 100 or more years?

So i'm sorry, i'm suspicious of monsanto et al. It just looks to me as though there is an urgent need for profit above all else.
And feeding the poor starving people of the world argument doesn't wash with me. Sort out corrupt govts first and set up proper education systems for them.

As for us, we are now becoming obese at 3 years of age, if a recent newspaper article is anything to go by. I'd be inclined to believe it too because i have 3 kids of my own and quite a few of their schoolmates are..."chubby" shall we say. (Started by bottle feeding, rather than breastfeeding,continued with too much calorie laden crap afterwards, but thats off this topic!)

Ballantine

shedweller wrote: »

I would have thought that with food, something so fundamental to life,
there would be a bit more transparency and a bit less ruthlessness. We've all seen how so many farmers got sued for accidently having gm seed on their farms. How do we know that won't happen here? Do we suddenly know everything about this thing we have only just created? (In the bigger picture)
What will we say about this in 100 or more years?

So i'm sorry, i'm suspicious of monsanto et al. It just looks to me as though there is an urgent need for profit above all else.
And feeding the poor starving people of the world argument doesn't wash with me. Sort out corrupt govts first and set up proper education systems for them.

As for us, we are now becoming obese at 3 years of age, if a recent newspaper article is anything to go by. I'd be inclined to believe it too because i have 3 kids of my own and quite a few of their schoolmates are..."chubby" shall we say. (Started by bottle feeding, rather than breastfeeding,continued with too much calorie laden crap afterwards, but thats off this topic!)

Sure, a lot of people are "suspicious" but thats not to say their suspicions are well founded.

GM food has nothing to do with obesity. The fact is that you probably eat GM food regularly, and have done for years, without realising it. You probably eat radiated food daily without realising it.

In fact, if GM means that foods can be grown without pesticides, or with less pesticides, do you think that is a good or bad thing for the food chain?

Have you ever heard of Golden rice? It's a GM strand of rice which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Vitamin A deficiency in the third world is estimated to kill between 600 000 and 700 000 under 5's each year. Golden Rice was developed using GM technology and has the potential to prevent many of those deaths annually. Are you really saying that we should ignore this leap forward, and ban those 600 000 to 700 000 children from living, for no reason other than "suspicions" of well off westeners? Incidentally, the inventor of Golden Rice has donated the varieties free of charge.

GM has the potential to benefit the human race in a variety of ways, and to ban that progress would be more than a shame, it would be tantamount to genocide in the case of golden rice.

shedweller

Well put. But do gm crops need less pesticide and are their yields higher? Are farmers costs kept the same or are they paying more to grow gm crops?

Unbiased answers on a postcard please!

Oregano_State

Ballantine wrote: »

Sure, a lot of people are "suspicious" but thats not to say their suspicions are well founded.

GM food has nothing to do with obesity. The fact is that you probably eat GM food regularly, and have done for years, without realising it. You probably eat radiated food daily without realising it.

In fact, if GM means that foods can be grown without pesticides, or with less pesticides, do you think that is a good or bad thing for the food chain?

Have you ever heard of Golden rice? It's a GM strand of rice which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Vitamin A deficiency in the third world is estimated to kill between 600 000 and 700 000 under 5's each year. Golden Rice was developed using GM technology and has the potential to prevent many of those deaths annually. Are you really saying that we should ignore this leap forward, and ban those 600 000 to 700 000 children from living, for no reason other than "suspicions" of well off westeners? Incidentally, the inventor of Golden Rice has donated the varieties free of charge.

GM has the potential to benefit the human race in a variety of ways, and to ban that progress would be more than a shame, it would be tantamount to genocide in the case of golden rice.

This. +1


I find Green Peace's oposition to Golden Rice, and GM foods in general to be disgusting and ignorant.

When that study on a variety of GM Corn was in the news a few months back, I thought the reporting on it from much of the media was pretty awful in terms of a lack of reference to actual science and a lot of the 'sure that GM stuff will only kill ya' mentality.

shedweller

shedweller wrote: »

Well put. But do gm crops need less pesticide and are their yields higher? Are farmers costs kept the same or are they paying more to grow gm crops?

But can anybody provide answers to this?

djpbarry

shedweller wrote: »

But can anybody provide answers to this?

Maybe you could first answer the question(s) that have been put to you?

A Primal Nut

I have no problems with GM crops themselves, however I have a problem with how Mansanto protect their patents by suing farmers and they've been accused of introducing the seeds to the land without the farmers knowledge. It should be Monsanto's responsibility to stop cross contamination and not the farmers.

shedweller

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could first answer the question(s) that have been put to you?

