Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Mindgrinder, Dec 6, 2014.
In A Face-To-Face GMO Debate, The "For" Side Wins | Popular Science
This site has the studies and the data for NOT eating GMO foods.
Institute for Responsible Technology | The Most Comprehensive Source of GMO Health Information on the Web
This site has the list of non-GMO foods
Non-GMO Shopping Guide
I'm not convinced that GMO foods are dangerous, but in general I prefer non GMO foods. Size and cosmetics are less important than flavor and texture. What I wouldn't give for a Marshall strawberry.... OOH! looks you can get them again: Marshall Strawberry | FAQ
I AM concerned about GMO crops that are poisonous to helpful critters like bees, though.
Skepticism is good. and I think you might change your mind after you read some of the side links on publications Institute for Responsible Technology | The Most Comprehensive Source of GMO Health Information on the Web
I wasn't convinced either until I started reading.
If its killing bees, what is it doing to us? we are more robust.
Think AGENT ORANGE in you morning cereal bowl!
Rational mind: "Pay no attention to the conspiracies, the government would not have allowed these foods to get onto the market and consumed by people if it were really bad."
Logical mind: "Who stands to profit? Corporations and government, which is comprised of corporations."
The mind of the greedy: "Lots of money to be made in making people sick, too. It would be best to also offer the solution to the problem should it ever get out of hand. We can offer treatments for sicknesses caused by GMO, rake in the profits, and put ordinary food growers out of business or at the very least, coming back to us for more GMO seeds every season. We can corner the agriculture market, control the food supply, create sickness and disease, sell our prescription medication and force mandatory healthcare to promote perpetual growth, too. The IRS is going to love this one. We will let them rake in the profits from their end, everybody gets a piece. Oh, population control. We promised the big guys population reduction. Drats, that will cut into profits. Let's see, race specific...antibiotic resistance, yes...this will do nicely. That's right, bottom-feeders, daddy's getting a new Mercedes."
Resurrecting this thread due to discussion here: Cooking with all natural ingredients. | Survival Monkey Forums
When I relocate next year I will be experimenting with and then ramping up much of my own food production, including meat. The rationale is less dependence on the outside, my own quality control, and improving the freshness of my food. My seed crops will be heirloom varieties so I can propagate from one year to the next, so likely will not be introducing any more GMO's into our diet and most likely lowering them.
However, the question remains - are GMO's bad for you and why? The sites I've checked out all assume that GMO's are bad from the get go and then use either anecdotal evidence or conspiracy theories to back up the claim. Anecdotal evidence does not mean it is wrong, but it is easy to fool yourself. I'll give an example:
My Mother in Law currently lives with us, and she is the queen of sensitivity to anything you can imagine. The "Princess and the Pea" girl is an amateur by comparison. I do most of the cooking, so naturally I have a LONG list of things I can and can't use. Out of respect I follow it, but there have been several time prior to her adding something to the list is something I had been using frequently with no ill effect.
Two of these are coconut oil and MSG. MSG, BTW has had a bad rap that goes back to ONE anecdotal story by ONE food reviewer who had a beef with the Chinese restaurant he ate at. It's actually a great flavor enhancer and has one fifth the sodium of salt. It is not produced as a result of nuclear fusion but is instead extracted from seaweed. I digress... My MIL gave me a whole list of very severe things she experiences when she eats either of them, but I know she unknowingly ingested them many times with no ill effect. As I mentioned before I respect her wishes even though I know it's BS.
What is missing from the GMO debate at the sites I've looked at are scientific studies. Do any of you have links to scientific peer reviewed studies that show GMO's to be harmful?
GMO are using people experimentally to make their product ,further more if you have an adjacent farm and the pollen drifts from a GMO farm to your non GMO farm , they are protected by the government to take your harvest or demand you pay for it.
I am told that GMO corn is not good for much more then biodiesel ,it is not very good as a food value.
"bulk does not equal food value".
I don't like the issue regarding pollen drift and that should be the responsibility of the GMO grower. That's legal/government stupidity at work.
What I'm looking for are scientific studies showing that GMO foods or animals fed by GMO foods are harmful to people.
What somebody told you is anecdotal evidence along the lines of someone telling you in high school "I heard Becky is easy". Maybe she is and maybe somebody doesn't like her and wants to ruin her reputation.
If folk have a tendency to contracting the clap when 'playing' with Becky, then perhaps some scientific investigation might be warranted. Microbes before morality methinks.
Can anyone supply the name of even one person who became ill, much less died, from GMO's? Just one illness or death directly and verifiably linked to consuming a GMO. If so, I'll change my opinion, but until then I am not worried.
