GMO conspiracy theories

[cosmic]

What I love is the number of comments showing the readers either didn't read past the initial paragraph or if they did were unable to understand that the post is a work of satire being used to make a point.

Yep. WHOOSH!

Edited to add quote because I didn't realize my reply showed up on a new page.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

1. If you have read GMO Myths & Truths/Earth Open Source, please also read Response To GM Food Myths/AgBioWorld.

2. If you have read the book or seen the documentary Genetic Roulette/Jeffrey Smith, please also read 20 Questions on Genetically Modified foods/World Health Organization (WHO) or Top 20 Urban Myths about GM Crops/Academics Review or Effects of genetically modified T2A-1 rice on the GI health of rats after 90-day supplement/Scientific Reports or The 35S Promoter Has Been Thoroughly Researched/Academics Review.

3. If you have read the study A Long Term Toxicology Study On Pigs Fed Combined GM Soy & GM Maize Diet/Carman, Vlieger et al, please also read Fate of transgenic DNA and protein in pigs fed genetically modified Bt maize and effects on growth and health /Ph.D. Thesis or The Effect of Feeding Bt Maize to Pigs for 110 Days on Intestinal Microbiota /Plos One or Lack of care when choosing grain invalidates pig feed study /Biofortified or Nine recent publications on feeding GM maize to pigs,/GMO Pundit (his list of nine includes two of the studies I already listed)

4. If you have read GMO Feed Turns Pig Stomachs to Mush/Natural News or New GMO Study Raises Health Concerns/Rodale News, or Proof of GMO Harm/Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America, please also read the following blog posts: GMO Pigs Study – More Junk Science/Mark Lynas, From ‘I smell a rat’ to ‘when pigs fly’, bad science makes its rounds/Cami Ryan, The Evidence of GMO Harm in Pig Study is pretty flimsy/Control Freaks, More Bad Science in the Service of anti-GMO Activism/Science Based Medicine, The New Pig Study Gets An “F” In Science/Sleuth4Health, When the Science Sucks, You Can Have it Both Ways!/Illumination, Pigs, GMOs, & Bullshit/Random Rationality

5. If you’ve read Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases/Samsel & Seneff, please also read Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, For Humans/Pubmed.

6. If you’ve read the Stunning Corn Comparison/Moms Across America with Howard Vlieger, the Illumination post mentioned in number four above serves to counter at least some aspects of the corn comparison.

I like the concise style you are using above, Cairenn. I will certainly adopt your template, thanks!

 

[Cairenn]

I will be honest, I lifted that from this lady's blog, I am not sure where I lost the URL for it.

http://sleuth4health.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/ive-looked-at-gmos-from-both-sides-now/

She was anti GMO and she has crawled out of the rabbit hole this year. She is still somewhat anti vax however. Give her time.

 

[transgenesis]

Genetically modified foods and herbicides like roundup go hand in hand. Are you all saying there is nothing harmful about herbicides?

 

[Cairenn]

Herbicides are a fact of farming. Round up is much safer than older herbicides.

How else would you remove the weeds, without something like needing folks to 'chop cotton'.?

 

[cosmic]

Genetically modified foods and herbicides like roundup go hand in hand. Are you all saying there is nothing harmful about herbicides?

That's a strawman in the form of a question.

Conventional farming and herbicides go hand in hand also, while organic growers use (albeit weaker) herbicides as well.

 

[transgenesis]

Herbicides are a fact of farming. Round up is much safer than older herbicides.


How else would you remove the weeds, without something like needing folks to 'chop cotton'.?

You didn't answer the question. The question was not what is the role of herbicides or common practices associated with them; it was if they were harmful at all.

That's a strawman in the form of a question.


Conventional farming and herbicides go hand in hand also, while organic growers use (albeit weaker) herbicides as well.

Taking Monsanto as an example, both GM foods and round-up are produced by one company. If citizens are questioning the motives of a company, for knowingly putting harmful products on the market, you must consider all actions taken by the company, and evaluate whether there is a possibility that these other actions the company takes are also endangering the well-being of individuals for the sake of profits. Never mind about the conflict of interests like supreme court justices who were former Monsanto lawyers deciding court cases involving their former employer, or former employees occupying prominent positions in the EPA, FDA, etc.; let's focus on the products and the company itself.

