1. Boston

    Boston Active Member

  2. electrojet

    electrojet New Member

    Hi Boston,

    Very prickly topic, Kudos ! I will respond to ur post over at the GW forum soon. Thanks.

    The current technology of gene insertion is harmful. Monsanto previously assured the public that there would be no gene transference ( they stated that their bt toxin would not flourish in my intestines). This has now been shown to be incorrect.

    One of the biggest errors the organic and kosher group is currently making is that they are organizing events that are anti GMO. This is in error. They inadvertantly are empowering the GM industry by doing so. See quote at bottom.

    I limit my intake of GM foods to a large extent. I pay a higher price to support local, kosher and organics. When I go to farmers markets I engage the growers and encourage them to continue or to begin to offer organics. I have a garden and pulverize volcanic rock and do other strange things to condition the soil.


    I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there.
    -Mother Teresa
  3. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Whats most interesting to me is that the Monsanto Technology/stewardship agreement specifically forbids its products from being used for any type of research, IE its illegal to do food safety tests on Monsanto products


    If your thinking I've interpreted that wrong


    Note the following legal battle between DuPont and Monsanto where DuPont attempted to experiment with Monsanto seeds


    One thing I'm curious about is if "commodity" seeds could be used for food safety tests without patent infringement, after all, there is numerous incidences of cattle dropping dead after eating this "commodity" feed corn and it'd be interesting to see just whats going on.

    I also found some interesting legal issues with the Monsanto user agreement, in terms of land sales or acquisitions, kinda makes you wonder what this might do to ones property values. .


  4. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah, I think it's a fear of possible reverse-engineering their patented product that is the more generous interpretation of that, but if it stops people from testing it for safety to their own satisfaction, it seems to be for the sake of controlling contradictory information.
    Presumably the fact that the seed is on the market means it's supposed to have passed rigorous safety testing and reviews, but if the regulating body is compromised by the usual conflict-of-interest ex-corporate lobbyist placements, which governments seems to have a continued problem understanding people's objection to, then no wonder trust is lacking.

    And a democratic institution should be designed to encourage and hold up to suspicious scrutiny, not dismiss and inflame it.

    "...there is numerous incidences of cattle dropping dead after eating this "commodity" feed corn"? Sources?
  5. Boston

    Boston Active Member

  6. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    • Like Like x 1
  7. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I can't see anything in your links related to food safety tests. The seed is not been sold as a food stuff and it does not become a food until grown, then no contract can over ride national food legislation, and people are free to test that product.
  8. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    I was looking at the website for Earth Open Source and they seem to be rather biased and the one source of their funding that they do list is also heavily biased and the fact that they list Alex Jones Prison Planet and Natural News as 'media highlights' make me further question their impartiality. I suspect that they had a story line they wished to promote and sought out any studies that seem to confirm the conclusion they sought.... I think that is called confirmation bias.






    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I can see problems with any animal fed only soy products. Soy, even the most organic, natural soy has estrogen like actions. Using hamsters for the test subject seems to be a 'rigged' test, since ordinary soy will cause fertility issues

    • Like Like x 2
  10. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Dave you must have missed this one


    The grain is most definitely being sold as a feed on the commodities market and is apparently causing enough cattle deaths, likely due to its altered chemical make up ( see comparison between non GMO grain and GMO grain ) that a number of law suits have been filed.

    Also the recent French study ( 2 year study on rats ) that is being land blasted by the GMO giants clearly indicates there are some very serious side effects from eating not just BT corn, but RR corn as well.

    Interestingly enough about 50 countries require labeling on GMO foods, including China.


    oh and someone mentioned bias sources, yup, but the GMO companies are bias as well, the FDA, course the politicians the FDA and the GMO companies are being influenced by huge profits and the labs and grass roots organizations are influenced by a desire to at least know whats in there food. So I'm not sure just how the two types of bias stack up. IMHO I'd rather not eat it and I've got a program on my thmat phone that tells me whats got or is highly likely to have GMOs in it. A smart consumer can find ways to avoid most of the worst. But post consumption GMO products like meet products which are extremely likely to have been fed GMO products and the associated alteration in the general health and well being of that animal your about to eat, is very hard to spot. Its relegated my personal choices to only grass fed organic meet products, or organic farm raised poultry ( which I serve mostly to the dog ) I'm lucky in that I can afford descent clean food. But for most of the world, these options simply don't exist.

