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.


Why GMOs Are Hazardous to Human Health and the Biosphere!

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:45 PM
Humans are animals and all animals are heteroprophs, meaning that they acquire nutrition directly or indirectly from another living organism. We call this source of nutrition food. As all other animals, humans use to hunt and gather in order to obtain their source of nutrition. This form of gathering food led to a nomadic lifestyle, but as languages developed and intelligence increased the species began to find new and efficient means of cultivation. Around 10,000 BC the Neolithic Revolution occurred; bringing the transition into agriculture with the developing domestication of plants and animals. This new concept swayed humans away from nomadic lifestyles to form settlements such as tribes and villages to what would eventually transform into towns, cities, states, nations and society as a whole.

As time unraveled humans started developing new agricultural methods such as farming, crop diversity, plant nutrition, pest control, and livestock. Somewhere along the way, humans learned the concept of selective breeding in which organisms with preferable characteristics were bred with each other to create an organism more beneficial to humans. This process has been used for thousands of years and is still used today. The discovery of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) in 1869 deciphered the encrypted blueprints for the genetic characteristics of all living organisms. Further development in the realms of agriculture, biology, technology, and science throughout the 20th century would eventually give a whole new meaning to the phrase “selective breeding.”

Prior to 1980, patents on life forms were not issued. However, the company General Electric had taken up a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court in order to copyright a Pseudomonas bacteria used to clean up oil spills. In a 5-4 decision the court extend patent laws to include “live human-made microorganisms,” paving the way for the era of Genetically Modified Organisms throughout the food supply. In 1982, the scientists of the U.S. chemical giant Monsanto became the first to genetically modify a plant cell and began conducting field tests of this new biotechnology five years later. With the breakthroughs in biology and technology, along with the ability to patent live organisms with altered genetics the people at the Monsanto Company saw an opportunity to capitalize on genetically modifying the food supply. Monsanto's Harvest of Fear

In 1994, the FDA approved the biogenetic company Calgene to commercially produce the first genetically modified organism approved for consumption, FlavrSavr tomatoes. In 1996 Monsanto bought ten major seed production companies, including Calgene, and began introducing genetically engineered foods into the free market. Monsanto began producing Round-Up Ready® wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, and rice throughout the late 1990s. Round-Up® is the marketing name of the potent herbicide glyphosate. Monsanto saw the opportunity to create a triangle scheme in which they would produce Round-Up Ready® seeds so that farmers could utilize glyphosate, which was deemed non-hazardous to humans by the FDA. The seeds were also marketed to farmers for their increased yields and lower maintenance. In the early 21st century the company began producing foods whose genetics were altered to be resistant to pesticide, herbicide, and increase oil levels, nutrients, and amino acids and has accomplished 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company.

Both Monsanto and the FDA claim that genetically engineered foods are just as safe as their original counterparts. GMOs were originally produced to create food crops that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto exclusively produced until the patent expired. Testing done by the FDA and Monsanto both claimed that glyphosate is only harmful towards plants and not animals. Glyphosate works by competitively inhibiting the enzyme 5-enol-pyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) to redirect an essential step in the aromatic amino acid biosynthetic pathway creating an overload in the photosynthesis process, thus killing the plant. This herbicide, Round-Up®, kills anything green that it comes in contact with so Monsanto needed to create plants that are genetically resistant to glyphosate in order to market it on a massive scale. The question then arises, how do scientists insert genes into plants so that they can resist a substance that would other wise kill it? Containment of Herbicide Resistance Through Genetic Engineering of the Chloropast Genome

The concept of biotechnology is nothing new to humans and has been used for thousands over years, such as using yeast to make bread rise and other forms such as fermenting beer and wine. But with the discovery of DNA and genetics, the world would see a new form of biotechnology called genetic engineering. In order to insert a new gene into an organism the gene must be taken and inserted into a cell. Cells of plants and animals naturally ward off outside genes and DNA from penetrating them, but bacteria and viruses naturally penetrate these cells. The scientists of Monsanto discovered a naturally occurring bacteria in soil that is immune to Round-Up®. They then took an E. Coli bacteria cell and combined it with the bacteria immune to glyphosate to create a desired gene. Since plant cells have a cell wall that prevents foreign DNA, scientists needed to find a way to insert the genes into the plant cells. A bacteria found in some soils called Agrobacterium, which creates tumors in plants, is used to taxi the new DNA into the plant cell. In order to “activate” the genes scientists used a “promoter” gene from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus along with an Antibiotic Marker gene to test the expression of the new gene.
Monsanto: Extinction

