Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

[toooa]

It has been mentioned that we need GMO's because we have a food shortage in the world. Truth is, there's plenty of food, it's just bad management of it and politics that makes people go hungry. Another issue is the energy inefficiency of meat production (and other animal products) which means that plant food which could be grown to feed people is being grown to feed animals which yield a lot less in edible energy output than plants do. Plus animal production produces tons of waste and causes land degradation and waterway pollution. To make it even worse, plants which could be grown to feed humans, are being grown for inefficient biofuels instead which are so we can "save the earth".

As a whole we don't need GMO's. There may be some benefits, but we are causing our own problems where food production is concerned.

[Bluespunk]

"After the bill becomes an Act, those held responsible for causing contamination will be required to pay compensation for GM-caused damages," he said."

Yeah right.

[dcutman]

Genetic engineering is a more modern method. What else did you have in mind as more modern?

Thai farms seems to produce fractions in yield to American and European farmers growing natural/non gm crops is what I mean. What did you think?

[attrayant]

It has been mentioned that we need GMO's because we have a food shortage in the world. Truth is, there's plenty of food, it's just bad management of it and politics that makes people go hungry.

I find this to be an overly simplistic view of a complex problem. There will always be borders between countries. We can't snap our fingers and make politics go away. So what's the solution?

And while it's easy to point at first-world countries and bemoan the wasted food (a point I'll agree with), again there isn't an easy fix. All that food was expensive to produce in the first place (after all, it was produced in a first-world country) and it would be prohibitively expensive to ship off to Ethiopia or wherever. On top of that you would have the conservative wing of the population angry about free handouts to third-world countries. The solution seems to be: first world countries need to produce less of their own food and/or manage it better. But that doesn't help the impoverished countries.

[attrayant]

Thai farms seems to produce fractions in yield to American and European farmers growing natural/non gm crops is what I mean.

Okay I see what you meant.

I don't know that western farms are more fruitful than Thailand's on a meter-to-meter comparison, but they certainly are larger thanks to advanced machinery and process mechanization. This kind of modernization is expensive and probably out of the reach of the average Thai farm. Consequently this means that crops grown in first world countries are more expensive thanks to all that technology. Western labor is also more expensive. Thailand can't/won't modernize in this sense because it would increase the market cost of produce too much. This would also hurt the country's export business. I mean it's not like other countries can't harvest their own shrimp - so why do they import so much of it from Thailand?

Edited November 29, 2014 by attrayant

[jpduggan]

Would that mean that they wouldn't have to use the formaldyhyde based formalene to make the foods look fresh any more?

[dcutman]

It has been mentioned that we need GMO's because we have a food shortage in the world. Truth is, there's plenty of food, it's just bad management of it and politics that makes people go hungry.

I find this to be an overly simplistic view of a complex problem. There will always be borders between countries. We can't snap our fingers and make politics go away. So what's the solution?

And while it's easy to point at first-world countries and bemoan the wasted food (a point I'll agree with), again there isn't an easy fix. All that food was expensive to produce in the first place (after all, it was produced in a first-world country) and it would be prohibitively expensive to ship off to Ethiopia or wherever. On top of that you would have the conservative wing of the population angry about free handouts to third-world countries. The solution seems to be: first world countries need to produce less of their own food and/or manage it better. But that doesn't help the impoverished countries.

Your thinking is totally a skewed. Countries like Thailand have been growing stuff the same way for hundreds of years and still are. Guess what? Other countries/ people have figured out a way to grow the same things bigger, faster, better using less water and pesticides without GM methods. If the farmers actually tell the government they need help with labor cost (instead of asking for above market prices) the government would supply the modern machines to help with that.

Is all Thailand has to do is wake up smell the roses and copy what everyone else is doing. They are good coping everything else here, not sure why they cant figure out farming.

[umbanda]

Few weeks ago the new Government wants Thailand be the "hub" of organic farm....Now this. I wonder who relly is in control of proposals and decitions here..and how serious its are.

[Seastallion]

Oh no, there goes my weekend.