    One thing I will say about GMO foods is they should be labeled. They should absolutely be labeled.
  11. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Boston, as I recall, when you first visited this board, you were asking for peer-reviewed literature regarding trace metals in rainwater. I'm going to ask you for the same thing on this topic. When it comes to claims regarding things like it being fatal to livestock and so forth, I'm interested in seeing solid science rather than articles from "alternative" media and such.

    I don't have a great deal of background knowledge about GMO crops, although in the course of my graduate studies (in entomology) I read a number of papers on the topic, mostly having to do with whether they were effective at preventing losses from insect damage. Although there are examples in the literature showing that they can have some benefit in that regard (but not always), I'm a bit skeptical of their widespread use for that purpose - mainly because of the potential for selecting for resistance in the pest populations (from an integrated pest management standpoint). I also think that novel GM lines should be carefully scrutinized and evaluated before being made generally available.

    What bothers me about the anti-GMO stance is that it has become a rather knee-jerk reaction in some circles, to the extent that many people think "GM = evil", always. There is also the potential for great benefits from this technology.
    • Like Like x 5
  13. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I wonder how many folks would buy an orange if it had a label "contains ascorbic acid' on it?
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    I'm not sure you could pass off the hundreds of papers referenced in my first post as "one fringe researcher" nor do I see it as being reasonable to claim bias when the GMO giants themselves require any research that is allowed to be vetted through them before publication. So small wonder peer reviewed work is so rare that might expose the dangers of GMO foods. Its also rather telling when peoples cattle fed GMO foods drop dead by the herds.

    I'd again mention that the Monsanto user agreement specifically forbids any research whatsoever.

    Oh and Belfry, yes normally I'd be very skeptical of anything but published peer reviewed work, even with this issue I'm very leery of what sources I use, however since the GMO producers have seen fit to make such work illegal, suing organizations who do attempt such studies. Greenpeace if I remember was sued into submission, for attempting to raise a crop of BT corn to study. I'm stuck with what I can find that might be considered viable information. The very fact that the GMO juggernaut has seen fit to fight so hard to prevent labeling as well as any food safety studies is very telling IMHO.

    I though it'd be interesting to present that first rather well noted article to the group and see just how many of those references would survive scrutiny. Should some significant number do so, then I'd have to suggest that some far more serious testing would be in order. At the very least, any food containing an embedded pesticide or herbicide should be required to include that information on its label.
  15. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    They don't want folks to back door their product and then sell it in the third world. That makes sense to me.

    I am sure that any university can request the seeds for study and so can the FDA. You are reading something 'evil' into something that isn't. It is normal protection.
  16. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    There are loads of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles regarding GM crops, so I'm not sure about this idea that Monsanto has forbidden research into them.
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    The user agreement is pretty clear and they have engaged in some very large ( billion dollar ) law suits to prevent tampering or experimenting with there product. So I don't see how there can be much argument over this point. See article previously posted concerning the legalities of testing GMOs

    For the most part what peer reviewed papers are out there are the ones vetted and approved by the GMO manufacturers. Again I'd recommend reading the links provided.

    Also I'm not so sure about research into food safety concerns for humans or feed animals that have been conducted. If you say there are loads of them, please feel free to provide them. I'd be very curious to read some.

    The deal with GMO's for most people that I know who avoid them as I do is that one of two things are inherent to the product, herbicides or pesticides, Neither can be simply washed off, therefor if you consume GMO products your consuming these toxins. So the question becomes what are the effects, chronic or acute, and how long do they take to show up, in the case of the cattle, apparently not long, in the case of liver damage, much longer. There's a whole host of suspected chronic illnesses that to the best of my knowledge have yet to be studied, if you have reviewed and published works regarding these concerns, I'm sure we'd all love to see them.
  18. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    You stated that Monsanto banned food safety tests on its seeds and I said that the seeds are not sold as food. They are not as you have proven. The cows appear to gave been fed on fodder produced by the seeds and more to that not even by Monsanto but another company.

    Can you show me where Monsanto ban food safety tests. I can't find a link as food safety tests are enshrined in law.

    Also you mention the French study by Dr Seralini. This has been far from criticised by just the GM companies but by the wider scientific community. As a point of fact there are a number of online petitions for Seralini to release his data from the study.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Which lawsuits do you refer to, especially billion dollar lawsuits? Is their product not patent protected?
  20. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    I suggest you reread the thread including links to find all the answers to the questions you keep bringing up. Simply repeating yourself does nothing to further the conversation.
  21. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Boston, I do think that the points raised in that NYT article are very concerning, and a case where government should step in to allow free access to non-industrial researchers. But, there is a difference between regulating the use or sale of the seed corn that is being sold by Monsanto and others for farmers to plant, and regulating research into the safety of the crops grown from those seeds as food for animals or humans. Once these crops are grown and sold at market, I don't think that Monsanto can prevent anyone from researching their safety.

