Discussion On Foods And Gm Crops

[ChiangMaiIB]

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality 07 June, 2010

"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

---------------------------------------------------------

2 birds with one stone? Profit and Population decrease! Whoopie!

I found this part of the study especially interesting:

"The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait."

Conducted by who? Peer reviewed by who? Unpublished?

If I hunted on the internet enough I'm sure I could find research that proves President Obama wasn't born in the U.S., in spite of statements from the hospital he was born in, newspaper articles announcing his birth, the copy of his birth certificate posted on the internet by the White House and the FBI background investigation conducted on all presidential candidates. I could also find "proof" of UFO's, Bigfoot, and every conspiracy you wanted to believe in.

Can you provide a link to any published studies from well known organizations that reach similar doomsday conclusions?

Very Good point about the article --- What do the other things have to do with Gm Crops? You instantly dismiss thousands of years of UFO discussions because of the 15 yr old internet??? (Plenty of ancient civilizations referred to chariots of fire in the sky)

[femi fan]

I think where the hysteria starts is with the misconception that crops like Papaya, watermelons, carrots, corn, pineapple, tomatoes and many other are native or genetically specific to Thailand. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The above species were commerce motivated strains introduced to Thailand to grow for food. Papaya's in particular have only been grown in thailand for 150 to 170 years.

So it's not the end of the world if some of these introduced varieties are affected. It's common for better strains to take over for weaker or pest related strains over time. Take for instance the Cavendish Banana strain taking over for the Gros Michel strain. Neither by the way were native to SEA.

I'm not sure there's too much hysteria about GM crops. I'm not too sure there's many citizens, with no agenda to serve, who want to eat GM foods. There may be many who just shrug their shoulders, but there are many who don't want to eat such foods. Certainly anybody who wishes to be informed about what they eat wants to know a lot more about the effects of eating GM foods, and that includes over a period of years. Meanwhile they'd like to see on the label that it contains GM foods so that they can choose to not eat them.

But this is the problem, and where it all gets mired in human greed. Monsanto, and other chemical companies, know that very few people will choose to eat their foods, so in the US they infiltrated and corrupted the FDA and other organisations (obviously USAID being an example) so that there would be no labeling requirements by law to inform concerned citizens. Don't want to knock the profit.

Then there's the behaviour of these companies, backed by the US government, towards patenting food, thereby claiming and having the rights to own foods that have existed for millenia. Even worse, they are doing this in other sovereign countries, for example claiming and owning the thai name for their jasmine rice. They are claiming and getting control over our farms, farmers, and the food chain. Even if it were that their GM chemical-inspired foods were not dangerous or unhealthy for the human body, it is this overarching control of the basic necessity for life that is unethical and anti-freedom for human life.

If there actually is any hysteria, or let's say 'fear', it's because how can informed citizens trust the likes of monsanto and their other chemical brothers with their food when they are responsible for developing and making chemicals and toxins used to destroy the lives of millions of people, and to destroy millions of acres of land? That's their legacy and company history, and it's patently obvious to anyone who reads up on the likes of monsanto that not only do they not care about the life and health of citizens, but in their search for profit it is of no consequence to them that people die and families are shattered.

Profit is what drives the GM industry, and only subterfuge and corruption are the tools that will work, and these companies know it. Their main propaganda is to label those against GM foods as 'anti-science', even though we're just pro-information. But the irony is, they themselves fly in the face of science by claiming certain truths that simply are not yet backed up by science.

Citizens need to be careful here and to keep themselves informed. It is only a matter of time before the US pharma companies get their way with thailand, unless there is enough knowledge and awareness amongst the thai population. I feel optimistic for some reason.

[femi fan]

Can you provide a link to any published studies from well known organizations that reach similar doomsday conclusions?

This i believe is a red herring argument.

The onus is on the monsantos to provide their own evidence that their crops will not harm humans, while at the same time having the nutritional equivalent of the natural food. It's a reflection on big business and their lies that anti-GM people are labeled by them as being 'anti-science' and 'anti-progress' when they are the ones bypassing science in their all-out efforts to make millions of dollars for themselves.