The Monsanto Chemical Works company, founded in 1901, was a chemical manufacturer and its first product, saccharine (which was linked bladder cancer in rodents in a study in 1970), was sold to Coca-Cola and is still used in multiple foods today. Throughout the 20th century, until the 1990s, Monsanto produced, amongst other things, the herbicide DDT, and Agent Orange (both founded to be highly carcinogenic and banned by the FDA) and PCBs (linked to cancer) which would become the center of large-scale environmental contaminations. In 1996 Monsanto purchased the biotechnology company Calgene, seed producing companies Euralis, Agracetus, Agripro, and Golden Harvest. In 1997 it spun-off its chemical and fiber productions into Solutia Inc. and purchased the seed companies Holden’s Foundation, Asgrow, Custom Farm and Stine Seed. In 2000 it merged with the Pharmacia Corporation and two years later was spun-off to create the “new” Monsanto Company. These series of mergers and spin-offs transformed Monsanto from an industrial chemical manufacturer into an international agriculture biotechnology corporation. In 2005 it purchased the Seminis Seed producers and in 2007 it purchased the Delta Pine Land Co.; today Monsanto is the largest seed manufacturer in the world. Companies Purchased by Monsanto

With a track record of environmental disregard of the manufacturing of toxic substances, people’s skepticism of GMO food is foundationally sound. But are GMO foods hazardous to health and the environment? The scientific environment of studies for GMOs by Monsanto and the FDA were distorted in order to provide evidence that supports genetic engineering in food. This type of scientific fraud has been a practice of Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency even caught scientists at Monsanto falsifying test results on the impacts of glyphosate on two occasions. While The FDA and Monsanto both claim that genetically modified food is perfectly safe for human consumption, independent studies by multiple scientists from around the world point to possibly large-scale ramifications to human health and the environment.


The genetically modified corn NK 603 has been modified to be resistant to multiple herbicides such as Round-Up®. Original lab testing on its effects on rats founded little to none ramifications towards health, but these were only tested for a small amount of time so the test period was extended to 90 days. The latter test results showed that ion concentrations are enhanced in male GM fed rats, increase in the weight of the liver, and an up to 11% increase in the weight of the heart. The studies showed that males are more susceptible to physiological changes than females.

The GM corm MON 810 is modified to synthesize Bt pesticides as well as to be resistant to external pesticides. Studies showed that 11/15 female rats suffered changes in blood cells, adrenal glands, and kidney weights, an increase in blood urea nitrogen and increased spleen weight. In male rates fed a diet consisting of 33% GM corn suffered disturbed parameters in the liver function and small diminution of serum albumin production. Again the studies showed different effects in the two sexes.

The third GM corn tested, MON 863 (also engineered for pesticides), resulted in serum glucose and triglyceride increases (up to 40%) in females and an overall 3.7% increase in body weight. Elevated creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and urine chloride excretion in females along with similar adverse effects from MON 810 and NK 603 noticed in males. These studies done by the Universities of Rouen and Caen in France concluded that while the health effects on mice differ depending on sex, dose and corn variety all pose potential health risks in the majority of tests subjects and induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. The different residues found in these varieties of GM corn/maize are not naturally integral in human/animal diets and their long term effects are unknown, however in only 90 days scientists noticed negative impacts on multiple organ functions.
A Comparison of the Effects of Three Gm Corn Varieties in Mammalian Health


Round-Up® resistant plants were the first to be developed for market production. The health effects of the active ingredient glyphosate have been the subject of scientific study for over 35 years, and glyphosate has been deemed environmentally safe. It is important to note that over 100 million pounds of Round-Up® are sprayed on U.S. farms each year. Monsanto insists that Round-UP® is completely safe when used as directed. Until recently the studies on Round-Up®’s adverse health effects have been focused on the active ingredient glyphosate rather than the other ingredients in the concoction.

