Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

[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.

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.

FUD = emotional arguments centering on Fear / Uncertainty / Death. All unsubstantiated, all emotionally implied. As I have seen throughout this this thread from the usual anti-gmo crusaders. The other common factor is usually total ignorance of the actual sciences involved, replaced with fearful arm waving.

[xylophone]

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.

You have purposely missed the point........so no direction needed!!

Other than to read the post by RPCVguy, just a few posts back.

[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.

You have purposely missed the point........so no direction needed!!

I have not purposely missed the point - if you ask me about such things as you listed, they would actually have to exist, and be accessible to consumers, in order for your question to make any sense - but as it was meant, like so many of your assertions, to be pure emotional, you are left in a lurch when actually challenged to respond - and thus quickly attempt to evade and distract, again.

What is the relevance of your question? Either answer the question, or retract your non-sequitur question.

[Thai at Heart]

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 ...

It was reported that there was a plan to.splice genes from jellyfish into crops to be able to visibly signify pest attacks at night by glowing in the dark

Now how widely any of this has happened I don't know, but it should surely give pause for thought.

I would think that since farming techniqes and paractices in Thailand are so open for improvment before using GMO, wouldn't it be corrct to also insure that all agronomy practice's are maximised also.

[attrayant]

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.

At the bottom of your post #16 you linked to this web site:

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers

At that web site, about half way down in the notes section it says:

The report is available here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

That's the broken link I was referring to. And since the link is internal (to earthopensource itself), that means they are the ones who broke it. I'm not assuming anything nefarious by this, and am still interested in reading the report if it exists.

[DaffyDuck]

It was reported that there was a plan to.splice genes from jellyfish into crops to be able to visibly signify pest attacks at night by glowing in the dark

Sources please? "It was reported" is not a source.

Now how widely any of this has happened I don't know, but it should surely give pause for thought.

Why? Why should this "give pause for thought"?

As we have already established, you have no source for this, and don't even know if this is actually being applied in the wild (hint: it hasn't).

Jellyfish DNA is widely being used as a neutral marker to visibly identify spliced or introduced gene sequences in laboratory settings. Many recent such gene splicing or even stem cell re growth experiments have used jellyfish DNA to either show the elements of the animal that manifest the modified gene, or to identify entire animals with modified genes.

The "glow in the dark" also only happens under black light, as the effect does not introduce bioluminescence (a rather complex mechanism to introduce) but rather just tissue sensitive to certain wavelengths (as with UV light).

Please provide the sources for your insinuations that "give you pause for thought".

[attrayant]

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.

Help me understand why this is a problem. Why will it become difficult to obtain seeds? What's stopping the farmers from simply purchasing more seeds from the patent holders each growing season?

[lil fluffy clouds]

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.

People like you listen when it's way too late, when listening no longer has a

function....

Yes lets wait till your offspring somewhere down the line are born irrepairably defficent and you are no longer on the planet to witness the results of your indifference.....

[Seastallion]

That's quite a Gish Gallop of talking points you've got there.

I couldn't help notice that the link to the report is dead (404 - page not found) and that the link goes to a page within the same website. So they are citing themselves as far as I can see. Searching by the report's title brings up no links to the report, only to blogs and health web sites that cite it. Even Google Scholar was no help. I gave up looking after the first four pages of results.

Since I don't have all day to sit here researching rebuttals, I'll just pick the first of the report's "key points":

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to meet the poison potato. And how was this deadly vegetable made? In a laboratory by the evil Monsanto Corporation you say? No! Through regular, friendly plant hybridization process that we've been doing for years. Apparently, traditional, "safe" hybrid farming has been proven to be unpredictable and unsafe. So with respect to this point, genetically modified crops have a much better track record than does traditional breeding.

