The Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods that our government gave a grreen

Kermit · 05-19-13, 11:04 AM

It isn't easy being green.

Carseller4 · 05-19-13, 11:24 AM

Science is a good thing.

More bountiful harvests and healthier food.

I don't see the problem.

Mikail · 05-19-13, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Carseller4

Science is a good thing.

More bountiful harvests and healthier food.

I don't see the problem.

Cancer and other diseases which result in death are problems with gmo. Don't believe the hype. Monsanto isn't interested in healthier food.

PAULYPOKER · 05-19-13, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by PAULYPOKER

the MONSANTO Protection Act..........

Which in a nutshell gives Monsanto the RIGHT to poison food if they wish without any legal repercussions WHATSOEVER!

Monsanto is also in the process right now, paying Lawmakers off to step out of their way in order to reach their goal of monopolizing the entire world food supply,meaning it is just a matter of time before all food will be genetically manipulated,this is certain ..........

It is only possible to have control over genetic manipulation while sealed off in a lab away from nature and the outside world,if the experiment goes wrong you can simply destroy it..

Once you experiment out in nature you lose control instantly and if the GMO crop, hormone, or animal is proven to be harmful or fatal to the Eco system and human health, it can not be stopped no way no how!,it is simply IMPOSSIBLE!

Monsanto already has the leader of the free world in their back pocket known as the US government......

Who is going to stop them?

Especially when 90% of the US population is in the neanderthal dark ages, when it comes to the issue?

Here are just some of the already harmful effects..........

________________________________________ _____________________________________

________________________________________ ___________________________________

Monsanto already has Monopolized court forced control over the cotton in India...........

Indian farmers must buy Monsanto GM franken cotton seed at ridiculously inflated prices.They either buy it or lose their land and if they do buy it through a loan and don't have a plentiful harvest, they can not pay the loan and if they can't pay the loan the Monsanto backed banks repossess their land.........

Then the Indian farmer resorts to suicide over 90% of the time!

Exactly, THX for proving the fact that you are one 90% clueless fukktards I speak of above.......

PAULYPOKER · 05-20-13, 12:54 AM

pouyasophy · 05-20-13, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by PAULYPOKER

light to Monsanto with the MONSANTO Protection Act..........

Which in a nutshell gives Monsanto the RIGHT to poison food if they wish without any legal repercussions WHATSOEVER!

Monsanto is also in the process right now, paying Lawmakers off to step out of their way in order to reach their goal of monopolizing the entire world food supply,meaning it is just a matter of time before all food will be genetically manipulated,this is certain ..........

It is only possible to have control over genetic manipulation while sealed off in a lab away from nature and the outside world,if the experiment goes wrong you can simply destroy it..

Once you experiment out in nature you lose control instantly and if the GMO crop, hormone, or animal is proven to be harmful or fatal to the Eco system and human health, it can not be stopped no way no how!,it is simply IMPOSSIBLE!

Monsanto already has the leader of the free world in their back pocket known as the US government......

Who is going to stop them?

Especially when 90% of the US population is in the neanderthal dark ages, when it comes to the issue?

Here are just some of the already harmful effects..........

________________________________________ _____________________________________

Dr. Don Lotter

who has a doctorate in agroecology, wrote an article published in the International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food entitled “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science.

He states that the principles underlying research by the GM industry are flawed, giving the example of the cauliflower-mosaic-virus promoter (CaMV 35S), which is used to activate foreign genes inserted into GM plants.

This virus is dangerous because it is not neutralized when it enters the human digestive system, but instead promotes the transfer of genes from the GMO to bacteria in the digestive system that are responsible for 80% of our immune system function.Jeffrey M. Smith is deeply concerned that GMOs will seriously injure human health through the transfer of genetic information from modified foods to intestinal bacteria.

