Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

[DaffyDuck]

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

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

This may be the best time to point out that most conspiracy theorists are indicative of aspergers, or other autistic disorders. The conspiracy obsession perfectly indicates this, as does the response quoted above.

Obviously, people like Seastallion need serious professional help. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he's not also obsessing over other related or unrelated conspiracies - fluoride, anti-vaccine, 9/11, etc...

[DaffyDuck]

As for Xylophone - your question about non-existing products has no relevance at all, except a weak effort at hyperbole and sensationalism.

Let's not forget that neither you nor seastallion have any background in agricultural sciences - I'd take the word of actual scientists over anything you two say, and the fringe blogs you source, any day.

[Thai at Heart]

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?

That isn't really the point is it. It is an illustration of amount of control available to man over the natural world.

It is a responaibility to be taken very seriously. Corporate America isn't really famed for its CSR when it comes to this type of issue and I trust our govts to do their utmost to ensure the safety and independence of any laws.

If it was such a good idea to do this splicing I am sure they would do Jt.

Ironically, I worked in a business that has completely banned all GMO seed. There is a massive industry wide testing and sampling plan for the global industry.

Some was found in China which stopped all global exports from China for 4 years. Ironically this was one of the largest global agribusinesses by value and they have no desire at all for gmo because it may damage industry reputation.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[DaffyDuck]

That isn't really the point is it. It is an illustration of amount of control available to man over the natural world.

non issue. This amount of control is more than apparent every time you look outside a window, visit a supermarket, or receive vaccines created from bacteria genetically engineered to produce that given vaccine.

The amount of control my has over the 'natural world' is not at issue here.

Baseless FUD spread by unsupported, sensationalist hyperbole is the issue.

It is a responaibility to be taken very seriously. Corporate America isn't really famed for its CSR when it comes to this type of issue and I trust our govts to do their utmost to ensure the safety and independence of any laws.

So you won't trust corporations, but you trust 'our governments' - hahaha. Great sense of humor.

If it was such a good idea to do this splicing I am sure they would do Jt.

didn't you just say they are doing it. Now they are not?

Ironically, I worked in a business that has completely banned all GMO seed. There is a massive industry wide testing and sampling plan for the global industry.

irrelevant tangent.

was found in China which stopped all global exports from China for 4 years. Ironically this was one of the largest global agribusinesses by value and they have no desire at all for gmo because it may damage industry reputation.

so, it has nothing to do with health or safety, then? Thanks for confirming that.

[T_Dog]

They grow corn all around us and I've seen them applying glysophate often. I think GMO corn is already here.

[DaffyDuck]

Livestock has been fed with gmo feed for 30 years. Where is the epidemic of cancerous livestock?

[Thai at Heart]

That isn't really the point is it. It is an illustration of amount of control available to man over the natural world.

non issue. This amount of control is more than apparent every time you look outside a window, visit a supermarket, or receive vaccines created from bacteria genetically engineered to produce that given vaccine.

The amount of control my has over the 'natural world' is not at issue here.

Baseless FUD spread by unsupported, sensationalist hyperbole is the issue.

It is a responaibility to be taken very seriously. Corporate America isn't really famed for its CSR when it comes to this type of issue and I trust our govts to do their utmost to ensure the safety and independence of any laws.

So you won't trust corporations, but you trust 'our governments' - hahaha. Great sense of humor.

If it was such a good idea to do this splicing I am sure they would do Jt.

didn't you just say they are doing it. Now they are not?

Ironically, I worked in a business that has completely banned all GMO seed. There is a massive industry wide testing and sampling plan for the global industry.

irrelevant tangent.

was found in China which stopped all global exports from China for 4 years. Ironically this was one of the largest global agribusinesses by value and they have no desire at all for gmo because it may damage industry reputation.

so, it has nothing to do with health or safety, then? Thanks for confirming that.

It does have something to do with health and safety and providence of the crop because it is extremely difficult to prevent cross pollination and to remove from a crop.

Eventually the entire supply may become gmo and it cannot be undone. Well u may consider one industry completely actively going against GMO as irrelevant, I just state it as fact.

Why did they do it? For precisely the reasons people may be concerned today, cross pollination.

If you are certain that nothing untoward will happen that cannot be undone I commend your confidence. I am a little more skeptical.

I am fearful this may have an unintended serious result that cannot be undone easily.

And no this particular industry looked at the possobility of GMO and decided as a group not to. That wasnt before some tests had occurred which proved incredibly difficult to remove from the supply chain

Edited December 1, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[xylophone]

As for Xylophone - your question about non-existing products has no relevance at all, except a weak effort at hyperbole and sensationalism.

Let's not forget that neither you nor seastallion have any background in agricultural sciences - I'd take the word of actual scientists over anything you two say, and the fringe blogs you source, any day.

Dismiss research undertaken by other agricultural scientists and reputable universities however you wish, because the results do not fit into your train of thought.

Also take aim at other posters, ad hominem, which as you know is not general "etiquette" on discussions like this, but perhaps that is just you.

I'm so pleased that you will take the word of actual scientists because they have never been wrong have they.

There are hundreds of dangerous drugs which have been through all phases of clinical trials, double-blind trials and whatever trials deemed necessary by these knowing people before they are used on the general public, only to find that years later they are killing people, and this site names just a few www.drugwatch.com . Some of the drugs were on the market for 14 years before they were withdrawn, so the effects were not immediate, which is what a lot of posters here are worried about.

Between 2004 and 2010, major drug companies paid out $7 billion in fines, penalties and lawsuits because of the effects of their so called “safe” drugs, yet we are trusting them and their ilk with our future

Wikipedia also lists almost 200 significant dangerous drugs which have been withdrawn because of the fact they were damaging and killing people, yet all of these have been "extensively tested" by folk in whom you are going to put your faith. Try arguing some of your points with the thalidomide generation to see what response you get.