In a study conducted in 2009, scientists decided to test the health effects of other ingredients in Round-UP®. One particular ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA), was showed to be more deadly than embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than Round-UP® itself. The research infers that Round-UP® can cause pregnancy complications such as lower abnormal fetal development, low birth weight or miscarriages due to interfering with hormone production. Other ingredients throughout multiple brands have been found to alter DNA and thus cause cancer. Glyphosate is considered a class E-Chemical by the EPA, meaning it doesn’t cause cancer in humans; Monsanto also supports these claims. However in May of 2009, Argentine scientists reported a high rate of birth defects and cancers in people living in the near-by vicinity of crop spraying. Weed-Wacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells

Also since ingredients in these potions are considered “trade secrets” companies aren’t legally obliged to disclose them, thus limiting studies that can be carried out on their effects. The ingredients are categorized as inert, meaning that they aren’t harmful to animals. A study in France tested four types of Round-Up® solutions concluding that glyphosate by itself is harmful to embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells but not as harmful as POEA. But whenever they are mixed together their damage capability is increased. The team concluded that the ingredients work together to “limit breathing of cells, stress them, and drive them towards suicide.” Monsanto countered the study saying that the scientific environment is nothing like what instances would occur in the real world. It is important to note that these studies were conducted with solutions that were 100,000 times diluted than the recommended dosage.

Another issue regarding Round-Up® is the fact that farmers who once used GM foods and glyphosate and stopped saw their soil to be infertile, some crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious. This is due to the effects that the ingredients in Round-Up® do to the soil, since it is meant to kill live organisms it renders the fertility of the soil to a lower level. Since additional genes are added to genetics of a plant, the plants have to focus less energy on producing nutrients to produce and activate the extra genes that were embedded in their genetic code. The possibility of certain GMOs carrying inactive traits of certain genes cross-breeding with each other activating these traits in future generations and possibly creating unforeseeable environmental consequences is of dire concern. Organic Consumers

There are other ramifications to the environment and health than toxicity of GM plants and their tangent toxins. Potential allergens related to food are also a concern to opponents of genetic engineering. For example, if a gene with a certain desirable trait from a source known to cause allergies in humans is inserted into foods the potential for increased allergies could possible increase. Even though this hypothesis has not been directly proven, in vitro evidence suggesting this has been discovered.

Another issue is decreased nutritional value of certain GM strains. Phytate is genetic compound found in seeds that inhibits the development of nutrients that can be absorbed by humans. A gene inserted with the intention to increase yield or herbicide and pesticide resistance could potentially increase the levels of phytate and lower the original nutrient levels of the finished product. Today Monsanto is developing a strain of soybeans that produces a tasteless oil that produces Omega-3s used to combat heart disease. This is the opposite of GM soybeans that are currently on the market that are proven to produce a lower level phytoestrogen compounds that combat hearth disease and cancer.

A major potential ramification of GM plants is antibiotic resistance. A large amount of GM plants are modified so they can be resistant to herbicides such as glyphosate and pesticides such as Bt. These Antibiotic/Selectable Markers, mentioned in paragraph six, are attached to the desirable gene to verify if the plant inherited the desirable gene. When the plant is grown in a solution including an antibiotic and lives it is then verified that the plant inherited the two genes. Certain scientists are concerned that bacteria living inside the stomach of humans can inherit the antibiotic marker from a GM plant before the DNA is digested creating a new bacteria resistant to medicine. Even though no one has scientifically observed bacteria inheriting antibiotic genes in the stomach the possibility is a concern and the FDA urges biogenetic companies to stop the practice of selectable markers. Harmful Effects of the Agent

Amongst these and other countless possible health and environmental consequences of GM foods is the effect GMOs will have in the biosphere and food chain once introduced into the environment. Unintentional cross-pollination is a consequence of introducing GMOs into the ecosystem on a large scale. These “tainted” plants could in fact cross-pollinate with organic plants carrying the altered genes with them. Since these genes are patented Monsanto is able to sue farms that have been found to include genetics that haven’t been sold to the farmer, even if it was due to natural pollination. There are means to stop this type of cross-pollination such as placing nets around large crops, but these are too expensive and unviable to do on a large scale. Monsanto is a major sponsor of the International Seed Vault, which is an “insurance” for the Earth if cataclysmic events were to take place, and is filling it with their genetically engineered seeds. If a global catastrophe was to happen and humans had to rebuild society, the seeds that would be used to do this wouldn’t be the original genetics that were found on Earth and which humans evolved with. Natural News