Would that be if i had heard of golden rice? Then no, i havent.
Should we ignore this leap forward? Certainly not.
Now, could someone answer my questions above.

two wheels good

Ballantine wrote: »

GM food has nothing to do with obesity. The fact is that you probably eat GM food regularly, and have done for years, without realising it. You probably eat radiated food daily without realising it.

I hope that's not the case! I thought EU rules banned GMOs food products for human consumption. I'd believe GMO animal foods stuffs are imported in large quantities but I thought even that was a dubious activity. Can anyone clarify please?

Ballantine wrote: »

Have you ever heard of Golden rice? It's a GM strand of rice which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Vitamin A deficiency in the third world is estimated to kill between 600 000 and 700 000 under 5's each year. Golden Rice was developed using GM technology and has the potential to prevent many of those deaths annually. Are you really saying that we should ignore this leap forward, and ban those 600 000 to 700 000 children from living, for no reason other than "suspicions" of well off westeners? Incidentally, the inventor of Golden Rice has donated the varieties free of charge.

GM has the potential to benefit the human race in a variety of ways, and to ban that progress would be more than a shame, it would be tantamount to genocide in the case of golden rice.

GM Golden rice is still under developments i.e not yet approved for general human consumption.

The claims for golden rice have been repeatedly exaggerated. In the early days it turned out children would have to eat kilos of rice to get the recommended daily allowance of vitamin A. Current strains have improved on this situation. Apparently there are better ways of dealing with the deficiency

I've read that Syngenta still haven't said whether growers would be able to collect seeds - it may have a terminator gene. This is last thing poor farmers need - having to buy seed and probably pesticides every year. (Have a look for stories of financial disaster for poor farmers in India growing GM cotton)

The inventor of golden rice may have declined royalties but there are still many patents associated with it . I wonder what plans for the patents or remuneration expectation the patent holders have.

Frankly, golden rice may well be an ideal PR story for big agri to extend it's control on food supply. I will continue to be very sceptical of claims by GM corporations

two wheels good

shedweller wrote: »

Well put. But do gm crops need less pesticide and are their yields higher? Are farmers costs kept the same or are they paying more to grow gm crops?

Unbiased answers on a postcard please!

Well, I've read of cases where yields were initially better and then fell back to no better than non-GM varieties.
I've read that the need for pesticides increased due to more resilient "super-weeds"
The inability to collect seeds due to terminator genes (it doesn't apply to all GM varieties) seems the most cynical aspect.

There was the recent court case of the Swiss farmer who's cows died when he was in GM feed trial. He's been in a legal battle for a decade or more.

I can't claim to be unbiased, or well informed just suspicious.

Judgement Day

Ballantine wrote: »

Are you saying its ok if it's science and carried out by individuals, but not if the science is carried out by corporations?

Whats wrong with corporations making profits? Is it all corporations you are against making profits, or just ones involved in scientific research into GM?

You're twisting my words. Of course corporations should be able to make money but at not at the cost of the greater good. Anyway it matters not. Stick around, you're well suited to this forum.

RUCKING FETARD

djpbarry wrote: »

I really, really doubt that. Got a source?

I read it in those pamphlets/Booklets you get in Hospitals, looking it up their though... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-many-cancers-are-caused-by-the-environment

More than 60 percent of U.S. cancer deaths are caused by smoking and diet.

I should have included smoking.

djpbarry wrote: »

How do you know it's not flying spaghetti monsters?

Surprising comment coming from you...I thought it was a valid question, still do. How do you know?

You and me are the long term trial. Mobiles/wireless devices had been declared safe numerous times in last decade and now these...

Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules.

A landmark court case has ruled there is a link between using a mobile phone and brain tumours, paving the way for a flood of legal actions.

No Health Risks From Cell Phones... But Still Be Cautious

It also warned that "exposure should not be higher than needed to achieve the intended purpose."

"cancer registries should follow the development of cancer incidence in the future and research should not cease"

Won't be surprised if I'm reading similar bout GM down the road, that's if I'm not dead from some rare cancer that's statistically linked back to GM from helpful research.

Ballantine wrote: »

If you believe that humans in the USA and Europe are not living longer, and healthier, lives than did our ancestors, then we disagree.

1 in 3 with Cancer now.

Ballantine wrote: »

It's also ironic that you imply that it's ok for science to try to cure cancers, or to try to treat patients with cancer with all sorts of treatments, but not ok for science to try to find ways of producing foods more efficiently or in ways which necessitate less pesticides which, in turn, mean less pesticide residues ingested by the very humans you say you are concerned for.

Ffs, I had to go back to try and find where I was implying all this.

Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies

Toxic pesticides which are implanted into genetically modified food crops have lodged in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies, research shows.