Should a practice be allowed to continue if it is harmful to the population and environment, simply because it is conventional and "things have been done that way"?

If you answer yes, then there is no argument to have. You feel harming the population and the environment is an allowable practice to get a product to the market.

If round-up is harmful, and is being sprayed in large quantities into the environment (with recent measures passed by the EPA to increase the amount of glyphosate), is this not an ethics violation? Genetically modified foods have high amounts of herbicides sprayed on them and are engineered to withstand them. With this comes unwanted side effects like superweeds and resistant insects (ignoring any potential health impacts on humans for now). Overlooking the fact that a company profiting off of heavy herbicide use is also pushing and forcing other products onto the market, is overlooking any moral obligation to protect the well-being of citizens.

Is it possible that Monsanto is knowingly putting harmful products onto the market, if it is known that herbicides like round-up have serious health and environmental effects?

To counter this, you must take the position that herbicides do not have harmful effects to persons and the environment. But if you do agree that herbicides are harmful, then you must ask, why is the government allowing such widespread use of these chemicals, and how is the company providing documentation stating that these products are safe.

 

[Cairenn]

First lets address one item at a time. Then we can discuss other items.

Is glyphosate safe ? The EPA says it is. What is your evidence that it isn't?

Here is a link to more on glyphosate.

http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/glyphosate.html

 

[MikeC]

You didn't answer the question. The question was not what is the role of herbicides or common practices associated with them; it was if they were harmful at all.

Of course they are harmful - they kill plants.

do you have any meaningful questions to ask?

Should a practice be allowed to continue if it is harmful to the population and environment, simply because it is conventional and "things have been done that way"?

If you answer yes, then there is no argument to have. You feel harming the population and the environment is an allowable practice to get a product to the market.

this argument applies to pretty much everything that exists - humanity pollutes the environment with the processes used to extract or the products themselves of pretty much everything that has ever been created by us - fire, leather, tobacco, alcohol, petroleum products, plastic, steel, gold, copper, lead, zinc, aluminium

If round-up is harmful, and is being sprayed in large quantities into the environment (with recent measures passed by the EPA to increase the amount of glyphosate), is this not an ethics violation?

Only your simplistic and completely unrealistic ethics as described here.

Is it possible that Monsanto is knowingly putting harmful products onto the market, if it is known that herbicides like round-up have serious health and environmental effects?

Yep - it is entirely possible.

And yet today we have a number of mitigating procedures that allow us to do that in an ethical manner - from strict dangerous goods controls to environmental mionitoring

To counter this, you must take the position that herbicides do not have harmful effects to persons and the environment. But if you do agree that herbicides are harmful, then you must ask, why is the government allowing such widespread use of these chemicals, and how is the company providing documentation stating that these products are safe.

1/ the Govt is allowing it because it is a requirement of life
2/ the company is NOT providing such documentation except where it is actually true. where it is not true the company provides documentation that documents the DANGERS - including but not limited to such easily obtainable info as MSDS's

you seem to think that there are substances that are not actually harmful to the environment - but hat is not true - EVERYTHING is harmful to the environment if it is in the wrong place at het wrong time.

 

[transgenesis]

First lets address one item at a time. Then we can discuss other items.

Is glyphosate safe ? The EPA says it is. What is your evidence that it isn't?

Just a few studies that show otherwise. The fact that the EPA only used Monsanto's studies to assess its safety when raising the limit is pretty absurd. Is that good science? Why would Monsanto provide a study showing their produce was unsafe? They wouldn't, and it doesn't take a genius to see the problem with that.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486286?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15929894?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

Edit: Additional information

http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/RoundupHealth2011.pdf

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

 

[transgenesis]

this argument applies to pretty much everything that exists - humanity pollutes the environment with the processes used to extract or the products themselves of pretty much everything that has ever been created by us - fire, leather, tobacco, alcohol, petroleum products, plastic, steel, gold, copper, lead, zinc, aluminium

Are we feeding any of those things to our citizens and children? I don't think so.