Furthermore, the idea that targeting specific genes is not precise or reliable is laughable - they've got it exactly backwards. That's the whole point of genetic engineering. Traditional breeding (hybridization or mutagenasis) is the shotgun approach: blast a species with loads of random DNA and hope for the best. The outcome is random and unpredictable. But with genetic engineering, we introduce only the genes responsible for the specific result we're after. By using this targeted approach, we can introduce new characteristics while avoiding the undesirable ones.

Wow, for someone who is so very very hot on supporting GMOs and tries all sorts of reasoning, so far you have not been very convincing. Monsanto or the Thai seed company you do PR for might have to review their employment criteria.

Here, you use the two wrongs make a right argument. Just because selective breeding produced a potato higher in natural solanine than other potatoes back in 1969, you somehow try to make out that GMOs are no worse.

They are worse, as already supplied evidence attests.

P.S You have outed yourself with your referral to "we introduce only the genes....", "...the result we're after...", "...we can introduce...". WE. Yes, you are plainly part of the pro lobby/a patented seed company. It would have been honest to declare your interest before trying to debate the issue.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Seastallion

[Thai at Heart]

It was reported that there was a plan to.splice genes from jellyfish into crops to be able to visibly signify pest attacks at night by glowing in the dark

Sources please? "It was reported" is not a source.

Now how widely any of this has happened I don't know, but it should surely give pause for thought.

Why? Why should this "give pause for thought"?

As we have already established, you have no source for this, and don't even know if this is actually being applied in the wild (hint: it hasn't).

Jellyfish DNA is widely being used as a neutral marker to visibly identify spliced or introduced gene sequences in laboratory settings. Many recent such gene splicing or even stem cell re growth experiments have used jellyfish DNA to either show the elements of the animal that manifest the modified gene, or to identify entire animals with modified genes.

The "glow in the dark" also only happens under black light, as the effect does not introduce bioluminescence (a rather complex mechanism to introduce) but rather just tissue sensitive to certain wavelengths (as with UV light).

Please provide the sources for your insinuations that "give you pause for thought".

Google it yourself there are hundreds of links to it from this BBC to ABC news to hundreds of scientific journals listed.

And yes this stuff should give pause for thought because of cross pollination and the possobility of unintended consequences, that's why they have testing, which is " pause for thought".

So what's your problem. Either this is a debate or an accusation of lying. The arguementa going on here that GMO is natural is by definition not true. It is not akin to natural selection any more than domestic cats cant mate with lions anymore.

These genes would never enter into this host organism in a billion years of evolution so there is always the possibility however remote of an uninteneee outcome.

That's why we should pause for thought and consider what genes are being put where and try our up most to test to see any unintended consequence.

OR should we not think and just park our brains at the door?

Potatoes with jellyfish gene glow when thirsty

www.organicconsumers.org/.../glowingp...

GENETICALLY modified potatoes that glow when they need watering have been developed by scientists.

Fluorescent GM potatoes say 'water me' - BBC News

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/.../446837.stm

A potato genetically-modified with jellyfish genes which glows when it needs watering is created by Edinburgh ...

You visited this page on 29/11/14.

Turning the Tables: Is a Jellyfish Potato Kosher? Jew and the ...

blogs.forward.com/.../turning-the-tables-i...

27 Aug 2012 - Take the fantastical glow-in-the-dark potatomade with jellyfish genes, for example. Scientists claim that ...

Fluorescent Potato Could Reduce Water Use - ABC News

abcnews.go.com Technology

22 Dec 2000 - The farmer knows a glowing potato is a thirsty potato. ... Using a Jellyfish Gene to Conserve Water.

Day-glo potato will use genes from jellyfish - News - The Independent

www.independent.co.uk/.../dayglo-potato...

15 Sep 1999 - "Smart plants" are already being planned, incorporatingjellyfish genes. A team at the Edinburgh ...

Tagging potato leafroll virus with the jellyfish green fluorescent ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/.../10675399/

by KM Nurkiyanova - ‎2000 - ‎Cited by 29 - ‎Related articles

Mobile-friendly - J Gen Virol. 2000 Mar;81(Pt 3):617-26. Tagging potato leafroll virus with the jellyfish green fluorescent protein gene.