I see this study referenced at Government-studies - Institute for Responsible Technology above: Study Proves Three Monsanto Corn Varieties' Noxiousness to the Organism which appears to later have been withdrawn: Séralini affair - Wikipedia
Other studies referenced there have been difficult to track down due to broken links, and Internet searches only give point to articles that reference the studies and not the studies themselves.
Do any of my simian brethren or sistren have personal experience/knowledge they can share?
Not trying to be a pest, I just want understanding.
The message got lost in the GMO debate of healthy vs not healthy.
The issue for me with GO'S is that the wind generation is funky and doesn't bread true. I don't care if seeds are heirloom or not I just want them to bred true and survive.
I've never cared for line breading in plants or animals, I think it weakens whatever genetic line you are trying to bread for. Variety in genes is important and when large companies take over the seed market and bread for only certain characteristics you don't have genetic diversity which ultimately leads to using more chemicals and pesticides so that your Gene modified plants survive.
Those are my two issues with GMO's
The truth is we don't know how the go's will mutate in the future. I remember when eggs got a bad rap based on gooberment studies. The chicken and egg industry was decimated for 15 yrs
^^^ Great post!
Here is why most links to studies are "broken".
No scientific consensus on GMO safety
A separate review of animal feeding studies that is often cited as showing that GM foods are safe included studies that found significant differences in the GM-fed animals. While the review authors dismissed these findings as not biologically significant , the interpretation of these differences is the subject of continuing scientific debate [8,10-12] and no consensus exists on the topic.
Rigorous studies investigating the safety of GM crops and foods would normally involve, inter alia, animal feeding studies in which one group of animals is fed GM food and another group is fed an equivalent non-GM diet. Independent studies of this type are rare, but when such studies have been performed, some have revealed toxic effects or signs of toxicity in the GM-fed animals [2,8,11-13]. The concerns raised by these studies have not been followed up by targeted research that could confirm or refute the initial findings.
The lack of scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and crops is underlined by the recent research calls of the European Union and the French government to investigate the long-term health impacts of GM food consumption in the light of uncertainties raised by animal feeding studies [14,15]. These official calls imply recognition of the inadequacy of the relevant existing scientific research protocols. They call into question the claim that existing research can be deemed conclusive and the scientific debate on biosafety closed."
Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, et al. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environ Sci Eur. 2014;26(1):1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Clinch-Jones CA, et al. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Org Syst. 2013;8(1):38–54.Google Scholar
Frewin G. (2013). The new “is GM food safe?” meme. Axis Mundi, 18 July. Internet jetzt und sofort; Wikipedia (2013). Genetically modified food controversies. Genetically modified food controversies - Wikipedia
Lynas M: GMO pigs study – more junk science. Marklynas.org 2013, 12 June [GMO pigs study – more junk science | Mark Lynas]
Kloor K: Greens on the run in debate over genetically modified food. Bloomberg 2013, 7 January [Greens on the Run in Debate Over Genetically Modified Food - Bloomberg]
White M: The scientific debate about GM foods is over: they’re safe. Pacific Standard Magazine 2013, 24 September [The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They're Safe]
European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility ENSSER [www.ensser.org]
Domingo JL, Bordonaba JG. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int. 2011;37:734–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, et al. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50(3–4):1134–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Clair E, Gress S, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Cellier D. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environ Sci Eur. 2011;23:10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49(2):164–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Diels J, Cunha M, Manaia C, Sabugosa-Madeira B, Silva M. Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy. 2011;36:197–203.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Defarge N, Gress S, Hennequin D, Clair E, et al. Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;53:461–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
EU Food Policy: Commission and EFSA agree need for two-year GMO feeding studies. 17 December 2012Google Scholar
French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy2013: Programme National de Recherche: Risques environnementaux et sanitaires liés aux OGM (Risk’OGM) 2013, 12 July [http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/APR__Risk_OGM_rel_pbch_pbj_rs2.pdf]
Wikipedia: Genetically modified food controversies. 2013 [Genetically modified food controversies - Wikipedia]
Masip G: Opinion: Don’t fear GM crops, Europe! The Scientist 2013, May 28 [http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35578/title/Opinion--Don-t-Fear-GM-Crops--Europe-/]
Royal Society of Canada: Elements of precaution: recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology. 2001, January [Welcome to The Royal Society of Canada | The Royal Society of Canada]
British Medical Association Board of Science and Education: Genetically modified food and health: a second interim statement. 2004, March [http://bit.ly/19QAHSI]
American Medical Association House of Delegates: Labeling of bioengineered foods. Council on Science and Public Health Report 2, 2012 [http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf]
AAAS: Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods. 2012, 20 October. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