Only your simplistic and completely unrealistic ethics as described here.

So do you disagree with the statement that it is unethical to knowingly contaminate the food and water supply?

Yep - it is entirely possible.

And yet today we have a number of mitigating procedures that allow us to do that in an ethical manner - from strict dangerous goods controls to environmental mionitoring

Due to corporate influence in politics, the issues raised are not being properly addressed, which is why citizens are outraged. Are you going to say that when the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas presided over the alfalfa GMO case, who was a former lawyer for Monsanto, was not an instance of a possible conflict of interest? Or the passage of legislation to keep GM foods on the market, regardless of claims of adverse health risks, in order to not affect the market, until it is fully shown to be unsafe? Read: If something is posing a health risk, it is not to be removed from the market until proven in court. No agency has the authority to shut down the manufacturing or production of these items. And guess who has billions to throw at lawyers and tie things up in court. And also, guess who has former employees in the supreme court, FDA, etc.

1/ the Govt is allowing it because it is a requirement of life
2/ the company is NOT providing such documentation except where it is actually true. where it is not true the company provides documentation that documents the DANGERS - including but not limited to such easily obtainable info as MSDS's

It is a requirement of life that my food, water, and air become contaminated with knowingly harmful chemicals? You understand what you just said is a contradiction. It is a requirement of life for the food supply to be poisoned, which is harmful to life?

you seem to think that there are substances that are not actually harmful to the environment - but hat is not true - EVERYTHING is harmful to the environment if it is in the wrong place at het wrong time.

I don't think that; I am well aware too much of anything is a bad thing. The issue is intentionally placing harmful things into the a) environment and b) THE FOOD SUPPLY in order to monopolize and profit off it. You understand the difference between say the mining industry, which pollutes the environment at times, and the agricultural industry, which has continued to put toxic substances in what we eat and drink for decades.

 

[Leifer]

So do you disagree with the statement that it is unethical to knowingly contaminate the food and water supply?....

I agree it is unethical to do this......it is unethical, yes.... as the way it's stated in your above sentence.
Now, where and when you apply that statement needs further evidence and context.
A blanketed statement such as that skims over any precautionary rules when handling and deploying something potentially hazardous. It supposes that because a substance is hazardous in step "A"....it is then automatically hazardous in steps "B, C, D,.....etc...".
Organic farming example......"manure" and "sewage sludge".....unhealthy and harmful to eat raw (step A), but makes soil micro-organisms happy, that thrive on it (step B), byproducts of micro-organisms nourish plants/crops (steps C, D . etc).
Over-use and farm irrigation run-off of the above approved organic soil amendments can also pollute "food and water supplies".

Best Management Practices: Application of Organic Materials on Soils Used for Crop Production

Proximity of surface water to application site. Streams or bodies of surface water located near waste application sites are more likely to receive waste derived nutrients. The extent and management of buffering areas such as other fields, pasture, wooded area, etc. between the source of nutrients and the water supply can greatly attenuate the movement of nutrients to the water supply.

Slope steepness and complexity. Runoff is more likely from fields sloping steeply and evenly toward a water source than fields with a gentle or no slope. Fields with areas of depression between the site of application and the water source have a lower potential for nutrient runoff.

Soil and weather conditions. Organic materials should not be applied to wet, sloping, or frozen soils if normally anticipated rainfall would cause overland water flow from the point of applications. Liquid organic sources should not be applied at rates that exceed the volume needed to bring the soil to field moisture capacity........
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0211.html

Content from External Source

....it's a matter of using them wisely and responsibly.

 

[transgenesis]

It's also a matter of having a regulatory body capable of evaluating possible harmful substances in our food supply, and deciding whether to side with the corporations or in favor of safety and caution. We don't have that. We have instead corporate funded science being used to evaluate the nutrition and safety of our food products. The FDA and EPA use 30, 60,and 90-day studies conducted by Monsanto and DuPont to decide whether a product is safe and nutrious, or whether a certain substance poses a threat. We have instead legislation aimed at protecting corporate investments and products. There is evidence to suggest that going from step A to step X does indeed result in health ramifications of these products. Yet despite all of the research, the EPA double downed on glyphosate.

