Monsanto Wins World Food Prize

steddyeddy

Genetic modification food and Monsanto don't go hand in hand. You can be in favor of GM foods and not in favor of Monsanto's policies. In short don't blame the scientists blame the lawyers and decision makers within Monsanto.

Cookie_Monster

All this talk of wheat and bees, boring

This thread needs more SPIDER GOATS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357

Hersheys

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

New Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

If Monsanto can purchase their way out of the rat tumor saga surely they will do the same with this one. They more than likely have their counter researchers working on overtime.

"Glyphosate is a major component of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate was manufactured by Monsanto and is one of the most widely used herbicides around the world. A number of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate have shed light on its effects within the human body. It’s responsible for triggering health problems like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease".

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/10/new-study-links-monsantos-roundup-to-autism-parkinsons-and-alzheimers/

Oh my god that webpage is a hoot.

If you've a proper scientific reference from a reputable, peer reviewed journal, I will read it. But forgive me if I find it hard to accept the words of a computer scientist who can't proof read websites

Doing a quick lit review on glyphosate does show toxicity. But under the right conditions water is toxic. It's all about how the data is presented. Looking at the ic50 values for glyphosate you're looking at a very high amount needed to directly enter the blood stream on a continuous basis for about 5 years. The levels needed to induce toxicity would not be absorbed by the body as its present in trace quantities. For toxicity you're looking at GRAMS of the stuff to be ingested per kilo of body weight per day. You would want to be drinking the stuff. Even then there are only a handful of reported suicides linked to glyphosate consumption. The stuff just isn't toxic in the levels available.

I can't like/copy articles as they're behind the pay wall.

It's sensationalist crap like that website that gets science a bad name.

NuckingFacker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Obesity is a result of increased access to food. The same can be said for heart disease and diabetes. Food allergies and intolerance have been around for thousands of years. For example before humans began farming thousands of years ago most of u were intolerant to the sugar lactose.

It's not. It's a result of the ingredients used in food. Fructose and glucose, trans-fats and modified starches, Corn syrup and all the other non-food foods that are quietly jammed into the "food" our children consume.

The human body can't cope with these, but they are cheap, plentiful and readily available. Best of all, they = profit. Visit a modern food factory, there's not a single ingredient you would willingly consume - you would be sick at the though. Bound together with emulsifiers, binding agents, flavourings and artificial, toxic sweeteners, they become Mmmmm.

We are poisoning our kids, simple as. How f**king stupid is it to allow our own kids be poisoned? Especially as it is just a way of increasing profits for a company. Dumb. But then we have a good history of dumb, as a species.

Hersheys

NuckingFacker wrote: »

It's not. It's a result of the ingredients used in food. Fructose and glucose, trans-fats and modified starches, Corn syrup and all the other non-food foods that are quietly jammed into the "food" our children consume.

The human body can't cope with these, but they are cheap, plentiful and readily available. Best of all, they = profit. Visit a modern food factory, there's not a single ingredient you would willingly consume - you would be sick at the though. Bound together with emulsifiers, binding agents, flavourings and artificial, toxic sweeteners, they become Mmmmm.

We are poisoning our kids, simple as. How f**king stupid is it to allow our own kids be poisoned? Especially as it is just a way of increasing profits for a company. Dumb. But then we have a good history of dumb, as a species.

Fructose and glucose = sucrose = sugar = natural substance in many foods

Glucose + glucose = starch = flour

Glucose + glucose = cellulose = sugar = in every single vegetable and most fruits

Trans-fats = naturally occurring in meat products, dairy products, oil...

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

clairefontaine

Hersheys wrote: »

Fructose and glucose = sucrose = sugar = natural substance in many foods

Glucose + glucose = starch = flour

Glucose + glucose = cellulose = sugar = in every single vegetable and most fruits

Trans-fats = naturally occurring in meat products, dairy products, oil...

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

Yes but the way they process and label corn based fructose is another kettle of fish. For example I have anaphylactic responses to corn syrup, but none to sugar or to corn itself. They are also dicking around with the labelling.

Read The Carnivore's Dillemna for more on the history of corn and corn sugars. And yes Monsanto is behind it.

NuckingFacker

Hersheys wrote: »

Fructose and glucose = sucrose = sugar = natural substance in many foods

Glucose + glucose = starch = flour

Glucose + glucose = cellulose = sugar = in every single vegetable and most fruits

Trans-fats = naturally occurring in meat products, dairy products, oil...