Many NGOs feel GMOs do more harm than good.

When they've got something other than a "feeling" to base their fears on, I'll listen.

Even this neutral-toned report indicates some of the real dangers. Cross-contamination, where the GMO is naturally spread to other fields is a big one.

Has it ever been conclusively shown that this spread is a bad thing? I mean this kind of seed distribution happens to non-GMO seeds too, so that's also a kind of cross-contamination. Seems to me the statement simply begs the question (i.e. assumes the premise to be true) that GMO seeds are intrinsically bad.

Even the language used in discussing this situation strongly implies that something bad or evil is happening. Look at that word "contamination". Ooh, something evil must be happening! Scary, right?

people who know the real deal about this garbage just dont [sic] want it...thats [sic] why so many Countrys [double-sic] are running away from it

It turns out that the people who know "the real deal" don't actually know anything at all. When the man on the street is asked why they reject GMOs, their answer never has anything to do with the science. It's always something like "we shouldn't be messing with nature!" which is purely a philosophical position, not a scientific or rational one. Politicians, of course, always want to appeal to the lowest common denominator so they end up listening to these uninformed opinions of the man on the street.

Lets ignore the ecosystem implications for the argument. Just the fact that a patented seed is rampant and can be sowed unwittingly, under current laws means that Monsanto can, and will take you to the cleaners.

That is a very bad thing.

[anon022]

This is what happens when you put top military brass in charge of something they have no clue about! GMO's will achieve the direct opposite: destroy export markets, and moreover, destroy farming, and the way of life of the Thai! Just have a look at what happened to Mexican farmers and local crop variety after Monsanto was allowed in - a consequence of NAFTA.

[anon022]

You do the math, same company that sponsored Vietnam and gave us napalm, now gives us orange agent, GMO, all biocides, nothing good comes from those companies please dont ever listen to the lies they tell you, I hope Thailand never get GMO.

Okay those of you who just can't get away from thinking that Monsanto is the devil incarnate need to take a deep breath for a moment and separate the corporation from the technology. Imagine, just for a moment, a world where Monsanto doesn't exist but GMO technology does. Is the technology still inherently bad?

While Monsantos business practices may be ethically questionable, they are not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field. You can disagree with Monsanto all you like but that should not muddy a strictly technical or scientific discussion of GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that grudge to every application of GMOs.

Don't believe the myth that GMOs are being developed to use LESS pesticide. The opposite is true. Monsanto has already developed their "Roundup Ready" GMO seeds that enable the plants to take much higher levels of pesticides. This is a fact.

You're a bit late with your facts. Glyphosate-resistant soybeans have been approved since 1994. Anyway, so what? What exactly is the problem with this? You've made the statement as if it's supposed to just be axiomatically accepted as a bad thing without explaining why it's a bad thing.

This exactly what we would expect to happen. The whole point of herbicide-resistant crops is to be able to spray the field with glyphosate and kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Prior to glyphosphate, farmers used a class of herbicides called sulfonyl ureas, but they could only be used in extremely low concentrations because of toxicity fears and the fact that they are non-selective (they damage weeds and crops equally). I would think that all the anti-toxin folks should be applauding the debut of glyphosphate (one of the least toxic herbicides there is), which targets weeds while leaving the resistant crops unharmed. Somebody will need to explain to me why that's a bad thing.

Secondly, the term "pesticide" is often used in a misleading way. It is used to refer to both insecticides and herbicides. Anti-GMO activists gloss over this complexity by lumping insecticides and herbicides under the confusing label of pesticides, and then complaining that "pesticide use" has increased.

How much herbicide is used, anyway? According to the product datasheet, farmers are advised to use 22-44 ounces of product per acre. The 44 ounce rate means that each liquid ounce is spread over an area of about 90 square meters. The active ingredient is applied at less than .1 grams per square meter.

Round-up kills everything, except the crops that have been genetically modified. That means that in the field there is NOTHING left alive except for this Frankenfood, that has been proven to have very little nutritional value compared to the non-GMO equivalent. INDEPENDENT research has also shown it is carcinogenic. Mice develop huge tumors if fed GMO's exceeding three months. Monsanto knows this and this is why their "research" never exceeds 3 months trials.