 

[Leifer]

It's also a matter of having a regulatory body capable of evaluating possible harmful substances in our food supply, and deciding whether to side with the corporations or in favor of safety and caution. We don't have that. We have instead corporate funded science being used to evaluate the nutrition and safety of our food products. ......

Are you sure about that ?......is the only information via private corporate studies ? Are there no gov't follow-up studies ?....are these studies green-lighted as acceptable, solely based on the corporate source ?.....aka....gov't (EPA, CDC, etc)??
Why would gov't deliberately harm their own citizens and themselves (and their families)?

I'm implying you do some more research.....other than "gov't person x" worked for "company x", therefore "product x" is harmful.

The exact opposite could be true....."gov't person x" worked for "company x", therefore "product x" could become more stringently regulated because "company/government person x" has greater knowledge.

 

[Leifer]

Here's the dilemma....the EPA's job is to determine what is healthy (+ unhealthy) and acceptable (+ unacceptable) for the environment and human sustainability.
Why would the EPA reject ANY products or projects, if it were "in-bed" with any or all corporate entities ?
Why would they mess with areas like "Superfund clean-up sites" ?
Why would the EPA bother putting limits on toxic disposal, air/water/soil toxicity limits, human hazardous regulations, etc........all in defense of human health and well-being ??
The EPA is responsible for policing the private (and corporate) sectors.....each year costing private and corporate $$billions, in regulation fees and fines. They are hardly the "friends" of corporations....they are generally the barrier.
I'm not suggesting the system is perfect.....and that backroom deals never happen......but I'm saying that to accuse the EPA, FDA of lying and cheating on this scale, needs a lot more evidence than you have presented.

 

[Cairenn]

Let's stick to glyphosate first. When we finish that I will post a link to almost 2000 studies on GMOs, many of them from the EU and EU countries and independent researchers.

First all of you links are to work done by Serelina. He has been discredited multiple times.

Check out the first link please.

http://parrottlab.uga.edu/parrottlab/Publications/Arjo-et-al-TRAG-2013.pdf

Now look at some non discredited studies.

http://gmoanswers.com/ask/study-con...te-roundup-exposure-low-doses-36ppm-0036gl-30


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000547


http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html


http://gmoanswers.com/ask/maybe-gmo...case-roundup-ready-enabling-food-be-doused-it


Round up has been used since the 70s, on farms, in gardens and on lawns. It's safety is proven.

 

[transgenesis]

Are you sure about that ?......is the only information via private corporate studies ? Are there no gov't follow-up studies ?....are these studies green-lighted as acceptable, solely based on the corporate source ?.....aka....gov't (EPA, CDC, etc)??
Why would gov't deliberately harm their own citizens and themselves (and their families)?

I'm implying you do some more research.....other than "gov't person x" worked for "company x", therefore "product x" is harmful.

The exact opposite could be true....."gov't person x" worked for "company x", therefore "product x" could become more stringently regulated because "company/government person x" has greater knowledge.

The revolving door in the government is not the reason the products are harmful, nor was it stated as such; it is evidence to suspect and investigate corruption taking place. Corporate lobbying is another method of influence business has on the government. A look at the research I presented above indicates a need to reevaluate whether or not these substances should be in the food supply. Solely using corporate studies as evidence of safety is not good research itself. There are many studies indicating a serious flaw in how these substances are approved, how they are tested, and what the effects are; yet time and again the governmental bodies side with the corporations. The fact that round-up and glyphosate are deemed fit for human consumption is evidence that the EPA has acted, in this instance, in favor of the corporations.

You are trying to make sweeping generalizations that are not at all logical. Using one claim to generalize the entire behavior of the agency is irrational. We are not evaluating every and all actions taken by all government bodies. We are evaluating how the EPA, FDA, etc, have handled the issue of herbicidal agents in the food supply.

Using an analogy does not discredit my original claim that allowing a knowingly harmful substance into the food supply is unethical. You are purposely derailing the discussion away from the fact that a large number of scientific studies suggest that glyphosate and other herbicidal ingredients are harmful.

