GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I am skeptical about GMOs, and I don't think there is proof it causes health problems (the results of the rat tumor experiment, for example, could not be replicated by other scientists), but I do know that it causes genetic resistance. And that makes GMOs fail in terms of integrated pest management.

Hahahaha
Im sure they are. Wow, they really do think the whole world is gullible enough to believe that.

Because humans have concluded they are better at producing food than the Earth.

Who should we believe more?

Humans who love money, power, and control?

Or the Earth that has been around long before the first human being had a conscious thought, and has seemed to get along just fine feeding both man AND the animal kingdoms without human interference?

Yeah...

There is scientific research that suggests GM foods and the resultant chemicals required for their use causes reactions, from allergic rashes to coeliac type diseases and worse. Clearly it upsets the environment and causes increased use of dangerous chemicals in controlling the super weeds that have 'evolved' due to overuse of such chemicals. The bees have also suffered as a consequence. GM foods are potential ecosystem wreckers, literally. It has to be stopped now. There are far cleaner, safer, NATURAL ways to sustain ecosystems that have worked for millions of years. Nature is showing that it REACTS to interference on such a level by producing reactions on organisms and in the ecosystem generally. This is the truth of the matter and the environment minister needs to go take a long hike.

But there’s a growing body of scientific evidence that shows this isn’t true.Most worrying are the findings of Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team at the University of Caen in France, who found that rats fed for an extended period on GM maize were several times more likely to develop tumours of the digestive tract and suffer severe kidney and liver damage.

Controversial: Advocates of GM products claim that the human and animal digestive systems will not be able to detect it - an idea that is rapidly being proved wrong by science
The GM maize they were being fed was one of the most common, a variety that had been genetically modified to give the plant resistance to the weedkiller glyphosate, better known under its brand name, Roundup. Such resistance, in theory, allows the farmer to suppress weed growth with glyphosate and allows the remaining maize to thrive, free of all competition from weeds.
Except it hasn’t worked out like that, as farmers in the U.S. and Canada, the two countries where GM crops were most enthusiastically adopted, have discovered to their cost.
Yields have been disappointing and new ‘super-weeds’ have emerged that are every bit as resistant to glyphosate as the GM maize is. As a result, U.S. farmers have to use ever-larger amounts of herbicides and pesticides (herbicide use rose by more than 30 per cent in 2007-8 alone) causing untold devastation to the natural environment and sparking a disastrous decline in honeybee numbers.

The Government should take into account the strong feeling of consumers who don’t want this change to happen — a British Science Association survey showed public support for GM crops declining from 46 per cent in 2002 to just 27 per cent now.
Even more important, however, are the growing signs that the much-trumpeted GM revolution that was supposed to end world hunger for ever simply isn’t happening. Indeed, when GM crops are planted, it is commonly found that yields do not increase beyond those achieved by traditional breeding methods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has conceded that ‘GM crops do not increase yield potential’, while in India bankrupt farmers have been committing suicide. GM crops have proved a dismal failure, and MPs there have been visiting Monsanto’s ‘model villages’ to investigate the issue.
When commercial gene manipulation first became possible in the Nineties, it seemed as though GM crops would be the answer to the world’s food needs. But with yields failing to increase, input costs rocketing, new super-weeds and super-bugs emerging and the damage to delicate but vital ecosystems becoming more and more apparent, it is clear they are not.
What’s more, conventional plant-improving methods are producing better results, without the attendant risks. For instance, it is a small plant breeding company in Wales that has come up with a blight-resistant potato that can be grown without pesticides, not the GM giants.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

The scientific methods used for introducing modified genes can cause Horizontal Gent Transfer (HGT) potentially causing alterations to the gut DNA of the consumer and resultant allergic reactions.

Some of the genes being used in modification of GM foods are from sources that aren't part of the human food chain like Petunias and viruses that are measured for safety by a checklist of known reactions, there isn't any feasible safety study for long term implications of altering the DNA of humans, animals and crops, potentially totally poisoning the food chain, indefinitely. Human wipe out scenario.