[bangrak]

Must be getting pressure from Monsanto.

regards Worgeordie

Cargill is not around here, is it...? Not only Monsanto, I'm afraid, pushing with 'good money species', detrimental, or even lethal, for the environment...

[attrayant]

I was wondering how long it would take for the Food Babe to show up.

Round-up kills everything, except the crops that have been genetically modified.

Wow that sure is a puzzle alright. Here's an idea: don't spray it on "everything".

Seems to me you've got three choices:

a) toxic herbicides like the ureas that burn up the crops as well as the weeds (in other words, "everything")

the least toxic herbicide we can manufacture that kill the weeds but don't harm the crops

c) no herbicide at all

Yes that last option would be great, but it's just not realistic.

That means that in the field there is NOTHING left alive except for this Frankenfood...

Which, except for the scary name-calling, is exactly what farmers want.

...that has been proven to have very little nutritional value compared to the non-GMO equivalent.

Put your money where your mouth is and cough up a reputable cite for that. I've already provided a 27 year study of 100 billion subjects proving you wrong.

INDEPENDENT research has also shown it is carcinogenic.

Again let's have the citation, although I suspect "independent" means not peer-reviewed, so it won't be worth much. Research coming from the "laboratories" of Mike Adams will be given all the consideration it is due.

Edited November 29, 2014 by attrayant

[bangrak]

Every, single, time, I hear or read about the Government, Officials, someone 'high up' being 'thinking about', 'considering', 'studying', 'evaluating', 'proposing', you name it, about any subject, I think 'oh my God, they've decided THAT!', as, by experience, I know, it has already been decided in principal, it will not be favourable for the 'general population', nor for the 'State of Thailand', it's a question of 'personal interests', call it greed, for a 'leading group', the 'elite', it doesn't matter whether old or new, that's going to go through the troath of the Thai Nation, the real, true, Thais, the agenda exists, the calendar not yet set, as it's about how to 'present the baby' to the general population of gullible undereducated (on purpose!) in a way they'll swallow it, bait hook and line without, possibly costly, opposition, and therefore setting it on high fire before setting it aside, then warm it up again, as in the stew Thai 'decision making' unfortunately is by tradition.

Do the 'farmers', yes, the real ones, the ones who work the land for generations, not the wealthy landowners, realise this will be forever, there is no way back, and it will change their and their children's children lifes, forever, and not in a better way, but in a 'rational', read 'financial', 'industralised' way, in favour of the (already) mega-wealthy families, making of them more slaves than they were a century ago? No, they don't, and how could they make time for it, as it has been made sure (by 'some' previous 'governments') before the next month starts they'll already be 'in the red' for the one to come, and, made sure previously by generations of 'leaders' (before those lowlifes) they would not be able to understand what's happening to them, what is being done to them, being refused any kind of decent education!

GMOs will not save the World, IMHO, they just add a new, possibly lethal, disease to it, the main issue of planet Earth being, something no Government will consider (because of power and 'politically correctness'), no church nor belief (because of the extra power 'new souls' bring), nor industrialist will accept (because of 'growth', greed) is: there are just too many human beings living on the planet for it to presently function in a sustainable way, the human race has, in the last century already, reached a point where it creates, irreparable, damage to the global ecosystem! Human-made climate change and other, true or not, theories left aside.

My grandmother, who was not a fascist or some lunatic, just a plain down-to-earth person and actually very wise person, who had personally suffered in the 1st and 2nd World War, has been ringing a bell for me, with that chilling remark, while watching the news, 30 years ago: 'There are too many people on the World, there will need to be a new great war or new disease to regulate it!' I still hope she was wrong, but what sustainable solution is there which would be acceptable to all, as long as greed and egotism are allowed to fester...? And now this in Thailand, will it ever end, how will it end...?