Hunt P, Blumberg B, Bornehag CG, Collins TJ, DeFur PL, Gilbert SG, et al. Yes: food labels would let consumers make informed choices. Environmental Health News 2012 [http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods]
European Commission: A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). 2010 [http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf]
European Commission: A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). 2010, 128. [http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf]
European Commission: A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). 2010, 157. [http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf]
Tribe D: 600+ published safety assessments. GMOPundit blog undated [http://gmopundit.blogspot.co.uk/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html]
Brouk M, Cvetkovic B, Rice DW, Smith BL, Hinds MA, Owens FN, et al. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain produced from a genetically modified event DAS-59122-7 compared to a nontransgenic, near isoline control. J Dairy Sci. 2011;94:1961–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Calsamiglia S, Hernandez B, Hartnell GF, Phipps R. Effects of corn silage derived from a genetically modified variety containing two transgenes on feed intake, milk production, and composition, and the absence of detectable transgenic deoxyribonucleic acid in milk in Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:4718–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2010;5(7):706–26.Google Scholar
Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. 1999;354:1353–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 1998;6:219–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kilic A, Akay MT. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46(3):1164–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 2002;27:173–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi MB, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2003;47:385–8.Google Scholar
Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42(6):1003–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol. 2006;44(7):1092–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Hilbeck A, Meier M, Römbke J, Jänsch S, Teichmann H, Tappeser B. Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies. Environ Sci Eur. 2011;23:13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Hilbeck A, Schmidt JEU. Another view on Bt proteins – how specific are they and what else might they do? Biopesti Int. 2006;2(1):1–50.Google Scholar
Székács A, Darvas B. Comparative aspects of Cry toxin usage in insect control. In: Ishaaya I, Palli SR, Horowitz AR, editors. Advanced Technologies for Managing Insect Pests. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2012. p. 195–230.Google Scholar
Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science. 2007;316(5830):1475–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lang A, Vojtech E. The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Basic Appl Ecol. 2006;7:296–306.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Gassmann AJ, Petzold-Maxwell JL, Keweshan RS, Dunbar MW. Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by Western corn rootworm. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22629.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zhao JH, Ho P, Azadi H. Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environ Monit Assess. 2010;173(1–4):985–94.Google Scholar
Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H, et al. Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science. 2010;328(5982):1151–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Benbrook C. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US – the first sixteen years. Environ Sci Eur. 2012;24:24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Heinemann JA, Massaro M, Coray DS, Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Wen JD. Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest. Int J Agric Sustainability. 2013;12:71–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Powles SB. Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Manag Sci. 2008;64:360–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Székács A, Darvas B: Forty years with glyphosate. Herbicides - properties, synthesis and control of weeds. Hasaneen MN, InTech. 2012Google Scholar
Benedetti D, Nunes E, Sarmento M, Porto C, dos Santos CEI, Dias JF, et al. Genetic damage in soybean workers exposed to pesticides: evaluation with the comet and buccal micronucleus cytome assays. Mutat Res. 2013;752(1–2):28–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lopez SL, Aiassa D, Benitez-Leite S, Lajmanovich R, Manas F, Poletta G, et al. 2012: Pesticides used in South American GMO-based agriculture: a review of their effects on humans and animal models. Advances in Molecular Toxicology. Fishbein JC, Heilman JM. New York, Elsevier 2012, 6: 41–75.Google Scholar
Kvakkestad V, Gillund F, Kjolberg KA, Vatn A. Scientists perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environ Values. 2007;16(1):79–104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2000 [http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/]
Codex Alimentarius: Foods derived from modern biotechnology. 2d ed. World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2000 [ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/Booklets/Biotech/Biotech_2009e.pdf]
GE Soybeans Give Altered Milk and Stunted Offspring, Researchers Find
GE Soybeans Give Altered Milk and Stunted Offspring, Researchers Find
“The differences in the composition of the colostrum between the mothers fed the GE soy and the non-GE soy were particularly striking. The colostrum from the GE-fed mothers contained only 2/3 of the fat, 1/3 of the protein and close to half of the IgG of the mothers fed the non-GM soy.”
To carry out these experiments the researchers divided pregnant female Cilentana goats into four groups, sixty days before kidding. Two of the groups were fed goat food containing GE Roundup Ready soybeans (at two different concentrations). The other two groups were fed conventional (non-GE) soybeans, also at two different concentrations.
After the mothers gave birth all offspring were fed only with their mother’s milk for sixty days. The growth of these kids was measured twice. After both thirty days and sixty days the kids of GE-fed mothers were approximately 20% lower in weight and shorter in stature. Both these differences were statistically significant.