The fact that genes transfer to our gut bacteria gets worse when you think of what can transfer. The corn and cotton that are genetically engineered, there’s varieties that produce their own pesticide, so if the gene that produces the pesticide transfers, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

The pesticide produced in GM corn and cotton, called Bt toxin, has already had damaging effects on those exposed to the spray version of the bacteria as well asthose farming Bt-generating GM crops.

When it was used in its natural form as a spray in the Pacific Northwest (USA), hundreds of people got allergic reactions or flu-like symptoms; some had to go to the hospital. So it obviously affects humans and mammals.

Now if you look at the symptoms of the people who were sprayed in Washington State (USA) and you look at the symptoms of he farm workers in India who are picking the cotton that’s genetically engineered to produce the Bt toxin, they’re the same symptoms. They’re getting rashes, upper respiratory reactions, fever; some had to go to the hospital.

Now the BT toxin that’s in the crop, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than the natural spray. It’s designed to be more toxic, and it has properties of a known allergen. And it also cannot be washed off the plant, because it’s produced by little spray bottles in every cell of the plant, in every bite.

So many people believe that the Bt toxin that’s produced by the genetically modified corn and cotton is extremely dangerous. And the idea that we have living pesticide (Yes) factories inside us is totally high in the “yuck” factor I’ll tell you that.

A study of a group of pregnant and non-pregnant women in Canada found that 93% of the pregnant women had Bt toxin in their blood and 80% had it in their umbilical cord blood, while the toxin was detected in 69% of the non-pregnant women’s blood. The scientists believe the source of the Bt toxin was meat, eggs, and milk eaten by study participants that came from livestock who consumed GM corn.

The researchers stated in a paper published in the journal “Reproductive Toxicology,” “This is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood.”

Bt toxin is a toxin. A Bt toxin crop is not a higher yielding crop. It’s a toxin-producing crop. Herbicide-resistant crops are resistant to herbicides,therefore you can spray them with higher doses of glyphosate. That’s more toxins in our farms, not more food. To date, there is nota single GMO (genetically modified organism) that has produced more food than comparative crops.

During the 1980’s 37 people in the United States died and 5,000 were sickened after taking a dietary supplement that contained GM bacteria. In another case illustrative of why it’s unwise to tamper with nature is that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts were found to have reactions after consuming GM soy which had a Brazil nut gene in it.

Genetic engineering is very crude and very violent technology. One of the biggest lies being told all over the place, especially in the context of the food crisis, is that GMOs can solve the problem of hunger. They cannot because the technology is not designed to increase production. The technology is designed to put more toxicsinto the crop.

Genetically engineered seeds are not solving hunger. They are not bringing prosperity to our farmers. They are killing our farmers. And agriculture without GMOs is a peaceful agriculture. GMO-free agriculture is a prosperous agriculture. GMO-free agriculture is the only way humanity should move into the future.

The solution of course is sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture in the form, which sustains the land, the livelihoods that depend on it. Millions, literally hundreds of millions of (Indian) people depend on agriculture for their daily living. So an agricultural system that takes care of the land, takes care of the people, does not use chemicals, and is therefore good for the consumers, that’s sustainable agriculture.

So this is the kind of thing that Greenpeace would campaign on. So that’s what we will do for sustainable agriculture.

Supreme Master Ching Hai has spoken on various occasions regarding the harmful effects of GMOs.

Nowadays, many people try to do this so-called genetically modified food, so sometimes we eat vegetarian food and we don’t even know that there are animal substances in it. Scientifically speaking, meat is being linked to diseases of all kind – with cholesterol, obesity, heart disease and strokes. So, if we put meat or animal substance into vegetables, then we will also have similar effects, more or less. I think we should not mess up with nature and play God. Whatever nature has already offered to us, that is good enough.

There might be more incurable diseases that come from GMO that we don’t even know will happen yet. Right now, even if we just eat the normal meat and we have so many incurable diseases already, if we mix it with vegetables, maybe we will have more incurable diseases and more strange diseases that we don’t even know how to deal with in the future. So, it’s better to have organic vegan farming method.