One piece of flawed research in the 1950s by one of your "actual scientists" changed the Western worlds diet for 60 years before being found to be flawed, and what agricultural scientists or brains were behind the decision to feed crushed cow spines back to cows. You dismiss folk who say it is "not natural", however this was not natural, it is not natural and has resulted in an horrific disease; perhaps these actual scientists should stop and think for a while before continuing.

The same established scientists/brains ridiculed two Australian doctors who thought that ulcers were caused by bacteria and who were berated by the medical profession worldwide, only to find that they were right.

The thing with GMO is that once it is in the food chain it is almost impossible to take out, and if a little later down the track this is found to be one huge mistake, which has happened many times in the past, it is damn near irreversible and humankind will suffer badly.

And all for what? To those who say that it will produce more/better food, then I suggest they look at the statistics with regards to world food output because there is more than enough food produced in the world to feed everybody. More than enough food is produced, too much is wasted and in the case of many of the countries where famine and starvation are prevalent, it is the governments who are corrupt and who live in large mansions and provide their henchmen with the latest military equipment, whilst their population starves. I know I have been there and seen it happen with tens of thousands of people dying from starvation whilst the rich lived in opulence and the "aid agencies" were shipping food to the government who sold it on the black market or destroyed it.

Genetically modified food won't stop this.

Make no mistake about it, money is the key driver behind this drive and to think that we are entrusting the future of humankind to the likes of the scientists "who know best", most of whom are funded by the major companies who will benefit from their "research" and who have made many mistakes in the past, is frightening.

The final word comes from a well-respected doctor/surgeon friend of mine who confided in me that he was terribly disillusioned with "big Pharma" (as he called them) because of the way that they had introduced drugs into the market, and which he had prescribed for his patients, only to find that these companies had hidden or altered research which would have shown them to be dangerous...........they and their ilk are not the standard-bearers for ethics which you seem to suggest and this has been proven hundreds if not thousands of times, so we need to tread carefully with something which is potentially a game changer for humankind.

[DaffyDuck]

Why did they do it? For precisely the reasons people may be concerned today, cross pollination.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what you claim, the only reason was protectionism of local industry, and rejection of foreign innovations and patents.

This is the exact same thing that has happened in China with the DVD and Blu-ray standard, as well as the 3G and 4G standards - whereas local technologies, non-standards, were developed and mandated over foreign technologies, in order to prevent the payment of licenses and royalties to foreign entities.

The exact same things happened with the GMO decision. 'Dangers' of cross-pollination or any other FUD you point out are irrelevant in that decision. Once China has their own patents on GMO food products, they will roll them out.

... and to be honest, they are what I would be far more concerned about than anything coming from western, industrialized, and civilized countries. Ironically, you aren't concerned, because it fits your narrative - which is even more irresponsible.

I am fearful this may have an unintended serious result that cannot be undone easily.

Wouldn't be a comment without waving the FUD flag, now would it?

[DaffyDuck]

It's fascinating, Thai at Heart, how you keep consistently ignoring the earlier point that I have made several times so far - namely that livestock has been fed GMO feed for around 30 years. If this feed is so dangerous and cancerous, as you make it out to be, where are the epidemics of cancer amongst livestock?

Where?

[attrayant]

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

You're coming back with irrelevant stats.

It's only irrelevant because of your tunnel vision. Stop taking us down dark alleys and stick to the point.

The point being this: In the US, livestock has been fed genetically engineered crops since these crops were first introduced in 1996 and each of the top 6 GMO crops (soy, cotton, corn, canola, sugar beet, and alfalfa) are used heavily by the US and the global animal feed market, but somehow NONE of these animals (be they cows, pigs or whatever) are dropping dead from cancers at the two year mark like the Seralini study says they should be doing.

By the way, most dairy sites I can find say they use a mixture of grains (such as cornmeal) and soy (which is also 95% GMO in the US) in the feeding of dairy cows. According to this: How pervasive are GMOs in animal feed?

Corn is a major feedstuff ingredient, particularly in developed countries. Dairy cows, beef cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, and fish, and rabbits are fed corn in the US. 32% of the world’s corn supply is grown in the United States. The US is the largest producer of corn.

According to the National Corn Growers Association, now about eighty percent of all corn grown in the US is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, fish, and fuel production. 88% of the US corn crop is genetically modified.

[Thai at Heart]

It's fascinating, Thai at Heart, how you keep consistently ignoring the earlier point that I have made several times so far - namely that livestock has been fed GMO feed for around 30 years. If this feed is so dangerous and cancerous, as you make it out to be, where are the epidemics of cancer amongst livestock?

Where?

I made no comment about cancers in livestock.

[Thai at Heart]

Why did they do it? For precisely the reasons people may be concerned today, cross pollination.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what you claim, the only reason was protectionism of local industry, and rejection of foreign innovations and patents.

This is the exact same thing that has happened in China with the DVD and Blu-ray standard, as well as the 3G and 4G standards - whereas local technologies, non-standards, were developed and mandated over foreign technologies, in order to prevent the payment of licenses and royalties to foreign entities.

The exact same things happened with the GMO decision. 'Dangers' of cross-pollination or any other FUD you point out are irrelevant in that decision. Once China has their own patents on GMO food products, they will roll them out.

... and to be honest, they are what I would be far more concerned about than anything coming from western, industrialized, and civilized countries. Ironically, you aren't concerned, because it fits your narrative - which is even more irresponsible.

I am fearful this may have an unintended serious result that cannot be undone easily.

Wouldn't be a comment without waving the FUD flag, now would it?

I made my comment referring to why one specific industry chose not to have any gmo supply not that decision of the Thai government vis a vis gmo.