[bangrak]

Few weeks ago the new Government wants Thailand be the "hub" of organic farm....Now this. I wonder who relly is in control of proposals and decitions here..and how serious its are.

Are you old enough to remember that Walt Disney movie called 'Fantasia' wherein Mickey Mouse had stolen the sorcerer's hat, and wand, and the consequences of it? Well, in this local movie, the sorcerer is NOT going to come back in time to limit the damage. The last true one died long ago, though his wand still seems to work quite well, for some people, his name was Pibul Songkram, and he was a bloody dictator. Welcome to Thailand (and I am NOT bashing, just the plain TRUTH!)...

[bangrak]

To 'attrayant': Thank you for your expression about Monsanto being considered: 'the devil incarnate', IMO it perfectly fits the load, greed being a capital sin, just to name one that would stick on Monsanto's 'horns'... Which company involved in GMOs do you work for in Thailand actually? In the PR department, or something more 'technical'? When you'd have a conscience of your own, ...or children, you couldn't be in favour of it, or do they really pay that big money, and why then, to do the devil's business?

[connda]

I'm thinking the biotechnological companies selling GMOs just got in bed with the governments. Democracy coming soon, because corpocracy needs a front copy for their activities to make it look legit. "We're not offering bribes! We're offering campaign contributions!"

Edited November 29, 2014 by connda

[djjamie]

The problems are complex, especially in regards to native strains being competed out of existence by super plants. There have been some serious mistakes made, including cane toads in Australia, but there were also more success stories (especially in regards to introducing aphids and specific wasps to combat imbalances in ecosystems that came about through pesticides inadvertently killing predators that kept native pest species in check).

On the other side of the coin are the benefits. Take Golden Rice, for example -- a foodstuff that is literally a super-food -- and that leads back to the question of GM crops being owned by corporations, which Golden Rice is owned and patented. Once the seeds are controlled, farmers lose all self-reliance and self-sufficiency. That MUST be prevented.

I am actually pro-GM crops, but only after extensive testing and public domain ownership. It is possible to make a subspecies that cannot cross-pollinate with related subspecies by modifying the pollen produced by the GM crop to be incompatible with the reproductive organs of non-GM plants. In the animal kingdom, house cats cannot breed with lions, even using artificial insemination. Nature has many examples we can learn by, but through breeding we have had GM animals and plants for thousands of years.

Alternatively, the arguments about the loss of native species coming from the developed world is a huge chunk of dirty hypocrisy. There are over 400 species of apples, but western grocery stores sell what ships well--being about four varieties. These varieties are neither the most nutritious nor the best whole food varieties. They are grown, bred and sold for two things: appearance, and how well they hold that appearance for how long.

A good example is a banana rarely seen in the US, called elephant bananas here in Thailand. The flesh that is eaten is yellow -- indicating the presence of vitamin A (beta carotene). I only see it in Asia, not in major Asian stores, but only on roadside stands. The big bananas people favor have no beta carotene (or so little it is an inconsequential nutrient). Vitamin A deficiency is a big problem in Asia.

Literally millions of Asian children have serious long-term health liabilities from NOT having enough beta carotene in the first year they are weaned. Their lifespans are directly affected, as well as their healthy development. "Vitamin A is applied to the skin to improve wound healing, reduce wrinkles, and to protect the skin against UV radiation. Vitamin A is required for the proper development and functioning of our eyes, skin, immune system, and many other parts of our bodies."

One very important aspect of vitamin A is in treating anemia. Over 60% of all Thai women are anemic -- which leads to birth defects (such as lower intelligence) and can cause Down's syndrome.

Over 60% of all Thai women are anemic -- which leads to birth defects (such as lower intelligence) and can cause Down's syndrome.

​You said it not me!!

​And due to the lack of intelligence this is why reform is needed. Without education democracy cannot flourish.

​Thank you Fangferang…I appreciate the input.

[maidee]

did they invite monstanto, or does CP do all the lobby work themselves ?