Traces of the toxin were found 93 per cent of the pregnant mothers and in 80 per cent of the umbilical cords.

The findings appear to contradict the GM industry’s long-standing claim that any potentially harmful chemicals added to crops would pass safely through the body.

To date, most of the global research which has been used to demonstrate the safety of GM crops has been funded by the industry itself.

:rolleyes: I'm shocked.


GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs

Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies' justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.

In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997.

A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.

Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.

Ballantine wrote: »

GM food has nothing to do with obesity.

Hmm, how do you know?

RUCKING FETARD

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides

The companies have succeeded in marketing their crops to more than 15 million farmers, largely by heavy lobbying of governments, buying up local seed companies, and withdrawing conventional seeds from the market, the report claims. Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world's three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and intellectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report.


The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over 95% of the Indian cotton seed market and of massively pushing up prices. High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought to be behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.

It won't take an Apocalypse at all to have to crack open the Svalbard Seed Vault.

RUCKING FETARD

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/age/


All Cancers Excluding Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (C00-C97 Excl. C44) Average Number of New Cases per Year and Age-Specific Incidence Rates, UK, 2007-2009




Can't help but notice women of child bearing age higher there and slowly drop off.

Im sure its just a coibcidence.

Ballantine

two wheels good wrote: »

The claims for golden rice have been repeatedly exaggerated.

Please point out where I have made exaggerated claims.

two wheels good wrote: »

This is last thing poor farmers need - having to buy seed and probably pesticides every year.

I have no idea what "poor farmers" may or may not need, and I'll also not patronise them by telling them what I think they may or may not need, and leave it up to them to decide from the options available. (At a guess, the "last thing" they probably "need" is their children dying from Vitamin A deficiency).

two wheels good wrote: »

The inventor of golden rice may have declined royalties but there are still many patents associated with it . I wonder what plans for the patents or remuneration expectation the patent holders have.

Frankly, golden rice may well be an ideal PR story for big agri to extend it's control on food supply. I will continue to be very sceptical of claims by GM corporations

I agree that to be sceptical is the right position to take, but are you not confusing cynicism with scepticsim? Your post if full of innuendo and half truths, and seems to suggest you are against any GM foods in principle, although you don't put forward your arguments as to why that is.

Ballantine

Ballantine wrote: »

Are you saying its ok if it's science and carried out by individuals, but not if the science is carried out by corporations?

Whats wrong with corporations making profits? Is it all corporations you are against making profits, or just ones involved in scientific research into GM?

Judgement Day wrote: »

You're twisting my words. Of course corporations should be able to make money but at not at the cost of the greater good. Anyway it matters not

I don’t understand how asking you two questions to clarify your position can be viewed as twisting your words.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Stick around, you're well suited to this forum.

I have no idea what this means. Can you explain what you mean?

djpbarry

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Surprising comment coming from you...I thought it was a valid question, still do. How do you know?

Because there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Mobiles/wireless devices had been declared safe numerous times in last decade and now these...

Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules.

And now what? Tabloid journalism?

You’re telling me there’s a link between mobile phone use and brain tumours because one guy, who happened to be a heavy mobile-phone user, developed a tumour? Seriously?

How many heavy mobile phone users have not developed brain tumours? The overwhelming majority perhaps?

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Won't be surprised if I'm reading similar bout GM down the road...

I’m already reading plenty of sensationalist nonsense about GM, so I won’t be at all surprised if I see more in the future.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Ffs, I had to go back to try and find where I was implying all this.

Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies

Are you even reading these articles?

“It is not known what, if any, harm the chemicals might cause...”

I think you need to put down The Telegraph now.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Hmm, how do you know?

Because there is no evidence linking GM foods with obesity.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/age/


All Cancers Excluding Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (C00-C97 Excl. C44) Average Number of New Cases per Year and Age-Specific Incidence Rates, UK, 2007-2009
...
Can't help but notice women of child bearing age higher there and slowly drop off.

What are you talking about? Based on that plot, women of child-bearing age are extremely unlikely to be diagnosed with cancer.

two wheels good

Ballantine wrote: »

Please point out where I have made exaggerated claims.

I have no idea what "poor farmers" may or may not need, and I'll also not patronise them by telling them what I think they may or may not need, and leave it up to them to decide from the options available. (At a guess, the "last thing" they probably "need" is their children dying from Vitamin A deficiency).

I agree that to be sceptical is the right position to take, but are you not confusing cynicism with scepticsim? Your post if full of innuendo and half truths, and seems to suggest you are against any GM foods in principle, although you don't put forward your arguments as to why that is.