[attrayant]

“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.

Oh, the Sprague-Dawley rat. A rat that has a two-year lifespan (used in a two-year study!) and is practically born with cancer. Whether or not that's what hte FDA requires, you'd think the researchers should have been able to see that this was not the best animal to use as a test subject. The Seralini study has many, many detractors, not just those with a vested interest. I was about to write up a summary of the affair, but I see the Wiki article provides most of the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S

éralini_affair

Right away we see conflict of interest:

Gilles-Eric Séralini is a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, and is founder and president of the scientific advisory board of the Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which is known for being opposed to genetically modified food.

Further:

Food Standards Australia New Zealand also reviewed the 2007 Séralini study and concluded that "...all of the statistical differences between rats fed MON 863 corn and control rats are attributable to normal biological variation."

Finally, the conclusion at the bottom of the 'republished' study:

Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

Which of course is the right thing to do whenever some study reports amazing or groundbreaking findings. Let's have other teams repeat the studies (without the conflict of interest and the poor controls this time) and see if the Seralini study was an anomaly or not.

[attrayant]

And a final thought that occurred to me - for those of you who like to justify your feelings with "common sense": If this GM corn, which makes up 90% of all animal feed in the US, is supposed to cause a high level of tumors within such a short timeframe (as per the Seralini study), why have farmers been using it to feed their livestock for the last three decades? Perhaps they want all their livestock to develop tumors? Does that even begin to make "common sense"? Why hasn't any livestock health testing come back showing massive cancer growth in cattle?

Between 80-95% of livestock in the US, Brazil and Argentina are raised on GMO feed. If GM corn were as toxic as Seralini claims, dead and sick animals should be littering farms all over the world. But yet we don't even have anecdotal evidence of this. Farmers, who would be the first to stop using a product that causes their livelihood to get sick and die, would be shouting from the rooftops about the poisonous cattle feed. If this cancer cause-effect were genuine, farmers should have seen it by now.

For those of you crying out "Please look for INDEPENDENT studies!!" Okay, I did. Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies, many of which are independent. This is a list of about 375 studies, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe. I don't provide the list to overwhelm you, but to show that the issue has been studied where it really matters - out on the farms. Not in some lab with a tiny sample size of pre-cancerous, short-lived rats.

[attrayant]

Here, you use the two wrongs make a right argument. Just because selective breeding produced a potato higher in natural solanine than other potatoes back in 1969, you somehow try to make out that GMOs are no worse.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What "two wrongs" did I use? A favorite canard of the anti-GMO crowd is the naturalistic fallacy, which asserts that natural is always better or that traditional mutagenesis or hybridization is superior/safer than GM tech. I provided an example showing that's not always true. I'm sure you have a counter example of where a GMO crop has resulted in toxic, poisonous vegetables, right?

[attrayant]

P.S You have outed yourself with your referral to "we introduce only the genes....", "...the result we're after...", "...we can introduce...". WE. Yes, you are plainly part of the pro lobby/a patented seed company. It would have been honest to declare your interest before trying to debate the issue.

Congratulations. You've found two letters that reveal an entire conspiracy that reaches over dozens of countries and thousands of farms. If only I hadn't used that two-letter word, "our" global domination plan would have succeeded! If it hadn't been for those blasted kids and that dog!

Always remember when you make your tinfoil hat, shiny side out!

[xylophone]

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.

You have purposely missed the point........so no direction needed!!

I have not purposely missed the point - if you ask me about such things as you listed, they would actually have to exist, and be accessible to consumers, in order for your question to make any sense - but as it was meant, like so many of your assertions, to be pure emotional, you are left in a lurch when actually challenged to respond - and thus quickly attempt to evade and distract, again.

What is the relevance of your question? Either answer the question, or retract your non-sequitur question.