GMO = good for business, bad for people's health ...

but hey... look at the USA ... getting more fatter by the day .... fat chicken that cannot stand their own body weight after 6 weeks, now see at american people, getting fatter

more fat people = more obetient people, aka keyboard warriors ...

look at the middle east, it are not the FATTIES that go demonstrate against the governement !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fat people = easely tired = easely controlled

[xylophone]

Quote attrayant: "I would think that all the anti-toxin folks should be applauding the debut of glyphosphate (one of the least toxic herbicides there is), which targets weeds while leaving the resistant crops unharmed. Somebody will need to explain to me why that's a bad thing".

Well glyphosate doesn't "leave the resistant crops unharmed" because it is sprayed on them whilst the weed killing takes place and the GMO plant absorbs some of it, thereby finding its way into our food system and our bodies......."Glyphosate residues are found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GM sugar, corn, soy, and wheat".

And that's a bad thing because I don't want glyphosate in my body.

It has also been found in human breast milk. There is much research available on the internet however be careful when reading research that is backed by folk in the pay of Monsanto, and these include so called "independent researchers and organisations".

[attrayant]

[Glyphosate] is sprayed on them whilst the weed killing takes place and the GMO plant absorbs some of it, thereby finding its way into our food system and our bodies. [snip] And that's a bad thing because I don't want glyphosate in my body.

It sounds like your issue is not specific to glyphosate or GMOs, but a basic dislike of herbicides in general (so why aren't you just as vocal about pre-GMO herbicides that are a lot more toxic than glyphosate?). That's not an unreasonable position to hold - I don't want to unnecessarily consume herbicides either. But as I keep asking again and again, what's the solution to the "problem" of herbicide use? The solution seems to be don't apply any kind of herbicides any to crops at all. As I said before, that's an unrealistic position unless you want to pay top dollar for 100% herbicide-free produce. But 99% of the world's population can't afford that luxury.

As for concern about glyphosate toxicity, the EPA gives it a class 3 toxicity rating, based on occupational exposure.

Class 3 toxicity: slightly toxic. Harmful if swallowed, may be harmful if absorbed through the skin, may be harmful if inhaled, or may irritate eyes, nose, throat, and skin.

So don't go swimming in it, okay? Chlorine is a class 1 toxin (deadly), but we're okay with adding it to our drinking water. As always, it's the dose that makes the poison.

As consumers, we should be concerned about dietary exposure. From the EPA fact sheet:

The nature of glyphosate residue in plants and animals is adequately understood. Studies with a variety of plants indicate that uptake of glyphosate or AMPA from soil is limited. The material which is taken up is readily translocated throughout the plant and into its fruit. In animals, most glyphosate is eliminated in urine and feces.

EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a worst-case risk scenario, that is, assuming that 100 percent of all possible commodities/acreage were treated, and assuming that tolerance-level residues remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded that the chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.

A reference dose (RfD), or estimate of daily exposure that would not cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime, of 2 mg/kg/day has been proposed for glyphosate, based on the developmental toxicity studies described above.

So a 90 Kg adult could eat 180 mg per day and still be below toxicity threshold. At a 100 mg per square meter farm application rate, you're more likely to die from a cucumber overdose than from glyphosate consumption.

And a study of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity:

An overwhelming preponderance of negative results in well-conducted bacterial reversion and in vivo mammalian micronucleus and chromosomal aberration assays indicates that glyphosate and typical GBFs are not genotoxic in these core assays. Negative results for in vitro gene mutation and a majority of negative results for chromosomal effect assays in mammalian cells add to the weight of evidence that glyphosate is not typically genotoxic for these endpoints in mammalian systems.

Mixed results were observed for micronucleus assays of GBFs in non-mammalian systems. Reports of positive results for DNA damage endpoints indicate that glyphosate and GBFs tend to elicit DNA damage effects at high or toxic dose levels, but the data suggest that this is due to cytotoxicity rather than DNA interaction with GBF activity perhaps associated with the surfactants present in many GBFs. Glyphosate and typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.

Everything I can find indicated that glyphosate is comparatively benign as far as herbicides go, especially given the alternatives.

