Customer Discussions > Health forum

MONSANTO


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Sep 20, 2014 2:05:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 1 hour ago
ParrotSlave says:
Mice have had two different neuromuscular diseases reversed by gene therapy, gene insertion using an adenovirus injected into muscular tissue. Horror of horrors: here's another instance of genetic engineering to treat diseases. Why do doctors insist on trying to cure patients instead of letting them suffer and die? Don't they understand that playing around with genes like that could have unimaginable consequences? Treating diseases is not natural! Next thing you know, there'll be Frankenmice that just laugh at traps. ☺ http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/gene-therapy-reverses-muscular-disease-symptoms-mice

Posted on Sep 19, 2014 8:39:40 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
Good news for those who want their vote for Congressman this fall to reflect their fear and hatred of GMOs. At least it's good news if you live in Georgia's 4th district, where a Republican named Greg Pallen is apparently running for Congress. His agenda will open some eyes:

"Sadly, many Americans are employed by the same cabal that is responsible for spraying us on a daily basis.

They fear reprisal from an out-of-control criminal syndicate that uses intimidation to garner compliance...Many Americans are experiencing strange skin conditions, pain in the joints, problems with memory and sleep, as well as respiratory symptoms...The controllers understand psychology and thus keep us engaged in frivolity and nonsense while they literally spray us to death !...It is so very sad that our politicians are still talking about Michelle Obama's vacations while millions are being poisoned and sickened every day by chemtrails, sodium fluoride, GMO food and vaccines.

I pray that the next staged false-flag event is not biological in nature because the world is slowly waking up and the controllers need a distraction to slam us back into submission.........."

http://chemtrailsaroundtheworld.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/the-4-wmds-humanity-may-no...

We need leaders like this guy. Back in 2012 he actually got about 45% of the Republican primary vote (!), and is running again - at least, some information online indicates that he's in the race. However, his campaign website is a bit...odd.

http://www.gregpallenforcongress.com

Have Asian Monsanto-bots inserted foreign DNA into Mr. Pallen by horizontal gene transfer?

Wake up, America!

Posted on Sep 19, 2014 4:07:49 PM PDT
A friend sent me this link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/food-science-whats-the-ha_b_5824036.html?utm_hp_ref=food-for-thought.

It sums up many of the concerns surrounding GMO foods quite well.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2014 1:28:50 PM PDT
"are known to have engaged"

Certainly NOT the norm for insects and plants. Vertical breeding is, so let's not exaggerate to attempt to make a point. As for bacteria and viruses and horizontal transfer, perhaps that is the precise reason answers should have been sought before they were widely introduced into the environment.

Thanks for listing those organization that supposedly are on record as saying GMO foods are safe, Andrew. For the most part, they stop short of making such a statement.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2014 1:21:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 18, 2014 3:39:37 AM PDT
Who said horizontal gene transfer is wrong? It is true that in nature it is not the usual method of breeding, vertical transfer is. The point is whether or not transgenes that are the result of genetic manipulation transfer to other plants or animals and what effects it has if they do. Asking responsible questions and seeking answers is not hysteria.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2014 11:14:35 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
All those bacteria, viruses, insects and plants that are known to have engaged in horizontal gene transfer on their own should be arrested and tried for being "wrong".

Or maybe we should just put out an APB on Mother Nature. Approach with caution - she's dangerous.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2014 10:41:43 AM PDT
Scary words to the uninformed, tactical weapons for the pied pipers of woo.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2014 10:00:36 AM PDT
"horizontal gene transfer is wrong"

Hysteria via buzzword.

The same reason medical imaging no longer uses nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, because of public outcry.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2014 9:48:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 17, 2014 9:53:38 AM PDT
"To date, we have identified no safety concerns with any of the GM foods that we have assessed. Other national regulators who have independently assessed the same GM foods have reached the same conclusions."
---------------------------------------------

But we were already told 20 years is not enough to assess the safety. We need 200 more years! Hope Amazon has the server space for 200 more years of "horizontal gene transfer is wrong" threads.

Posted on Sep 16, 2014 7:05:47 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is a statutory agency established in 1991 as part of the Australian Government's "Health portfolio." They state,

"Because GM foods are relatively new to the food supply, regulators take a cautious approach when assessing their safety for human consumption.