The spread of awareness of GMOs and their tangent herbicides and pesticides is not an issue of mainstream media since Monsanto is a big lobbyist of government and sponsor of multiple corporate attractions. Information regarding these sensitive topics are merely acknowledged by those who are interested rather than those whom it concerns. Monsanto executives share a revolving door with the federal government and the agencies that regulate environment, food, drugs, agriculture, and other aspects of biotechnology and its market.

To name a few of these people is merely scratching the surface of the power Monsanto holds over food regulation. The former FDA deputy commissioner for operations Michael Friedman became a Monsanto vice president in 1999. Michael Taylor helped develop acceptability of Bovine Growth Hormone (used to increase milk yield in cows, also linked to cancer) for Monsanto and is the Obama appointed “Food Czar.” Linda Fisher worked in the Environmental Protection Agency before becoming a Monsanto VP from 1995 to 2000 just to work for the EPA again. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto; he wrote the courts opinion of GM seeds in 2001 giving more corporate power to companies such as Monsanto. Former Secretary of Commerce Micky Cantor served on Monsanto’s board of directors. Former Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman was on the Board of Directors of Calgene, purchased by Monsanto in 1997. Chief Administrator of the FDA William Ruckelshaus also served on Monsanto’s board of directors.

Scientific evidence showing that these agricultural practices are unsafe and hazardous to humans and plants alike are suppressed by mainstream media outlets, and the vast majority of food consumers haven’t the slightest notion that the food they eat is genetically altered. The federal government seems to have an agenda of lobbying foreign governments to accept GMOs. For example in Iraq steps have been taken place to allow GMOs to be grown on a massive scale and in a recent Department of State Cable released by the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, the U.S. lists it a top priority for the countries in the Great Lakes region of Africa to accept GMOs. With the federal government laying in bed with Monsanto it is no wonder that testing is hurried and distorted just to push a profit. Is it for profit means or control of the food supply? What ever the case may be it seems that these scientists are concentrated on what they can do rather if they should.

"I wrote this for people who may find themselves in a position when they need to scientifically cite their arguments against Genetically Modified Food."
edit on 11-12-2010 by elfulanozutan0 because: Don't Panic, Eat Organic!

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:59 PM
It's really amazing that they are allowed to do this for the reason of making money

Senate bill 510 is mind boggling as well, garden allowed at my home!! no roadside produce stands!!

It all goes back to that seed bank in that TPTH can have their healthy food

I would like to know where the elite get their food, if they are all eating the GM food, then there might not be anything to worry about

Lets launch an investigation into that

be good

edit: Too bad we can't boycott food!!
edit on 11-12-2010 by BadBoYeed because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:46 PM
very informative post!
Yeah, I'm definitely going to have to use this when I get into heated discussions.
I believe that more people are starting to get on the "organic" train. In the last 5 years, I've seen more organic foods pop up in grocery stores. If you ask me, I think we need to start having more locally grown Organic food, and less walmarts and chain stores.

We cannot allow for a company like Monsanto to control the world, because it really isn't money that they're after anymore. What they are truly doing, is DESTROYING the plants that mother nature has spent millions of years creating. There are such things as Ecosystems, and to break the cycle with one plant, is going to give our Environment the "domino effect". Change on thing, and you hurt another, from a flower, to a bug, to a bird, to a snake, to a bobcat, it never ends. The Circle of Life is being killed, right before our own eyes.

How can such a force be stopped?

I heard them talking about that Senate Bill 510, or something similar to it last year, but it got shut down. I'm sure Monsanto has done a great deal of lobbying to get this one in, has it passed yet? God, I hope not. If so, then that is truly WAGING WAR, on the Citizens of Earth. Because, if it starts in America, then the UK is gonna most likely do it, and Australia will follow suit. Just how much can be carried in The Wind? It travels around the world, if you wish to keep your plants organic, I say, start investing in a Greenhouse/Biodome, and soon.