So many Americans are obviously rightly incensed about government snooping but are given GM foods that doctors warn against, by their government, I am surprised there hasn't been major public lobbying yet.

If the UK government routinely introduced this there would be all hell let loose, people would literally take major action, probably rioting and destruction much worse than anything seen before. London was a t a standstill recently because of rioting. Pretty sure the government wants to avoid rioting and GM foods entirely.

www.responsibletechnology.org... -Food-Allergies-Genetically-Engineered-Soybeans-May-2007

If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That’s when genes spontaneously transfer from one species’ DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals.But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.

By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate’s breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

www.responsibletechnology.org... May-2009

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans

There are REAL scientific studies that condemn the use of GM foods in the food chain.

www.responsibletechnology.org... May-2009

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that "children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems" related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become "the experimental animals."[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food Designed To Produce Toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, "Victims of itching have increased massively this year…related to BT cotton farming."[14]

References
[1] www.aaemonline.org...
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova, "Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies," Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[4] Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al, "Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[7] Oliveri et al., "Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, "Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice," Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, "Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea," Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, "Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)," Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, "Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program," (Olympia, WA: Washington S

Obviously he's saying it from the "other people" attitude.

Like, GM is safer than conventional food, (for you people).

Meanwhile he might claim sensitivities to GM and must eat at the restaurants where the chefs have their own private gardens, get the first pick off the vegetable cart every morning, and import ingredients from halfway around the world, to make things like frozen sugar bubbles full of flavored air.

Yeah I wouldn't deprive starving populations from adequate nutrition either, but that doesn't mean GM is necessary to feed people. The vitamin A rice argument? They wouldn't need designer rice if they had availability to natural crops with vitamin A in it. The engineering cause is to economize on responsibility avenues, to get the most responsibility done at the cheapest price, and it's only cheaper that way because of shipping which is oil-dependent. Why have carrots and rice when you can have carrot rice? It's cutting corners on life to shortchange the plant-sphere of the world to save a buck on petroleum costs to maintain the population under the current lifestyles which are impoverished in the first place because of ...cutting costs. The soylent green mentality is good in an emergency, not for everyday sustenance. It's a politician slowly dehumanizing others to fit a spreadsheet in a computer that promotes GM over regular supply.

reply to post by BaneOfQuo

Our exploration of GMO foods is the next logical step to meet the modern challenges of feeding a runaway population. How many currently go without food....? Oh yea a # load

want to end world hunger and drastically improve health? stop eating meat.

seriously. the amount of grain that is fed to livestock in america alone could feed around 800 million people. world hunger solved, health crisis averted.

So Absolutely True... Very important post and replies.....will be back to share in this thread...need to sleep for now........

reply to post by Phage


Well, there you have it Phage...
we already have enough issues with natural occurring phenomena (albeit occasionally, or wholly influenced by humans) to worry about, without adding more to the table. So instead of Monsanto, or similar companies, adding to the problems of our society, agriculture, politics, ecology, environment, etc. why don't they aid in existing technologies? Why not aid existing farming practice, or invent and support new ways with our ever advancing sciences?

(sorry if that's slightly incoherent, in a rush... life, ya know )

Originally posted by BaneOfQuo

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by BaneOfQuo

 

The next logical step would be to stop wasting so much. We waste enough food every day to feed the rest of the world. There is more than enough to go around. At our house the only things we throw out are the things that have gone bad. And that rarely happens.

That's a band aid solution my friend. You will be only delaying the inevitable. At one point our population will intersect and exceed food production and I assure you that the rate of population increases exponentially with time.

Feel free to wrap up your garbage left overs..

edit on 20-6-2013 by BaneOfQuo because: (no reason given)

That is a misconception produced by the elite! The technology is here now for us to feed the world very easily
even without GMO! I do not know the facts surrounding the benefits if any of eating GMO or detriments but have heard plenty of rumors about health concerns which should be pursued beyond profit motivations! To live in a world where truth is hidden to conceal possible monetary decline is the problem with our society today! If we should ever live in a world where our pursuits are for the benefit of all man kind instead of individual wealth then we would strive in ways never thought possible today!

