GMO Food Toxins Linked To Anemia And Other Blood Disorders

Originally posted by Phage

Then you'd better stay away from plants. Potatoes, celery...they all do it.

Thats is a misleading statement, its disinformation, they do not occur in the same
state in nature.

While Bt toxin does appear naturally in the environment, it does not normally occur in conjunction with soil, insects and plant surfaces

Why should you be concerned that cows eating GMO foods died and/or got contaminated with a mysterious disease? Because, if you eat meat or chicken that is contaminated as a result of a GMO with re-engineered DNA that is contaminated with a pathogen, then the DNA genes contaminate your cells and are also harmful to you. These DNA genes can be INSERTED into your own genes. source

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by burntheships
Sorry phage, its you who has taken on some evil cause, as evident of your sudden
blind devotion to poisonous Genetically Engineered Franken food.

Its you who is using the same ignorant talking points over and again in every thread,
refusing to look at real science. One could imagine you are using USDA or FDA
talking points.

So... you're just replying with an ad hominem attack?
It would have been so much better if you'd actually addressed some of the points that he put forward, and set forth some kind of logical reply backed up with facts.

Phages points still stand.
- There is nothing specific to GMO's about the Bt toxin
- The Bt toxin found in nature was the one used in the study
- its also in Organic food
- This specific issue doesnt prove anything about GMO food in general
- the claim of Anemia, and Luekemia, and Organ damage isnt found in the journal article.

Difference being that the Bt toxin is sprayed on the plants, and not in every cell of the plant. If it's sprayed on organic corn for example, the husk isn't obviously eaten so it wouldn't have an impact on the food. Even if sprayed on the outside of the actual food, it can be washed off unlike if it's in every cell of the plant.

reply to post by Phage

Then you'd better stay away from plants. Potatoes, celery...they all do it.

I don't eat potatoes, and all of my produce is gotten locally from well established organic farmers. Fortunately I can afford it. I feel bad for folks that have no choice. I pity more the folks that defend feeding people cheap, nutritionally deficient, poison producing crops, that in the end will not only make humans ill but the planet we live on. Who is the sicker?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Once agian, I will ask you who declared Genetically Engineered food to be safe?

The USDA, the EPA, the EFSA, among others.

And....once again let me guess....ahem.....

You have no reason to think.....

that any of those alphabet agencies and the executives
that work for the large biotech companies such as Monsanto would conspire together
as the heads of those agencies graduated from Monsanto and the likes?

Monsanto taking the Hall of Shame year after year, nothing to think about there.

Michael Taylor who was a Monsanto lawyer as well as their Vice President for Public policy
was appointed as an FDA official.

Nothing to think about there.

And, no the FDA has not really declared GE food to be safe, it has deemed it GRAS.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labels GM foods as GRAS (Genetically Recognized As Safe). In other words, the FDA believes that GM foods are not different than non-GM foods [2]. Thus, no additional evaluation or labeling is necessary for GM foods before their distribution. However, consumer organizations argue that GM foods need labeling. Additionally, the health hazards of GM foods are mostly unknown because biotechnology companies do not allow independent researchers to publish studies done on GM seeds [5]. In order to obtain the seeds, scientists must sign an agreement to only publish studies in peer-review journals that have been approved by the company [5]. These companies essentially produce consumer propaganda, putting public health at risk. Thus, the health and safety risks associated with GM foods are significant enough to prevent it from becoming the solution to global problems and must be assessed. - See triplehelixblog.com...

No reason to think that other nations are rejecting GMO because they are willing
to look at recent peer reviewed scientific study showing GE orgainisms to be unsafe?

Look at that again

biotechnology companies do not allow independent researchers to publish studies done on GM seeds [5]. In order to obtain the seeds, scientists must sign an agreement to only publish studies in peer-review journals that have been approved by the company

So while other nations are closing the door on GMO, the FDA and its Monsanto
execs keep the door wide open in the US. Yeah, nothing to think about there.

Some plant toxins, like those from potatoes left in sun... Well we typically know how to deal with them. (And often food prep leaches it out, or the mechanism is understood enough that you don't pick out of season or store improperly.)

Genetically engineered stuff may pose problems like with certain fruits where it's desirable to eat them raw and unprocessed. Now there's a new mechanism in the plant that wasn't there before, and it isn't readily obvious or known as being something possible to deal with.