I wasn't referring to any of your claims re. golden rice just repeating what is readily available in reports\commentaries online. Do take a look.

I think it is self-evident that the ability to save seed is a vital resource for poor farmers.
If golden rice is to be offered to poor farmers with the terminator gene activated (i.e denying the ability to collect seeds) then that will be a very cynical approach by the GM corps.

As I mentioned in another earlier post I am not unbiased on the matter and I am sceptical\cynical\suspicious of the claims of the GM corp.

two wheels good

I want to add a point on "Generally Regarded as Safe" - a topic I remembered last night that's worth mentioning. It reveals the level of influence GM corps. had on govt. policy in the USA
I'd better offer a link to avoid accusations of innuendo and half-truths (is that a euphemism for lying?)

Extract from here but other references also available online.

"So GMOs could theoretically be unsafe to eat. What does science tell us about the matter? Unfortunately, not much. Back in 1992, before the first GM seed had been commercially planted, the FDA declared GM foods to be “generally regarded as safe” — despite a complete absence of rigorous testing. And that meant that safety testing is completely unnecessary if, say, Monsanto wants to bring a novel crop to market. In a peer-reviewed 2004 paper [PDF] — which remains an extremely useful primer on regulation of GM crops — William Freese and David Shubert show that the FDA made the “generally regarded as safe” decision over the objections of several agency scientists, who saw significant potential for harm. Moreover, when the agency rubber-stamps the introduction of a GM crop into the food supply, it does so using extremely non-committal language. "

It's worth reading the complete article.

Oh, and then there's the saga of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone. That's a GMO too. Not only did they successfully lobby to have that approved against strong opposition they even quashed any requirement for consumer label referring to it on milk labels. Can I really be blamed for any cynicism?

djpbarry

two wheels good wrote: »

In a peer-reviewed 2004 paper [PDF] — which remains an extremely useful primer on regulation of GM crops — William Freese and David Shubert show that the FDA made the “generally regarded as safe” decision over the objections of several agency scientists, who saw significant potential for harm.

Have those scientists since published their findings?

RUCKING FETARD

djpbarry wrote: »

Genetic modification is used extensively in scientific research, if that's what you mean. Cancer research, for example, would not be where it is today without GM technology.

Source?

djpbarry wrote: »

Because there is no evidence to suggest that it is.
And now what? Tabloid journalism?

I'm pretty sure every Article I linked to lists their source (I tried to find ones that did) so if you want to read the overly-long overly-complicated reports, look them up yourself. They'll just say the same thing. This "tabloid Dailymail rabble rabble" of yours is boring tiring pointless<-->pick one. I had two links for that but you chose to link to just the paper one to throw in your rabble.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re telling me there’s a link between mobile phone use and brain tumours because one guy, who happened to be a heavy mobile-phone user, developed a tumour? Seriously?

No, the Italian supreme court with evidence from Respected Oncologists and Neuroseurgeons is telling you that.

The possible Class Action from it tells you it's many (more than one) I assume you knew that...or you really have had your head in the dirt for a long time. Are You even reading these Articles??

djpbarry wrote: »

How many heavy mobile phone users have not developed brain tumours? The overwhelming majority perhaps?

Do you not know that Tumours due to radiation may not appear for 15 years, very difficult to connect back and that in 4 to 5% of Cancer patients (10,000 of thousands in the US alone) the primary tumor is never found so even a bowel/liver/whatever cancer could be a result of a metastasise from a brain tumour caused from cell phones.

Cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP), look it up.

And actually, it's irrelevant how many have not developed it, once some have, it's a problem.

djpbarry wrote: »

“It is not known what, if any, harm the chemicals might cause...”

I can only take from this that you think pesticides running through your body are no harm because you never read/were told otherwise? OK then.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think you need to put down The Telegraph now.

As above.

djpbarry wrote: »

Because there is no evidence linking GM foods with obesity.

Well you see that's the thing, their is

http://www.globalresearch.ca/does-genetically-modified-gm-food-increase-the-incidence-of-obesity/29869

You seriously never wondered why they have such high BMI over there? People need to open their eyes and look at all the knock on effects of this.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m already reading plenty of sensationalist nonsense about GM, so I won’t be at all surprised if I see more in the future.

Open your eyes.

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you even reading these articles?

One of us is.

djpbarry wrote: »

What are you talking about? Based on that plot, women of child-bearing age are extremely unlikely to be diagnosed with cancer.

But alot more likely than men in that group...why? Can you reply without the smart arse undertones?

djpbarry wrote: »

Have those scientists since published their findings?

I don't know. I may check, Industry backed bodies making their life miserable as a result is a good deterrent.