Looks like I will have to spell it out for you............my question was aimed at firing a neuron or two (which it obviously didn't) which basically asks, "where will it end?" and quoting some hypothetical but potential examples.

Having said that, there was a furore a few years ago about Monsanto supposedly trying to insert a fish gene into a tomato, which was later proven to be a myth. HOWEVER In response to the suggestion by the company that no such thing could/would be done, the following was published,

"But Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists says otherwise: "The fact is, it has been done . . . DNAP [DNA Plant Technology of Oakland, California] was the company — that put the fish gene in a tomato." Rissler acknowledges that the experiment was halted before any products were brought to market, but, she insists, "that is because of the uproar. Believe me, they would be doing it if people were not objecting to it."

So my question does have relevance in light of the whole subject being discussed, and in the quote published above.

On a final note, are you confusing me with someone else, as you have said that, "like so many of your assertions", when I have only posted four times and the majority of the content was about consuming glyphosate in the foods we eat, which unfortunately is a proven fact.

[Seastallion]

And a final thought that occurred to me - for those of you who like to justify your feelings with "common sense": If this GM corn, which makes up 90% of all animal feed in the US, is supposed to cause a high level of tumors within such a short timeframe (as per the Seralini study), why have farmers been using it to feed their livestock for the last three decades? Perhaps they want all their livestock to develop tumors? Does that even begin to make "common sense"? Why hasn't any livestock health testing come back showing massive cancer growth in cattle?

Between 80-95% of livestock in the US, Brazil and Argentina are raised on GMO feed. If GM corn were as toxic as Seralini claims, dead and sick animals should be littering farms all over the world. But yet we don't even have anecdotal evidence of this. Farmers, who would be the first to stop using a product that causes their livelihood to get sick and die, would be shouting from the rooftops about the poisonous cattle feed. If this cancer cause-effect were genuine, farmers should have seen it by now.

For those of you crying out "Please look for INDEPENDENT studies!!" Okay, I did. Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies, many of which are independent. This is a list of about 375 studies, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe. I don't provide the list to overwhelm you, but to show that the issue has been studied where it really matters - out on the farms. Not in some lab with a tiny sample size of pre-cancerous, short-lived rats.

Huge flaw in your argument. Huge. Catastrophic. Most livestock for slaughter, wool, or milk never lives beyond 4 years. 4 years is not long enough for a tumour to be caused, develop, and be terminal. And I can tell you, as an ex-meat inspector, that intestinal cancer is not unusual in some lines of stock. If they weren't slaughtered, they would have been terminal.

[Seastallion]

P.S You have outed yourself with your referral to "we introduce only the genes....", "...the result we're after...", "...we can introduce...". WE. Yes, you are plainly part of the pro lobby/a patented seed company. It would have been honest to declare your interest before trying to debate the issue.

Congratulations. You've found two letters that reveal an entire conspiracy that reaches over dozens of countries and thousands of farms. If only I hadn't used that two-letter word, "our" global domination plan would have succeeded! If it hadn't been for those blasted kids and that dog!

Always remember when you make your tinfoil hat, shiny side out!

Your argument is "two letters"???? 2 or 20 letters, your words had meaning.

Besides, it was 2 letters reiterated thrice, so 6 letters.

[xylophone]

And a final thought that occurred to me - for those of you who like to justify your feelings with "common sense": If this GM corn, which makes up 90% of all animal feed in the US, is supposed to cause a high level of tumors within such a short timeframe (as per the Seralini study), why have farmers been using it to feed their livestock for the last three decades? Perhaps they want all their livestock to develop tumors? Does that even begin to make "common sense"? Why hasn't any livestock health testing come back showing massive cancer growth in cattle?