Others like Bt which were originally saw as a fairly benign substance because they were applied on the food. It was cultured from bacteria that produced it, sprayed on to control pests. But the old method of using Bt also meant that it washed off when dealing with food in the typical way. Also when left to nature other bacteria in the environment and weathering would eventually break it down. The change with how it is "applied" now has issues. Washing it off becomes a bit of a problem because with GMO it's in the food. Processing the food in order to break down the Bt dispersed throughout would likely ruin the desirable traits of whatever food it was put in.

Not that all the goals in mind are bad, but these things must be thought through in the long run. Putting on the blinders in order to chase the almighty dollar as part of this process may create an unintended aftermath that's anything but pretty. I don't hate GMO to hate GMO (I could see what benefits may be there), but I think the current approach to it is reckless.

I have been reading every thread started on GMO's for at least a couple weeks now and there have been quite a few. At first I was really concerned about it but no one has shown any conclusive evidence showing they are harmful IMO.

This is only the second thread that I have even posted in on the subject because it seems that if you do not support the narrative or you even question the narrative that they are harmful then ad-hom attacks are sure to follow.

I will keep reading threads like this one and keep an open mind on the subject however it is getting harder to do so when they are presented in this fashion. If the study says something then present what it says I do not need wild interpretation or conjecture. In other words facts speak loudest.

Anyway I think it’s about to get warm with all the flame I am expecting.

reply to post by burntheships

And, no the FDA has not really declared GE food to be safe, it has deemed it GRAS.

Right. As safe as any other crop.

biotechnology companies do not allow independent researchers to publish studies done on GM seeds [5]. In order to obtain the seeds, scientists must sign an agreement to only publish studies in peer-review journals that have been approved by the company

You don't have to buy seeds to research the effects of GMOs. You can buy feed, you can buy the product. But you do have to buy seeds to check the crop performance claims, which is what that citation is talking about: www.scientificamerican.com...

Seralini would be a good example. Too bad he can't put a decent study together.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

And, no the FDA has not really declared GE food to be safe, it has deemed it GRAS.

Right. As safe as any other crop.

That the FDA has declared it GRAS does not mean it is, it means that is what they decided
to stamp on it back in the early 90's. Much research has been conducted since then that
finds otherwise.

Thats why most other developed nations are turning the clock back on GE foods.

reply to post by burntheships

Thats why most other developed nations are turning the clock back on GE foods.

Most? Really? Can you name them?

While waiting I would posit that it would have more to do with politics than science. Which is ok. Sort of. But popular opinion does not equal science.

reply to post by Turq1

Difference being that the Bt toxin is sprayed on the plants, and not in every cell of the plant. If it's sprayed on organic corn for example, the husk isn't obviously eaten so it wouldn't have an impact on the food. Even if sprayed on the outside of the actual food, it can be washed off unlike if it's in every cell of the plant.

That is a valid argument. You can wash a lot of stuff off plants. I wonder if there are studies about the uptake of "natural" Bt toxin by plants compared to that found in the edible parts of Bt GMOs.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Thats why most other developed nations are turning the clock back on GE foods.

Most? Really? Can you name them?

While waiting I would posit that it would have more to do with politics than science. Which is ok. Sort of.

Ill stick with the subject matter of the thread. However....
go ahead, elaborate on why you think it has nothing to do with science.

reply to post by burntheships

go ahead, elaborate on why you think it has nothing to do with science.

So not "most"?

More?
Ok. The science doesn't show that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMO crops. Therefore the opposition is based on opinion which results in political pressure.

Well, I will never say that GMO food is safe. I do not like to lie. I try to restrict my eating of it to low amounts. Real corn tastes better than BT corn anyway. We shouldn't be eating nearly as much soy as we are eating anyway, Most people haven't evolved to properly take apart soy right. Eating too much corn can give anyone palagra, corn is in so many things nowadays.

A majority of people can eat GMO foods with unnoticeable problems but about fifteen percent can experience various reactions, but these are from cronic buildup, no liability can be proven. GMO food is just one of the changes that are toxic to humans. I would say Carrageenan is a lot worse. Nobody is ever going to get me to believe GMO food is good for us and safe to eat. I see no real evidence that has been submitted that says it is safe, and I have examined a lot of their evidence. There evidence is in compliance with the law though, although the rules of the FDA are not exactly written for the benefit of the consumer and many tests that should be done are not required nor even recognized as pertinent by the FDA. I studied the creation of the FDA. I studied many of the testing requirements of the FDA. What a joke, maybe McDs should run the agency.

