It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Kansas Farmer Sues Monsanto Over Rogue GMO Wheat

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


You wanted research, here it is.



Harvard researchers have literally recreated classic cases of Colony Collapse Disorder by treating bees with minute doses of Bayer's imidacloprid:

Past research has shown that neonicotinoid pesticides, which target insects' central nervous system, do not instantly kill bees. However, to test the effect of even small amounts of these pesticides on western honeybees (Apis mellifera), Harvard researchers treated 16 hives with different levels of imidacloprid, leaving four hives untreated. After 12 weeks, the bees in all twenty hives—treated and untreated—were alive, though those treated with the highest does of imidacloprid appeared weaker. But by 23 weeks everything had changed: 15 out of the 16 hives (94 percent) treated with imidacloprid underwent classic Colony Collapse Disorder: hives were largely empty with only a few young bees surviving. The adults had simply vanished. The hives that received the highest doses of imidacloprid collapsed first. Meanwhile the five untreated hives were healthy.

While authors of previous studies have been cautious about drawing too many conclusions, suggesting that insecticides may be a contributing factor alongside habitat loss, climate change etc—lead author Chensheng (Alex) Lu was more unequivocal, stating that there is clear evidence that imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids are the likely "culprit for Colony Collapse Disorder".

Interestingly, the study also suggests that one of the ways bees are being exposed to imidacloprid may be through high fructose corn syrup which beekeepers have been feeding their colonies for years. U.S. corn began to be sprayed with imidacloprid in 2004-2005, just around the same time that CCD appeared on the scene.

www.treehugger.com...


Previous research with the RNA.




GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.

Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers. It uses imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding, and is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.[4] Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a "gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. www.responsibletechnology.org...




The genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant's DNA.[5] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior.[6] Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearraranged
www.responsibletechnology.org...


Its not only viruses they insert, but bacteria also.


The five major varieties—soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets—have bacterial genes inserted, which allow the plants to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. Farmers use considerably more herbicides on these GM crops and so the food has higher herbicide residues. About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.

The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide, found in GM corn and cotton. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into the plant’s DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are herbicide tolerant. www.responsibletechnology.org...


Humans are affected in a negative way through gene regulaton

Were not just eating food, were eating gene regulators....
DNA and RNA


The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will
bind to receptors in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.

The type of RNA in question is called microRNA (abbreviated to miRNA) due to its small size.
MiRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been
implicated as players in several human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes.


Many scientists have done studys, this one was 10 years in the making,
showing that a GMO diet is hazardous to ones health, humans and animals.


Professor Krogdahl explains: “It has often been claimed that the new genes in genetically modified foods can’t do any damage because all genes are broken down beyond recognition in the gut. Our results show the contrary that genes can be taken up across the intestinal wall, is transferred to the blood and is left in the blood, muscle and liver in large chunks so that they can be easily recognized.”

The professor later again emphasized: “A frequent claim has been that new genes introduced in GM food are harmless since all genes are broken up in the intestines. But our findings show that genes can be transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood; they have been found in blood, muscle tissue and liver in sufficiently large segments to be identified ….. The biological impact of this gene transfer is unknown.”
www.cornucopia.org...


The study is here: Cross Kingdom Regulation by microRNA


The lastest n depth study, research into microRNA shows how this cross kingdom cumminucation
(regulation) takes place.


Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.www.nature.com...


Not like eating native corn when you insert fish genes into a tomato, and then eat the tomato.



Two thirds of GM crops approved in the US contain the hitherto unidentified viral gene.

GM crops have been given commercially attractive properties - such as weedkiller or pest resistance - by having new genes inserted.

These genes are usually taken from species with which the crop could not breed naturally.

Last night Pete Riley of the GM Freeze pressure group said: “This discovery of this previously unidentified gene in GM crops raises serious concern about the safety of GM food and feed.

"It totally undermines claims that GM technology is safe, precise and predictable.

“The very existence of Gene VI has been missed for many years, so we don’t know what implications it might have.