Between 80-95% of livestock in the US, Brazil and Argentina are raised on GMO feed. If GM corn were as toxic as Seralini claims, dead and sick animals should be littering farms all over the world. But yet we don't even have anecdotal evidence of this. Farmers, who would be the first to stop using a product that causes their livelihood to get sick and die, would be shouting from the rooftops about the poisonous cattle feed. If this cancer cause-effect were genuine, farmers should have seen it by now.

For those of you crying out "Please look for INDEPENDENT studies!!" Okay, I did. Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies, many of which are independent. This is a list of about 375 studies, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe. I don't provide the list to overwhelm you, but to show that the issue has been studied where it really matters - out on the farms. Not in some lab with a tiny sample size of pre-cancerous, short-lived rats.

This recent study is interesting because the study conducted did not focus on one set of animal feed, but in mixing several types, thereby getting a good cross-section of GM altered food, not focusing on one stream as most of the above do.

A groundbreaking new study [1] shows that pigs were harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.

Find a clear summary of the study here

Find the full paper here

GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. The research results were striking and statistically significant.

Lead researcher Dr. Judy Carman, adjunct associate professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia,[2] said: “Our findings are noteworthy for several reasons. First, we found these results in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory, but with the added benefit of strict scientific controls that are not normally present on farms.

“Second, we used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them.

“Third, pigs have a similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are also getting digestive problems from eating GM crops.

“Fourth, we found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.

“Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”

The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn.[3]

Iowa-based farmer as well as crop and livestock advisor Howard Vlieger, one of the coordinators of the study, said: “For as long as GM crops have been in the feed supply, we have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in animals. Now it is scientifically documented.

“In my experience, farmers have found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops. In some operations, the livestock death loss is high, and there are unexplained problems including spontaneous abortions, deformities of new-born animals, and an overall listlessness and lack of contentment in the animals.

Slightly off topic, but how long had we been feeding crushed bovine rendering back to cows before we encountered "mad cow disease"..........10/20/30 years, and this was done on a vast scale to millions of animals, so these things can take time before they materialise into something which is devastating. Have we learned?

[attrayant]

Most livestock for slaughter, wool, or milk never lives beyond 4 years. 4 years is not long enough for a tumour to be caused, develop, and be terminal.

This was specifically a counterpoint against the Seralini study, which claimed to show a high incidence of tumors within two years. Surely your four-year-old cows should be showing signs of something if the study had any merit.

And since you said "most", what about the rest those that live longer than 4 years? Plenty of randomly chosen sites say that:

The life of a dairy cow varies from farm to farm and from cow to cow; some can live for as long as 20 years while others may have a much shorter life. Dairy farmers work hard to keep cows healthy for a long productive life.

From this site. Others say the average lifespan is 15 years.

I don't know what "most" is, but let's be generous and say it's 80%. That still leaves a huge number of cattle that grow much older with no ill effects of GMO feed reported by their owners. Sorry, no catastrophic flaw here, I'm afraid.

[attrayant]

how long had we been feeding crushed bovine rendering back to cows before we encountered "mad cow disease"..........10/20/30 years, and this was done on a vast scale to millions of animals, so these things can take time before they materialise into something which is devastating.

By that same reasoning, we must never do anything differently or change because of what might happen 30, 50 or 100 years in the future. This is the slippery slope of the precautionary principle. If we continue to wait for that last decimal point of absolute certainty to come in, we'll never move forward. We'll never progress.

And is it even fair to compare those two events? Had hundreds upon hundreds of postmortem bovine cannibalism studies been done showing no ill effects? Because if not, I don't see it as a fair comparison.

[manarak]

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?

"not natural" is not equivalent to "harmful"

a clear link needs to be established between a specific GM crop and its specific proven negative impact on anything, otherwise we are in the realm of philosophy, beliefs and superstition, not science.

[BSJ]

The wife and I will do whatever we can to avoid putting money in the pockets of CP or Monsanto....but it's not always easy!