Edited November 30, 2014 by attrayant

[xylophone]

[Glyphosate] is sprayed on them whilst the weed killing takes place and the GMO plant absorbs some of it, thereby finding its way into our food system and our bodies. [snip] And that's a bad thing because I don't want glyphosate in my body.

It sounds like your issue is not specific to glyphosate or GMOs, but a basic dislike of herbicides in general (so why aren't you just as vocal about pre-GMO herbicides that are a lot more toxic than glyphosate?). That's not an unreasonable position to hold - I don't want to unnecessarily consume herbicides either. But as I keep asking again and again, what's the solution to the "problem" of herbicide use? The solution seems to be don't apply any kind of herbicides any to crops at all. As I said before, that's an unrealistic position unless you want to pay top dollar for 100% herbicide-free produce. But 99% of the world's population can't afford that luxury.

As for concern about glyphosate toxicity, the EPA gives it a class 3 toxicity rating, based on occupational exposure.

Class 3 toxicity: slightly toxic. Harmful if swallowed, may be harmful if absorbed through the skin, may be harmful if inhaled, or may irritate eyes, nose, throat, and skin.

The nature of glyphosate residue in plants and animals is adequately understood. Studies with a variety of plants indicate that uptake of glyphosate or AMPA from soil is limited. The material which is taken up is readily translocated throughout the plant and into its fruit. In animals, most glyphosate is eliminated in urine and feces.

EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a worst-case risk scenario, that is, assuming that 100 percent of all possible commodities/acreage were treated, and assuming that tolerance-level residues remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded that the chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.

A reference dose (RfD), or estimate of daily exposure that would not cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime, of 2 mg/kg/day has been proposed for glyphosate, based on the developmental toxicity studies described above.

So a 90 Kg adult could eat 180 mg per day and still be below toxicity threshold. At a 100 mg per square meter farm application rate, you're more likely to die from a cucumber overdose than from glyphosate consumption.

Quote: "It sounds like your issue is not specific to glyphosate or GMOs, but a basic dislike of herbicides in general (so why aren't you just as vocal about pre-GMO herbicides that are a lot more toxic than glyphosate?).

The point which is being missed here is that herbicides (esp broad spectrum) if sprayed on a plant will kill it, so I won't be eating the herbicide present in that plant. BUT a plant which has been altered to accept that spray and not die, will contain the herbicide and will find its way into the food chain.........not so with a plant which has died.

Pre-GMO herbicides killed weeds and plants alike so I didn't get to eat them. That is a key point which is missed by many.

Nature being what it is has already evolved a way to help some weeds survive and farmers in the US report that the weeds which have developed after glyphosate application are getting resistant to it and are harder to kill, meaning an increase in glyphosate use......not a good thing IMO, but good for Monsanto.

Please try to seek out reports from ex-Monsanto employees who have stated that the results of many tests have been "doctored" to suit Monsanto's aims.

[DaffyDuck]

It's easy to separate the wheat from the chaff (literally) - those who spout emotional arguments, or who bleat 'Monsanto' the way republicans bleat 'benghazi' can, by default, be ignored as their arguments are FUD based and hold no water.

GM modified crops, by and large, hold none of the dangers that are being attributed to them, as they have been studied extensively and found to represent no biological risks or dangers.

What certain corporations are doing *with* GM technologies is an entirely different situation and topic, that has absolutely nothing to do in the discussion of just the use of GM techniques. You can always tell the emotional arguments, as they inevitably bring up Monsanto, even in cases where Monsanto isn't even involved. It's an easy sign to ignore such arguments.

[DaffyDuck]

As for the folks advocating "we shouldn't be messing with nature" - if you feel that way, then I suggest you immediately stop eating any food that is the result of 'messing with nature' - which (hint) would be 90% of the foods currently available to you, from the lowly banana, to the pork and chickens that you eat daily.

Stop. Eating. Everything. Now. Only then will be able to comply with your stated FUD argument.

So, go ahead.

[DaffyDuck]

Thank you, attrayant, for the fresh smell of facts, evidence and sources.