[T_Dog]

Glysophate has been implicated in possibly causing celiac disease, otherwise know as gluten or wheat intolerance. Enough data exists that the NIH has started looking into it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

[DaffyDuck]

I made no comment about cancers in livestock.

Oh, if that isn't the pitter-patter of desperate back-pedaling. If GMO were so risky, and had such 'unintended consequences', then why haven't we seen any such unintended consequences across the livestock that has been fed GMO feed for nearly 30 years?

*crickets* from you? Funny.

Seastallion, who posts debunked and discredited studies,. is equally quiet and pretends the question is not being asked (and attrayant just asked it again).

[DaffyDuck]

I made my comment referring to why one specific industry chose not to have any gmo supply not that decision of the Thai government vis a vis gmo.

My response to you was about that specific industry and country, not about the Thai government - but I acknowledge your continued backpedaling.

[xylophone]

It's fascinating, Thai at Heart, how you keep consistently ignoring the earlier point that I have made several times so far - namely that livestock has been fed GMO feed for around 30 years. If this feed is so dangerous and cancerous, as you make it out to be, where are the epidemics of cancer amongst livestock?

Where?

How about this research for the "where" which you seek? Underlined some aspects for easier reading.

This is a briefing about the contents of a new, peer-reviewed scientific paper titled: A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet, by Dr Judy Carman, Howard Vlieger, Dr Larry Ver Steeg, Veryln Sneller, Dr Garth Robinson, Dr Kate Clinch-Jones, Dr Julie Haynes and Dr John Edwards.

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.

Perhaps, just perhaps the folk who control this "industry" didn't want to look too hard for evidence, after all, if they found it, it would mean billions of dollars down the drain......just a thought!

[RPCVguy]

It's fascinating, Thai at Heart, how you keep consistently ignoring the earlier point that I have made several times so far - namely that livestock has been fed GMO feed for around 30 years. If this feed is so dangerous and cancerous, as you make it out to be, where are the epidemics of cancer amongst livestock?

Where?

Interesting that you demand people stick to your points, but you ignore commenting on factual responses with links to studies such as T_Dog on celiac disease or my prior 4 posts.

• Geneticists issued a scathing report - GMO Myths and Truths: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/780225-govt-to-study-genetically-modified-crops-despite-opposition/#entry8737646
• Union of Concerned Scientists and others report Monsanto creates obstacles to independent research and reporting: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/780225-govt-to-study-genetically-modified-crops-despite-opposition/#entry8737704
• Seralini succeeds in conducting a TWO-YEAR Study - TWICE! The 2nd time under greater scrutiny. BOTH times produced cancerous tumors in rats. Both times Monsanto lobbied vigorously against the research. The first time it was retracted, EXCEPT THE STUDY WAS REPLICATED WITH THE SAME RESULTS - AND IS AGAIN IN SCIENCE JOURNALS.

  http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/780225-govt-to-study-genetically-modified-crops-despite-opposition/page-3#entry8741237

• Attrayant and I strongly disagree, but he has more consistently stayed on topic and kept a more civil tone of discussion. He at least did find that a link in the article in my first link had been Broken (it was moved) I found the thread again and supplied it in my 4th comment... tracing the concerns of the geneticists. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/780225-govt-to-study-genetically-modified-crops-despite-opposition/page-4#entry8742588

  ... however there has yet been a response to my questioning the independence of FASS (founded 2 years after GMOs were introduced), no links beyond titles as to studies allowing access to the public as to what was done, how it was done, and for what duration over what number of animals.

In that 4th link I went on to begin listing studies that are troubling on their face as to reproductive problems in livestock AND human health implications of GMO crops. Did you read through those?

"Glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins...

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. "

NOTE: This reaction is not to the GMO, but to the poison that GMO allows to be used more widely.

Like the first thalidomide babies, the first indications of problems are usually unheard warnings, canaries in the coal mine. Industry spokespeople and those wanting solely to appear modern are jumping on the GMO bandwagon - but the warnings have begun.

Since no one has a plan for undoing the biological spread of potentially harmful transgenic seeds once open air trials allow pollen out into nature - there is already more than enough evidence to call for a moratorium on all open air trials. There is already sufficient justification for countries to ban the import of any GMO produce. Proceeding forward serves primarily the investors of those GMO companies, but puts farmers and the future stability of many genetic lines at risk.

FOR HUMANS Consuming genetically modified plant DNA leads to the development of “GMO” microorganisms, which reproduce continuously inside the human body. http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-our-digestive-systems/

So far the dominant crops that have been perverted in the USA are corn, soybean, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa and squash - but the mix varies among the different nations that traffic in these crops.

Farmers in India "bought" the GMO marketing hype about saving money on less pesticides and better yields, only to find that it was primarily a sales pitch. Bankruptcy for farmers led to a wave of farmer suicides so that debt for seed would not entrap endlessly the whole family. http://www.navdanya.org/blog/?p=744

Besides problems financially for farmers in India, see this study (and the establishment resistance to investigating it)

• Bt Cotton and Livestock: Health Impacts, Bio-safety concerns and the Legitimacy of Public Scientific Research Institutions

  Dr Sagari R Ramdas (Director, Anthra)

  Paper presented at National workshop on Genetically modified crops/foods & Health Impacts. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Doctors for Food & Bio-Safety, Greenpeace India and Sustainet on July 8th and 9th at India International Centre, New Delhi http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/11872-bt-cotton-and-livestockhealth-impacts-dr-sagari-r-ramdas

• In this particular study, pigs and cows fed on the rather common diet of GMO corn and soy have suffered digestive and reproductive disorders. This is of particular importance since the human digestive tract is very similar to that of pigs. http://www.nationofchange.org/first-long-term-study-released-pigs-cattle-who-eat-gmo-soy-and-corn-offers-frightening-results-13723

  Carman explains, “At a commercial piggery in the US, we took 168 just-weaned pigs and fed them a typical diet for the piggery, containing soy and corn, for 22.7 weeks (over 5 months) until the pigs were slaughtered at their usual slaughter age. Half of the pigs were fed widely-used varieties of GM soy and GM corn (the GM-fed group) for this whole period, and the other half of the pigs were fed an equivalent non-GM diet (the control group). The GM diet contained three GM genes and therefore three GM proteins. One protein made the plant resistant to a herbicide, and two proteins were insecticides.”

