It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SCI/TECH: Genetically Modified Foods: Unborn Babies at Risk?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:36 PM
New research, slated for publication by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, finds that women who eat genetically modified foods during pregnancy may be placing their unborn children at significant risk. The research joins a litany of recent studies that suggest consumption of genetically modified foods might be more dangerous than previously thought. Despite these, and other similar findings, US Government support for genetically modified foods remains strong.
Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.

The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.

The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This is a subject I believe does not get enough attention in the United States.

About 40 genetically modified (GM) crops appear in a variety of food products now available on the U.S. market.


And, yet, it is clear that GM food is being linked to all kinds of problems:

GM Contamination Accelerating: No Co-Existence Possible

GM soya 'miracle' turns sour in Argentina

GM crops created superweed, say scientists

US Foodborne Illnesses Up Two to Ten Fold

Health Concerns.

What makes me particularly angry is that much of the risks are being actively minimized:

And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.


Secret report, indeed....

You might be interested in this ATS link on Monsanto:

Millions against MONSANTO !

Within that link, is another link to the Organic Consumers Association.

Look at what they managed to point out:

Monsanto's Government Ties

A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

It would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. Take a look:

Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.

The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and John Ashcroft (Head of the Department of Homeland Security). (Source: Dairy Education Board)

Do you get any "warm" and "fuzzies" about that?

I don't.

And, of course, this should be no surprise:

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.



How reckless can they be???

A final article worth reading:

Ten years of genetically modified crops

*I'm going to go chew on some cardboard for awhile...*

[edit on 8-1-2006 by loam]

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:46 PM
Excellent research!

I need to follow up the links and read more - most of the information I've seen to date really minimizes the potential risks. Always a dead giveaway when there haven't been any long term studies, or studies that assessed interractions.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:50 PM
I agree that this does not get enough attention, and not only in the USA but world wide even.
Why on Earth are people so happy to consume GM food is beyond me, let alone pregnant women. But then again I still see women smoking and drinking whilst heavily pregnant ... :shk:

I shall look at those links you posted in more detail after work

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:46 PM

I appreciate your comments.

Originally posted by ImJaded

Why on Earth are people so happy to consume GM food is beyond me, let alone pregnant women. But then again I still see women smoking and drinking whilst heavily pregnant ...

The problem is that GM products are not labeled as such. You are consuming them without your specific knowledge!

It has already been in our food supply for some time.

Read this article to get a taste (no pun intended) :

Several countries dominate global GMO leader board

Even I am stunned by how quickly that happened...and I have been following this story for awhile.

I find all of it very alarming. :shk:

Think about it.

How quickly, and by how much, can you change what a species consumes before the biology of that species reacts negatively to the change?

We often forget it, but man **IS** in symbiosis with his environment. We **ARE** part of its ecology.

We have a direct relationship to everything from the microbes in our gut to the living organisms we consume. We biologically developed in a specific manner in consequence of those relationships...

I assume that took some time!

So, how quickly can we reasonably expect our bodies to adjust to such radical changes (at the biological level) in the food we consume?

Are we biologically that hardy?


( *I sense a cockroach joke here somewhere* )

[edit on 8-1-2006 by loam]

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:23 PM
I am no great fan of GM products, yet I feel this is just another agenda by the earth huggers/environmentalists if you will against Monsanto.

It is for that reason; I want to see more studies before I condemn GM products just because they say it is bad.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:27 PM
Wouldn't you rather have that done before you eat the stuff?????

Is it an "earth huggers/environmentalists" agenda to want to know that the food I feed my family is safe?

[edit on 8-1-2006 by loam]

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:35 PM
well unless we set population controls soon we will have no choice but to use gm foods or starve.....

gm foods probably saved over a billion lives in asia alone, barely any study on gm foods have shown adverse effect on humans, this gm fear is baseless and adverse effects have been proven minimal.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by namehere]

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:37 PM
I tell you what I don't want them and I get my products from organic stores as much as I can.

And yes the fruits are not advertised as been GM because back in the late 80s and early 90s they started to put labels on them and they didn't do good, people didn't like the label.

So they can keep their enhanced products.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:39 PM
I'm a earth-hugger, and I don't think we need to call names. Trust me, people will get all mad and send nasty u2u's and complaints and stuff!

Seriously, be kind, people.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:44 PM
marg why? the name? its been proven safe and its no different than the natural genetic modification thats been going on for tens of thousands of years, its just more efficent.

infact the engineers learned many of their methods from the native farmers in south american tribes, so its actually almost exactly the same method.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by namehere]

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:48 PM

Do you think we are that biologically efficient?

[edit on 8-1-2006 by loam]

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:51 PM
loam, using such methods have been more efficent than nature for over 60,000 years.

im talkin crops by the way.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by namehere]

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:52 PM
Also proven safe, the short list:





posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:52 PM

Because I am one of those old believers that what is given to us from nature should stay in nature.

It's my personal opinion.

I grew up in an Island everything I ate from childhood to part of my adult life was grown and raise locally in my parents and grandparents backyard.

I feel that the food was better tasting and of better quality.

As an adult women now with all the problems facing the adult population in America with everyday foods I will like to keep my diet clean and free from anything that is not natural.

Just a personal choice and one that my children share with me.

Natural is better at least for me.

That doesn't meant that I will condemn anybody that wants to eat something else.

That is their personal choice.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:54 PM

So what. Do you think our bodies have changed accordingly to accommodate such stuff??? If so, how?

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:56 PM
Namehere -

Geneticists copied a natural process without understanding it in its entirety. They figured out a few cheats and now think they can win the game. But the proofs are in that the game isn't a game, and the rules are waaayyyy more complicated than anybody figured. Surprise surprise.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:57 PM
marg cross pollination between the best producing crops is all this is, it is natural marg, corn is a good example of gm foods, it took thousands of years but man made it what it is now.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:59 PM

Excuse me?

We're talking gene insertions, cross species AND cross kingdom. Like fish genes in tomato plants.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:01 PM
Yes namehere I know the history of corn and how it was made the size it is, but that is something that do not require chemicals involve in the process or tampering with the genetical make over of it in laboratories.

Back in the day it was not labs just trial and error.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:04 PM

the key is....."thousands of years"

GM has been introduced in the last ten. Moreover, it is to the degree soficrow mentions- "cross species AND cross kingdom."

Do you not see the connection that what we eat is a product of our evolution? Change it too quickly or too drastically, and it may end up killing you.

Most species feed on a variety of other species as this allows them to survive fluctuations in the food species populations. It is also an evolutionary flexibility which allows species to adapt better to an ever changing world. The exceptions are special animals which have very restricted feeding habits. Some examples of this are: Three-toed Sloth which feeds on only 2 species of tree (Cecropia palmata and Spondias lutea); Koala Bears which feed on only a few species of Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus punctata, E. microcorys, E. melliodora and E. vastrata); the Giant Panda which feeds almost exclusively on Bamboo; American Anteaters, Aardvarks and Australian Banded Anteaters all of which exist only on ants and termites.


How do you think those specialized diets evolved???? Do you think the human species is exempt from such rules???

[edit on 8-1-2006 by loam]

<<   2  3 >>

log in