[Seastallion]

It's easy to separate the wheat from the chaff (literally) - those who spout emotional arguments, or who bleat 'Monsanto' the way republicans bleat 'benghazi' can, by default, be ignored as their arguments are FUD based and hold no water.

GM modified crops, by and large, hold none of the dangers that are being attributed to them, as they have been studied extensively and found to represent no biological risks or dangers.

What certain corporations are doing *with* GM technologies is an entirely different situation and topic, that has absolutely nothing to do in the discussion of just the use of GM techniques. You can always tell the emotional arguments, as they inevitably bring up Monsanto, even in cases where Monsanto isn't even involved. It's an easy sign to ignore such arguments.

What is FUD? As Daffy Duck, I can only assume you're referring to Elmer.

ALL your assertions are baseless. People have offered opinions and backed them with evidence.

[attrayant]

Please try to seek out reports from ex-Monsanto employees who have stated that the results of many tests have been "doctored" to suit Monsanto's aims.

I'm aware of two incidents of testing fraud - one in 1976 and another in 1994. These incidents have not been covered up, in fact Monsanto reports them on its own web site. These incidents happened in laboratories that Monsanto had hired to do its testing. Those responsible were convicted and fined or imprisoned.

This was particularly interesting:

Monsanto, along with other pesticide manufacturers, repeated the pesticide residue studies done at Craven Laboratories. The repeat studies cost Monsanto approximately $6.5 million. The damage caused to Monsanto's reputation by discussion of this issue by the media, and then further use by activists to question the integrity of Monsanto's data, cannot be calculated. All affected residue studies have been repeated and the data are sound, up-to-date and have been accepted by the EPA.

After the testing problems, the EPA instituted procedures known as Good Laboratory Practices, which are designed to ensure reliable generation and verification of all data. The penalties for falsifying data are severe, including large fines and prison terms.

Revelations of misdeeds are often more damaging than they're worth, and yes it certainly is possible that somebody at IBT or Craven labs was on the take. But the guilty parties have been caught and punished and the testing repeated and verified. What else should be done?

This isn't exactly what I would call massive Monsanto conspiracy so I'm not sure what you had in mind that I am supposed to be looking for. And frankly I'm not really that interested in sitting here on my day off digging up citations in support of your position. If you've got some smoking gun, let's have it.

Edited November 30, 2014 by attrayant

[RPCVguy]

Attraya, In your comment #19, directly below my citation of 4 relevant links as to Monsanto blocking and covering up research about the side effects of using GMO technology (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/780225-govt-to-study-genetically-modified-crops-despite-opposition/#entry8737704) you cast aspersions to someone's links being broken. I double checked and all 4 links I supplied ARE VALID and working. Maybe you meant someone else's links; your comment was ambiguous.

I'm pleased to see many more on TV are aware of the greed and deviously clever strategy of these GMO seed suppliers - they are relying on the eventual cross pollination and growth of the polluting strains that they "OWN" to spread wider year-by-year until it will be difficult to obtain seeds that they do not have a patent claim of ownership over. It is clever. Exxon, BP, Shell Oil each are required to clean up their spills - though dilution over time does much of the hiding of effects. With GMO, the pollution spreads and increases over time, and the farmer who plants seed containing those genetic markers loses ownership over his crops. Bangrak, Seastallion, Umbanda, dcutman, bluespunk, toooa, HerbalEd and others have shown the concerns over GMO are less a secret now than before, but lets go back to one study that DID succeed in being conducted - TWICE!
Impossible referred to the tumors in rats study that Monsanto pressured vigorously to have retracted - EXCEPT THE STUDY WAS REPLICATED WITH THE SAME RESULTS - AND IS AGAIN IN SCIENCE JOURNALS.

The study has now been published by Environmental Sciences Europe. (source)
The chronic toxicity study examined the health impacts on rats of eating commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, alongside Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.
The study found severe liver and kidney damage as well as hormonal disturbances in rats fed with GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. Results also indicated high rates of large tumors and mortality in most treatment groups.