  In short, this mixture of GMO foods led to a toxic mix in the digestive tract of the animals, leading to a reduced ability for GMO-fed pigs to reproduce. The pigs were studied from conception until slaughter (the first long term study of its kind) and all were all affected adversely. Female pigs were found to have the following possible pathologies, measured through careful analysis and post-mortem examination:

  • Endometrial hyperplasia
  • Carcinoma
  • Endometritis
  • Endometriosis
  • Adenomyosis
  • Inflammation
  • Thickening of the myometrium
  • Larger presence of polyps
  • Further, the uteri of the GMO-fed pigs were fluid filled compared to the pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet.
  • The uteri of the pigs who consumed GMO food were 25% larger than non-GMO fed pigs.
  • Inflammation of the stomach and small intestine
  • Stomach ulcers
  • Stomach inflammation
  • Thinning of intestinal walls
  • Increase in hemorrhaging bowels (this causes the pigs to bleed to death from the bowels).

Among these horrendous findings, scientists also noted that none of these types of results have been reported in the biochemistry tests performed by Monsanto or other companies in the GM industry.

...which goes back to my repeated question as to duration of testing and multi-generational findings on studies that have been performed. Those with the access to the studies done report that the studies typically end after merely 90 days.

GMO manufacturers are trying to claim freedom to market without labeling or differentiation due to safety. Any ONE study that indicates linkages to diseases DISPROVES the validity of blanket certification. Each and every case of wind borne cross pollination proves that open air testing is a risk to all future crops as the contamination spreads.

I suspect that yet more, new challenges will be tossed out by a few members on TV. For those who would like a coherent, uninterrupted presentation of the concerns many people have as to GMO, one such document is:

2014 report - Genetically Engineered Food - An Overview

with a 2 page summary that counters claims by the BioTech Industry Greenwashing Genetically Engineered Crops

My position remains - transgenic GMOs

• Are a certain financial trap,
• Use marketing claims of better pest resistance that prove false as insects and diseases also mutate to by-pass the "fix"
• Only briefly solves issues of weeds - which also mutate to resist glyphosate, requiring another level of herbicide derived from Agent Orange
• Are only slowly getting the needed Medical studies, though some already show that long term effects exist and are serious.

I leave open the possible use of gene manipulation between varieties of the same species - essentially doing in the lab what hybridization has long achieved. This is what was done with papaya - taking rust resistant genes of one variety of papaya and adding them to the variety that was popular for flavor, but susceptible to the disease.

Better, I would like to see the majority of Monsanto efforts into garden vegetables - a direction they are already well engaged in - be done along the lines of this article about Monsanto's hybridization program

http://www.navdanya.org/blog/?p=744

... though even there, Monsanto will be looking for ways to continue their market control/ ownership of seeds that humans have cultivated and adapted for millennium.

[attrayant]

This is a briefing about the contents of a new, peer-reviewed scientific paper titled: A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet, by Dr Judy Carman, Howard Vlieger, Dr Larry Ver Steeg, Veryln Sneller, Dr Garth Robinson, Dr Kate Clinch-Jones, Dr Julie Haynes and Dr John Edwards.

Why not link to the study? Perhaps because it's in the Journal of Organic Systems, which I had never heard of until now. I don't have time to read the study (maybe this weekend) but 'll just briefly note that it [the journal] does not appear in PubMed, indicating that the scientific community at large does not think very highly of it. A quick perusal suggests it's basically Seralinin v2.

As for the celiac study a few posts back, I'm more familiar with that one and I believe a thorough debunking has already been done. I'll try to post rebuttals this weekend.

Edited December 2, 2014 by attrayant

[xylophone]

This is a briefing about the contents of a new, peer-reviewed scientific paper titled: A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet, by Dr Judy Carman, Howard Vlieger, Dr Larry Ver Steeg, Veryln Sneller, Dr Garth Robinson, Dr Kate Clinch-Jones, Dr Julie Haynes and Dr John Edwards.

Why not link to the study? Perhaps because it's in the Journal of Organic Systems, which I had never heard of until now. I don't have time to read the study (maybe this weekend) but 'll just briefly note that it [the journal] does not appear in PubMed, indicating that the scientific community at large does not think very highly of it. A quick perusal suggests it's basically Seralinin v2.

As for the celiac study a few posts back, I'm more familiar with that one and I believe a thorough debunking has already been done. I'll try to post rebuttals this weekend.

The link was in a previous post of mine.

However I think my post #98 probably outlines my concerns a little better, so please be so kind as to read this first.

As regards the GMO issue it seems that research done by anti-GMO folk is slated by pro-GMO folk, and research done by pro-GMO folk is slated by anti-GMO folk.................?? However "actual scientists" (as per Daffy quote) are on both sides of the argument, so go figure.

