Blaundee
Power Conserver
Quickly, can someone post some links to studies proving that GMO's are NOT beneficial to us & our world? I am in a debate...
GMO studies???
- Thread starter Blaundee
- Start date
so lucky
Almost Self-Reliant
But I know I have read news articles about GMO food that has been created by using genes from a different species to achieve certain qualities. Of course I can't name any of them now, but seems like I recall fish genes being used in some fruit for some quality. Are these experimental only? Or just fairy tales maybe?
hqueen13
<Insert Snazzy Title Here
The sad part is that the effects on health are far enough removed that linking gmo to health problems isn't easy.
I try to stay away as much as possible. Recognizing that gmos are everywhere, including in you r dog food, horse feed (beet pulp, anyone? I won't even get into how beet pulp is made...), and definitely chicken feed. It's getting more and more difficult to stay away from it.
I try to stay away as much as possible. Recognizing that gmos are everywhere, including in you r dog food, horse feed (beet pulp, anyone? I won't even get into how beet pulp is made...), and definitely chicken feed. It's getting more and more difficult to stay away from it.
I am very passionate about this subject, but always pose a particular argument on the subject.
Most, if not all, independent research has been 'debunked', however I feel every single one of those 'debunked' pieces of research is the correct, honest and unbiased look at the product. The debunked articles have been refuted based on technicalities and frivolities.
The most prominent case is that of the BT corn fed mice, which was actually removed (first time in history) from the Journal of Medicine after the induction of a former Monsanto CEO to the board. The claim was put forth that the experiment was not valid due to two points: the rats were allowed to wither and die with tumors instead of being humanely culled (in order to research the tumors after allowing them to grow until the animal was dead), and the corn was obtained illegally, as it was patented product they didn't have a right to have. Normally, when an article is refuted or debunked in the Journal of Medicine, the reviewing science is published in a later edition and a notation is made for future readers where to find the refuting science.
The only science that hasn't been 'debunked' or 'disproved' is proprietary research performed by the developing company themselves. This is unmediated, unregulated, biased science, and thus should be taken with an absolute grain of salt. They need only be able to prove their claims in a research paper, without any actual trials being conducted, documented and released. I don't trust any company to tell me the truth about their product, whether it's pharmaceuticals, big ag, or Sham-wow.
ANY industry, company or product not open to independent testing should throw up an instant red flag. Patent laws protect these companies, even with independent review. The laws would not allow infringement on the re-creation or re-distribution of their product outside of the testing they'd be authorized for, allowing for independent and unbiased review while maintaining their precious patent on life.
Refuting papers and articles released by crony media and people deluded to believe GMO's will solve world hunger (not wasting 50% of food in North America, surely, wouldn't help *eyeroll*) are often carefully worded in order to manipulate onlookers who trust the information that is dealt to them without further research and opinions. Most recently, I read an article by the New York Times concerning the Big Island of Hawaii becoming GMO free. The subject who voted against the GMO-Free bill puts forth 'evidence' that GMO's are harmless by twisting words. A supporter of the ban, in their speech, said they were worried about cross pollination and super weeds. The subject refutes that their information is entirely incorrect, as GMO Corn can't cross pollinate with the weeds to create a new super weed. The facts remain: GMO Corn CAN cross pollinate with other corn varieties, making them both illegal to grow for the seed saver AND potentially destroying local and endangered varieties. Canola can cross pollinate with plants like kale, cabbage and broccoli, potentially contaminating dozens of different seed bases. Persistent use of Round-up and other pesticides and herbicides have created plants, weeds, that are resistant to multiple applications of the chemicals (thus, super weeds).
Another arguement for those for the bill was that GMO's kill off honey bees. The subject stated, after speaking with a botonist trained in genetic modification research, that the plants are specifically designed to kill the bugs that eat them, not those that pollinate them, thus refuting the GMO produce kills bees. By proxy, the growth of GMO's means the application of pesticide and herbicide, and it is THAT which kills the bees. Without the mass application of these chemicals, the majority of which are used on lawns and GMO crops designed to handle them, bees may not be dying off in the amounts that they are, and research has directly linked the chemicals to bee loss.