    As someone with a scientific background yourself, I think you can see the problem with pointing to a case where a cattle herd died, noting that it was fed GM feed, and concluding "the feed killed the herd." There's a bit more there that needs to be done to establish causality. I'll pull up some examples of research into GM crop safety from the literature this evening if I get the chance.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I cannot find anywhere a statement that Monsanto sell their seeds "Ready to eat". If they do they then come under Food Safety laws of your various nations. Here it is the Food Safety Act 1990. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Safety_Act_1990

    Selling seeds for cultivation and seeds for food are totally different things and I cannot find where Monsanto sell their seeds as food. Why would they? It makes no sense? A statement on not researching on the seeds is not the same as a statement on food safety. So can you show me in the contract where Monsanto ban the testing of the seeds for food safety purposes. I cannot find anything in all your links.
  23. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Dave you apparently have no intention of reading the links provided, the speed of your response indicates that you ignored the suggestion. Your issue with "ready to eat" seeds in moot as the genetic characteristics of GMO crops is one that carries on to next generations which are then harvested and used as food. Pretty sure you just enjoy arguing and I'm really not here for that. If you would like to actually study the information provided I'm sure we might be able to engage in a productive conversation, but barring that, I'm not sure our dialog would really go anywhere.

    Belfrey I would have thought the same but the more I read up on this issue, the more I'm leaning towards thinking exactly that. It would appear that any seed purchased must be used only for planting crops, The user agreement apparently covers what the crop is used for.

    If you want to peruse the user agreement you're welcome to it, but from what I can tell, its pretty clear.
  24. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Boston, Biggerdave's point is basically the same as mine, and I don't think that you've really addressed it. The user agreement covers what the farmer can do with the seeds they're buying to plant crops - I've looked through, and I can't find anywhere that says that it controls what the purchasers of the crops can do with them (other than they can't turn around and plant a new crop with them). That's Biggerdave's point - the farmer can't use or re-sell the seed that they bought for research purposes, but that does not meant that the food products that result from those seeds can't be subsequently researched for their safety.
    • Like Like x 3
  25. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Yes, and when it is grown it becomes food and is then subject to food safety laws. But you are claiming that the Monsanto agreement bans food safety checks when it does not.

    An example is the chicken egg. If I sell it as an egg for food it is subject to the Food Safety Act 1990, when it is sold to be grown into a chicken it is not it is the chicken that becomes subject to the Food Safety Act. Genetics have nothing to do with the issue. You have claimed that Monsanto ban food safety tests on their seeds which they do not as the seed itself is not sold for food, and once it is grown it is then covered by food laws and anyone is free to test on it.

    I am arguing that your assertion that Monsanto is effectively banning food safety tests is wrong.

    While studying for my BSc I also worked within the food industry in the lab and quality assurance and I am very conversant on the Food Safety Act especially Section 21 and the "due diligence" defence. A contractual clause on a food stuff banning food safety tests just would not hack it and would be subject to prosecution. Much of the basis of our food safety system is based on the US but I cannot see how a contract can ban food safety as you claim. Is there any case law for this? I cannot find any. I can only find a number of cases for patent infringement.
    • Like Like x 2
  26. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1
  27. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Oh I understood that, I just disagree, the patent rights continue, that was the big finding in the SCOTUS ruling I noted in that article. Monsanto does control what happens to the produce. They also control what happens to the ground the seeds are planted on. IE the farmer can't sell his/her farm to anyone not approved/willing to sign a user agreement through Monsanto. I'd urge you to go read the links provided.
  28. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Oh and Peter thats one huge link, its going to take me a while to work through even part of it, so bear with me till I can review at least some of it.

    One thing I do notice in virtually the second sentence of the first article noted is its a classic misuse of terminology. Confuse the issue through lack of proper definition. No one is complaining about breeding dogs to dogs or cats to cats to enhance certain characteristics. The problem arises when genetic material from say an insect is put into a plant, or for instance when a plants genetic make up is infused with the ability to store or process pesticides or herbicides from a bacteria or virus. The issue is one of creating a cross between a plant and another life form entirely such that it can tolerate a poisonous environment. Which presumably will help the plant survive when others cant. The problem further compounds itself when one realizes that these toxins are now inherently embedded within the plant along with any altered chemical processes and there byproducts. You can't exactly wash that off, like just 20 years or so ago.