The onus is also on them to demonstrate why we even need such GM foods. Their claim that it will reduce or eliminate poverty is just that, a claim. They have provided no evidence at all.

And let's not forget that it's these same pharmaceutical companies that make the prescription drugs that are the cause of so many deaths in the US and wherever else they sell their pills. If we did need GM foods, and if we then tried our hardest to make them nutritional and safe, then the very last people i would want to trust with this task would be monsanto and their brethren. Their history and legacy for the 20th century world is worse than the worst horror movie. And it's them that are running the GM roadshow!!!! Could you even make it up??

[femi fan]

As to the topic, at a recent Mae Jo uni. farm fair I noticed many of the stalls and farm plots advertised that their products were not GMO, so there is awareness.

GMO papayas are the norm now in Hawaii due to the ring spot virus. The gmo pollen has invaded fields of non gmo papayas, the virus has also evolved to infest the gmo variety.

I think i would be quite correct in saying that for much of the american population, not just hawaii and not just papayas, GM foods are now the norm. And that norm is being spread around the world as fast as they can.

The awareness you talk of is nice to know, but also worrying to a degree, because it suggests existence in the first place. However, i suspect that thais, whose culture pretty much revolves around the local market where they, most of them, still go daily to buy fresh produce, will prove quite resilient. This is particularly so for chiang mai where there is so much local and quality and abundant foods growing.

[amexpat]

Thanks for the input, but can i say from the outset i didn't have in mind a thread on the merits or otherwise of GM foods, rather to have a thread that can simply investigate the actual occurrence of GM crops and foods in the chiang mai and thailand food chain.

Please can posters limit their posts and discussion to what we already have by way of GM foods in our food chain, and not to whether we should have GM foods or not.

Your admonitions about this thread are well advised, femifan. Otherwise, it could turn into an anti-GM food rant.

This i believe is a red herring argument.

....... It's a reflection on big business and their lies that anti-GM people are labeled by them as being 'anti-science' and 'anti-progress' when they are the ones bypassing science in their all-out efforts to make millions of dollars for themselves.

The onus is also on them to demonstrate why we even need such GM foods. Their claim that it will reduce or eliminate poverty is just that, a claim. They have provided no evidence at all.

And let's not forget that it's these same pharmaceutical companies that make the prescription drugs that are the cause of so many deathstin the US and wherever else they sell their pills. If we did need GM foods, and if we then tried our hardest to make them nutritional and safe, then the very last people i would want to trust with this task would be monsanto and their brethren. Their history and legacy for the 20th century world is worse than the worst horror movie. And it's them that are running the GM roadshow!!!! Could you even make it up??

[Ulysses G.]

Your admonitions about this thread are well advised, femifan.  Otherwise, it could turn into an anti-GM food rant.

No way! 

[heybruce]

Can you provide a link to any published studies from well known organizations that reach similar doomsday conclusions?

This i believe is a red herring argument.

The onus is on the monsantos to provide their own evidence that their crops will not harm humans, while at the same time having the nutritional equivalent of the natural food. It's a reflection on big business and their lies that anti-GM people are labeled by them as being 'anti-science' and 'anti-progress' when they are the ones bypassing science in their all-out efforts to make millions of dollars for themselves.

The onus is also on them to demonstrate why we even need such GM foods. Their claim that it will reduce or eliminate poverty is just that, a claim. They have provided no evidence at all.

And let's not forget that it's these same pharmaceutical companies that make the prescription drugs that are the cause of so many deaths in the US and wherever else they sell their pills. If we did need GM foods, and if we then tried our hardest to make them nutritional and safe, then the very last people i would want to trust with this task would be monsanto and their brethren. Their history and legacy for the 20th century world is worse than the worst horror movie. And it's them that are running the GM roadshow!!!! Could you even make it up??

First draw your conclusions, then reject all evidence that refutes them.