Start supporting Local Farmers!
Check out your nearest farmer's market,
buy organic, find a Co-op/locally harvested grocery store in your town.

People have the right and freedom to choose what they wish to have in their bodies, the time is now.

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:20 AM
Hi BadBoYeed.

Originally posted by BadBoYeed
Too bad we can't boycott food!!

You CAN boycott GMO/Monsanto and other bad food by voting with your wallet.

We are not affraid to eat Monsanto $CRAP any more, because we
switched to BIOLOGIC/ORGANIC food ! !

Blue skies.

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:02 PM

This almost sounds like it could be a graduate thesis, ha. But it makes a very strong argument and eloquently sums up why NOT to eat GMOs. I think what's most upsetting is that I feel so trapped, like anywhere I shop that is what I am eating.

The lady friend mainly eats fresh produce and healthy proteins, and part of the reason for that is because she has some kind of massive food allergy, or something. She can't digest gluten and can't really eat anything that is starchy (wheat, corn, rice, soy, etc etc...) and it makes me wonder if it's because her body just can't handle what Monsanto and others are doing to our food.

I think the thing that scares me most is the cross-pollination issue. I'm sure that you know about Monsanto's terminator seeds. What would we do if that cross-pollinated with other sources of food? That PLUS the decrease in plant biodiversity in our agricultural industry cannot be good.

I also never realized that they use a strain of E. Coli to help create the pesticide/herbicide resistant genes in plants. Before I thought that the E. Coli break outs in our spinach/tomatoes/peanut butter was because of how dirty the industry is (cross contamination and the like) but now I see it makes sense. Maybe certain batches just hung on too much to that E. Coli bacteria and that's how those outbreaks happen.

Thank you for this knowledge. I knew a lot about what Monsanto did as a corporation, but as far as specific details on the harmful effects of GMOs and how exactly Monsanto genetically engineered their plants was lost on me before.

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

While I agree, some people do not have the luxury/money to be able to eat only organic food. It's expensive. Not everyone can boycott with their wallet. I certainly can't!

So what do those people do? Starve?

This might be why obesity is such an epidemic in the U.S. HFCS is in everything, especially CHEAP, accessible food.

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

Also! Organic does not always mean non-GMO, at least in the United States (I think that it DOES mean non-GMO when you are in France.. and other places in Europe.)

Organic classification means that it is produced without chemical pesticides & herbicides (like natural fertilizer & stuff like that), and has nothing to do with how the seed itself was produced:

Non-GMO food is usually labeled as such, but remember, Monsanto is a corporation that bought out tons and tons of seed companies. There is currently no federal regulation that has to classify certain seeds as GMO or not, so.. you may never know if your local farmer purchased those seeds from the seed companies that Monsanto owns or not. Especially with Monsanto's seeds cross-pollinating with other farmers' seeds on accident... he could be growing GMO crops and not even know it.

edit on 12-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: grammar

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

Thank you. I wrote this for my final in Reading and Composition this semester. I felt that a lot of people go against Monsanto for their corporate practices (which I am against as well) and say that GMOs are bad but they can't really point to scientific evidence as to why. Therefore, I wrote this so people could reference to scientific evidence against GMOs. There are a lot more out there and I implore people to research other health and environmental risks entailing GMOs.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:28 AM
I agree with the OP. However, this is only how Genetic Modification has been used to negative effect. If the desired outcome weren't profit then it may still be a useful technology that doesn't harm our health.

As an example in that study as I understand it, they used corn which had either been sprayed with pesticides or that produced insecticides to make them naturally resistant. When compared to the rats being fed normal corn they found adverse health effects. To me it seems the only variable is the prescence of the pesticide (unless the 1st strain of corn was grown in lab without pesticides? But that would defeat the point).

My point is that its harmful because of the pesticides added/produced, which are the product of GM rather than the process itself.

Extending this example, what if the plant was modified to produce an insecticide that wasn't harmful to humans? Or some other non-harmful way of accomplishing the same thing? We don't really know yet, because these greedy people are the biggest example of how the technology is being used.

