Monsanto

[D Coates]

What I think about this thread

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Love it.  It can be claimed anything and everything will eventually kill you if look hard enough.  There's a whole batch of folks signing petitions on youtube against dhmo.  It shows how gullible people can be to "scientific" hype and will sign their name without actually looking into what dhmo actually is.  Dhmo can be spun to look as bad as any chemical out there.

[Tommy]

https://gmoawareness.org/gmo-facts/

Follow the money.

[Milo]

I struggle to understand how this fits in the general beekeeping section, but anyway might I suggest a trip to 'Friends of the Earth' there might just be a little less advertising and considerably less click bait.

[D Coates]

As per their own website

"Are GMOs safe?

Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In 61 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment."

Inflammatory rhetoric at the end and no actual answer to their own question.  Which means there's still NO proof of diddle.  Just an effective PR spin campaign that's worked in 61 countries.  The DHMO website and youtube videos show how easily folks will roll over when inflammatory "evidence" is presented.

GMO Awareness (the website linked in the above post) mission statement

"We believe that genetically engineered foods (a.k.a. genetically modified organisms or GMOs) have no place in farming or in our food system and that they pose a serious threat to health, the land, family farms, nature and the environment."

Yeeaaaaa, there's more than a bit of bias going on here...  They're clearly already voting for conviction though no evidence had been presented nor trial had.  Fortunately in the US it's the presumption of innocence until it's proven otherwise.

[cpekarek]

Modifying genetic traits have been going on for more than 30,000 years. Since 1973, scientists have sped up the process.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/

Most people I know fear GMO crops and I don't understand why. If science could remove the gene from a particular crop so the plant didn't get a disease then pesticide use could be reduced or eliminated. Nutrition, flavor, etc. could all be improved by adding and subtracting genes.

[Dallasbeek]

But, you know, somebody can hit emotional buttons by coming up with things like "frankenfood" to frighten people.

[D Coates]

But, you know, somebody can hit emotional buttons by coming up with things like "frankenfood" to frighten people.

And that's exactly what they do. 

Who would be for Frankenfood?  Please sign this petition, and we do accept donations to help save the planet from (fill in the corporate boogie man dejour)....;) 

No actual scientifically valid data to support the claims so resorting to name calling and claims of corporate/government/greed conspiracy are the tactics that are used.

cpekarek, Interesting article, thanks for posting. 

[Tommy]

https://www.organicconsumers.org/scientific/pesticides-linked-bee-decline-first-time-countrywide-field-study

[Lancej]

Looking at these posts on GMO's, all the different chemicals from pesticides, herbicides no one knows what out come they will have on us or the bees. I know that I eat GMO's nearly ever day, residues from many chemicals, and I believe there is going to be a price. The mixture of different chemicals and proteins could have affects that no saw coming, it may take a generation or two to show up. Here in Australia l am seeing a lot of people I know having kids with problems and it's getting worse.

[CrazyTalk]

Looking at these posts on GMO's, all the different chemicals from pesticides, herbicides no one knows what out come they will have on us or the bees. I know that I eat GMO's nearly ever day, residues from many chemicals, and I believe there is going to be a price. The mixture of different chemicals and proteins could have affects that no saw coming, it may take a generation or two to show up. Here in Australia l am seeing a lot of people I know having kids with problems and it's getting worse.

The problem is that these exact same complaints/concerns can be voiced about conventionally bred crops.


The difference is that GMO crops go through ridiculously extensive levels of safety testing, and conventionally bred crops go through almost none. You're significantly more likely to run into a conventionally bred vegetable that causes problems than a genetically modified one - and history bears that out.

[Michael Bush]

>The difference is that GMO crops go through ridiculously extensive levels of safety testing...

That's crazy talk.  They were GOING to do extensive testing and then they turned the genes loose and they were in all the corn so all the testing went out the window.  Pretty much the same with other crops as well.  Apparently the GMO crop scientists with their PHDs didn't know that corn was wind pollinated.  They were going to keep human food and animal food separate until the testing completed.  But that never happened because the genes immediately showed up in all the corn... and the USDA either had to tell everyone there would be no corn chips this year or let it slide...

[CrazyTalk]

>The difference is that GMO crops go through ridiculously extensive levels of safety testing...

That's crazy talk.  They were GOING to do extensive testing and then they turned the genes loose and they were in all the corn so all the testing went out the window.  Pretty much the same with other crops as well.  Apparently the GMO crop scientists with their PHDs didn't know that corn was wind pollinated.  They were going to keep human food and animal food separate until the testing completed.  But that never happened because the genes immediately showed up in all the corn... and the USDA either had to tell everyone there would be no corn chips this year or let it slide...

What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?

Current laws in the USA specify that new GMO crops need be tested for all know allergens and all known potentially allergenic proteins and amino acids (essentially anything that can survive our gut). In contrast, conventional crops need no testing.