Oregano_State

djpbarry wrote: »

Genetic modification is used extensively in scientific research, if that's what you mean. Cancer research, for example, would not be where it is today without GM technology.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Source?

@Rucking Fetard, if you didn't already know that this was the case then you should have read up on it instead of displaying your ignorance of the topic you're attempting to discuss for all to see.

GM is used extensively in scientific research of many kinds, as well as in the pharmaceutical industry to produce things like vaccines, for example. AFAIK (my area is chemistry so I'm not an expert, but this is my understanding of it), most vaccines are produced by implanting a gene into a host cell's DNA which is then is expressed, and causes the cell to produce the protein (antibody) you want in the vaccine.

The Chinese Hamster Ovary cell line is used frequently for this.

It's far too easy to be over sceptical of genuine scientific research if you don't understand what is actually going on. I can't say for certain that GM foods are perfectly safe, but the science behind what much of the nay-sayers put out is not robust, from what I've seen.

Equally, I'm not beyond believing that over-use of mobile phones could cause cancer, but I'd need more than a newspaper article to convince me.

djpbarry

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Source?

Source for what? That GM is used extensively in scientific research? Well, take molecular cloning for example, a standard technique in biology labs - that's a form of genetic modification.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

No, the Italian supreme court with evidence from Respected Oncologists and Neuroseurgeons is telling you that.

And where is the scientific evidence in support of their decision? I’ll give you a clue – there is none:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.html

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

And actually, it's irrelevant how many have not developed it...

Scientifically speaking, it’s highly relevant. Hypothetical experiment: If 1,000 people use a mobile phone for 6 hours per day for 20 years and only one of them develops a tumour, that’s not a terribly convincing case for “mobile phones cause cancer”, is it? Especially if we had a second group of 1,000 people, none of whom were using mobile phones, and one of them developed a tumour too.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

I can only take from this that you think pesticides running through your body are no harm because you never read/were told otherwise?

Pretty much. I don’t know about you, but I tend to base my opinions on evidence.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Well you see that's the thing, their is

http://www.globalresearch.ca/does-genetically-modified-gm-food-increase-the-incidence-of-obesity/29869

The paper on which that article is supposedly based does not even mention the word “obesity”:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.pdf

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

You seriously never wondered why they have such high BMI over there?

If someone is overweight, I’d bet my house that it’s a result of them eating too much and exercising too little.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

But alot more likely than men in that group...why?

You want to know what I conclude from the graph? Women are more likely to present for cancer screening earlier in their lives than men.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

I don't know. I may check, Industry backed bodies making their life miserable as a result is a good deterrent.

So that’s a ‘no’ then?

RUCKING FETARD

Oregano_State wrote: »

@Rucking Fetard, if you didn't already know that this was the case then you should have read up on it instead of displaying your ignorance of the topic you're attempting to discuss for all to see.

Have to list sources OS, thanks for this ^^^.:cool:

djpbarry wrote: »

And where is the scientific evidence in support of their decision? I’ll give you a clue – there is none:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.html

This is 30 months old. Part funded by mobile phone companys.

Theirs actually a video about it because it's so flawed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urIjObLVlKE

djpbarry wrote: »

The paper on which that article is supposedly based does not even mention the word “obesity”:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.pdf

Crude and relative liver weights are also affected at the end of the maximal (33%) GM maize feeding level as well as that of the heart which for corresponding parameters to a comparable extent, showed up to an 11% weight increase.
***
Additional statistically significant differences include … higher … overall body (3.7%) weight …
***
Several parameters indicate increases in circulating glucose and triglyceride levels, with liver function parameters disrupted together with a slight increase in total body weight. This physiological state is indicative of a pre-diabetic profile.
***
Our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal [i.e. kidney and liver] toxicity.
***
This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [Remember that some GM crops are engineered to have the plants produce their own pesticides, some pesticides can cause obesity, and the pesticides are not magically destroyed before making it into our bloodstream]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.

zenno

Scientists Under Attack: Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money is a 60 minute, award winning film by Bertram Verhaag about GMOs and the need for the independence of science.

Nearly 95% of genetic engineering research is paid for and controlled by international corporations such as Monsanto. This film exposes how these globalist companies manipulate and suppress scientific research to hide the dangers of genetically altered plants and animals.

Using stunning visuals filmed on three continents, veteran German filmmaker Bertram Verhaag tracks the fate of two scientists at the hands of a multi-billion dollar industry that is desperate to hide the dangers of their genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

When scientist Arpad Pusztai reported that genetically modified (GM) foods caused serious health problems in rats, he was a hero at his prestigious UK institute--for two days. But after two phone calls (apparently) from the Prime Minister's office, he was fired, gagged and mercilessly attacked.