"It is impossible to say if this has already resulted in harm to human or animal health, and since there is still no GM labelling in places like the US where GM is more common in the diet, no epidemiological studies can be carried out.


www.express.co.uk...


edit on 5-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


You wanted research, here it is.
Where's the part about GMO crops being a problem for bees?

 

Yes, I think we know what genetic modification is. Thank you.


Its not only viruses they insert, but bacteria also.
No. Neither viruses or bacteria are inserted.


Were not just eating food, were eating gene regulators....
DNA and RNA
Yup, in every bite of food. GMO or otherwise. Better watch out, you might turn into a carrot.


Not like eating native corn when you insert fish genes into a tomato, and then eat the tomato.
How about if I have tomato salsa with my fish?

edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by PtolemyII
Funny how you quote one person,but then parrot things I have posted.
You must work for Monsanto



Oh, the classic old "ad hominem" argument surfaces.
Its much like Godwins laws, but for GMO discussions.


"As an online GMO discussion grows longer, the probability somebody being told they must work for Monsanto approaches 1."


For the record, since I quit my job a few weeks back, I dont work for anyone at all.

In the words of Maxwell Smart: "...and... loving it."



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

The claims about gene VI are wrong. More alarmist bullcrap.
The use of the gene in GMOs has been known of. It was not newly discovered. It is a gene from plant virus. Plant viruses do not affect animals.
www.efsa.europa.eu...

From 2006:

Obtained data did not highlight evidences of dietary DNA transfer in mice. No CaMV35s transcriptional activity was detected in this experimental model

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

From 2000:
www.cals.ncsu.edu...
edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


what is the relevance of this research to GMOs?
(not to mention, what is the relevance of bee-deaths to "rogue GMO wheat"?)

critical thinking has been totally dismissed in the anti-GMO debate.

such a shame, for people who claim to NOT be "sheeple".



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


....bbbut....viruses are BAAADD.

c'mon phage, everyone knows that.

you must work for Monsanto.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Is it even possible to sue monsato?

Its like suing the IRS in that you always lose. Right/Wrong does not matter. You have money you win, you don't you lose. The whole judicial system is flawed in favor of the elite.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Is it even possible to sue monsato?



Well of course anyone can sue anyone they like. It all comes down to who wins in court.

But reading more about this case, I think the farmer has no case, and will lose.

First, the basis of the lawsuit is:

The producer is claiming that Monsanto’s gross negligence hurt him and other U.S. wheat growers, by driving down wheat prices ...


But wheat prices havnt dropped at all.

I read the comments of

Roger McEowen, director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, said the price of wheat on the futures market has stabilized since news about the contamination in Oregon surfaced, contrary to claims in the lawsuit.


Not taking anyone's word for it, I check the wheat futures for myself at tradingcharts.com


And correct me if I'm wrong but there is no drop at all after May 30 when the news broke, not even if you zoom into the chart at the day level.

The judge will look at that and dismiss the case in a millisecond.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


The case the Kansas farmer has filed against Monsanto for the alleged contamination is
a lot like the one in which Bayer was sued over GMO rice, and Bayer was the loser.

From your msm newspaper www.usatoday.com...


the case "looks and smells" like the litigation that arose from the contamination of the U.S. rice crop from genetically modified rice. Bayer CropScience, a German conglomerate, announced in 2011 that it would pay up to $750 million to settle claims, including those from farmers who say they had to plant different crops and made less money from them.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 

How about if I have tomato salsa with my fish?


How about you take a live flu swine flu virus and rub it on your skin,
or eat it.

Same as you injecting it into your body?

Your logic and science is an epic fail.
edit on 5-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yes. An attorney for the plaintiff would like to find precedence. However it doesn't really seem to be there in this case.

When it was discovered in the rice supply, LibertyLink had not yet been approved for sale for human consumption. Rice futures plunged, and Japan and European countries banned the import of U.S. rice.

www.stltoday.com...

