Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]
17 Mar 2011, 4:54 pm
A friend of mines compiled this together. I also have a collection of links I will add in down at the bottom.
Quote:
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study ( http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11 ) of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.
Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that independent researchers studied to make the organ damage link.
The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen obtained Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats after a European court made it public in 2005.
The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each, differentiated by sex and dose.
Their December 2009 study ( http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11 ) appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis ( http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/i ... _study.pdf ) by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.
Monsanto rejected ( http://www.monsanto.com/products/techan ... cus863.asp ) the 2007 conclusions, stating:
“The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”
[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863).” Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]
Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:
“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.” [Communication to author]
Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol uses three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini, et al. in their Doull rebuttal. [See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic ( http://www.isogenic.info/html/isogenic.html ) non-GM equivalent.”
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8436 ) and massive butterfly deaths ( http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricult ... ml#monarch ).
If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Further Reading
Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith ( http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/ ... /index.cfm )
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists ( http://www.organic-center.org/science.p ... ort_id=159 )
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center ( http://www.organic-center.org/science.p ... ort_id=159 )
Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that independent researchers studied to make the organ damage link.
The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen obtained Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats after a European court made it public in 2005.
The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each, differentiated by sex and dose.
Their December 2009 study ( http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11 ) appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis ( http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/i ... _study.pdf ) by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.
Monsanto rejected ( http://www.monsanto.com/products/techan ... cus863.asp ) the 2007 conclusions, stating:
“The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”
[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863).” Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]
Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:
“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.” [Communication to author]
Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol uses three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini, et al. in their Doull rebuttal. [See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic ( http://www.isogenic.info/html/isogenic.html ) non-GM equivalent.”
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8436 ) and massive butterfly deaths ( http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricult ... ml#monarch ).
If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Further Reading
Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith ( http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/ ... /index.cfm )
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists ( http://www.organic-center.org/science.p ... ort_id=159 )
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center ( http://www.organic-center.org/science.p ... ort_id=159 )
Furthermore to that Monsanto have a legacy they'd rather keep a secret. I am talking of political lobbying with corrupted interests, soil erosion, media black outs over the negative things associated with Monsanto and putting farmers into very very very unfair and financially impossible to over come situations.
See the film below for more details:
Quote:
The world according to Monsanto
http://www.truththeory.org/the-world-ac ... -monsanto/
There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it,it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”.
One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.
Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.
http://www.truththeory.org/the-world-ac ... -monsanto/
There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it,it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”.
One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.
Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.
Another example of the pure negligence of Monsanto which demonstrates the health hazards associated with the part of the food industry they control and their media influence is demonstrated here in this short video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0[/youtube]
More on bovine growth hormone, which is the main hazard surrounding the milk produced by the dairy cows who are fed on Monsanto crops:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 77424.html
In my opinion it may be playing some role in the early onset of puberty we see today but of course there are many other environmental causes, so I wont single it out as the only possibility.
Since many CAFO's, most of which are fed and practically run by Monsanto insist on heavy anti-biotic use which is creating many health hazards directing on your plate and in Factory Farm water run off also:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34614380/ns ... s_diseases
More info sent to me by a different person:
Quote:
"DANGERS FROM EATING GM FOOD
The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate:
...http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/ ... /index.cfm
GM crops regularly yield less than high yielding non-GM crops, use more harmful herbicides and are harmful to human health and the environment. The seeds are patented and they are promoted to make money for corporations while being based on dubious science.
There are far superior non-GM options to feeding the world, it is only corporate propaganda that claims GM crops are necessary, good unbiased agricultural scientists have serious concerns about them.
Here is a significant amount of data on GM crops as well as non-GM solutions (please circulate widely):
GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use (referenced document):
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCIPU.php
‘Network of Concerned Farmers’ - Australia
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/
Canadian family farmers are calling for a moratorium on GM crops, see http://www.nfu.ca/gmfood-ban.htm
“GM Crops Failed” - Institute of Science in Society
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php
New study exposes great GM crop myth- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8405/
Change in farming can feed the world- (400 experts reject GM as solution to poverty/hunger)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/16/8327/
Study: GM Bt cotton fails small scale farmers in South Africa
http://grain.org/seedling/?id=330.
"Non-GM Breakthroughs leave GM behind"
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NonGMLeaveGMBehind.php
12 Reasons for Africa to reject GM crops Visit:
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=294
World Scientists Statement:
World Scientists Statement: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/world-cn.htm "
1) Here is something else: “Iowa State University project shows yields of organic corn and soybeans equal or exceed conventional production while producing twice the revenue”
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/f ... tional.php
2) Organic farming ‘could feed Africa’
“Traditional practices increase yield by 128 per cent in east Africa, says UN”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 68641.html
THOUSANDS OF FARMERS IN INDIA COMMIT SUICIDE DUE TO SWITCHING TO INSECT RESISTANT GM Bt COTTON:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicides ... nIndia.php
AND:
Success Stories Of Organic Farming In India
http://generalissimo.org/kt44/success-s ... g-in-india
AND:
Scientists Find Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World and More:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organicagricult ... eworld.php"
Organic Living And The Environment expert Melissa Kidd (Soil Association Information Officer):
Is organic farming more sustainable than other types of farming?