Hopefully one day we'll find out.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Cecilofs because: Added an example

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by AdAbsurdumI also never realized that they use a strain of E. Coli to help create the pesticide/herbicide resistant genes in plants. Before I thought that the E. Coli break outs in our spinach/tomatoes/peanut butter was because of how dirty the industry is (cross contamination and the like) but now I see it makes sense. Maybe certain batches just hung on too much to that E. Coli bacteria and that's how those outbreaks happen.

No, I think your original thought was correct. The bacteria that is used to multiply the DNA get killed and cleaned away before the extracted DNA it gets put into the plant cells. E.coli is a ubiquitouos bacteria - its literally found everywhere, even on your skin and in your digestive system normally. It doesn't cause problems in most cases but when something goes rotten/off or gets contaminated by a lot of it, it will make you sick.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Cecilofs because: Clarity

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by Cecilofs

The first corn was made to be Round-Up Resistant, or resistant towards the ingredient Glyphosate which is linked to cancer and birth defects (linked in my OP).

GMO's wouldn't be bad if they were actually meant to do more good than to be a ponzia scheme to make money.

You mentioned the process of making GMOS not being bad, but I linked a scientific article exposing the contrary. GM food is made with the E. Coli Bacteria (do you think the E. Coli outbreaks were just natural outbreaks?), and the Coli-flower Mosaic Virus, and Antibiotic Resistant bacteria which if a bacteria cell in your stomach could inherit the antibiotic resistant trait it could create a virus that humans could not cure.

And terminator seeds being infertile and possibly creating a non-fertile biosphere. And GMOs are made by altering DNA and thus alters our DNA as well.

Monsanto would like for ALL food to be GM. If it was that way, what would happen to us if the original genetics of the plants that we evolved with for MILLIONS of years suddenly disappeared? We would evolve to what a CORPORATION controlled us to. To me that is way to powerful, evil, malicious, etc.

You could argue against GMOs being against God's design, but atheists will debunk that as a theist belief. Well for you atheists, if evolution creates us then humans altering the genetics of plants in which we evolved along with would be against evolution. Either way you look at it, it is not natural. Food is a natural biotic process and altering the NATURAL genes will create unfathomable ramifications throughout the food-chain and the biosphere.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0
reply to post by Cecilofs

The first corn was made to be Round-Up Resistant, or resistant towards the ingredient Glyphosate which is linked to cancer and birth defects (linked in my OP).

Yep and my point was that the corn used in the experiment (from what I understand - correct me if I'm wrong) had been grown in a field and sprayed with Roundup. So what they were testing was the toxicity of the pesticide, NOT the toxity of the plant's altered DNA. Does that make sense? To test wether the actual process of GM is dangerous you would have to alter a few random/non-essential parts of the DNA and test to see if the plants are still toxic.

GMO's wouldn't be bad if they were actually meant to do more good than to be a ponzia scheme to make money.

That's what I was trying to say - thanks

You mentioned the process of making GMOS not being bad, but I linked a scientific article exposing the contrary. GM food is made with the E. Coli Bacteria (do you think the E. Coli outbreaks were just natural outbreaks?

I haven't worked in the GM industry, but I did study biology at University and some of the experiments we were doing involved growing E.coli that had taken up plasmids (little loops of DNA basically) containing modified DNA. The idea is the bacteria naturally grow and reproduce the DNA. You then kill the bacteria, take the DNA out, clean it and purify it before inserting it into another organism. There's no way a bacteria could survive that process. As I said in my other post, E.coli is literally everywhere. So I think the food contamination is due to poor handling, hygein and storage of the food. I will re-read the article you linked to confirm I am not missing your point.

And terminator seeds being infertile and possibly creating a non-fertile biosphere. And GMOs are made by altering DNA and thus alters our DNA as well.

the terminator seeds are for two reasons: 1. To try to stop the GM seeds spreading into the biosphere. 2. To make more money selling new seeds. I'm not sure about how cross-pollination works in corn so I'm not sure if those genes can spread into the biosphere.

what I can say is ingesting GM food does NOT change your DNA. The DNA is broken down by your digestive system and even if it was absorbed in full, the chances of it getting into a cell and being incorporated into your DNA are basically 0. Not to mention that's only 1 cell.