The republished study also has a section describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop supporters to force the retraction of the original publication. This is scientific fraud at its best. The authors express how the previous retraction was “a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide.”

“We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science, thus, we republish our paper.” – Seralini
“Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.” – Seralini

This study has now successfully passed through multiple rounds of rigorous peer review. Again, the study shows that Roundup-treated GM corn as well as the herbicide used on it increases cancer in rats. There are a number of studies that demonstrate the potential health risks of GM plants, this one in particular drew heavy criticism from industry scientists.

“The major criticisms of the Seralini manuscript were that the proper strain of rats was not used and their numbers were too small. Neither criticism is valid. The strain of rat is that which is required by the FDA for drug toxicology, and the toxic effects were unambiguously significant. In fact, Monsanto published a similar study in the same journal eight years before using the same number and strain of rats. Their study was for 90 days and claimed no harm. In contrast, the Seralini study was for two years and did not see any tumors until after nine months. Therefore, it is clear that the short 90-day feeding paradigm is not sufficiently long to detect the carcinogenic effects of GM products. It takes a long time before low-level exposure to environmental toxins affect health. For example, a recent associated press report documented the dramatic increase in birth defects and cancer in areas of Argentina that have grown GM soy for a decade. Given these facts, what was the justification of the editorial decision to retract the Seralini Manuscript?” (source)

Other Studies Regarding GMOs and Herbicides
There is a reason that multiple countries all over the world have been banning GMOs and the pesticides that go with them. More information is emerging everyday from scientists and researchers all over the world that clearly points to the fact that we just don’t know enough about GM’s to deem them totally safe for human consumption.

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki (source)

Article quoted http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/

Study abstract and detail http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

• Biochemical analyses of the maize feed
• Anatomopathological observations and liver parameters (1st details of kidney and liver complications)
• Biochemical analyses of blood and urine samples
• Tumor incidence (and IMO with GMO foods, humans are being the ultimate lab rats.)
  
• Mortality
• Discussion
• Conclusions (note "R" refers to Roundup which generically is known as "G" = Glyphosate)

In conclusion, the consumption of NK603 GM maize with or without R application or R alone gave similar pathologies in male and female rats fed over a 2-year period. It was previously known that G consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failure [33]. The results of the study presented here clearly indicate that lower levels of complete agricultural G herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, can induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic, and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from over expression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to comparable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acid metabolites or related compounds. Other mutagenic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including analyses of transgene, G and other R residue presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenerational studies will also provide novel insight into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of long-term deleterious effects arising from consumption of a GMO, specifically a R-tolerant maize, and of R, the most widely used herbicide worldwide.
Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors [3] that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.
We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.

Allowing cross species GMO research or seeds bearing such genes to enter Thailand is a mistake. It CAN NOT BE UNDONE, short of burning ALL plants and seed and obtaining ever rarer organic/ heirloom seeds to remove the polluting problem. Some nations have taken that step, but why even enter that realm of risk?

• It is a certain financial trap,
• the marketing claims of better pest resistance prove false as insects and diseases also mutate to by-pass the "fix"
• weeds also mutate to resist glyphosate, requiring another level of herbicide derived from Agent Orange
• Medical studies that are getting done show that long term effects exist and are serious.

[xylophone]

Thank you, attrayant, for the fresh smell of facts, evidence and sources.

This is a fact:..........."Genetically modified crops (GMCs, GM crops, or biotech crops) are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering techniques. In most cases the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species"

You can view this how you wish, however modifying genes to produce something which does not naturally occur in the species is as it says " not natural".

So pigs tasting of banana, duck with its own inbuilt taste of orange, tomatoes with fish genes etc is ok with you?

[DaffyDuck]

So pigs tasting of banana, duck with its own inbuilt taste of orange, tomatoes with fish genes etc is ok with you?

Please point me to the appropriate stores where I can buy these products, so that I may form a better opinion. I look forward to your answer and directions.

... waiting ...

Edited November 30, 2014 by DaffyDuck