[RPCVguy]

Attrayant, Don't forget:

• the Bt Cotton problems in India - by Dr Sagari R Ramdas (see above)
  supplemented by this article http://www.wesupportorganic.com/2014/04/monsanto-subsidiarys-gmo-cotton-banned-in-indian-state-after-crop-failure.html
• peer-reviewed study led by Dr Judy Carman of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Australia (see above - Thanks Xylophone for the added request)
• "my questioning the independence of FASS (founded 2 years after GMOs were introduced), no links beyond titles as to studies allowing access to the public as to what was done, how it was done, and for what duration over what number of animals."
• It looks suspiciously like an industry network of interlocking associations assembled to lobby efficiently. ... which then goes back to the original link to geneticists and to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Not a study, but empirical observations that suggest the basis for new study... multiple American farmers who keep records of production rates see improved growth and lower costs when switching from GMO feed to non-GMO feed:

"When Troy Knoblock, a farmer who operates a hog nursery in Rock Rapids, Iowa, switched from feeding his animals GM feed to non-GMO feed several years ago he didn’t think there would be a difference. ... found that drug treatments for sicknesses were cut in half. Sow conception rates increased from percentages in the 80s to 90s, and the size of hog litters increased.
... Knoblock, agrees. “Switching to non-GMO lowered our input costs. The seed is much cheaper, about $150-$160 per bag, while GM seed can cost $300 per bag.” Cattle deaths due to digestive problems or pneumonia have been cut in half from 1.2% of his herd to 0.6%.

Farmers afraid to speak about non-GMO:
Tusa says ... “We haven’t lost yield; in fact yields have increased,” the farmer says. ... Iowa-based crop advisor Howard Vlieger has seen fewer health issues and reduced expense and need for antibiotics. “There will be an improvement in overall herd health and performance,” he says.
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may2014/farmers-report-better-animal-health-non-gmo-feed.php

A study I had bookmarked but forgot to include yesterday - which I suspect as being particularly relevant to the number of men I see who've died or are being treated in Thailand for kidney problems again links to the Glyphosate that GMOs make more readily usable.

The study, Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka? hypothesizes that while Roundup (also known as glyphosate) is toxic, it is not solely capable of destroying kidney tissue on the scale recently seen in rice paddy regions of Northern Sri Lanka, or in El Salvador where it is the second leading killer of men.
The researchers propose glyphosate becomes extremely toxic to the kidneys when it’s combined with “hard” water or heavy metals like arsenic and cadmium, either naturally present in the soil or added externally through the spread of fertilizer."
EcoWatch further suggests that " CKDu is a result of chemically-induced damage. ... has numerous causes, including: Exposure to arsenic / Exposure to cadmium / Exposure to pesticides / Consumption of hard water / Low water intake / Exposure to high temperatures (and resultant dehydration)

However, the authors state: “Whatever hypothesis that is propounded should be able to answer the questions as to why CKDu is confined to certain geographical areas of Sri Lanka and why there was no CKDu in Sri Lanka prior to the 1990s.”
http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/26/study-connects-monsantos-roundup-to-fatal-kidney-disease-epidemic/

ALL of this effort, enormous pressure by Monsanto (and its surrogate the USA ) to include GMO into both the TPP and TAPA (Pacific and Atlantic Trading Agreements) so as to shove a patented, owned, technology down the throats of every farmer on every continent. Make no mistake, that is the goal.
These agreements will lead to yet lower food diversity, fewer variations that are regionally adapted to the small farmers who make up the bulk of the world's food supply... even as Peak Oil and Climate Change arrive, making regional seed and localized food systems the long term path forward... NOT food conglomerates.

UN Report Says Small-Scale Organic Farming Only Way to Feed the World:
Even as the United States government continues to push for the use of more chemically-intensive and corporate-dominated farming methods such as GMOs and monoculture-based crops, the United Nations is once against sounding the alarm about the urgent need to return to (and develop) a more sustainable, natural and organic system.
That was the key point of a new publication from the UN Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) titled
“Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,”
which included contributions from more than 60 experts around the world.
http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-says-small-scale-organic-farming-only

Are all "advancements in agricultural knowledge" wrong? Certainly not. Many people are learning to integrate best practices and design land usage according to the topography, sunlight and water flow patterns of the land. Use of Permaculture Design to work WITH nature instead of constantly striving to circumvent and out do nature. Anyone willing to invest some time into the concepts contained in multiple websites on the topic would find costs reduced and yields increased per acre - because nature will do more of the detail work. The issue is that it does NOT fit into the factory style, mono-culture techniques favored by corporations as they mine the nutrients out of existing soils.

My preference in videos falls to Geoff Lawton (he's an excellent spokesman, good videos) a list of what he offers in quick topics includes below

Lawton's BEST for setting out a framework of the concepts (IMO) is an 80 minute video titled "Establishing_A_Food_Forest_The_Permaculture_Way_2008" ... but it is only sporadically available.
Film PRODUCED IN THAILAND - start at

and run down the you-tube suggestions.
:

• Surviving the Coming Crises
• Property Purchase Check List
• 5 Acre Abundance on a Budget
• Urban Permaculture
• Absolute in Abundance
• Feed Chickens without Grain
• Food Forest Suburb
• Reforesting with Goats
• Rooftop Farm
• Power of Bamboo
• Perennial Abundance
• Permaculture Fishponds
• Gabions
• Community Gardens
• Cell Grazing
• Earthworks Course
• Chicken Tractor on Steroids
• Student Property Tour
• Food Forests Across Climates
• Biogas System
• Fish Ponds of Molokai
• Permaculture For Profit
• Permaculture in Paradise

[attrayant]

As regards the GMO issue it seems that research done by anti-GMO folk is slated by pro-GMO folk, and research done by pro-GMO folk is slated by anti-GMO folk.................?? However "actual scientists" (as per Daffy quote) are on both sides of the argument, so go figure.

That's being generous.

There will always be debunkings of hazard studies by GMO advocates. But for some reason I don't see the reverse happening. Why aren't there any scientists or researchers taking any of the thousands of the "GMO is safe" studies and showing us where they're wrong? The reason is because many of them have already been replicated and verified (certainly most of the important ones have), and no important errors have been found.