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

Utterly disengenuous post. It is proven that the human liver cannot cope with fructose - it converts it straight into fat. Blow smoke somwhere else. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense posted above. You must be trolling, right?

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

It's not. It's a result of the ingredients used in food. Fructose and glucose, trans-fats and modified starches, Corn syrup and all the other non-food foods that are quietly jammed into the "food" our children consume.

The human body can't cope with these, but they are cheap, plentiful and readily available. Best of all, they = profit. Visit a modern food factory, there's not a single ingredient you would willingly consume - you would be sick at the though. Bound together with emulsifiers, binding agents, flavourings and artificial, toxic sweeteners, they become Mmmmm.

We are poisoning our kids, simple as. How f**king stupid is it to allow our own kids be poisoned? Especially as it is just a way of increasing profits for a company. Dumb. But then we have a good history of dumb, as a species.

Well obesity is also a result of increased food but I agree with you on the processed food front. It has very little to do with gm crops however. In fact GM crops would likely but a lot healthier than the above ingredients.

Hersheys

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Utterly disengenuous post. It is proven that the human liver cannot cope with fructose - it converts it straight into fat. Blow smoke somwhere else. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense posted above. You must be trolling, right?

Where did I say fructose is good? Alls I said was that its natural. So is snake venom, nobody jumping to eat that.

What part is nonsense? Just for future reference so I don't "blow smoke" or "troll" with perfectly good facts? What part are you disputing?

Hersheys

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes but the way they process and label corn based fructose is another kettle of fish. For example I have anaphylactic responses to corn syrup, but none to sugar or to corn itself. They are also dicking around with the labelling.

Read The Carnivore's Dillemna for more on the history of corn and corn sugars. And yes Monsanto is behind it.

And for the record if you haven't seen my previous posts. I cannot ****ing stand Monsanto and do not agree with their products, ethos or "business".

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Utterly disengenuous post. It is proven that the human liver cannot cope with fructose - it converts it straight into fat. Blow smoke somwhere else. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense posted above. You must be trolling, right?

Sorry but I worked to hard in college memorizing biochemical pathways to let this one go. Yes the simple sugar glucose signals the start of Glycolysis, where glucose is broken down to pyruvate and this is the preferred molecule. However it is wrong to say that fructose is converted straight to fat. Fructose is converted to fructose-1-phosphate by the enzyme fructokinase.

Then the enzyme aldolase breaks this down to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. The glyceraldehyde is converted to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate by triokinase (a kinase is an enzyme that transfers a phosphorus group to another molecule).

This way fructose enters energy metabolism. The fatty acid synthesis pathway is a completely different pathway.

le sigh

IM0 wrote: »

what do you mean never gonna happen lol not in our life time but in a few hundred years or more the population will be 20 billion or so

nope

Hersheys wrote: »

Doing a quick lit review on glyphosate does show toxicity. But under the right conditions water is toxic. It's all about how the data is presented. Looking at the ic50 values for glyphosate you're looking at a very high amount needed to directly enter the blood stream on a continuous basis for about 5 years. The levels needed to induce toxicity would not be absorbed by the body as its present in trace quantities. For toxicity you're looking at GRAMS of the stuff to be ingested per kilo of body weight per day. You would want to be drinking the stuff. Even then there are only a handful of reported suicides linked to glyphosate consumption. The stuff just isn't toxic in the levels available.

Roundup and birth defects

Is the public being kept in the dark?

Hersheys wrote: »

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well obesity is also a result of increased food but I agree with you on the processed food front. It has very little to do with gm crops however. In fact GM crops would likely but a lot healthier than the above ingredients.

Does Genetically Modified (GM) Food Increase the Incidence of Obesity?

Hersheys

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but I worked to hard in college memorizing biochemical pathways to let this one go. Yes the simple sugar glucose signals the start of Glycolysis, where glucose is broken down to pyruvate and this is the preferred molecule. However it is wrong to say that fructose is converted straight to fat. Fructose is converted to fructose-1-phosphate by the enzyme fructokinase.

Then the enzyme aldolase breaks this down to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. The glyceraldehyde is converted to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate by triokinase (a kinase is an enzyme that transfers a phosphorus group to another molecule).

This way fructose enters energy metabolism. The fatty acid synthesis pathway is a completely different pathway.