 

[transgenesis]

Let's stick to glyphosate first. When we finish that I will post a link to almost 2000 studies on GMOs, many of them from the EU and EU countries and independent researchers.

First all of you links are to work done by Serelina. He has been discredited multiple times.

Check out the first link please.

http://parrottlab.uga.edu/parrottlab/Publications/Arjo-et-al-TRAG-2013.pdf

Now look at some non discredited studies.

http://gmoanswers.com/ask/study-con...te-roundup-exposure-low-doses-36ppm-0036gl-30


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000547


http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html


http://gmoanswers.com/ask/maybe-gmo...case-roundup-ready-enabling-food-be-doused-it


Round up has been used since the 70s, on farms, in gardens and on lawns. It's safety is proven.

Posting a link to a 13-week monsanto study does not indicate these chemicals are safe and nutritious. The health effects are taking decades to develop. Remain skeptical while cancer begins to skyrocket.

 

[Cairenn]

trangenesis, Would you PLEASE stick to ONE topic and stop with the Gish Gallop.

I posted multiple links to multiple studies. Why did you ignore them?

Cancer is not skyrocketing, in fact it dropping.

 

[Leifer]

I will wait to see trangenesis reply to one area of GMO topic.
Cairenn's links and area of topic seems a good start. She posted before me, and she submitted links.
(...otherwise it does get confusing.)
....cancer rate is dropping.

 

[Leifer]

....
You are trying to make sweeping generalizations that are not at all logical. Using one claim to generalize the entire behavior of the agency is irrational. We are not evaluating every and all actions taken by all government bodies. We are evaluating how the EPA, FDA, etc, have handled the issue of herbicidal agents in the food supply.

Yes....you are correct, I was sweeping my generalizations. But hey, so were you....I was countering those wide allegations. You said....

We have instead corporate funded science being used to evaluate the nutrition and safety of our food products. The FDA and EPA use 30, 60,and 90-day studies conducted by Monsanto and DuPont to decide whether a product is safe and nutrious, or whether a certain substance poses a threat. We have instead legislation aimed at protecting corporate investments and products. There is evidence to suggest that going from step A to step X does indeed result in health ramifications of these products.

....so let's get into specifics.

 

[Cairenn]

Using an analogy does not discredit my original claim that allowing a knowingly harmful substance into the food supply is unethical. You are purposely derailing the discussion away from the fact that a large number of scientific studies suggest that glyphosate and other herbicidal ingredients are harmful.

You did NOT post a large number of studies. You posted a few studies from the same researcher. Glyphosate is used in many countries. It is the safest herbicide available. Someone would have to eat about 4 pounds of it to get a toxic dose. The toxic dose of common table salt is about half that.

Also, glyphosate is now generic.


http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

Reproductive Effects
Most of the field and laboratory evidence shows that glyphosate produces no reproductive changes in test animals. It is unlikely that the compound would produce any reproductive effects in humans.
Teratogenic Effects
In a teratology study with rabbits, the maternal NOEL was 175 mg/kg/day and no developmental toxicity was observed in the fetuses at the highest dose tested (350 mg/kg/day) (8).

Rats given doses up to 3,500 mg/kg on days 6 to 19 of pregnancy had offspring with no teratogenic effects, but other toxic effects were observed in both the mothers and the fetuses. No toxic effects to the fetuses occurred at 1,000 mg/kg/day.
Mutagenic Effects
The compound does not cause mutations in microbes. The tests on eight different kinds of bacterial strains and on yeast cells were all negative. The compound poses little mutagenic risk to humans (6).
Carcinogenic Effects
Rats and dogs and mice fed glyphosate over a wide range of doses showed no cancer related effects directly due to the compound (4). EPA has stated that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in humans (8).
Organ Toxicity
Glyphosate caused no changes in the rate of body weight gain, in blood, nor in kidneys or liver. The studies were conducted at doses up to 500 mg/kg (3).
Fate in Humans and Animals
Glyphosate is poorly absorbed from the digestive tract and is largely excreted unchanged by mammals. Ten days after treatment there were only minute amounts in the tissues of rats fed glyphosate for three weeks (3).