Conversely, in most of the hazard studies, the flaws are just not that hard to find. You can point to a protocol breach or lack of control and say "there, that's why your study shows lots of cancerous growth in rats!", at which point the study should be repeated, this time with a control in place to prevent the recurrence of errors or noisy data. For example, let's repeat the Seralinin study, except this time don't use rats that have a high tendency to get cancer at the end of their two year lifespan no matter what you feed them. If we do that and we STILL see cancerous tumors after two year, THEN we're on to something, and I'll be the first to say so. But after only one questionable study? Sorry, no.

If there is a definite, causal link between X and Y, it should turn up in not just a single study, but in every study that has a sufficiently high confidence level. Results that surface in only one out of ten thousand studies are either anomalous or some other kind of outlier. Outliers happen occasionally, and they aren't a smoking gun. In fact in large enough sample sizes, we should expect a few outliers.

Of course research money is limited, so we can't just spend money and resources willy-nilly for years on end. At some point you've got to recognize that we have thousands of studies showing safety, and contrast that will the half a dozen that say there might be some danger. When the preponderance of the evidence is greater than 1000:1**, we can pretty much say the science is settled. And this applies to any controversial subject, not just GMOs.

**and if you compare them on a per-subject basis, the ratio is more like 1,000,000:1.

[xylophone]

As regards the GMO issue it seems that research done by anti-GMO folk is slated by pro-GMO folk, and research done by pro-GMO folk is slated by anti-GMO folk.................?? However "actual scientists" (as per Daffy quote) are on both sides of the argument, so go figure.

That's being generous.

There will always be debunkings of hazard studies by GMO advocates. But for some reason I don't see the reverse happening. Why aren't there any scientists or researchers taking any of the thousands of the "GMO is safe" studies and showing us where they're wrong? The reason is because many of them have already been replicated and verified (certainly most of the important ones have), and no important errors have been found.

Conversely, in most of the hazard studies, the flaws are just not that hard to find. You can point to a protocol breach or lack of control and say "there, that's why your study shows lots of cancerous growth in rats!", at which point the study should be repeated, this time with a control in place to prevent the recurrence of errors or noisy data. For example, let's repeat the Seralinin study, except this time don't use rats that have a high tendency to get cancer at the end of their two year lifespan no matter what you feed them. If we do that and we STILL see cancerous tumors after two year, THEN we're on to something, and I'll be the first to say so. But after only one questionable study? Sorry, no.

If there is a definite, causal link between X and Y, it should turn up in not just a single study, but in every study that has a sufficiently high confidence level. Results that surface in only one out of ten thousand studies are either anomalous or some other kind of outlier. Outliers happen occasionally, and they aren't a smoking gun. In fact in large enough sample sizes, we should expect a few outliers.

Of course research money is limited, so we can't just spend money and resources willy-nilly for years on end. At some point you've got to recognize that we have thousands of studies showing safety, and contrast that will the half a dozen that say there might be some danger. When the preponderance of the evidence is greater than 1000:1**, we can pretty much say the science is settled. And this applies to any controversial subject, not just GMOs.

**and if you compare them on a per-subject basis, the ratio is more like 1,000,000:1.

Following your lead above about numbers and safety, several things come to mind............one of the dangerous drugs withdrawn had undergone many tests over many years and was actually prescribed to 10 million users before problems began to show, and yet another with 50 million prescriptions before being withdrawn as being too dangerous. So it shows the "best corporate minds" can be wrong despite exhaustive testing and the drugs being ingested by many millions of people, so I guess numbers don't really mean a lot.

Money is perhaps another reason why more research isn't being done, because even when money is spent, the huge financial clout of the corporations behind this GMO push will just crush it.

And finally, and this a key worry, why do we need to do it? Is there a shortage of food in the world; no there isn't and if there isn't, then why is there a need to produce more? The answer is plain and simple – – money and profit for large organisations.

Along with this key worry is the fact that we are potentially altering the face of mankind with regards to the food produced, the animals we feed, and what we eat and ultimately our health, and that is a huge risk because there will be no turning back.

RPVCguy has posted some material from the UN Commission on Trade and Development and it makes very interesting reading, suggesting that the future does not lay with the chemical led intensive monoculture farming currently being pushed by large corporations and countries, and this report has input from experts from around the world.

AND AGAIN, WHY DO THIS WHEN THERE IS NO NEED.

[DaffyDuck]

Because there is a need. In the long run, conventional food production methods will not allow us to scale to feed the populations we expect of the future.

Just because you eat comfortably, doesn't mean this applies to everyone else in the world. Your relative comfort and ease of access to healthy food represents less than 10% of the world population. The majority of humanity lives in squalor, and has access to little food of good quality - much less healthy food.

Open your eyes.

[Thai at Heart]

I made no comment about cancers in livestock.

Oh, if that isn't the pitter-patter of desperate back-pedaling. If GMO were so risky, and had such 'unintended consequences', then why haven't we seen any such unintended consequences across the livestock that has been fed GMO feed for nearly 30 years?

*crickets* from you? Funny.

Seastallion, who posts debunked and discredited studies,. is equally quiet and pretends the question is not being asked (and attrayant just asked it again).

My issue is a hell of a lot more to do with security of the supply of crops, unitnended crop yield changes or difficulties produced by seed modifications, not whether they are fed to animals or humans. Doesn't matter if people or cows are getting cancer if one of the unitended consequences of using a GMO seed is that it isn't as productive or resistant as meant to be, and the yields are reduced, but has replaced unmodified seed so completely that it cannot be removed from the supply chain.

Stuff cross pollinates, so it is virtually impossible to remove GMO from the supply chain once it is used. It is a case of all in or nothing.

[RPCVguy]

Because there is a need. In the long run, conventional food production methods will not allow us to scale to feed the populations we expect of the future.