Thanked this even though it makes me cry as it brings back horrendous memories of learning off pathway that end up printed on lab walls anyway

Doing a project on the different metabolites present when cells metabolise fructose as the main carbon source instead of glucose. Very interesting results. Particularly when you throw LPS into the mix.

Back on topic. Science good. Monsanto bad.

NuckingFacker

If you have any "doubts" as to the effects of roundup, do a simple test - leave the lid of a container where one of your pets can lick it(do feckin not, btw, unless you really are an utter sadist). Observe the outcome.

Then have a think. That gets sprayed on cereal crops right before they are harvested, to kill the plant and allow an easier harvest. That cereal then gets incorporated into your food. Do the "pixies" remove the roundup? Or do you eat it? Mmmm. Lovely. Glyphosate-a-bix.

BTW, the next time someone you love suggests going outside in their shorts and T-shirt to "spray them unsightly weeds" around the house using a napsack or hand sprayer, if they really are someone you love, suggest they live with the weeds, or pull them weeds out by hand. If you really love that person.

steddyeddy

Le sigh genes code for proteins not simple sugars or fats. Are you referring to an increase in the enzymes involved with simple sugar storage in crops?

NuckingFacker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but I worked to hard in college memorizing biochemical pathways to let this one go. Yes the simple sugar glucose signals the start of Glycolysis, where glucose is broken down to pyruvate and this is the preferred molecule. However it is wrong to say that fructose is converted straight to fat. Fructose is converted to fructose-1-phosphate by the enzyme fructokinase.

Then the enzyme aldolase breaks this down to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. The glyceraldehyde is converted to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate by triokinase (a kinase is an enzyme that transfers a phosphorus group to another molecule).

This way fructose enters energy metabolism. The fatty acid synthesis pathway is a completely different pathway.

Yeah, I did biology till it came out my ears as well. What happens when the liver is incapable of dealing with the volume of fructose and fructokinase production is severly lagged? Fructose fcuks up your liver. we were built to eat apples, not barrels worth of apples fructose compressd into a single serving.

Hersheys

le sigh wrote: »

nope
Roundup and birth defects

Is the public being kept in the dark?





Does Genetically Modified (GM) Food Increase the Incidence of Obesity?

That first article linked is pretty interesting. The studies I looked at were toxicology based studies on rats so its interesting to see some other data on it. Again, have never said I agree with Monsanto or roundup, I just said that based on the evidence that I'd read I believed the original web page to be slightly misleading. I do think there are enough reputable scientists on each side of the debate that each can show data to back up their claims. Given the shady past of Monsanto I would err on the side of European based research (more regulation, research not funded by interested parties, less likely to get massaged data...) but I do think that more needs to be done.

Anyone got any roundup I can chuck on my cells & see what happens? For the craic like.

And I accept your second link but I remain skeptical but that's my opinion (which I hope I'm entitled to )

steddyeddy

Hersheys wrote: »

Thanked this even though it makes me cry as it brings back horrendous memories of learning off pathway that end up printed on lab walls anyway

Doing a project on the different metabolites present when cells metabolise fructose as the main carbon source instead of glucose. Very interesting results. Particularly when you throw LPS into the mix.

Back on topic. Science good. Monsanto bad.

Ha ha yes I had to look up glycolysis to be sure of the enzyme names in fairness. I did remember fructose enters the pathway somewhere though.

That sounds really interesting. You probably can't talk about the results yet but I would love to know more.

I'm working with nuclear magnetic resonance and I'm trying to elucidate a series of molecules involved with methylation of DNA. Apart from the methyltransferases that is.

Hersheys

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yeah, I did biology till it came out my ears as well. What happens when the liver is incapable of dealing with the volume of fructose and fructokinase production is severly lagged? Fructose fcuks up your liver. we were built to eat apples, not barrels worth of apples fructose compressd into a single serving.

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yeah, I did biology till it came out my ears as well. What happens when the liver is incapable of dealing with the volume of fructose and fructokinase production is severly lagged? Fructose fcuks up your liver. we were built to eat apples, not barrels worth of apples fructose compressd into a single serving.

Well the same thing that happens if other enzymes malfunction or are saturated with substrate. Most people have enzymes that can metabolise fructose.