Being that I have seen the evidence on both sides, I feel that GMO food has never properly been tested by our government to be considered safe for consumption. I guess it "let the buyer beware" I also do not like the personality of Monsanto, I hope their company crumbles to nothing.

I don't need to prove that GMO food is bad, I need them to prove to me, using proper and complete testing, that it is safe to eat..

Originally posted by Turq1

Originally posted by alfa1
So... you're just replying with an ad hominem attack?
It would have been so much better if you'd actually addressed some of the points that he put forward, and set forth some kind of logical reply backed up with facts.

Phages points still stand.
- There is nothing specific to GMO's about the Bt toxin
- The Bt toxin found in nature was the one used in the study
- its also in Organic food
- This specific issue doesnt prove anything about GMO food in general
- the claim of Anemia, and Luekemia, and Organ damage isnt found in the journal article.

Difference being that the Bt toxin is sprayed on the plants...

It would have been so much better if you'd actually addressed some of the points that I put forward, and set forth some kind of logical reply backed up with facts instead of leaping onward to a completely new argument.

Why is it that anti-GMO people are completely unwilling to stand by any of the arguments they put forward?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
If the study says something then present what it says I do not need wild interpretation or conjecture. In other words facts speak loudest.

That would be nice, but its the way the GMO threads go.

1. Somebody puts forward the "killer argument" against GMO.

2. It is pointed out that the study isnt what they think it is, and doesnt prove what they think it does.

3. Replies are forthcoming with:
- ad hominem attacks
- "you must work for Monsanto" attacks
- and more tellingly, a *complete change of topic* as they abandon the argument in the opening post.

This thread here was a particularly good example.

The thread we're in now is also a good example. The study mentioned, Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice, was cited in the opening post as the "killer argument" aganist GMO food
and yet
*not one* of the people arguing that point are using it as the original source material for their arguments, preferring instead to dump in a whole wide range of other completely unrelated arguments.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Nobody is ever going to get me to believe GMO food is good for us and safe to eat. I see no real evidence that has been submitted that says it is safe, and I have examined a lot of their evidence.

Indeed, and one very interesting fact is that since the GRAS stamp (which means nothing) on
GE crops, they have stacked the GE genes one on top of another without testing.

Its triple doses now of Cry toxins. I think Italy is very smart, they never allowed
GE crops in, they are like a sanctuary. (Although the pope says its ok for the
poor nations) . Imagine that.

reply to post by burntheships


Here i an great site for tons of info on GMO plants/foods.
There is alot to read so make sure you have the time.


cls.casa.colostate.edu...

Transgenic Crops:
An Introduction and Resource Guide

The goal of this web site is to provide balanced information and links to other resources on the technology and issues surrounding transgenic crops (also known as genetically modified or GM crops). The site's authors are engaged in plant genetics research and teaching at Colorado State University. They receive no funds from companies involved in transgenic crop development, nor are they affiliated with groups campaigning against such crops. Funding for the web site currently comes from a three-year grant by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems program.

cls.casa.colostate.edu...

reply to post by azureskys


Thanks for the link, however that site says on the front page that it has no updated
information since 2004. So it would not be a good resource, well maybe for
Phage and Alfi yes.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by azureskys

 

Thanks for the link, however that site says on the front page that it has no updated
information since 2004. So it would not be a good resource, well maybe for
Phage and Alfi yes.

Please do read it. Much of what you attest to is covered in there.
See: Risks and Concerns

Originally posted by azureskys

Please do read it. Much of what you attest to is covered in there.
See: Risks and Concerns

Alright, good advice. My apologies... I needed to update my Java.

damage to human health
allergenicity

horizontal transfer and antibiotic resistance
eating foreign DNA

cauliflower mosaic virus promoter
changed nutrient levels

damage to the natural environment
Monarch butterfly

crop-to-weed gene flow
antibiotic resistance

leakage of GM proteins into soil
reductions in pesticide spraying: are they real?

disruption of current practices of farming and food production in developed countries
crop-to-crop gene flow

disruption of traditional practices and economies in less developed countries.

These are complex issues and a thorough treatment of each one would occupy volumes. For each topic we provide a short discussion with a link to a longer discussion and outside resources.

Thank you very much.