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

www.bbc.co.uk

GM crops are probably safer than conventional plants, according to the Environment Secretary.

Making the strongest call yet for the adoption of the technology, Mr Paterson told the BBC that that GM has significant benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment.

He said the next generation of GM crops offers the "most wonderful opportunities to improve human health."

(visit the link for the full news article)

The Environment secretary is free to show us by example that GMO food is safe by feeding his family for a year before releasing it to the general public, but I doubt that anyone who makes GMO food, or promotes it actually eats any.

He should be thrown in jail for lying to endanger the lives of people. I do not understand why the police allow these criminals to do and say as they want. ARREST THEM!

No we aren't going to eat your poisoins, get it you Devil Worshipping Demon YOU!

reply to post by Sandalphon


Perhaps that's the reason the likes of Saatchi and Nigella (public strangulation saga) eat at Scotts at every opportunity in a very public way!.

reply to post by Unity_99


Well said Unity, now where are the rest of the world's population on this issue?

Laying down ready for poisoned food?

Seriously, there should be INTERNATIONAL OUTRAGE at the very thought of allowing toxic food anywhere near the food chain.

WOnder wut's on their dinner table - if the FDA had to consume GMO for lunch they might not be so quick to approve - of course under the table is another subject.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by BaneOfQuo

 

The next logical step would be to stop wasting so much. We waste enough food every day to feed the rest of the world. There is more than enough to go around. At our house the only things we throw out are the things that have gone bad. And that rarely happens.

I agree with this. However, they need to make single serving packages (like meat, cheese, etc..) so that a person living alone can consume it before it goes bad. Everything seems to be sold in 'family packs' these days. I am not much for freezing food, either. I usually forget about it until it's too late and tastes like freezer burn.

I was pleasantly surprised to see a 'non GMO food' label on a package of baked chips I bought recently.

reply to post by texasgirl


Freezer burned? ...Stew it up. Steak, pork chops, hamburger, chicken. You can name it you can stew it.
--
Blackened bananas... freeze them then make banana cream pie with it.
--
Cabbage a little iffy? Take out the parts you don't want and freeze. Once thawed they become playable but keep it's nutrients. Use the freezer burned hamburger mix with rice and one can of tomato paste, one small can of tomato soup. Half cook the meat and rice. Drain. Make cabbage rolls. Pop in oven at 350 until done..
--
Stale bread? Cut in cubes, season with a little bit of garlic salt, pop it in the oven low heat for 20 minutes...make croutons.

It's so easy to recycle food. Every body should experiment. It's fun too.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by texasgirl

 

Freezer burned? ...Stew it up. Steak, pork chops, hamburger, chicken. You can name it you can stew it.
--
Blackened bananas... freeze them then make banana cream pie with it.
--
Cabbage a little iffy? Take out the parts you don't want and freeze. Once thawed they become playable but keep it's nutrients. Use the freezer burned hamburger mix with rice and one can of tomato paste, one small can of tomato soup. Half cook the meat and rice. Drain. Make cabbage rolls. Pop in oven until done and 350.
--
Stale bread? Cut in cubes, season with a little bit of garlic salt, pop it in the oven low heat for 20 minutes...make croutons.

It's so easy to recycle food. Every body should experiment. It's fun too.

Thanks for that. I guess I should say it isn't just me. I can work on 'me' (and I am much better at eating everything I buy!) but there are many single people out there who do this. But I do think they should make single serve packages. It would be easier to limit food wasting for the mass population.

You should have your own 'recycled food' website.

reply to post by texasgirl


Individual portions are a good Idea. But it creates a lot of waste if you consider the unnecessary packaging corporations use today. I only buy family size stuff but use Freezer bags to make my own individual portions.