For instance, if a team of scientists carefully plan a single base pair edit using CRISPR, they need test the results for every known potentially toxic protein. On the other hand, a botanist can expose a plant to mutagenic chemicals (or radiation) making random changes all over the plants genome, and not only sell its offspring without any testing, can sell it as organic.

There is a reason there has never been a single illness or death attributable to GMO crop reactions, but harmful conventionally bred vegetables regularly make it to market. (There are literally dozens of examples over the last couple decades - the lenape potato for instance, or cellery with psoralen levels so high they burned people skin).

[gww]

Crazytalk

What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?

I think the point being made by michael is any testing is after the fact cause they let the genie out of the bottle before the testing not after.  Its probly still being tested just like eating a yokeless egg was good for thirty years before they decided it was better to go ahead and eat the yolk also.

I am sure the test is on going.
gww

[Duane]

Modifying genetic traits have been going on for more than 30,000 years. Since 1973, scientists have sped up the process.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/

Most people I know fear GMO crops and I don't understand why. If science could remove the gene from a particular crop so the plant didn't get a disease then pesticide use could be reduced or eliminated. Nutrition, flavor, etc. could all be improved by adding and subtracting genes.

If.
Yes, "IF" only the gene could be inserted or replaced from one to another.
However.

Unless they have dramatically changed things, some years back it wasn't that simple.  They took a segment of the DNA, which included the gene desired, and used ballistics or bacteria to insert them into cells of the target organism.  If using the special bacteria, this also included a part of their DNA in the process.  The target cells were not controlled where the DNA went, but were selected for later.  How did they select?  If the gene was not readily apparent, they had other genes included, antibiotic resistance, etc. which could be selected for.  No use growing a bunch of plants to find out they didn't have the gene.

The gene was either inserted randomly with the ballistic approach or where the bacteria chose.  Is that a good place?  Could all this "junk" DNA surrounding the desired gene have other functions as they are finding out more and more?  Suppose this junk DNA turned on or off other DNA in the target plant?  What if the DNA wasn't controlled and expressed all the time or the wrong times?

So yes, you have a modified plant that produces substances that kills corn borers, or what not.  Does it do other things?  Does it fail to do what it should?  What happens if this extra DNA came from an animal or bacteria and created compounds that combined with the target plant compounds to produce what? 

What if?
What if we really don't know what we're doing?

I've read (of course that may not be true) that just the process disturbs the plants DNA even if a gene is not inserted.

If it was like computer code, can't really see the problem.  And DNA is like computer code, just that we're hiring 5th graders to write a website database for us and .... OOPS, didn't know that would happen.


And comparing Genetic Engineering to classic plant breeding I don't think is really relevant.

[Duane]

This probably says it better than I did:

Release of GM mosquito Aedes aegypti OX513A
c. Unpredicted and unintended changes / side effects: It is widely recognised that the insertion of transgenes can lead to changes that have neither been intended nor predicted and are seemingly unrelated to the nature of the gene inserted. Documented cases include higher lignin content in transgenic herbicide tolerant soybean plants and Bt corn plants, lowered vitamin content in transgenic squash, increased rate of out-crossing and altered root formation in herbicide tolerant Thale Cress. The reasons why and the mechanisms behind these changes are not always understood and would require further investigation.

Read the link for more about what I was talking about.

[Michael Bush]

>What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?

That were added, I assume is what you mean.   Humans were eating what was in corn for millennia of course.  But now we added the gene to make Bt toxin.  We know a small amount of Bt toxin is something we get all the time.  But not in the amounts we are not consuming.  We also added the Round-up ready gene, which is less likely to be problematic, but still we don't know.  Then, of course, separate from GMO but related to poisons we have never ingested at these levels, we have neonics...

[Tommy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html

[CrazyTalk]

Crazytalk

What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?

I think the point being made by michael is any testing is after the fact cause they let the genie out of the bottle before the testing not after.  Its probly still being tested just like eating a yokeless egg was good for thirty years before they decided it was better to go ahead and eat the yolk also.

I am sure the test is on going.
gww

I know what Michael meant. I asked him to provide evidence of his claim that this stuff was released to the wild without safety testing.

[Michael Bush]

>I know what Michael meant. I asked him to provide evidence of his claim that this stuff was released to the wild without safety testing.

They certainly did not document what they did NOT test.  I actually talked to one of the people who were testing what was then called "starlink" corn back in the late 1990s and what they were testing for was it's effect on Monarch butterflies.  The assumption was that Bt toxin was safe for humans because the organic farmers had been using Bt (not Bt toxin) on their plants for years and that had been generally considered safe.  Still the intent was to only use it for animal feed and then after observing the effect on animals, consider if it would be approved for human consumption.  But immediately the gene showed up in all the corn. 

How do I prove a negative?  Show me the evidence that human testing on the Bt gene in corn (and therefore the Bt toxin in people) before Starlink was let loose on the public in 1999. 

[Michael Bush]

Wikipedia articles on StarLink Corn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLink_corn_recall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism_containment_and_escape