Just because you eat comfortably, doesn't mean this applies to everyone else in the world. Your relative comfort and ease of access to healthy food represents less than 10% of the world population. The majority of humanity lives in squalor, and has access to little food of good quality - much less healthy food.

Open your eyes.

The Big Ag style of agriculture us doomed to end as oil extracts become too low a return on energy invested to afford to burn for fuel to ship globally, process globally, throw chemicals upon to feed soil depleted of natural vitality by repeated use of synthetic fertilizers. What kept forests and prairies alive and thriving before humans tilled the soil was the natural symbiosis of trees with the fungi deeper in the ground that exchange sugars from photosynthesis with the minerals deeper down. Then fallen leaf litter and branches of trees spread those minerals to the top layers of soil where shrubs and vines and other shallow rooted plants accessed the abundance. Look for and view the long Geoff Lawton video I'd posted just above to get the quickest full picture of a landscape.

Alternatively, and not as informative are these two articles by Tom Philpott

Organic farming just as productive as conventional, and better at building soil, Rodale finds

It gets more interesting than Equivalent. "As the globe warms up, increased droughts are likely to reduce global crop yields. The ag-biotech industry is scrambling to come out with “drought-resistant” GMO crops. But organic ag might already have that covered: “In 4 out of 5 years of moderate drought, the organic systems had significantly higher corn yields (31 percent higher) than the conventional system.”"

http://grist.org/article/2011-03-25-rodale-data-show-organic-just-as-productive-better-at-building/

AND

Debunking the stubborn myth that only industrial ag can ‘feed the world’

"Then there’s the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Under the auspices of the United Nations, World Bank, World Health Organization, and other institutions, the IAASTD gathered 400 scientists and development experts from dozens of nations to assess the very problems examined by The Economist."

..."Its conclusion [PDF]: agroecological practices — including the very organic-farming techniques scorned by The Economist — are at least as important as agrichemicals and biotechnology in terms of “feeding the world” in the decades to come. As for the alleged panacea of genetically modified seeds, the IAASTD was so unenthusiastic about GMOs that Croplife International, the trade group for the globe’s dominant GMO/agrichemical purveyors, angrily pulled out [PDF] of participation shortly before its release — as, disgracefully, did the U.S. and Canadian governments in solidarity.

"Just last week, the U.N. Environment Program yet again came out against Big Ag, this time as part of its broad Green Economy initiative. The agency released an advance copy of a report called “Agriculture: Investing in Natural Capital.” It amounts to a blistering assault on the agribusiness-as-usual model. It briskly names the main problems with the goal of spreading U.S.-style industrial agriculture to the global south:

Conventional/industrial agriculture is energy- and input-intensive. Its high productivity relies on the extensive use of petrochemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, water, and continuous new investment (e.g. in advanced seed varieties and machinery).

"Such agriculture can indeed “feed the 9 billion,” to use The Economist‘s phrase. The report concludes that “use of green agricultural practices and technologies” can boost global per capita calorie availability from today’s 2,800 to around 3,200 calories by 2050. And it can do so in a way that doesn’t drive millions of smallholder farmers off the land and into cities ill-equipped to absorb them, like the so-called Green Revolution transition to industrial farming in the ‘60s and ‘70s did in South Asia. “Green agriculture has the potential to be a net creator of jobs that provides higher return on labour inputs than conventional agriculture,” the report states."

http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-03-10-debunking-myth-that-only-industrial-agriculture-can-feed-world/

What Big Ag DOES perpetuate is the commodification of food so that the wealthier nations CAN extract it from the poorer peoples of the planet - in nations and between nations. The image shows Africa, but much of South America and Mexico is similarly used to feed richer nations.

[xylophone]

Because there is a need. In the long run, conventional food production methods will not allow us to scale to feed the populations we expect of the future.

Just because you eat comfortably, doesn't mean this applies to everyone else in the world. Your relative comfort and ease of access to healthy food represents less than 10% of the world population. The majority of humanity lives in squalor, and has access to little food of good quality - much less healthy food.

Open your eyes.

You obviously didn't read an earlier post of mine, because this latest post of yours shows how uninformed you really are, so instead of you asking me to open my eyes, why don't you open your mind.

Go and look (Google) at the poorest countries in the world and see how the government officials live and how well-equipped the military is. I know because I have worked in amongst a famine which killed tens of thousands of people, and this in a country which is one of the major oil producers in the world.

Genetically modified crops or animals will not change the poverty and squalor in these countries because it is corruption which causes it, so your argument about there being a need "in the long run" is absolute poppycock.There is no need and never has been, and do you really think that the poverty stricken farmers in these poverty stricken countries will be able to afford the seeds, fertilisers and chemicals necessary to sustain these genetically modified abominations – – not a chance, and you are living in a dream world if you think that.

I have opened my eyes and I have been in amongst the dead, the dying and famine and it is not anything to do with genetically modified anything which is necessary to save the worlds starving and poor, it is ensuring that money gets directly to them rather than into the hands of their corrupt government. It is showing them how to plant and sustainably manage the land; it is introducing new farming methods which are sustainable and not tainted by GMOs; It is teaching them about irrigation and what works and what doesn't (deep beneath the arid regions of the world such as the Sahara there lies water which can be utilised if treated)........... there is so much more to making sure that the poor get feed than perpetuating the myth that GMO crops are necessary.

Open YOUR eyes.

[attrayant]

The Big Ag style of agriculture us doomed to end as oil extracts become too low a return on energy invested to afford to burn for fuel to ship globally, process globally, throw chemicals upon to feed soil depleted of natural vitality by repeated use of synthetic fertilizers. What kept forests and prairies alive and thriving before humans tilled the soil was the natural symbiosis of trees with the fungi deeper in the ground that exchange sugars from photosynthesis with the minerals deeper down. Then fallen leaf litter and branches of trees spread those minerals to the top layers of soil where shrubs and vines and other shallow rooted plants accessed the abundance.