"FSANZ carries out safety assessments on a case-by-case basis, which means each new genetic modification is assessed individually for its potential impact on the safety of the food. We compare the GM food with a similar, commonly eaten conventional food from a molecular, toxicological, nutritional and compositional point of view. The aim is to find out if there are any differences between the GM food and its conventional counterpart, which we already know to be safe to eat.

"For example, a new GM corn variety will be compared to existing conventional (non-GM) corn varieties. Any differences that are detected are then examined to see if they will raise any safety concerns. If the genetic modification causes an unexpected effect in the food, such as increasing its allergenicity or toxicity, it will not be approved. To date, we have identified no safety concerns with any of the GM foods that we have assessed. Other national regulators who have independently assessed the same GM foods have reached the same conclusions."
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/gmoverview/Pages/default.aspx

Posted on Sep 16, 2014 5:57:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 16, 2014 6:00:21 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND WORLD AGRICULTURE--Report prepared under the auspices of the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy of Sciences:

"New public sector efforts are required for creating transgenic crops that benefit poor farmers in developing nations and improve their access to food through employment-intensive production of staples such as maize, rice, wheat, cassava, yams, sorghum, plantains and sweet potatoes. Cooperative efforts between the private and public sectors are needed to develop new transgenic crops that benefit consumers, especially in the developing world....

"The domestication of plants for agricultural use was a long-term process with profound evolutionary consequences for many species. One of its most valuable results was the creation of a diversity of plants serving human needs. Using this stock of genetic variability through selection and breeding, the "Green Revolution" produced many varieties that are used throughout the world. This work, carried out largely in publicly supported research institutions, has resulted in our present high-yielding crop varieties. A good example of such selective breeding was the introduction of "dwarf" genes into rice and wheat, which in conjunction with fertilizer applications, dramatically increased the yield of traditional food crops in the Indian sub-continent, China and elsewhere. Despite past successes, the rate of increase of food crop production has decreased recently (yield increase in the 1970s of 3% per annum has declined in the 1990s to approximately 1% per annum) (Conway and Toennissen 1999). There are still heavy losses of crops owing to biotic (e.g., pests and disease) and abiotic (e.g., salinity and drought) stresses. The genetic diversity of some crop plants has also decreased and there are species without wild relatives with which to cross breed. There are fewer options available than previously to address current problems through traditional breeding techniques, although it is recognized that these techniques will continue to be important in the future....

"We conclude that steps must be taken to meet the urgent need for sustainable practices in world agriculture if the demands of an expanding world population are to be met without destroying the environment or natural resource base. In particular, GM technology, coupled with important developments in other areas, should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers."--http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9889 [The individual pages are printable, but I don't see any links to download it in its entirety.]

Posted on Sep 16, 2014 5:38:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 16, 2014 5:38:53 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
AAAS annual report, 2012: "Scientific evidence tells us unambiguously that global climate change is real and happening now, and it is related to human activities, yet there is still a disconnect between the facts and some people's beliefs. Warmer temperatures have already affected corn, wheat, rice and soybean yields, which decline by roughly 10 percent in response to each additional degree of heat. And yet the world's food supply needs to double as the human population pushes toward 9 billion by midcentury. Crops engineered to resist drought and pests suggest a way to feed hungry people while protecting natural resources. Sadly, unfounded public fears about modified foods have persisted. Meanwhile, farmland all over the world has succumbed to overuse, drought and wildfires."--http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AR_2012.pdf

Posted on Sep 16, 2014 5:28:03 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
"Respected independent institutions in Europe have provided evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable food production, especially when bred for insect and disease resistance, and that they do not carry risks beyond those of conventional varieties.† In 2011, the EC stated that the authorization procedure is dominated by preconceived ideas that prevent a fair revision of procedures to evaluate, approve, and control GMOs. However, in reaction to the flawed Caen study, the EC has opted for further delay, seeking more research on the long-term effects of GM feed. Yet 39 GM crops are currently allowed into the EU as food or feed, with many new requests expected. Europeans and their livestock are already consuming GM foods on a substantial scale.

"Europe's lack of trust in GMOs reflects a wider distrust of science. Similar attitudes prevail concerning shale gas and nuclear power. The irony is that the generations who have benefited most from scientific progress are now the most suspicious of science. Europeans tend to romanticize the pre-modern past, unaware of the suffering and food scarcity associated with low crop yields. This European distrust of science affects R&D investments and may have harmful effects elsewhere. In Africa, European donors and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) unnecessarily delay the introduction of disease-resistant GM plants, such as the cassava needed to counteract the growing famine caused by brown streak virus.