Cows, chickens, and pigs fed small amounts had undetectable levels (less than 0.05 ppm) in muscle tissue and fat. Levels in milk and eggs were also undetectable (less than 0.025 ppm). Nearly all glyphosate residues were rapidly eliminated by fish that had been exposed for 10 to 14 days once these fish were transferred to glyphosate-free water. Glyphosate has no significant potential to accumulate in animal tissue (9).

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

You seem to be equating using a herbicide on food crops with being *in* the food.

It's a specific tool designed to cause harm to certain pests. That makes it 'harmful' to those pests, but it's not the same therefore as putting a harmful to humans product into the food we eat.

 

[MikeC]

Are we feeding any of those things to our citizens and children? I don't think so.

then you need to pay more attention to your surroundings, to pollution, to the treatment of water (and I'm not talking about fluoride!), to your toothpaste, bubblegum and the cars driving along the road....

So do you disagree with the statement that it is unethical to knowingly contaminate the food and water supply?

Unless you can define "contaminate" in some meaningful manner the question is meaningless -and your definition of contamination appears to be "something I say is contamination" - which is not actually meaningful.

Ironically the tactic you are using here is termed poisoning the well - cute huh?

Due to corporate influence in politics, the issues raised are not being properly addressed, which is why citizens are outraged. Are you going to say that when the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas presided over the alfalfa GMO case, who was a former lawyer for Monsanto, was not an instance of a possible conflict of interest? Or the passage of legislation to keep GM foods on the market, regardless of claims of adverse health risks, in order to not affect the market, until it is fully shown to be unsafe? Read: If something is posing a health risk, it is not to be removed from the market until proven in court. No agency has the authority to shut down the manufacturing or production of these items. And guess who has billions to throw at lawyers and tie things up in court. And also, guess who has former employees in the supreme court, FDA, etc.

I am going to say that unless you present some ACTUAL evidence then all you are doing is a gish gallop of unsupported pejorative assertions

It is a requirement of life that my food, water, and air become contaminated with knowingly harmful chemicals?

no it isn't. nonetheless you ARE drinking and breathing harmful contaminants in every breath and sip you take - and you have been doing so since you were born, your parents did so, and all you ancestors back to protozoa have done so.

You understand what you just said is a contradiction. It is a requirement of life for the food supply to be poisoned, which is harmful to life?

you clearly have no idea what I actually said - if you lack the ability to comprehend it then my apologies for not making it simple enough. If you choose to deliberately or maliciously misunderstand it then ......well my position would only be censored.

Congratulations - it only took you 7 posts for me to decide reading your contributions is a waste of my time - a new record!

But feel free to make an actual point using actual facts at any time. I will probably notice other people's replies to it and therefore take you off the ignore list you've just been added to.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Posting a link to a 13-week monsanto study does not indicate these chemicals are safe and nutritious. The health effects are taking decades to develop. Remain skeptical while cancer begins to skyrocket.

Well, conversely, a few studies demonstrating glyphosate induced apoptosis in placental cells and an abstract vaguely describing disruptions in liver cells due to glyphosate. Here is the data that makes it more clear.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X09003047

The important things to think about here, however, is how much of the herbicide in what form (chemical context) actually ends up being consumed in the final product and that these experiments you posted are done in vitro, which in this case may not be a good indicator of what is going on in vivo. Furthermore, the harmful cellular effects said to be caused by glyphosate has contradicting evidence as well as explanations.

Epidemiological Associations:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230011001516
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf

DNA damage:
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+3432

GENOTOXICITY/ Glyphosate was negative in well-validated mutagenicity assays ... /which/ assessed a variety of end points both in vitro and in vivo and included the following: Salmonella typhimurium (Ames assay), Escherichia coli WP-2 reverse mutation, rec-assay with Bacillus subtilis, CHO/HGPRT, in vivo mouse bone marrow micronucleus, and in vitro hepatocyte primary culture-DNA repair assay ... It was concluded that glyphosate is neither mutagenic nor clastogenic.
[Krieger, R. (ed.). Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. Volume 2, 2nd ed. 2001. Academic Press, San Diego, California., p. 1669] **PEER REVIEWED**

Content from External Source

Endocrine disruption:
http://monsantoblog.com/2009/06/23/seralini-safety-study/

Roundup formulations contain surfactants (detergents) to help the active ingredient penetrate the waxy cuticle of the plant. The same is true of virtually any herbicide formulation. In the case of Roundup formulations, the active ingredient has such a low degree of cellular toxicity that it is actually the detergent that injures cells in culture.