As pointed out, that doesn't seem to have happened with wheat futures. This could change though.
But if it does, if prices do plummet, negligence would still have to be demonstrated. The situation is apparently quite different. Bayer CropScience was selling its product before it had been commercially approved (it was, later approved). It would have to be proven that Monsanto was negligent and responsible for the wheat. That might not be so cut and dried. But the attorney will be happy either way.
edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



How about you take a live flu swine flu virus and rub it on your skin,
or eat it.

Same as you injecting it into your body?

Your logic and science is an epic fail.

Your lack of knowledge seems to know no bounds. Live viruses have nothing to do with GMO crops. Nor does injecting them into one's body.
edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

As pointed out, that doesn't seem to have happened with wheat futures. This could change though.
But if it does, if prices do plummet, negligence would still have to be demonstrated. The situation is apparently quite different. Bayer CropScience was selling its product before it had been commercially approved (it was, later approved). It would have to be proven that Monsanto was negligent and responsible for the wheat. That might not be so cut and dried.

edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage, if Monsanto has the sole rights to the patent on this GM wheat, and it is discovered growing in a field not owned by Monsanto (nor under contract by Monsanto), then isn't it negligence on behalf of Monsanto for not having 100% control of this product? Or, is the burden now upon the farmer to prove he did NOT steal the product and plant it in his field without the patent owners' permission?

If the former, it's negligence on Monsanto.
If it's latter, it's a patent infringement lawsuit against the farmer.

This is slippery slope, and does open the possibility for patent fraud on Monsanto if they planted it intentionally there. If not intentional, then they were negligent in their duty to control this GM product 100% sine it did "escape" from their control (think escaped zoo animal that injures a person due to insufficient safety protocols in place).



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Injecting a live virus (attenuated) into your body is not the same as eating it.
Nor is it the same if you rub it on your skin.

edit on 5-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


then isn't it negligence on behalf of Monsanto for not having 100% control of this product?
That could be argued, and no doubt will be.


If the former, it's negligence on Monsanto.
Depends.


If it's latter, it's a patent infringement lawsuit against the farmer.
Maybe, if Monsanto could prove that the contamination was intentional.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Injecting a live virus into your body is not the same as eating it.
That is your vaccine science.

That isn't what I said. But no, it isn't the same.
We eat viruses continually. It's unavoidable.

edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

But no, it isn't the same.
We eat viruses continually. It's unavoidable.


As you have agreed, its not the same. So crudely injecting GE material
into corn, and wheat is not the same as corn and wheat in a field that may
have a Cauliflower mosaic virus nearby.

And it is not equal to eating a peice of Cauliflower that may have Cauliflower
virus on it as opposed to injecting yourself with Cauliflower mosaic virus.

Injecting it bypasses the natural defense of the plant or animal,
therefore injection is a direct gene transfer.
edit on 5-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


So crudely injecting GE material into corn, and wheat is not the same as corn and wheat in a field that may
have a Cauliflower mosaic virus nearby.
That's right a single gene from a virus (glad to see you backed off the live virus train) is not the same as a complete virus.


And it is not equal to eating a peice of Cauliflower that may have Cauliflower
virus on it as opposed to injecting yourself with Cauliflower mosaic virus.
Nope. But neither one is going to harm you. It's a plant virus. Doesn't bother animals.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
GMO products have been banned in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, South Australia, Russia, France, and Switzerland, among other places. I wonder why?

Considering that the US FDA would approve dog excrement for this US populace to consume if they've been paid off enough, I'll take the actions of these countries as a warning sign, and I won't trust what the shills of the establishment have to say as they vigorously defend this poison.

All it takes is a few minutes to read about the revolving door between the FDA and former Monsanto employees to realize why this garbage is even legal here in the States.


edit on 5-6-2013 by supremecommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I had in mind attenuated, its a vaccine thing.
so it not backing off, it is just clarification.

Live, or otherwise (attenuated) a virus eaten is not the same as injected.

edit on 5-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join