"A change in European attitudes will not arise quickly....Only political courage, as shown last year by the British government's request for the EU to make it easier to grow GMOs, can break the ideological stalemate between NGOs, producers, consumers, and scientists."
Editorial, Science, Feb 22, 2013, "The GMO Stalemate in Europe", http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/883.full.pdf.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2014 4:04:45 PM PDT
Where does the Institut de Grance Academie Des Sciences specifically state that GMO foods are safe? They certainly do not do that in the statement that is quoted.

""Ces variétés transgéniques sont rejetées par l'Europe, sans qu'il y ait eu pour autant le moindre problème de santé pour les consommateurs ou d'atteinte à l'environnement"

Stating that there have not been any problems of consumer health or environmental damage SO FAR is certainly not a clear statement of safety, but leaves the door open to health and environmental effects that have not yet been revealed.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2014 3:56:55 PM PDT
The Union of German Academies pf Sciences certainly does say GM plants pose no risks greater than those from corresponding conventional food, and goes on to say "in some cases food from GM plants APPEARS to be superior with respect to health."

Where is evidence that GM foods are superior in respect to health? Could this be referring to golden rice? It sure is not true for transgenic varieties of corn, soy, etc. that is tolerant to herbicides or Bt varieties that produce an insecticide within the plant itself.

"Experimental research has demonstrated that natural barriers make the horizontal gene transfer of plant DNA extremely unlikely,"

Extremely unlikely? Before these were released into the environment, would it not have been prudent to know if horizontal gene transfer does or does not happen? Once they are released there is, as far as I know, no way to stop horizontal gene transfer if it does occur.

"Estimating the importance of risks specifically related to GM food products can be made only by comparison with the corresponding conventional products. The former offer the advantage of having been exceptionally thoroughly tested with respect to health risks; the latter have not been tested at all."

By the same token, the latter (conventional foods) have been used for years. Are we to think that use over thousands of years does not show anything about their safety?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2014 3:21:02 PM PDT
The Institute of Medicine's statement is loaded with questionable statements. They are:

"In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production."

What adverse health effects associated with some traditional food production methods?
Have not been identified does not necessarily mean "are not present."

"This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."

Yes, certainly they perform extensive compositional analysis to determine that each phenotype is desirable. Wouldn't do them much good if the phenotype they desire was not a result of the notification. The statement "unintended changes have not occurred in KEY components of food" is interesting. Shouldn't they be looking for ANY unintended changes or damages to the DNA at all that may have occurred as the result of the modification?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2014 2:15:06 PM PDT
The American Association of the Advancement of Science does, indeed, say "crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe," which does imply that the foods resulting from those crops are safe, but it is just that, and implication.

"a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent."

What are considered "long term" studies by the AAAS?

"GM crops have had an exemplary safety record" What do they base this statement on?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2014 1:54:40 PM PDT
The Royal Society's statement seems to stop short of saying transgenic varieties are safe in the entire statement. For example:

"Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA."

That is hardly a statement that transgenic foods are safe. The fact that there have not been legal cases arising in the United States is a very weak argument. Once GMOs were used in foods, proof that harm is done to health would be extremely hard to prove, especially without them being labeled, and its unlikely that many attorneys would take such a case. It's actually a very weak point. As for people eating them for 15 years with no reported ill effects, that is misleading. There have been cases where eliminating GMOs from the diet have resulted in improved health, and also concerns that use of glyphosate, which certainly is tied to GMO crops, causes sterility. Unfortunately, such things are not, to my knowledge, being taken seriously.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2014 1:31:46 PM PDT
Parrot, where in the AMA statement does it say genetically engineered food is safe?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 14, 2014 7:43:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 14, 2014 7:55:12 AM PDT
JagdTiger says:
I meant they lobbied instead of sold to the politicians...this whole united states has it now and every fast food franchise there is including the one who advertises the "Happy Meal" will have it.