Most of this is tangential, so I won't address it in this thread (which, I thought was specifically about the safety of GMOs). But just one quick point with regard to this:

Organic farming just as productive as conventional, and better at building soil

If true, that's great. But surely not something that needs to be debated, right? If that's really happening, farmers will surely discover it for themselves and make whatever changes their livelihoods demand. I mean just look at that alleged healthy, robust organic corn next to the shriveling, anemic traditional corn:

What farmer in his right mind wouldn't jump on the organic bandwagon? And yet...

Let the results speak for themselves and the farmers make their own choices about which seed and process makes their business successful. You know, free market and all that good stuff.

[RPCVguy]

Attrayant has repeatedly cited the LIST of studies and purported safety as supplied by FASS. I have asked for details as to the procedures and duration of these studies. Like me, Attrayant probably does not have access to these studies. The Union of concerned scientists and others have the subscription privileges to see the details. One complaint is that the studies are 90-day studies.
DOES FASS have an agenda to demonstrate that the GMO technology is safe? In a letter to the FDA, it opens saying

"As professional animal scientists, we are committed to developing and supporting new science-based technologies to enhance food sustainability while decreasing the cost of production of animal products and thus the cost to consumers. To this end, the professional use of biotechnology can provide new tools to achieve these most necessary goals."

Note the many links between Monsanto and the FDA are strong, all the way to the FDA's Deputy Director Michael Taylor... but the links are throughout the Government (both under Democrats and Republicans)

With all the networking, and despite the resistance to GMOs, there IS one tool that may have triggered the switch from "Thailand being the Organic Food supplier to again looking at GMOs. The is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - a trade agreement that maybe Thailand wants to access, but can NOT be part of unless it accepts GMOs.

"Given that Vietnam has indicated its willingness to sign the U..S-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), activists are concerned that the U.S. is trying to use the treaty to impose restrictive intellectual property rules that could prove highly damaging to developing countries. They say the TPP, if signed, would pave the way for seed companies like Monsanto to iron out its GMO patent wrinkles in Vietnam.

"Genna Reed, a researcher at the Washington D.C.-based Food & Water Watch, said: “Under the rules of the TPP, pharmaceutical firms and seed companies would have unrestrained power, allowing them to lengthen their monopolies on patents to keep generics out and drug prices high for longer periods of time, and to keep the prices of patented seeds high. The TPP would also make it more difficult to make a case against unjustified patents and harder for generic versions of drugs to become available in the Pacific region. This trade deal and the enforcement of intellectual property rights will make essential drugs and seeds more expensive and harder to come by.” Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, summed it up: “This is a dangerous march away from national sovereignty for Vietnam and its farmers. The TPP has been designed primarily by US business interests for US business interests.”
http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/vietnam-agent-orange-and-gmos/

Note as cited elsewhere in the same article:

"The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report, considered the most exhaustive analysis of agriculture and sustainability in history, concludes that the high costs of seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choice for the developing world. GMOs in their current state have nothing to offer the cause of feeding the hungry, alleviating poverty, and creating sustainable agriculture, according to the report. Six multinationals – Monsanto, Syngenta, Du Pont, Bayer, Dow, and BASF – now control almost two-thirds of the global market for seeds, three quarters of agro-chemicals sales, and the entire GM seed market, according to a report by Friends of the Earth International, an international network of environmental organizations in 74 countries."

and later
"These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly designed to facilitate increased, indiscriminate herbicide use and pump up chemical sales.” According to the activists, farmers do not want to be locked into a seed market controlled by Monsanto and Syngenta (Monsanto already controls more than a quarter of the global seed market, and the top four pesticide/biotech companies control over half of the world’s commercial seeds). They point out that corn farmers in the U.S. are virtually unable to find non-GMO seed now, because Monsanto has secured a monopoly control over the U.S. seed market."

So, we can argue / discuss/ search for understanding of risks and benefits... but I strongly suspect that the bottom line is not an issue of feeding the masses, or providing the healthiest food. The ultimate bottom line is likely to be the desire to make a deal and be part of a money stream supported by people needing seeds to grow food. Recent high level meetings between nations probably included a bit of arm twisting and deal making that is being released at this side of the Pacific in ways to save face and look proactive, but the money of the corporations have already bought their influence in the USA, and are now out to make it a global arrangement.

... and again to Attrayant,
NO! The title of this thread is about opposition to the government's consideration of GMO's - and I include in the opposition the subjecting of more farmers to a Cartel of companies who already hold 2/3rds of global seed sales. Keep them out - once control is gained the prices are theirs to demand.
AS for US farmers... read their corn situation.
"Monsanto has secured a monopoly control over the U.S. seed market."

Then go back and look at the stated agenda of FASS and how the business connections consistently disagree with the small farmer connections. There are a multitude of perspectives available to oppose - once one looks around and sees the alternatives. Supporting the SMALL FARMER is what continues to feed the world.

Edited December 2, 2014 by RPCVguy

[DaffyDuck]

Go and look (Google) at the poorest countries in the world and see how the government officials live and how well-equipped the military is. I know because I have worked in amongst a famine which killed tens of thousands of people, and this in a country which is one of the major oil producers in the world.

Genetically modified crops or animals will not change the poverty and squalor in these countries because it is corruption which causes it, so your argument about there being a need "in the long run" is absolute poppycock.There is no need and never has been, (...)

Lovely moving of the goalposts - right along with anecdotal argument.

Both of which are invalid - your purely emotional appeals are non-factual.

It truly is pointless responding to you (or TAH), as arguing with you is no different than debating with anti-vaxxers or anti-fluoride crowds ... or creationists, for that matter.