People who are pro-GMO, especially politicians, carefully word their way around the questions and opposition, because they're able to be honest about a DIFFERENT question. GMO's, like the flu shot and birth control, need to be a choice, one that works for the individual. If these companies and developers have nothing to fear about their product, they need only throw the doors wide open to independent testing, however they won't, in fact, they adamantly fight against it claiming it would 'only confuse consumers'.
I try to avoid them as often as possible, and grow my own food as much as I can. I understand if I buy a pre-made meal, I will be ingesting it, but try as hard as I can to make my own stuff from scratch.
Bit of a controversial subject to break into the forum on, but I just had to say what I had to say.
Most, if not all, independent research has been 'debunked', however I feel every single one of those 'debunked' pieces of research is the correct, honest and unbiased look at the product. The debunked articles have been refuted based on technicalities and frivolities.
The most prominent case is that of the BT corn fed mice, which was actually removed (first time in history) from the Journal of Medicine after the induction of a former Monsanto CEO to the board. The claim was put forth that the experiment was not valid due to two points: the rats were allowed to wither and die with tumors instead of being humanely culled (in order to research the tumors after allowing them to grow until the animal was dead), and the corn was obtained illegally, as it was patented product they didn't have a right to have. Normally, when an article is refuted or debunked in the Journal of Medicine, the reviewing science is published in a later edition and a notation is made for future readers where to find the refuting science.
The only science that hasn't been 'debunked' or 'disproved' is proprietary research performed by the developing company themselves. This is unmediated, unregulated, biased science, and thus should be taken with an absolute grain of salt. They need only be able to prove their claims in a research paper, without any actual trials being conducted, documented and released. I don't trust any company to tell me the truth about their product, whether it's pharmaceuticals, big ag, or Sham-wow.
ANY industry, company or product not open to independent testing should throw up an instant red flag. Patent laws protect these companies, even with independent review. The laws would not allow infringement on the re-creation or re-distribution of their product outside of the testing they'd be authorized for, allowing for independent and unbiased review while maintaining their precious patent on life.
Refuting papers and articles released by crony media and people deluded to believe GMO's will solve world hunger (not wasting 50% of food in North America, surely, wouldn't help *eyeroll*) are often carefully worded in order to manipulate onlookers who trust the information that is dealt to them without further research and opinions. Most recently, I read an article by the New York Times concerning the Big Island of Hawaii becoming GMO free. The subject who voted against the GMO-Free bill puts forth 'evidence' that GMO's are harmless by twisting words. A supporter of the ban, in their speech, said they were worried about cross pollination and super weeds. The subject refutes that their information is entirely incorrect, as GMO Corn can't cross pollinate with the weeds to create a new super weed. The facts remain: GMO Corn CAN cross pollinate with other corn varieties, making them both illegal to grow for the seed saver AND potentially destroying local and endangered varieties. Canola can cross pollinate with plants like kale, cabbage and broccoli, potentially contaminating dozens of different seed bases. Persistent use of Round-up and other pesticides and herbicides have created plants, weeds, that are resistant to multiple applications of the chemicals (thus, super weeds).
Another arguement for those for the bill was that GMO's kill off honey bees. The subject stated, after speaking with a botonist trained in genetic modification research, that the plants are specifically designed to kill the bugs that eat them, not those that pollinate them, thus refuting the GMO produce kills bees. By proxy, the growth of GMO's means the application of pesticide and herbicide, and it is THAT which kills the bees. Without the mass application of these chemicals, the majority of which are used on lawns and GMO crops designed to handle them, bees may not be dying off in the amounts that they are, and research has directly linked the chemicals to bee loss.
People who are pro-GMO, especially politicians, carefully word their way around the questions and opposition, because they're able to be honest about a DIFFERENT question. GMO's, like the flu shot and birth control, need to be a choice, one that works for the individual. If these companies and developers have nothing to fear about their product, they need only throw the doors wide open to independent testing, however they won't, in fact, they adamantly fight against it claiming it would 'only confuse consumers'.