Posted on Sep 14, 2014 2:30:19 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
The Institut de France Academie Des Sciences announced its support for GMO crops in 2002: "Considerable progress in the knowledge of the biochemistry of plants and their genomes opens the possibility - that the group supports - of a reasoned and careful introduction, case by case, of transgenic plants in agriculture, and this under the auspices of the Commission du génie génétique, de la Commission du génie biomoléculaire, du Comité de biovigilance et de l'Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments." [That's with the help of Google translate. http://preview.tinyurl.com/nwqymrn]
They had seen no long-term adverse effect on either consumer health or on the environment, and noted the rejection of GM crops in many parts of Europe: "Ces variétés transgéniques sont rejetées par l'Europe, sans qu'il y ait eu pour autant le moindre problème de santé pour les consommateurs ou d'atteinte à l'environnement." See http://preview.tinyurl.com/qbelgjf.

Posted on Sep 14, 2014 1:27:25 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
The Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities issued this statement regarding the safety of genetically modified food. Gosh, I wonder what the Germans know about chemistry and science in general ☺:
"Based on the published scientific literature, this report examines the potential hazards and risks of consuming genetically modified (GM) plant products. Toxicity, carcinogenicity and food allergenicity, and the possible effects of consuming foreign DNA (including antibiotic resistance genes) are all taken into account. The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding "conventional" food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health."--http://www.akademienunion.de/_files/memorandum_gentechnik/GMGeneFood.pdf [2006]

Posted on Sep 14, 2014 12:09:53 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
From the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council came this, in 2004: "In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food." That book is a free pdf download at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094. "Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects" should reassure people that, yes, Virginia, there may not be a Santa Claus, but there are people with minds who know how to figure out whether something is safe or not.

Posted on Sep 13, 2014 11:58:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 14, 2014 4:29:50 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, has issued this position statement by the board of directors, at http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf [from Oct 20, 2012.]

Being more polite than I am, they refer to the GM opponents' hallucinations as "misconceptions": "There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow "unnatural" and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested....As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent."

You may remember when terrorists destroyed the golden rice fields in the Philippines. The AAAS issued an editorial shortly afterward, in the Sept. 20, 2013 issue of Science, stating, "Introduced into commercial production over 17 years ago, GM crops have had an exemplary safety record. And precisely because they benefit farmers, the environment, and consumers, GM crops have been adopted faster than any other agricultural advance in the history of humanity. New technologies often evoke rumors of hazard. These generally fade with time when, as in this case, no real hazards emerge. But the anti-GMO fever still burns brightly, fanned by electronic gossip and well-organized fear-mongering that profits some individuals and organizations. We, and the thousands of other scientists who have signed the statement of protest, stand together in staunch opposition to the violent destruction of required tests on valuable advances such as Golden Rice that have the potential to save millions of impoverished fellow humans from needless suffering and death." (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full)

Posted on Sep 13, 2014 11:47:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 14, 2014 4:25:11 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
The UK's Royal Society does have a comprehensive statement on GMO food, its 2002 update seeming to be the most recent one, although the document itself promises various updates in the near future beyond the date of publication. It is available at https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2002/9960.pdf.

They are extremely cautious, but they do state that, "We believe that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible. Given the very long history of DNA consumption from a wide variety of sources, it is likely that such consumption poses no significant risk to human health, and that additional ingestion of GM DNA has no effect."

A number of websites quote Britain's Royal Society of Medicine as approving of GM foods with this statement: "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA."

That may well be part of their position statement, but I cannot find evidence of that. What that quote comes from is a review, not an editorial or committee proceeding, entitled "Genetically modified plants and human health", that appeared in the June, 2008 issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. In other words, it appears to be from the JRSM, not a statement of the RSM, although the RSM might have had a meeting somewhere at which that review, or part of it, became their "statement" or position. Depending on whether and to what extent the JRS and the RSM/JRSM are connected, perhaps the JRS statement might also constitute the RSM's statement. It is within the realm of possibility, considering how I think that people in the world of "royals" think, that the JRSM considers anything in its journal to be its "statement," but that would certainly not be consistent with practice elsewhere. A full version of that is available at http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6/290.full.pdf+html. It might have been an "invited review," but I don't see anything else in that issue (http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6.toc) that leads me to believe that it constitutes a "position statement."
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 236 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  161
Total posts:  5880
Initial post:  Sep 23, 2010
Latest post:  1 hour ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 22 customers

Search Customer Discussions