We as consumers can stop the GMO industry from further ruining our health and planet. First, we can refuse to purchase GM products. When shopping, we can choose to buy organic, locally produced vegetables and fruit instead.Second, we can write to our government officials to voice our opposition to GMOs. Third, we can spread the word about the high risks of genetically modified crops to our friends and family. These steps, along with organic vegan farming, will help ensure we have a GMO-free future for our children.

For more information on the dangers of GMO foods, please visit the following websites:
Institute for Responsible Technology www.ResponsibleTechnology.org
Greenpeace International www.Greenpeace.org
Navdanyawww.Navdanya.org

________________________________________ ___________________________________

Monsanto already has Monopolized court forced control over the cotton in India...........

Indian farmers must buy Monsanto GM franken cotton seed at ridiculously inflated prices.They either buy it or lose their land and if they do buy it through a loan and don't have a plentiful harvest, they can not pay the loan and if they can't pay the loan the Monsanto backed banks repossess their land.........

Then the Indian farmer resorts to suicide over 90% of the time!

SamDiamond · 05-20-13, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by PAULYPOKER

Exactly, THX for proving the fact that you are one 90% clueless fukktards I speak of above.......

Did you just quote yourself, and then insult yourself?

DwightShrute · 05-20-13, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Carseller4

Science is a good thing.

More bountiful harvests and healthier food.

I don't see the problem.

they told you smoking was ok for decades.

Then they said coffee was bad for you. ]

Then they told you a fat-free diet was the one to follow but soon afterwards American became the fattest ever and diabetes is out of control. Now they want you to believe GMO have no health effects. lol.

Its a free country you can choose to believe more lies if you want.

The Bee population is dwindling. Gee I wonder why?

Unintended GMO Health Risks

Genetically modified foods: YES, you are already eating them. NO, they are not safe to eat.

Did you know... since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods.

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

Did you know... genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe. They have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.
Find out what the risks are and start protecting yourself and your family today!
Why isn't the FDA protecting us?

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods and therefore were safe to eat. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. FDA scientists, on the other hand, warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long term safety studies, but were ignored.[1] The FDA does not require any safety evaluations for GMOs. Instead, biotech companies, who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products, are now in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. (The FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney and later their vice president.)
Although these biotech companies participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, it is a meaningless exercise. The summaries of the superficial research they submit cannot identify most of the health risks of GMOs.[2]