When UC Berkeley professor Ignacio Chapela discovered GM corn contamination in Mexico, he too faced a firestorm of distortion and denial that left him struggling to salvage his career.

Find out how the biotech industry "engineers" the truth and what they are trying to hide from you. Their stories not only illustrate the danger of corporate control of scientific research, but also the serious risks of the new generation of gene-spliced food and crops.

EDIT: this is the full version. For anyone that watched this already the end was missing as i only realized this now so this one is the full version, sorry about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvf46v_B3Q

djpbarry

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

This is 30 months old.

Oh I'm sorry - I didn't realise science had an expiry date.

You might be interested to know that the study on which the Italian courts based their decision is several years older.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Theirs actually a video about it because it's so flawed.

I'm pretty sure I could find a video on YouTube about pretty much anything if I searched long enough.

zenno wrote: »

When scientist Arpad Pusztai reported that genetically modified (GM) foods caused serious health problems in rats, he was a hero at his prestigious UK institute...

That's not at all how I remember it.

Oregano_State

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Have to list sources OS, thanks for this ^^^.:cool:

It's not my job to educate you. It is your choice to continue to produce opinions on subjects you don't understand very well.

Also, that video is silly.

RUCKING FETARD

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry - I didn't realise science had an expiry date.

You might be interested to know that the study on which the Italian courts based their decision is several years older.

Expiry date? Sure it does.

When it's a flawed Industry funded study...("skewed" to use the words from your own link), I'm not sure it was ever in date.

Data from Interphone study (your link) was gathered between 1999-2004.

The Italian one was 2005-2009, "several years" newer in fact and Independent.

And both are older than the one linked earlier and all (even your cellphone funded one) raise concerns about length of time spent using wireless devices, especially for kids.

Sooo, safer than having pesticides running through your body?
See if you can find the word "cancer".

djpbarry wrote: »

That's not at all how I remember it.

OOh cryptic, Tell me more.

two wheels good wrote: »

I want to add a point on "Generally Regarded as Safe" - a topic I remembered last night that's worth mentioning. It reveals the level of influence GM corps. had on govt. policy in the USA
I'd better offer a link to avoid accusations of innuendo and half-truths (is that a euphemism for lying?)

Extract from here but other references also available online.

"So GMOs could theoretically be unsafe to eat. What does science tell us about the matter? Unfortunately, not much. Back in 1992, before the first GM seed had been commercially planted, the FDA declared GM foods to be “generally regarded as safe” — despite a complete absence of rigorous testing. And that meant that safety testing is completely unnecessary if, say, Monsanto wants to bring a novel crop to market. In a peer-reviewed 2004 paper [PDF] — which remains an extremely useful primer on regulation of GM crops — William Freese and David Shubert show that the FDA made the “generally regarded as safe” decision over the objections of several agency scientists, who saw significant potential for harm. Moreover, when the agency rubber-stamps the introduction of a GM crop into the food supply, it does so using extremely non-committal language. "

It's worth reading the complete article.

Oh, and then there's the saga of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone. That's a GMO too. Not only did they successfully lobby to have that approved against strong opposition they even quashed any requirement for consumer label referring to it on milk labels. Can I really be blamed for any cynicism?

Only skimmed it but good/depressing read,

This supposition is strengthened by reports concerning independent
researchers who have been denied GE crop material by companies, or whose access to such material is strictly conditioned (Dalton 2002). Thus, the validity of a claim that GE crop X is safe depends almost
exclusively upon the quality of both the relevant corporate science and the regulatory approval process.

Here, we will undertake a science-based critique of corporate scientific practices and the US regulatory
system with respect to GE foods,

Regulation of genetically engineered foods is divided among three federal agencies. The breakdown of
regulatory responsibility is as follows:
* The US Department of Agriculture oversees GE crop field trials and is responsible for deregulating
(i.e. permitting the unregulated cultivation and sale of) GE crops.
* The Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction over the pesticides in GE pesticidal plants, and
has joint responsibility with the Food and Drug Administration for selectable marker genes and
proteins used in crop development; and
* The Food and Drug Administration conducts voluntary consultations on other aspects of GE foods
with those companies that choose to consult with it.

However, USDA’s recent admission that there have been 115 compliance
infractions by GE crop field trial operators raises serious doubts as to the efficacy of its regulation (USDA
Compliance 2003). Two contamination episodes involving field trials of biopharmaceutical corn in the
fall of 2002 highlight the inadequacy of USDA’s oversight in this regard (Ferber 2003).