I try to avoid them as often as possible, and grow my own food as much as I can. I understand if I buy a pre-made meal, I will be ingesting it, but try as hard as I can to make my own stuff from scratch.
Bit of a controversial subject to break into the forum on, but I just had to say what I had to say.
- Thread starter
- #2
Blaundee
Power Conserver
Nobody?? Really? I'm sunk.
frustratedearthmother
Sustainability Master
Just saw your post and this is the first link I found - hope it helps! (I haven't even read it....)
http://carrington.edu/blog/student-tips/health/genetically-modified-food-pros-and-cons/
http://carrington.edu/blog/student-tips/health/genetically-modified-food-pros-and-cons/
Joel_BC
Super Self-Sufficient
First of all, I'm not a geneticist, or any sort of biologist - nor an expert in physiology, biochemistry, etc. But I believe that genetically modified foods and food ingredients should be indicated on food packaging and food bins in markets (as has been required in some European countries, so I've read). That gives people choice. Plus, I wouldn't choose to grow from genetically modified seeds in my own garden. But that's just me.
Maybe this can help in your search. There's an organization called the American Academy for Environmental Medicine. I know next to nothing about them, but they've published a "position paper" on GM foods. It can be found here:
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
The paper is brief and includes end notes showing the references and studies they've cited. These are the references:
Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM
1. World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.php
2. Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10
3. Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.
4. Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.
5. Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.
6. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.
7. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.
8. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.
9. Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.
10. Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.
11. Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.
12. Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.
13. Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.
Maybe this can help in your search. There's an organization called the American Academy for Environmental Medicine. I know next to nothing about them, but they've published a "position paper" on GM foods. It can be found here:
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
The paper is brief and includes end notes showing the references and studies they've cited. These are the references:
Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM
1. World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.php
2. Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10
3. Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.
4. Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.
5. Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.
6. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.
7. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.
8. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.
9. Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.
10. Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.
11. Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.
12. Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.
13. Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.
- Thread starter
- #5
Blaundee
Power Conserver
Thank you 
rhoda_bruce
Almost Self-Reliant
Well, I'm computer stupid, but I have recently completed an herbal studies course and one of my last lessons had to do with lettuce. You see it is supposed to be bitter, which would stimulate our salivary glands and promote digestion and help with several of our common ailments, but we have developed 'lettuce' that is so far from its ancestor that almost no hint of bitter is ever detected, except near the stem and if you keep it long enough for some of the leaves to begin to turn yellow.....and then we normally throw those parts away, because they offend us.
If we would allow iceburg lettuce to go into seed a few generations, then we would begin to have a true lettuce, which would be bitter and much more benificial to our health. So by modifying lettuce, we really have hurt ourselves.
This is just one example. Now I have also heard of some assassin plants that if grown anywhere in the area of an heirloom garden will mess with the purity of the seed and the resulting seed will be fruitless.......in otherwords, it seems it could possibly destroy future generations of gardens, by infiltrating the purity. Not sure that this was intentional, or that was an accident, but it sounded scary, when I first heard it about 2 years ago.
There is a growing number of people trying to avoid GMOs right now. The more I hear about it, the more I lean toward heirlooms. I used very few GMO's last year. I hope to use none this year.
If we would allow iceburg lettuce to go into seed a few generations, then we would begin to have a true lettuce, which would be bitter and much more benificial to our health. So by modifying lettuce, we really have hurt ourselves.
This is just one example. Now I have also heard of some assassin plants that if grown anywhere in the area of an heirloom garden will mess with the purity of the seed and the resulting seed will be fruitless.......in otherwords, it seems it could possibly destroy future generations of gardens, by infiltrating the purity. Not sure that this was intentional, or that was an accident, but it sounded scary, when I first heard it about 2 years ago.
There is a growing number of people trying to avoid GMOs right now. The more I hear about it, the more I lean toward heirlooms. I used very few GMO's last year. I hope to use none this year.