Genetic modification is radically different from natural breeding

In contrast to the statements of biotech advocates, FDA scientists and others affirm that genetic modification is not just an extension of the conventional breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for millennia. Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore, the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.[3]
Widespread, unpredictable changes
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. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant's DNA.[4] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression.[5]
In addition:
*The inserted gene is often rearranged;[6]
*It may transfer from the food into our body's cells or into the DNA of bacteria inside us;[7] and
*The GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects.
GM foods on the market
The primary reason companies genetically engineer plants is to make them tolerant to their brand of herbicide. The four major GM plants, soy, corn, canola, and cotton, are designed to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. These crops have much higher residues of toxic herbicides. About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.
The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into corn and cotton 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.
There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus. Help stop the introduction of GM sugar in late 2008. Send a letter to top companies on our website.
Growing evidence of harm from GMOs
GM soy and allergic reactions
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.[8] A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy.[9]
The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM soy compared to non-GM soy.[10]
GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural soy.[11]
Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies
The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms,[12] and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses[13] and damaged intestines.[14] Moreover, Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated.
Hundreds of laborers in India report allergic reactions from handling Bt cotton.[15] Their symptoms are identical to those exposed to Bt spray.[16]
GMOs fail allergy tests
No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a protein screening protocol,[17] the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail those tests- because they have properties of known allergens.[18]
GMOs cause immune reactions to non-GM foods
If proteins "digest" slowly, there is more time for allergic reactions. Because GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice,[19] it may slow protein digestion and promote allergies to many foods.
Mice not only reacted to Bt-toxin, they had immune responses to formerly harmless compounds.[20]
Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop allergies both to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover that the peas could be deadly.[21]
GMOs and liver problems
Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.[22]
The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.[23]
GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.[24] The changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy.[25]
GM soy, reproductive problems, and infant mortality
More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.[26] Male rats[27] and mice[28] fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the mice had altered young sperm cells.
The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than those whose parents ate non-GM soy.[29]
Many offspring of female rats fed GM soy were considerably smaller,and more than half died within three weeks (compared to 10% of the non-GM soy controls). [30]
Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death
When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.[31] Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[32]
About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.[33]
Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.[34]
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.[35]
Functioning GM genes remain inside you
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function.[36] This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.
If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
If the gene that creates Bt -toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.
Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.[37]
GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic
In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production.[38] The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.
If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related problems and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling away the health of our nation for profit.
Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply
When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US before the end of 2009.
Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners, organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives.
Go to www.responsibletechnology.org to get involved and learn how to avoid GMOs. Look for our Non-GMO Shopping Guide in summer 2008.
Start buying non-GMO today.
Help us stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.
Donations to the Institute For Responsible Technology are tax-deductible. Your $25 membership includes a free educational gift.
There are three ways to become a member or make a donation:
By mail: Institute For Responsible Technology, P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, IA 52556 Online: www.responsibletechnology.org By phone: (641) 209-1765
The health information is from the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risk of Genetically Engineered Foods, by Jeffrey M. Smith.
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008. The Institute is a fully tax deductible project of The Coordinating Council, a 501c(3).
------
[1] See www.biointegrity.org
[2] See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[3] See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[4] J. R. Latham, et al., "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation," The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see also Allison Wilson, et. al., "Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications," Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews * Vol. 23, December 2006.
[5] Srivastava, et al, "Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis," Mol Med. 5, no. 11(Nov 1999):753*67.
[6] Latham et al, "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7, article ID 25376, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/JBB/index.html; Draft risk analysis report application A378, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 (GTSB77)," ANZFA, March 7, 2001, www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/anzfa_gtsb77.pdf; E. Levine et al., "Molecular Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810." Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995); Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, "Genome Scrambling-Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report-October 2004," www.econexus.info; C. Collonier, G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M. Romanuk, Y. Bertheau, "Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity," Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003, www.i-sis.org.uk
[7] Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2; Chowdhury, et al, "Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal contents of pigs fed StarLink CBH351," Vet Hum Toxicol. 45 , no. 2 (March 2003): 95*6; P. A. Chambers, et al, "The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens," J. Antimic. Chemother. 49 (2000): 161*164; and Paula S. Duggan, et al, "Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep," Br J Nutr. 89, no 2 (Feb.2003): 159*66.
[8] Mark Townsend, "Why soya is a hidden destroyer," Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
[9] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, "Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison," Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May*June 2005): 210-216(7).
[10] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, "GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks," Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005.
[11] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, "Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison," Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May*June 2005): 210-216(7).
[12] M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848*852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[13] Vazquez et al, "Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice," 1897*1912; Vazquez et al, "Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice," Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147*155; and Vazquez et al, "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant," Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578*584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[14] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, "Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes," Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219*233.
[15] See for example "Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead," Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=17069...;
[16] Ashish Gupta et. al., "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh)," Investigation Report, Oct*Dec 2005; and M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848*852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[17] FAO-WHO, "Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology," Jan. 22*25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[18] Gendel, "The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods," Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45*62; G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, "Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens," BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8*19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, "Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi," Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, "Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes," in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134*47.
[19] M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, "Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean," Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385*388.
[20] Vazquez et al, "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant," Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578*584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[21] V. E. Prescott, et al, "Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity," Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53.
[22] Arpad Pusztai, "Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food," Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84
[23] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, "Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73," http://www.iher.org.au/
[24] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173*180.
[25] M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M. Biggiogera, "Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005): 237-242.
[26] I.V. Ermakova, "Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats," 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; "Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies," REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; 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.
[27] Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[28] 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.
[29] 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.
[30] I.V. Ermakova, "Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats," 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; "Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies," REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; 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.
[31] "Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields-Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh" Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
[32] Mae-Wan Ho, "GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines," ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, "Cows Ate GM Maize & Died," ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004, http://www.isis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
[33] Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also reported widely in the farm press.
[34] See for example Mae-Wan Ho, "GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines," ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; "Study Result Not Final, Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers," BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004; and "Genetically Modified Crops and Illness Linked," Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004.
[35] Arpad Pusztai, "Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food," Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine," Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; and Arpad Pusztai, "Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment," Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005)
[36] Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[37] Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Jonathan R. Latham, "Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to unrelated organisms," GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment," January 27, 2003; Traavik and Heinemann, Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research; citing Schubbert, et al, "Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice," Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495*504; Schubbert et al, "Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA," Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3 (1997): 961*6; Schubbert et al, "On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus," Mol Gen Genet. 259, no. 6 (1998): 569*76; Hohlweg and Doerfler, "On the fate of plants or other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in mice," Mol Genet Genomics 265 (2001): 225*233; Palka-Santani, et al., "The gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate of DNA and proteins," Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 201*215; Einspanier, et al, "The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material," Eur Food Res Technol 212 (2001): 129*134; Klotz, et al, "Degradation and possible carry over of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry," Eur Food Res Technol 214 (2002): 271*275; Forsman, et al, "Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract," Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 362*368; Chen, et al, "Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles," World Journal of Gastroenterology 10, no 1(2004): 112*116; Phipps, et al, "Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows," J Dairy Sci. 86, no. 12(2003): 4070*8.
[38] William E. Crist, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index...; and Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2003, chapter 4, Deadly Epidemic.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