However, the EPA has failed to establish data requirements specific to plant
pesticides (EPA PIP, 2001). In the meantime, the Agency has referred developers of GE pesticideproducing
crops to a nearly decade-old guidance (EPA Statement of Policy 1994). This Statement of
Policy devotes just 4 short paragraphs to testing for human health effects. The Agency recommends only
that companies conduct short-term oral toxicity tests in rodents and in vitro digestibility tests on the plant
pesticide, without any guidance on or specification of test conditions.





Food additives must
undergo extensive pre-market safety testing, including long-term animal studies, unless they are deemed
to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). The FDA has left it up to the biotech industry to decide
whether or not a transgenic protein is GRAS, and so exempt from testing (FDA Policy, 1992).

This blanket GRAS exemption is based on the notion of “substantial equivalence” – the strong, a priori
presumption that GE crops are largely the same as their conventional counterparts.

FDA scientists at the
Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and the Division of Contaminants Chemistry called for
mandatory review,

Administrative superiors at the FDA and the White House apparently did not heed these concerns,
resulting in today’s voluntary consultation process.

The review process outlined above makes it clear that, contrary to popular belief, the FDA has not
formally approved a single GE crop as safe for human consumption.





SURROGATE PROTEINS
Biotechnology companies rarely test the transgenic protein actually produced in their engineered crops.
Instead, for testing purposes they make use of a bacterially generated surrogate protein that may differ in
important respects from the plant-produced one. The same genetic construct used to transform the plant
is expressed in bacteria (usually E. coli), and the surrogate transgenic protein is then extracted from the
bacteria. This surrogate protein is then employed for all subsequent testing, such as short-term animal
feeding studies and allergenicity assessments. This is, however, a serious mistake in testing paradigms,
since plants and bacteria are very likely to produce different proteins even when transformed with the
7
same gene (for discussion, see Schubert, 2002).

You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

Oregano_State wrote: »

It's not my job to educate you. It is your choice to continue to produce opinions on subjects you don't understand very well.

Never asked you to, read the charter before you post again maybe.

Oregano_State wrote: »

Also, that video is silly.

why?

djpbarry

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Never asked you to, read the charter before you post again maybe.

[MOD] Less of the back-seat modding please. [/MOD]

djpbarry

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Expiry date? Sure it does.

No, it doesn’t.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

When it's a flawed Industry funded study...("skewed" to use the words from your own link), I'm not sure it was ever in date.

Care to point out some of these flaws?

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

The Italian one was 2005-2009, "several years" newer in fact and Independent.

Define “independent”.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Sooo, safer than having pesticides running through your body?
See if you can find the word "cancer".

I’ve no idea what you’re trying to draw my attention to here.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

OOh cryptic, Tell me more.

He wasn’t branded a hero by any stretch. He was immediately pulled from any more media appearances by the institute director.

RUCKING FETARD

djpbarry wrote: »

He was immediately pulled from any more media appearances by the institute director.

http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2002/10jm-pusztai.html

He was dismissed for incompetence as part of a disinformation campaign by the influential pro-GM lobby, which was quick to trade the longstanding reputation of a top-level scientist (with a brilliant 36-year career) for continued public ignorance of the potential dangers of GM foods and GM research. They did this by portraying Pusztai as a doddery old fool who had made a mistake with his research by using potatoes, not modified with the non-toxic snowdrop lectin, but with the very toxic Concanavalin A (Con A) lectin. Pusztai's results, therefore, would imply nothing about the safety of genetic engineering, only his own incompetance, which would justify him being "retired".


This smear campaign, led not only by companies like Monsanto but also the director of the Rowett Research Institute himself, Professor Philip James, was effective. Pusztai was discredited and ridiculed by government scientists and newspapers alike, bringing an ignoble end to an illustrious scientific career. And because he was still under contract with the institute, he was effectively gagged and thus prevented from defending himself. The two-faced James would say publicly, "I am desperate to protect him [Pusztai]" whilst privately threatening him with court action if he spoke to the press.


In the end, a scientific audit committee vindicated Pusztai's work — it confirmed that he had been working with the snowdrop lectin and not the toxic Con A lectin, although it stopped short at agreeing with Pusztai's conclusions. (Quite what other conclusions can be drawn from Pusztai's research is a complete mystery! In fact, the committee didn't make a single recommendation on how he could have improved his experimentation, except to nebulously state that it could have been better designed.) Finally, in February 1999, a 20-member international panel of scientists publicly went on record to support Pusztai's research. But by this time it was too late. The disinformation campaign left enough lingering doubts in the public's mind to dilute the biting implications of Pusztai's ground-breaking research.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5405/1094







The new PCB: Monsanto's Roundup weed killer turning up in air, rain and rivers

djpbarry

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2002/10jm-pusztai.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5405/1094

The new PCB: Monsanto's Roundup weed killer turning up in air, rain and rivers

What's your point?

two wheels good

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

Thanks, very interesting - and worrying - article. More detail on the earlier points re. "Generally Regarded As Safe" and bovine growth hormone.