Content from External Source

Cancer rates have gone up for many reasons, but skyrocketed might be an overstatement. Suggesting roundup and other herbicides/pesticides have been a significant contributor to an increase in cancer rates then you need a lot more information to make a case.

 

[Willie]

Organic farming example......"manure" and "sewage sludge".....unhealthy and harmful to eat raw (step A), but makes soil micro-organisms happy, that thrive on it (step B), byproducts of micro-organisms nourish plants/crops (steps C, D . etc).

Point of clarification: sewage sludge is not allowed in organic food production. I think the OSU link is talking about non-organic food production.

To be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product must be produced and handled without the use of:

(a) Synthetic substances and ingredients, except as provided in § 205.601 or § 205.603;

(b) Nonsynthetic substances prohibited in § 205.602 or § 205.604;

(c) Nonagricultural substances used in or on processed products, except as otherwise provided in § 205.605;

(d) Nonorganic agricultural substances used in or on processed products, except as otherwise provided in § 205.606;

(e) Excluded methods, except for vaccines: Provided, That, the vaccines are approved in accordance with § 205.600(a);

(f) Ionizing radiation, as described in Food and Drug Administration regulation, 21 CFR 179.26; and

(g) Sewage sludge.

Content from External Source

Link

 

[Leifer]

Trangenesis, please understand that I am not throwing out your information for mine.
I do understand your concern. I do not want to be poisoned.
So what is needed here is specifics....specifics in the nature and respectability of any/all mentioned studies.
So far you have cited several.

Cairenn is correct.....nearly all of your links cite Gilles-Eric Séralini. ...who's studies have been highly criticized amongst the vast non-corporate scientific community.

Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females got cancer under normal conditions).[36][37][38] The Séralini experiment lasted the normal lifespan of these rats, and the longer the experiment goes, the more statistical "noise" there is - the more rats get cancer naturally, regardless of what you do to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair#Scientific_evaluation

Content from External Source

 

[Cairenn]

The two big factors in seeing cancer increase, is folks living longer, and more tests to detect cancer.

My mom died of cancer of the adrenal glands. She had history of poorly controlled diabetes. Without the CAT scan that showed cancer, her death would have been listed as due to diabetes complications. More than likely her diabetes was caused by the cancer. By the time she had a CAT scan, it had spread. CAT scanners were new then and it was only because of being unable to control potassium levels as well, did they even order one for her.

 

[Leifer]

Point of clarification: sewage sludge is not allowed in organic food production. I think the OSU link is talking about non-organic food production.

Content from External Source

OK, I'll stand corrected on this one.....though some years ago store-bought "organic" amendments....it was in there.
....a thoughtful reminder to admit when you are incorrect.....

 

[Gary Cook]

Jay I dont see how you can honestly justify GMO as being even remotly sane. Not to mention all the money spent on propoganda to try and justify being able to get away with not labelling foods as conaitning GMO. We dont need GMO we need a desire to make sure everybody is fed. The growing capacity already exists.

 

[Bill]

Jay I dont see how you can honestly justify GMO as being even remotly sane. Not to mention all the money spent on propoganda to try and justify being able to get away with not labelling foods as conaitning GMO. We dont need GMO we need a desire to make sure everybody is fed. The growing capacity already exists.

You of course have facts to back up your claims. What is the source your growing capacity claim. Why aren't GMO's "even remotely sane" as you put it.

It may not mean anything but one of the most consistant opponents of GMOs and the bio-tech industry is the EU. Their policies have made them a net importer of food.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-09-078/EN/KS-SF-09-078-EN.PDF

 

[Dan Wilson]

Jay I dont see how you can honestly justify GMO as being even remotly sane. Not to mention all the money spent on propoganda to try and justify being able to get away with not labelling foods as conaitning GMO. We dont need GMO we need a desire to make sure everybody is fed. The growing capacity already exists.