DwightShrute · 05-20-13, 11:33 AM

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on google More Sharing Services
10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety.
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a "large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge." Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America's dairies.

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier.

DwightShrute · 05-20-13, 03:54 PM

Lettuce Stop Monsanto!
Squash Monsanto!
The Roots of all evil!
Kale Your Representative!
Mustard up some support!
Butter do something about your food!
Soy you think your food is safe?

DwightShrute · 05-20-13, 06:43 PM

...

Attached Files

SamDiamond · 05-20-13, 07:08 PM

Boy for all the harm that Monsanto should have wrecked on our lives--- this life expectancy chart has an odd trend.

Can anyone spot the trend?

I'll answer.

WE ARE LIVING LONGER!!!!!

With all the poisoned diet soda, McDonald's value meals, genetically modified foods, and all the other shit Pauly and the gang yap about, Americans are still living longer and longer lives.

DwightShrute · 05-20-13, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by SamDiamond

Boy for all the harm that Monsanto should have wrecked on our lives--- this life expectancy chart has an odd trend.

Can anyone spot the trend?

I'll answer.

WE ARE LIVING LONGER!!!!!

With all the poisoned diet soda, McDonald's value meals, genetically modified foods, and all the other shit Pauly and the gang yap about, Americans are still living longer and longer lives.

the problem is that no one knows what the long term effects are going to be. Once the Monsanto seeds are introduced, it gonna be nearly impossible to get rid of. It mutates and the wind carries it to other farms.

What if they are wrong? Lots of evidence says they are. Even the Monsanto scientists won't eat GMO foods or drink the milk. One scientist knowing what he knows, bought his own cow instead.

They told you once asbestos was safe to use in your home. I doubt that you would insulate your house with it today.

PAULYPOKER · 05-20-13, 07:59 PM

You are wasting your time DS, trying to talk sense into a senseless jackass is a no win situation..........