NuckingFacker

Hersheys wrote: »

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

The GM industry feeds into the food industry. It is meeting a demand. Not a demand from people, a demand from factories.You cannot seperate them, they are systemic links in a process. More GN corn to make more Corn starch to make more cheap sweet tasting food to make more kids fat to make more money. There's a chain, every link is a part. It's a sh1t chain.

clairefontaine

Hersheys wrote: »

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

It's true, but at one point it was next to impossible to find bread that was fructose corn syrup in it. More available now as people are catching on.

NuckingFacker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well the same thing that happens if other enzymes malfunction or are saturated with substrate. Most people have enzymes that can metabolise fructose.

of course they do. But in naturally occuring volumes. You cant eat 200 apples, you'd puke. I can plop 200 apples worth of fructose into a single serving of whatever you fancy - sure a few spoonfuls of "natural, healthy sweetener" will do the job nicely for me. That's the problem with scientists, they're so in love with science they tend to ignore consequences. Consequences are for doctors, and parents.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

How on *earth* do you propose that Genetically Modified food is separate from the "food industry"? And given the money driven media blitz in support of gm foods, do you really believe "what's best for the people" is in any way a consideration?

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

How on *earth* do you propose that Genetically Modified food is separate from the "food industry"? And given the money driven media blitz in support of gm foods, do you really believe "what's best for the people" is in any way a consideration?

How is concentrating a naturally found sugar into a syrup genetically modifying the sugar?!

I don't know how many times I have to say it!! I don't do the whole GM foods thing. My interest in GM is in bacterial modification for the expression of bio active proteins.

The food industry is massive in Ireland and we survive without GM foods. So I do think its possible for the two to coexist.

blatantrereg

steddyeddy wrote: »

GM has prevented blindess and other diseases related to nutritional deficits for years. GM crops will also combat crops problems relayed too human causes such as them decline of the honey bee. Web needs GM crops and if Monsanto enhanced global crops production thats not a bad thing.

Saying that I would be against the total privatisation of crops production despite its benifits.

No. Monsanto are largely responsible for the decline in honey bees.

Monsanto crops are modified so that they can survive being sprayed with copious amounts of poison.

le sigh

NuckingFacker wrote: »

BTW, the next time someone you love suggests going outside in their shorts and T-shirt to "spray them unsightly weeds" around the house using a napsack or hand sprayer, if they really are someone you love, suggest they live with the weeds, or pull them weeds out by hand. If you really love that person.

I personally know of 2 people who ended up in A&E after doing this and even with these tails to recount to people about to do the same they'll still fcuking do it.

Don't waste your breath.

It's evolutions fault.

le sigh

Great little essay on obesity.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

How is concentrating a naturally found sugar into a syrup genetically modifying the sugar?!

I don't know how many times I have to say it!! I don't do the whole GM foods thing. My interest in GM is in bacterial modification for the expression of bio active proteins.

The food industry is massive in Ireland and we survive without GM foods. So I do think its possible for the two to coexist.

The point is that GM foods are not, and cannot be, divorced from the food industry. The industry created this technology and has a massive vested interest in seeing it succeed. That interest is not health, poverty, hunger, sustainability or the good of society: it is to inflate the cost of producing food, and to increase the profits of the food industry.

I understand you're a scientist in a semi-related field, so I'm not suggesting you're supporting Monsanto the company.

However there is always a danger with scientists that their interest in an intellectual challenge, and their focus on their own work leaves them terribly naive about the way other players work, and means they often fail to appreciate the long term implications of their work.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The point is that GM foods are not, and cannot be, divorced from the food industry. The industry created this technology and has a massive vested interest in seeing it succeed. That interest is not health, poverty, hunger, sustainability or the good of society: it is to inflate the cost of producing food, and to increase the profits of the food industry.

I understand you're a scientist in a semi-related field, so I'm not suggesting you're supporting Monsanto the company.

However there is always a danger with scientists that their interest in an intellectual challenge, and their focus on their own work leaves them terribly naive about the way other players work, and means they often fail to appreciate the long term implications of their work.

The GM industry created GM foods and the GM industry, from my experience, are the only ones who really have an interest in seeing it succeed. Not all science is GM, not all GM is science. They can co-exist independantly of each other.

And generalised sweeping statement there. Research is done by one person, one group, but it goes through a huge, rigourous process before it is ever published, all work is reviewed by at least 3 impartial reviewers who give their opinion on the work before it's allowed be common knowledge. There is nothing more grounding than a reviewer not liking your work - and it really does make you think about the long term implications of your work.