[RPCVguy]

And a final thought that occurred to me - for those of you who like to justify your feelings with "common sense": If this GM corn, which makes up 90% of all animal feed in the US, is supposed to cause a high level of tumors within such a short timeframe (as per the Seralini study), why have farmers been using it to feed their livestock for the last three decades? Perhaps they want all their livestock to develop tumors? Does that even begin to make "common sense"? Why hasn't any livestock health testing come back showing massive cancer growth in cattle?

Between 80-95% of livestock in the US, Brazil and Argentina are raised on GMO feed. If GM corn were as toxic as Seralini claims, dead and sick animals should be littering farms all over the world. But yet we don't even have anecdotal evidence of this. Farmers, who would be the first to stop using a product that causes their livelihood to get sick and die, would be shouting from the rooftops about the poisonous cattle feed. If this cancer cause-effect were genuine, farmers should have seen it by now.

For those of you crying out "Please look for INDEPENDENT studies!!" Okay, I did. Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies, many of which are independent. This is a list of about 375 studies, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe. I don't provide the list to overwhelm you, but to show that the issue has been studied where it really matters - out on the farms. Not in some lab with a tiny sample size of pre-cancerous, short-lived rats.

1. The comprehensive list is nice... but it would be more useful to the average citizen IF the citations led to links that were accessible - these are not.
2. Did you confirm that ALL of those studies say that GMO is safe? ... that the studies were independent studies? ... all I see are titles, no durations studied, nothing but the FASS label. FASS is itself a relatively new association - founded in 1998. It does flood the search engine results - and that tends to raise my suspicions as to who funds them and pays their analysts.

3. On January 17, internationally recognized plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber, wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack warning of the discovery of a new pathogen and a possible link between Roundup Ready® (GMO) corn and soybeans and severe reproductive problems in livestock as well as widespread crop failure.

   Less than 3 weeks later, the Obama administration approved 2 new Roundup Ready® GMO crops, set to be planted this spring... Read on about Dr. Huber's discovery. http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/
4. Human incidence of food sensitivity and numerous infrequent conditions have been reported much more frequently in the past few decades. This is a fully accessible article appeared in Entropy Volume 15, Issue 4 "Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality"

Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup^®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

I notice that the heat got a bit much as to the financial trap about GMOs... that farmers will not be allowed to save seed and re-plant it but will be legally bound to buy seed from these dominant seed companies - a Cartel worse than oil, one that involves the food supplies. You think that is okay?

That was just one of the points I concluded with back on http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/780225-govt-to-study-genetically-modified-crops-despite-opposition/page-3#entry8741237 that you have slipped away from. Each of these remain valid:

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.

Before I submitted a reply, I looked at what new has been said... The most egregious is this quote "By that same reasoning, we must never do anything differently or change because of what might happen 30, 50 or 100 years in the future. This is the slippery slope of the precautionary principle. If we continue to wait for that last decimal point of absolute certainty to come in, we'll never move forward. We'll never progress." There are already reasons for concern. It is the greed and strategy of a few corporations and their bought allies that are pushing this forward - irretrievably.

In THIS instance, BECAUSE GMO add genetic lines that will only spread, not dilute over time, Caution IS Mandated.

[hughben]

Do Thai farmers really know what they would be getting themselves into here?

Like the mafia, once you are in, that is it. Your Monsanto, Cargill and BASF won't be vanishing any time soon once their dirty mitts are taking their cut and controlling crops.

These companies exist to make profits. GM food is about making money through monopolization.

[hughben]

And a final thought that occurred to me - for those of you who like to justify your feelings with "common sense": If this GM corn, which makes up 90% of all animal feed in the US, is supposed to cause a high level of tumors within such a short timeframe (as per the Seralini study), why have farmers been using it to feed their livestock for the last three decades? Perhaps they want all their livestock to develop tumors? Does that even begin to make "common sense"? Why hasn't any livestock health testing come back showing massive cancer growth in cattle?