GM foods do go through a rigorous approval process. After making it through the process and being approved, it is up to the skeptics to show that they are harmful. There is no evidence GM foods are harmful, so the skeptics insist that no approval process is rigorous enough. They do increase crop yields, increase drought resistance, and reduce pesticide use. Yes, the GM companies lobby Congress, as does every other big business, big charity, and special interest in the U.S., it's a part of our political system I don't like, but the politicians aren't inclined to change it. I am not aware of a GM company that has done anything illegal to influence Congress.

Finally, a recurring comment is that GM companies are in it for profit. Yes, companies and people like money, that's what makes the world economy work. Unless you're working for free or willingly running a business that loses money, stop slamming profit.

[ChiangMaiIB]

It is worth it to add that GMO's main health concerns stem from long term and the science provided is based on short term.

The profits argument is weak, your right. I would think its fair though to consider the ties monsanto has with the US Govt and feel pretty certain that it goes beyond common lobbying. Conflict of interest could even be argued with previous board members being appointed into government offices.

Monsanto also does have a Global Pollution Legacy. They have engaged in intentional forms of pollution (with mandatory cover-up efforts) and have even created products with the sole purpose of pollution. As an inner-connected world (expats should definitely understand this) what a company from our country does to another country has effects on all of us.

We are now looking at a company that has created a legacy of pollution to now be in charge of our food supply? That is why the new alice in wonderland movie lacked "wonder" - we are already upside down. Anyone should be skeptical about this company, atleast enough to do some personal research.

For many, its not the fear of the GMO seed itself -- its the company parenting the seed.

"You are what you Eat"

In patent laws - you would then become property of Monsanto

This relates to the OP question about Chiang Mai because to many, this is a serious issue that goes beyond pop science and pop conspiracy but to the hard cold facts about the issue ----- anyone notice that cold hard facts about issues seem to be getting more difficult to come by, even as our ability to communicate becomes instantaneous?

Farming Farmaceuticals (I mean PHarmaceuticals -- I always misspell that)

*There was a funny comic in the newspaper once about the lab guys in a stuffy laboratory creating medicine and they have a poster on the wall of a beautiful farm - and they are both thinking - wont it be great when we can just grow this stuff out there

Edited July 2, 2010 by ChiangMaiIB

[femi fan]

GM foods do go through a rigorous approval process. After making it through the process and being approved, it is up to the skeptics to show that they are harmful. There is no evidence GM foods are harmful, so the skeptics insist that no approval process is rigorous enough. They do increase crop yields, increase drought resistance, and reduce pesticide use. Yes, the GM companies lobby Congress, as does every other big business, big charity, and special interest in the U.S., it's a part of our political system I don't like, but the politicians aren't inclined to change it. I am not aware of a GM company that has done anything illegal to influence Congress.

Finally, a recurring comment is that GM companies are in it for profit. Yes, companies and people like money, that's what makes the world economy work. Unless you're working for free or willingly running a business that loses money, stop slamming profit.

It would be useful if you could provide further information about this 'rigorous approval process' that you talk of. Can you enlighten the forum?

No evidence that GM foods are harmful? How did you arrive at this conclusion? How about the 150,000 indian farmers who have killed themselves? Not harmful? And that the gm crops they now have to use require twice as much water as normal crops?

Your lack of awareness that monsanto have not done anything illegal to influence congress means it hasn't happened?? Is this the kind of evidence that you're talking about?

And the fact that companies and people like money and this is what makes the world economy tick means this is all acceptable? It might make the world economy tick, for now, but it's destroying the world in other ways. But the love of money means it's all okay? You got any kids or grandkids? Your attitude is part of the disastrous legacy they are inheriting.

[femi fan]

For many, its not the fear of the GMO seed itself -- its the company parenting the seed.

"You are what you Eat"

In patent laws - you would then become property of Monsanto

This relates to the OP question about Chiang Mai because to many, this is a serious issue that goes beyond pop science and pop conspiracy but to the hard cold facts about the issue ----- anyone notice that cold hard facts about issues seem to be getting more difficult to come by, even as our ability to communicate becomes instantaneous?

Indeed, it is the fact that the killers behind monsanto have pretty much turned into the owners of our foods. It's an incredible, mind-boggling thought that requires large amounts of self-denial to live with. They are destroying soils and people everywhere in their pursuit of dollars.