    Arguing that we've been genetically engineering for thousands of years when its gene splicing across species boundaries thats the big bitch is somewhat disingenuous, I will of course keep reading but that first major flaw does not bode well for the integrity of this particular volume.

    The second link is a 20 year old study. Pretty much representing the dawn of GMO foods and research. Woops I misunderstood that. It specifically says

    I'll check of course but that might just indicate that everything in this link is from the 1992 statement of policy.

    Yup #2 is pretty much all at least 20+ years old.

    what they are calling exhibit 3 I can't help but notice there big thing is claiming that no food is very extensively tested as if GMO only contain food. The bitch again is that these products are infused with pesticides and herbicides. Which end up being eaten along with the food.

    I'll keep reading and am looking forward to some pertinent studied on the long term effects of GMO consumption but thus far, this page isn't really very convincing and if anything is somewhat misleading
    • Like Like x 1
  29. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    They only control the ground while the seed is PLANTED in there. If you have a contract disproving that please produce it. Also please disprove my issues.
  30. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I am sorry but I am confused to your claims. Are you now saying that plants did not absorb organophosphates or herbicides before GM crops?? Two chemical products that have been studied in minute for years. Do you have the epidemical evidence to show a difference between such substances and organic when in the food chain? Plants have always been able to resist so much, but how much is an issue. Given our real understanding of organophoshates that is not the issue. Can you show me herbicides is an issue?
  31. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    as I continue reading here

    Mycotoxin content and safety of GM foods.

    I can't help but notice they're not discussing the pesticide embedded into the BT corn but instead focusing on the pest, or at least one of them that is killed by that pesticide. Again a somewhat straw man argument as the various pests long found in association with food crops are generally benign, at least to humans, with a few rare exceptions of course. While the pesticides embedded into the BT corn cannot be so, or they wouldn't be killing off these other organisms. The question again, is if these embedded pesticides are toxic, then what levels are toxic to larger organisms.

    I'll read a few more as thoroughly as possible but unless I see something fairly quickly concerning the root issue, rather than all this dancing around it, I'm just going to end up skimming this over. Unfortunate as I was hoping to find something specifically addressing this core issue.
  32. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Have you addressed any of the issues yet? Where are food safety checks banned?? _Please show me that. I cannot show a negative.
    member of Greenpeace
    For your information I have repeatedly stated how I have stomped on GM crops and have done for years. I was a Greenpeace and even my kids have a portfolio of their work. I was part of the group that got them banned in the UK. To me disinformtion is worse than information. I have posted enough, You produce alarmist shit. If you think I am disinfo just pm me and we will ring each other
  33. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    The BT is expressed in the leaves and stems, not in the corn kernel. That was addressed in another thread here. You want to kill the corn borer BEFORE he gets into the corn itself.
  34. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Here is a good place to learn about Bt, how it is not a toxin to mammals because Bt needs an alkaline solution (the insects gut) to break down into an active toxin, also mammals lack insect receptors in their guts so absorbing it is not possible. While pest insects are typically benign to humans directly, indirectly they pose a great threat to food crops, that is not benign to humans.
  35. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Interesting point Cairenn, I wonder how that might compare to the research presented earlier in the thread.




    the study protocols are listed in the link above but in the nut shell, yes they were just testing the ears themselves. Rather dramatic differences but I'm not sure they specifically tested for the pesticide or herbicide components, I'll have to go look again.

    And yes they did, Roundup was found in the ears of corn themselves.

    Do you have a link to that discussion cause if there's conflicting studies I'd be interested in reading both sides of the issue ?

    Oh and I guess a problem someone is bound to point out is that the article I quoted is looking at RR corn and we were discussing BT corn. So lets see what I can find concerning BT corn
  36. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    That's not quite true. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) has long been used, including by organic growers, because it acts as a highly selective pesticide - not only does it only kill insects, but only certain types of insects (depending on strain and application), with fewer non-target effects (such as killing predatory insects) than conventional insecticides. The "Bt" GM crops have a gene inserted which allows the plants to synthesize the proteins that confer that effect. You can't assume that something that is toxic to insects is also toxic to humans.
  37. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I am suspicious of a study without any provenance.

    So the lab is unknown, and it seems that it was the wrong type of test. I would not take it at face value.
  38. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

  39. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Does it affect bees?
  40. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Sorry Soulfly I missed your post.

    I'm always curious when I read wildly conflicting information, so I'll definelty have to go through and see if I can decipher why that article and this one sent to me a while ago are so at odds.