Between 80-95% of livestock in the US, Brazil and Argentina are raised on GMO feed. If GM corn were as toxic as Seralini claims, dead and sick animals should be littering farms all over the world. But yet we don't even have anecdotal evidence of this. Farmers, who would be the first to stop using a product that causes their livelihood to get sick and die, would be shouting from the rooftops about the poisonous cattle feed. If this cancer cause-effect were genuine, farmers should have seen it by now.

For those of you crying out "Please look for INDEPENDENT studies!!" Okay, I did. Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies, many of which are independent. This is a list of about 375 studies, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe. I don't provide the list to overwhelm you, but to show that the issue has been studied where it really matters - out on the farms. Not in some lab with a tiny sample size of pre-cancerous, short-lived rats.

Animals including fish, should not be fed this garbage in the first place. It is not natural food designed for their bodies.

It's one of the reasons I barely eat (white) meat nowadays (red - I stopped 18 years ago).

[attrayant]

In THIS instance, BECAUSE GMO add genetic lines that will only spread, not dilute over time, Caution IS Mandated.

Caution, sure. But what I'm hearing from most people in this thread is not caution, it's abolition.

The scientific community is already testing the hell out of GMOs, and you've been shown hundreds of studies. If that's not caution, I don't know what is. I believe we already ARE proceeding with caution. In your opinion, what further cautions are warranted?

And why don't we need to be equally cautious about mutagenic or hybrid modification? Those shotgun methods are a lot more random and have already resulted in dangerous hybrids. Why do they get a free pass?

[attrayant]

Animals including fish, should not be fed this garbage in the first place. It is not natural food designed for their bodies.

It's one of the reasons I barely eat (white) meat nowadays (red - I stopped 18 years ago).

A philosophical argument, which has no bearing on the crux of the discussion here. Perhaps you should start a new thread to debate the ideology of what "natural" food is, including the whole naturalistic fallacy that keeps cropping up into these discussions.

[Seastallion]

Most livestock for slaughter, wool, or milk never lives beyond 4 years. 4 years is not long enough for a tumour to be caused, develop, and be terminal.

This was specifically a counterpoint against the Seralini study, which claimed to show a high incidence of tumors within two years. Surely your four-year-old cows should be showing signs of something if the study had any merit.

And since you said "most", what about the rest those that live longer than 4 years? Plenty of randomly chosen sites say that:

The life of a dairy cow varies from farm to farm and from cow to cow; some can live for as long as 20 years while others may have a much shorter life. Dairy farmers work hard to keep cows healthy for a long productive life.

From this site. Others say the average lifespan is 15 years.

I don't know what "most" is, but let's be generous and say it's 80%. That still leaves a huge number of cattle that grow much older with no ill effects of GMO feed reported by their owners. Sorry, no catastrophic flaw here, I'm afraid.

Most, if not ALL dairy cows are grass-fed! Who feeds corn to dairy cows????

You're coming back with irrelevant stats.

[DaffyDuck]

P.S You have outed yourself with your referral to "we introduce only the genes....", "...the result we're after...", "...we can introduce...". WE. Yes, you are plainly part of the pro lobby/a patented seed company. It would have been honest to declare your interest before trying to debate the issue.

ROTFLOL. Damn, this is better than a sitcom. Here, have a tinfoil hat.

Seriously, this kind of conspiracy paranoia is usually only seen amongst anti-vaxxers or 9/11 nuts.

Oh, and seastallion, you have provided zero credible evidence so far. Talking about it doesn't make it so.

[DaffyDuck]

Google it yourself there are hundreds of links to it from this BBC to ABC news to hundreds of scientific journals listed.

So, again, you have absolutely nothing. No surprise.

"Google it" does not constitute sourcing for evidence.

As for the jellyfish enhanced potato, which you had to post the same link a dozen times (it's the exact same instance and article) - again, please show where this potato has entered the food chain and is currently available for purchase. This was back in 2000, 14 years ago, so I would assume it runs rampant by now?

Where can I buy it?