SamDiamond · 05-20-13, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by DwightShrute

the problem is that no one knows what the long term effects are going to be. Once the Monsanto seeds are introduced, it gonna be nearly impossible to get rid of. It mutates and the wind carries it to other farms.

What if they are wrong? Lots of evidence says they are. Even the Monsanto scientists won't eat GMO foods or drink the milk. One scientist knowing what he knows, bought his own cow instead.

They told you once asbestos was safe to use in your home. I doubt that you would insulate your house with it today.

And what if they are right?

Environmental risks have existed since this country was born, the 70's brought us overused pesticides, and saturated fats, and artificial sugar substitutes----and yet, cancer rates are declining per capita, people are living longer, even as we continue to get fatter.

This is conspiracy wacko fear.

Fear of everything unknown.

DwightShrute · 05-22-13, 11:16 AM

Syngenta, a Swiss biotech giant, is the primary producer of GMO crops in the S. Oregon. It is illegal for Syngenta to produce GMOs in their own country, however..., it is currently legal to produce them anywhere in the United States.

Local beekeepers are reporting hive losses of local honey bees as much as 70% with high correlation to wide-spread pesticide use by industrial farming operations.

This is a direct threat to the lively-hood of farmers and our food supply, because as much a 70% of all food depends on these precious bees for pollination.

DwightShrute · 05-24-13, 04:09 PM

Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in Landmark Case

May 21 •<ins style="display:inline-table;border:none;height:60px;margin:0;p adding:0;position:relative;visibility:vi sible;width:468px"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="display:block;border:none;height: 60px;margin:0;padding:0;position:relativ e;visibility:visible;width:468px"></ins></ins>

A French farmer who can no longer perform his routine farming duties because of permanent pesticide injuries has had his day in court, literally, and the perpetrator of his injuries found guilty of chemical poisoning. The French court in Lyon ruled that Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller formula, which contains the active ingredient alachlor, caused Paul Francois to develop lifelong neurological damage that manifests as persistent memory loss, headaches, and stuttering during speech.

Reports indicate that the 47-year-old farmer sued Monsanto back in 2004 after inhaling the Lasso product while cleaning his sprayer tank equipment. Not long after, Francois began experiencing lasting symptoms that prevented him from working, which he says were directly linked to exposure to the chemical. Since Lasso’s packaging did not bear adequate warnings about the dangers of exposure, Francois alleged at the time that Monsanto was essentially negligent in providing adequate protection for its customers.
To the surprise of many, the French court agreed with the claims and evidence presented before it, declaring earlier this year that “Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois’ suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product … and must entirely compensate him.” The court is said to be seeking expert opinion on how to gauge Francois’ losses in order to determine precisely how much Monsanto will be required to compensate him in the case.
“It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning,” said Francois Lafforgue, Paul Francois’ lawyer, to Reuters earlier in the year.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to alachlor can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, spleen, and eyes, and may lead to the development of anemia and even cancer. The EPA apparently views alachlor as so dangerous, in fact, that the agency has set the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for alachlor to zero in order to “prevent potential health problems.” (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contamina...n/alachlor.cfm)

In 2007, France officially banned Lasso from use in the country in accordance with a European Union (EU) directive enacted in 2006 prohibiting the chemical from further use on crops in any member countries. But despite all the evidence proving that alachlor can disrupt hormonal balance, induce reproductive or developmental problems, and cause cancer, the chemical is still being used on conventional crops throughout the U.S. to this very day. (http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_...Rec_Id=PC35160)

“I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of (alachlor),” added Francois to Reuters.

face · 05-25-13, 12:26 AM

they've basically inserted into the DNA of the seeds a pesticide that makes insects stomachs explode (that's the idea, to get rid of the bugs, afterall Monsanto is an insectiside company). must be real good for people to eat. we are the guinea pigs of our own experiments now.