Lower offspring weights were not the only unexpected findings. The researchers also found that the milk of GE-fed goats was lower in protein and fat. This difference in milk quality was large (6% protein in both GE-fed groups versus 18% in both non-GE fed groups) for the first few weeks after birth but gradually disappeared—even though the mothers continued to be fed the GE soybeans. Additionally, the researchers also found that the colostrum produced by GE-fed mothers had low amounts of IgG antibodies. These antibodies are important for growth and for healthy immune development.
A third difference noted by the researchers was that transgenic DNA could be detected in the colostrum of most (10/16) of the GE-fed goats. No transgene DNA was detected in the milk of goats fed non-GE soybeans. This is not the first time that transgene DNA (or non-transgenic DNA) has been found in the milk of ruminants, however.
Interestingly, the researchers found that all of the kids were of similar size at birth, regardless of whether their mothers ate Roundup Ready GE soybeans or not. The researchers therefore proposed that the stunting of the offspring of GE-fed mothers reflected a milk deficiency. Presumably either the lower nutritional value of the colostrum and milk of GE-fed mothers or the colostrum antibody differences that were observed. The authors noted that low IgG antibody levels in colostrum are correlated in other ruminants with slower growth and also that IgG antibodies are known to have a role in nutrient absorption because they promote gut development in newborns.
The researchers did not discuss whether the transgene DNA fragments found in the milk played a role in altering kid development.
This result is the strongest demonstration so far of altered growth and development in offspring of GE-fed mothers. The same researchers in 2010 showed altered activity of the lactic dehydrogenase enzyme in kids fed milk from mothers that ate GE Roundup Ready soybeans. In that previous study however, no additional effects on goat offspring were detected (Tudisco et al., 2010).
“It is already known that Roundup Ready soybeans have various defects including a Manganese deficiency. Yet regulators and GMO developers have continuously dismissed credible reports of GMO crops causing apparent harm to animals, from many different research groups.” Said Dr Allison Wilson of The Bioscience Resource Project. “Hopefully they will not ignore yet another study.”
Tudisco R., V. Mastellone, M. I. Cutrignelli, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, N. Mirabella, G. Piccolo, S. Calabrò, L. Avallone and F. Infascelli (2010) Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal 4: 1662-1671.
Tudisco R., S. Calabrò, M.I. Cutrignelli, G. Moniello, M. Grossi, V. Mastellone, P. Lombardi, M.E. Pero, F. Infascelli (2015) Genetically modified soybean in a goat diet: Influence on kid performance. Small Ruminant Research 126: 67–74."
My concerns is accountability of the producer. I post for a comparison of what can happen in even the short term production facility , much less the long term unknown effects of a feed product with GMO.
The article below is what happens when a feed company looses the simple control of their mix recipe. GMO is a trust I do not have and the cost may be our very own long term food production.
announcement as a public service. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.
ADM Animal Nutrition Recalls Rough-N-Ready Cattle Feed A specific lot of product contains elevated levels of monensin, could harm cattle
ADM Animal Nutrition Recalls Rough-N-Ready Cattle Feed A specific lot of product contains elevated levels of monensin, could harm cattle
For Immediate Release
June 23, 2017
ADM Animal Nutrition™, a division of Archer Daniels Midland Company (NYSE: ADM), is recalling 50-pound bags of Rough-N-Ready 14 BT cattle feed, product number 54787BHB24, because the product contains elevated levels of monensin beyond the recommended dosage, which could be harmful to cattle. At elevated levels, monensin can be toxic to cattle and can cause colic-like symptoms, hypokalemia, myoglobinuria, chronic cardiovascular issues, and possible death.
There is one lot number involved in this recall: Lot # 2WS01717. The product was distributed between Jan. 19, 2017, and Feb. 2, 2017, and could have been purchased directly from ADM Animal Nutrition or through one of three distributors including: Midwest Fertilizer, Inc. in Iola, Kansas; CW Feeds in Wichita, Kansas and Northtown Ace in Mountain Grove, Missouri.
ADM Animal Nutrition received reports from two customers claiming this feed may have resulted in death loss on their respective farms. The company immediately began investigating and initiated the recall upon receiving confirmation that the feed contained elevated levels of monensin due to a temporary breakdown in the packaging process, which has now been corrected. ADM has been in direct contact with the distributors involved in this recall, and all product has been removed from retail shelves. ADM is also working directly with the customers involved.
The lot number, 2WS01717, can be found at the bottom of the label. Click here to view an image of the label. Customers who have purchased the recalled feed should immediately stop using it and return it to their distributor or directly to ADM Animal Nutrition for a full refund. Please direct any customer inquiries to 800-217-2007 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday.
Separate names with a comma.