Perhaps the most amazing thing of all is that monsanto's, and their apologists', main argument is that those opposed to GM foods are anti-science and anti-progress, yet they themselves continue to corrupt governments into using their technology despite a lack of scientific research and rigour into their products. But in any case, we know what's happening already. And it is not good for people, animals, nor the soil and our earth. But it is good for a few hundred american criminal capitalists. But hey, that's our world, and that's the world we're handing down to the next generations.

It's vital that countries like thailand become informed about GM foods as much as possible to protect themselves from the future corruption that will take place between american corporations and developing and third world nations' governments.

[femi fan]

Your admonitions about this thread are well advised, femifan. Otherwise, it could turn into an anti-GM food rant.

A decent debate, like a good meal, is best allowed to develop organically...

[Ulysses G.]

   

Sorry, but I could not resist.

[femi fan]

 

Sorry, but I could not resist.

That's alright.

But conspiracies are different to actual happenings. The former resides in people's minds only, the latter are of course verifiable through their actions.

Can you deny the damage that these GM crops are doing to the environment, if not people's health? Although i'm not really sure that cows should be eating GM corn instead of the grass that nature intended them to eat.

[Ulysses G.]

I am not convinced that these crops are a good thing, but I sort of doubt that they are as evil as some have suggested here. It seems to me that the middle way is usually  closest to the truth. 

[femi fan]

I am not convinced that these crops are a good thing, but I sort of doubt that they are as evil as some have suggested here. It seems to me that the middle way is usually  closest to the truth. 

We don't know yet what impact they may have on our health, partly because the companies themselves either won't do the proper research, or won't release the results. But there are many other ways that make GM foods bad news for our planet, our people, and our animals, who are all being damaged by the processes involved in these GM crops. Part of what monsanto does is to suppress information, hence bending the fda and congress so that no labeling is required. If everything was hunkydory, why not let the citizens make their own choices?

And would you find it acceptable that all rain water become owned by some company? Foods are being patented by the likes of monsanto and farmers then become beholden to them and their demands.

The food itself may or may not be bad, but the practice in producing it definitively IS bad for people and planet. Over a hundred thousand indian farmers have taken their lives because of it, and that's just one example.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Femi this is really an indictment of your research abilities. If you drop the ball so bad here then where else is your analysis faulty.

Bt cotton was initially blamed as a convenient scapegoat but later studies found it was just one of the lesser factors.

It doesn't take a lot of commonsense to suspect other factors than GMO issues. There is plenty of GMO in the US, Mexico, China, Brazil. How come people aren't committing suicide en mass in these countries? Because GMO is not the major cause.

Here is an excerpt from WIKI page on Indian Farmer suicides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_suicides_in_India

In the initial years when farmers distress came to attract public attention it was said that indebtedness through use of Bt Cotton were the main cause for farmers suicide. Here it is important to notice that in the context of Indian history [14] the moneylender is considered to be a particularly evil person and the farmer an unwitting subject of his machinations. Moreover, in recent times there has been a considerable ideologically driven movement against the use of Bt crops. As a result the initial causes indebtedness and Bt Cotton were easily accepted to be the causes of farm suicides. More detailed research by various investigators like Raj Patel [15], Nagraj.[7].[16], Meeta and Rajivlochan[17], identified a variety of causes that essentially boiled down to this: India was transforming rapidly into a primarily urban, industrial society with industry as its main source of income; the government and society had begun to be unconcerned about the condition of the countryside; moreover, a downturn in the urban economy was pushing a large number of distressed non-farmers to try their hand at cultivation; the farmer was also caught in a Scissors crisis; in the absence of any responsible counselling either from the government or society there were many farmers who did not know how to survive in the changing economy. Such stresses pushed many into a corner where suicide became an option for them [18] At least one study from the Punjab also pointed at the dramatic misuse of agricultural chemicals in farmer households in the absence of any guidance on how to correctly use these deadly chemicals and linked it to the rise in farm suicides wherever farm chemicals were in widespread use. [19]

[ChiangMaiIB]

accidental post....

Edited July 6, 2010 by ChiangMaiIB