Organic farming is more sustainable than other types of farming and this is due to the fact that we are not relying on chemicals that are very energy hungry. Natural gas is the main component of nitrogen fertiliser, used in non-organic farming, and it requires a lot of energy to make that fertiliser. In addition, energy is involved in transporting the fertiliser from where it was made to the farm. Whereas, organic farms use crop rotation, compost, and manure which is produced on the farm in a sustainable way. From that point of view, organic farming is much more sustainable.
Furthermore, in terms of pest control and disease control, organic farmers use crop rotation so you don't build up larger populations of pathogens and disease-causing microbes. Non-organic farmers will use chemicals to sort those problems out, but that generally will be a short term, unsustainable solution.
Watch the video:
http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/or ... of-farming
FURTHERMORE:
GM crops are failing: Union of Concerned Scientists report: "Failure to Yield".
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricult ... yield.html
The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate:
...http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/ ... /index.cfm
GM crops regularly yield less than high yielding non-GM crops, use more harmful herbicides and are harmful to human health and the environment. The seeds are patented and they are promoted to make money for corporations while being based on dubious science.
There are far superior non-GM options to feeding the world, it is only corporate propaganda that claims GM crops are necessary, good unbiased agricultural scientists have serious concerns about them.
Here is a significant amount of data on GM crops as well as non-GM solutions (please circulate widely):
GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use (referenced document):
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCIPU.php
‘Network of Concerned Farmers’ - Australia
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/
Canadian family farmers are calling for a moratorium on GM crops, see http://www.nfu.ca/gmfood-ban.htm
“GM Crops Failed” - Institute of Science in Society
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php
New study exposes great GM crop myth- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8405/
Change in farming can feed the world- (400 experts reject GM as solution to poverty/hunger)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/16/8327/
Study: GM Bt cotton fails small scale farmers in South Africa
http://grain.org/seedling/?id=330.
"Non-GM Breakthroughs leave GM behind"
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NonGMLeaveGMBehind.php
12 Reasons for Africa to reject GM crops Visit:
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=294
World Scientists Statement:
World Scientists Statement: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/world-cn.htm "
1) Here is something else: “Iowa State University project shows yields of organic corn and soybeans equal or exceed conventional production while producing twice the revenue”
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/f ... tional.php
2) Organic farming ‘could feed Africa’
“Traditional practices increase yield by 128 per cent in east Africa, says UN”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 68641.html
THOUSANDS OF FARMERS IN INDIA COMMIT SUICIDE DUE TO SWITCHING TO INSECT RESISTANT GM Bt COTTON:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicides ... nIndia.php
AND:
Success Stories Of Organic Farming In India
http://generalissimo.org/kt44/success-s ... g-in-india
AND:
Scientists Find Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World and More:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organicagricult ... eworld.php"
Organic Living And The Environment expert Melissa Kidd (Soil Association Information Officer):
Is organic farming more sustainable than other types of farming?
Organic farming is more sustainable than other types of farming and this is due to the fact that we are not relying on chemicals that are very energy hungry. Natural gas is the main component of nitrogen fertiliser, used in non-organic farming, and it requires a lot of energy to make that fertiliser. In addition, energy is involved in transporting the fertiliser from where it was made to the farm. Whereas, organic farms use crop rotation, compost, and manure which is produced on the farm in a sustainable way. From that point of view, organic farming is much more sustainable.
Furthermore, in terms of pest control and disease control, organic farmers use crop rotation so you don't build up larger populations of pathogens and disease-causing microbes. Non-organic farmers will use chemicals to sort those problems out, but that generally will be a short term, unsustainable solution.
Watch the video:
http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/or ... of-farming
FURTHERMORE:
GM crops are failing: Union of Concerned Scientists report: "Failure to Yield".
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricult ... yield.html
Now in my opinion if you want to remain healthy then it is probably in your best interest to try and buy organic food produce. GM maybe has a place in the world as long as it is not used in conjunction with pesticides and herbicides. Until we can get rid of the large corrupt financial interests behind GM crops we won't be able to really study them and use them in a valuable way.
And if people want to have a meal in the future that wont cost them a fortune then it is probably another good reason to support organic agriculture, especially localised organic agriculture where possible. GM crops may have a slightly higher yield for a couple years but then due to soil erosion and colony collapse disorder, amongst other things, the yields continue to get worse and worse and Monsanto continue to deny and manipulate the truth.
We do not need GM to feed the world. It only makes matters worse. What we need is to fund invest in sustainable agriculture and whether you like it or not, people may need to reduce the amount of Meat and Dairy they are consuming, due to the amounts of crops needed to produce them. That is not an attempt to make people stop eating what they like but just to consider it's impact on the world around them with a little bit more insight to how it effects their own future and the future of others.
Hunger is simply caused my the misappropriation of resources.
_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>
19 Mar 2011, 1:48 pm
Anyone have an opinion? I am open to debate / discuss / answer questions whether you agree or disagree with me.
_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>
20 Mar 2011, 3:51 pm
20 Mar 2011, 4:56 pm
draelynn wrote:
The fact that Montsanto has so much influence that they can kill ANY negative story about them
Bingo... It is a massive barrier. I heard they own 80-90% of the media in America. If that is true that scares me.
Thanks for the support and the sense you speak man.
_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>
Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Study shows heart damage from COVID-19 |
23 Mar 2024, 10:44 am |
| Incels 30 times more likely to be autistic, study finds |
28 Feb 2024, 8:19 am |
| Easy Online Sleep Study for Families of a Person w Autism! |
23 Feb 2024, 4:39 pm |