It also details another revolving door between big corporations and government:

"[Michael Taylor] had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist. This month [June 2009] Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?
While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply."

shedweller

I read about that lad alright. Am i still naieve for being suspicious? Honestly, some people here on boards must be solicitors!!

Vojera

I don't really have an opinion on Monsanto and Irish farmers (I really don't have enough information to form one), but I used to work with GM plants (not intended to be released into the open, but for glasshouse production of recombinant protein, and not a food crop) and I noticed that a lot of the conferences I attended were sponsored by Monsanto or Syngenta or the likes. I always wondered if researchers came up with some anti-GM crop research, would they be allowed to present their findings.

I suppose that really wouldn't happen anyway because 1) it's really hard to get grants these days and no scientist wants to do research that could potentially put themselves out of a job by showing GM to be unsafe, and 2) no one gives money to do research for research's sake anymore. If you apply to the likes of the HRB or SFI, it's all about having some sort of medical or commercial application of what you're applying for. It's REALLY hard to get money for proof of concept experiments; it's all about focussing on getting a return on an investment (however hypothetical).

As you can imagine from my background, I'm not anti-GM but I am very pro-GM-control. I think it's easier than we (as scientists) ever realised to have escapes into the wild type population (for example, plastid transformation was lorded over nuclear tranformation as being 100% safe because the transgenes could not be passed on in pollen, but recent papers by Pal Maliga of Rutgers University - the man considered as the "father" of plastid transformation in higher plants - show that this is not the case, but it took around 15 years from the first use of the technology before this was discovered).

Pharma companies take 10-20 years to bring a drug to market. GM recombinant proteins will undergo the same rigorous testing. The way I see it, GM food crops should be the same.

SURROGATE PROTEINS
Biotechnology companies rarely test the transgenic protein actually produced in their engineered crops.
Instead, for testing purposes they make use of a bacterially generated surrogate protein that may differ in
important respects from the plant-produced one. The same genetic construct used to transform the plant
is expressed in bacteria (usually E. coli), and the surrogate transgenic protein is then extracted from the
bacteria. This surrogate protein is then employed for all subsequent testing, such as short-term animal
feeding studies and allergenicity assessments. This is, however, a serious mistake in testing paradigms,
since plants and bacteria are very likely to produce different proteins even when transformed with the
same gene (for discussion, see Schubert, 2002).

This part isn't really true any more. In fact, a LOT of focus over the last ten years has gone into looking at protein extraction methods for various plant species. The fact is, it's really easy to extract protein (even specific ones) from bacterial cultures. There are TONNES of protocols and it's easy to scale the process up to get LOTS of protein (you need a lot to do all your analysis). It's significantly harder to extract specific proteins from plant cells. There are a lot of problems wrt removing the cell wall, and that's before you consider that some proteins are pretty "sticky" (i.e. they like to latch onto membranes and organelles) and tough to get out. Then you also have the issue that it's a lot harder to scale up the amount of plant tissue you have available to you. For bacteria you can grow your cultures overnight and have a significant amount to work with, but for plants you may have to wait two months for them to have sufficient biomass, and you also have to take into account that glasshouse and tissue culture space in research facilities is precious; there simply isn't space to grow as many plants as you want. So this point is more from a practicality point of view, rather than companies being too lazy or evil to test with the correct protein and it's something that is improving every year. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but often, especially ten years ago, it simply wasn't possible to get enough protein out of plants to test with.

djpbarry

Vojera wrote: »

I suppose that really wouldn't happen anyway because 1) it's really hard to get grants these days and no scientist wants to do research that could potentially put themselves out of a job by showing GM to be unsafe...

It's extremely unlikely that anyone is going to show that all GM foods are unsafe.

Vojera

djpbarry wrote: »

It's extremely unlikely that anyone is going to show that all GM foods are unsafe.

Such an experiment could never take place, there are too many permutations and new crops being developed. But one GM-isn't-safe result would have a wide impact on public perception.

djpbarry

Vojera wrote: »

But one GM-isn't-safe result would have a wide impact on public perception.

Sure - we've seen that already:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825

But we see knee-jerk reactions to lots of things, be they GM crops, nuclear power or drug side-effects. I don’t think it’s correct to say that this dictates who gets science funding and who doesn’t.

The point to all this, as you allude to, is there is a difference between the scientific fundamentals and how the technology is put into practice in industry – being critical of the latter does not necessitate being opposed to the former.