If you are worried about our own DNA being altered, you should look into viruses like the common cold and influenza, which hijack our cells to manufacture new virions. there's a class of viruses called retroviruses that actually incorporate themselves into human DNA. Kind of scary but interesting too.

Monsanto would like for ALL food to be GM. If it was that way, what would happen to us if the original genetics of the plants that we evolved with for MILLIONS of years suddenly disappeared? We would evolve to what a CORPORATION controlled us to. To me that is way to powerful, evil, malicious, etc.

No argument there. Destroying biodiversity is a terrible idea - biodiversity is nature's way of ensuring something survives.

if evolution creates us then humans altering the genetics of plants in which we evolved along with would be against evolution. Either way you look at it, it is not natural. Food is a natural biotic process and altering the NATURAL genes will create unfathomable ramifications throughout the food-chain and the biosphere.

Humans have been cultivating and propagating plants and animals for thousands of years. They selectively bred them to have certain qualities. That is not natural but it is evolution. Its directed evolution. GM is that process just more directly controlled.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that its not fair to hate the technology because of its use. I definately agree that its use has been completely corrupted and does not serve our best interests. It should be changed ASAP.

Interesting idea for the future: Using GM to take control of our own evolution.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:20 AM
The studies that often get cited for hazards related to genetically modified foods generally get the same deserved criticisms. Specifically - none of them have effective controls. Further - evolution has tended to give us an incredibly robust metabolism by comparison to many other animals that we do testing on. Caffeine will kill a lab rat because it simply can't metabolize the substance. Humans can ingest an amount of biblical proportions on a per-kilogram basis (IE - the amount you consume in a day could kill your own body weight in rats). The effects it has in reasonable doses are generally seen as good - it improves focus and provides a slight boost to endurance and metabolic activity.

So, there's that whole problem, as well. What kills a rat could be an effective elixir for us.

As far as I'm concerned - this whole anti-genetically modified food thing is being blown way out of proportion. When I see a bag of celery for $1.50 on the shelf, and the "organic" bag next to it is $3.50 - I'm going with the $1.50 variety. I'll take the $2.00 I didn't spend and save it for starting my own garden and buying a house at which I can garden (rather than living in an apartment). That's my way of handling the whole issue.

"But you will buy terminating crops and..."

Perhaps. Some of the varieties I like are, pretty much, only available as terminators. I pay about $10 on a decent amount of them and grow several times the amount I could purchase at the store for that price, and generally have it be of better quality, provided I have as much of a clue as I think I do.

I will get some "heirloom" varieties - I'm too much of a paranoid survivalist not to.

"And some of the varieties you plant will be genetically modified."


Really - It doesn't bother me.

Yes - I'm forecasting the types of responses I'll get to this. I'm that arrogant.

Humans are what we are. We are going to take new capabilities and use them in a number of different ways that history will see as both responsible and irresponsible. The nuclear reactor is one of the most important modern developments in terms of sustaining society. The nuclear bomb (built before the nuclear reactor) is one of the most effective ways of destroying society we've yet developed.

We built the car and people decide to drive it to places and learn/work/play... and others drive it drunk/sleeping/blind.

From where I stand - concern over genetically modified foods is about like being concerned over a nuclear reactor being built to power your city. What you really need to be concerned about is how I can do my own genetic modification experiments on bacteria and viruses out of my basement with a few hundred thousand dollars and a motive.

A basement tinkerer with a few years of biochem can potentially # us all over by experimenting on a strain of the flu - no black helicopters or three-letter organizations required.

It's cheaper to do research on genetic engineering than it is to open up a restaurant. That's what has me a little more on the edge of my seat.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:27 AM
reply to post by elfulanozutan0

Great post, my friend! I have recently begun seeing more info on GMO's and my findings kind of disgust me. I can't believe we are pushed to shove that crap down our throats (well i do believe it, since i'm a member of this site lol).

Anyway good work and I S&F'd your thread so that others may be enlightened by this information. We need food to live and it's the perfect way to control people.

This is too real because Monsanto controls so much of the food supply, even if it is just GMO's, who knows what other evil they do (seed police anyone).

Thanks for the info.


new topics

top topics


log in