Most foods are already genetically modified and have been since long before biotech companies were doing it. GMOs aim to do just that, feed people. What is insane about the process?

 

[cosmic]

There's already a GMO-free label.



AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could “Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers”

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm.

Content from External Source

Scientific American: Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea

 

[Cairenn]

GMO is a method of producing seed, not an ingredient. Should food be labeled as to whether it came from a cloned (grafted) plant ? Or if it was created with radiation or strong chemicals (the Ruby Red grapefruit was created with the help of irradiation? GMO is no different.

Organic farming will not produce the food the world needs, neither will traditional farming methods.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

GMO is a method of producing seed, not an ingredient. Should food be labeled as to whether it came from a cloned (grafted) plant ? Or if it was created with radiation or strong chemicals (the Ruby Red grapefruit was created with the help of irradiation? GMO is no different.

Organic farming will not produce the food the world needs, neither will traditional farming methods.

GMO means genetically modified organisms, it isn't a means of 'producing seed', it is a means of genetically altering a plant whose seeds will contain that same modification. The idea that it is the same as irradiation is nonsense, they're totally different processes. Likewise the comparison between GMOs and previously specific-bred varieties of the same plant. Taking characteristics from different varieties of the same species, using pollen and other natural techniques, is not the same as blasting new genes from an entirely different species into your chosen host. Now, whether the latter process is safe or not is a different argument. You've experience with dog breeding, so you're obviously aware that all the breeds of dogs today have come from the wolf. At some point, someone decided to make small, yappy, terriers and today we have Jack Russells. Fine. But the GMO argument is like saying, well I'd like a dog that smelled like haddock, so we'll take genetic material from a haddock, the bit that makes it smell like haddock, and blast into the existing dna structure of a dog.

Now, maybe it will all work out in the end. We have no way of knowing other than waiting and hoping for the best. But once it's done, it's done. And as we've seen, when the new genetic material gets into the eco-system, there is no way of getting it out again.

The idea that GMOs give bigger yields? Meh.

 

[Cairenn]

They aren't 'blasting' genes in. Sometimes, like in the Arctic apple that is up for approval, they just turned off a gene. Nothing added.

Genes move across species boundaries naturally. Remember a gene is not specific to a species. It is just a set of letters. One could liken it to a word or a phrase. Because the word 'forsooth' shows up in Shakespeare, doesn't make it a 'Shakespeare word'.

The genes are taken from other plants for the most part.

In irradiation and chemicals, they force a mutation. Many of the mutants are not viable, others mutated with problems. With GMO technology, the change is known ahead of time.

Even normal hybrid breeding can cause problems. There is the case of the toxic potato

http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html


The yield is higher because less is lost to disease. Costs are reduced because there are less use of herbicides and even fertilizer. Farmers are using cover crops to protect the young plants and to protect the soil. Those cover crops are killed and then they are left to enrich the soil.

As soon as I can find the good explanation of how a GMO is produced, I will post it.

Here is one, it is fairly technical

http://www.hudsonalpha.org/education/kits/gmod/gmos-made

 

[SR1419]

The idea that GMOs give bigger yields? Meh.

Really? A press release as the source? That doesnt seem like you

 

[farbot]

On the Seralini-study. Just found this open letter that discusses the study and the aftermath (in defense of the study) They take the viewpoint that science is more and more influenced in a profit-driven world.

As we say in Dutch: just throwing a stick in the hen house...

 

[farbot]

I forgot the link http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/

My sincere apologies.

 

[Dan Wilson]

On the Seralini-study. Just found this open letter that discusses the study and the aftermath (in defense of the study) They take the viewpoint that science is more and more influenced in a profit-driven world.

As we say in Dutch: just throwing a stick in the hen house...

Pointing fingers on who has what kind of bias gets us nowhere. Just look at what we can know. Is there something about the paper you feel justifies implicating roundup as harmful to human health?