Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The commercialization of genetically modified foods in the 1990s served as a lightning rod for an ongoing debate over their safety. Despite numerous scientific studies and FDA assurances that GM foods are safe and nutritious, a number of individuals and consumer groups remain unconvinced.
GEN, which has reported on this issue since the mid-1980s, stands firmly on the side of most scientists and the FDA regarding the safety of GM foods. Nevertheless, we believe it is our editorial obligation to present opposing points of view. In our November 1 issue, we ran an opinion piece by Jeffrey M. Smith who takes an anti-GM foods stance. In the December issue, Henry I. Miller, M.D., writes in his point of view article that critics such as Mr. Smith represent a form of antisocial bioactivism. We welcome your views on the GM foods debate.
11/1/2007
I am 1000% in agreement with Mr. Smith. I have numerous allergies which began long before GM foods were 'officially' introduced. Because of these allergies it was also necessary for me to discontinue the use of pharmaceutical meds, and this even though I was diagnosed with systemic lupus in 1985. Since I discontinued the pharmaceuticals and began eating a much healthier processed-food-free organic/natural foods diet, I wasn't, for the most part, plagued with the lupus syptoms. However, over the last two years or so, I've noticed that even foods that are supposed to be organic are causing the reactions that Mr. Smith outlines in his article. As it stands currently, I am in the process of making arrangements to move completely out of the area in which I now live because I can't seem to find foods that I can eat without becoming ill. Burning/sore throats, nausea/ vomiting, dizziness, inflammation, sneezing and flu-like symptoms, numbness, etc., all seem to be the norm for me now. When I can manage to find foods that truthfully ARE organic -- i.e. DON'T contain GMOs -- I feel wonderful. As for Farmer's Markets -- sadly, it seems that the majority of the farmers in this area have been co-opted, and not by consumers. Even supposedly farm-fresh produce causes the same effects, no doubt because the farmers have been forced to use GM seeds.
11/2/2007
Mr. Smith has seems to have trawled the internet to find all the possible occurrences of harm from GM foods that he can. It is a collection of ifs, mights and maybes strung together in order to frighten people. Smith can find no positive evidence of any negative health effect. Roundup Ready soy contains a protein that Smith asserts “may” be an allergen. We have had 11 years of consumption of GM soy with no evidence of allergies from the Roundup Ready protein. It “may” be an allergen, but it clearly is not. Smith asserts that changes in GM soy "may" produce new allergens. 11 years of experience is that changes “may”, they clearly have not. Smith asserts that glyphosate used with GM soy “might” contribute to increased allergies. Once again 11 years of experience shows that while it “might”, it clearly has not. Next we have the thousands of consumers who claimed to be affected by Starlink corn. What Smith doesn’t say is that the Centres for Disease Control investigated these claims and concluded: “they had found no evidence that any people had had allergic reactions to the genetically modified StarLink corn.” And so on it goes. GM food are the most widely studied food products on the planet. Yet after more than a decade, Smith can find no positive evidence that the genetic engineering process has produced harmful food. Despite this total lack of evidence, Smith would have us believe that these foods are dangerous because they “might do something”. I suggest that Mr. Smith's writings "might" be more harmful to humans than GM food.
11/2/2007
I've always been allergic to corn, but I react even worse to the hidden corn that is in foods and other products, since corn has been genetically modified. I also started reacting to canola, soy and cottonseed, after they were modified. I never was allergic to them, before. Now, I have to avoid them, too, along with any and all food products that contain them. They cause me to have hives, angioedema, swollen throat, shortness of breath, and many other serious symptoms. I have allergies and autoimmune diseases. These GM adulterated foods wreak havoc on my immune system. Many other people are reporting having the same problems with GMOs. We have made complaints about our reactions to GM foods, and we have been totally ignored by the powers that be. The GMOs are not safe for everyone, and they should be labeled so people who can not tolerate them, can avoid them. It is wrong to force these foods on people, who get sick from eating them. Food allergies are very serious, and what we don't know, can kill us.
11/4/2007
Perhaps now the biotechnology community will get off its arrogant high horse and realize that there are some unsavory fear mongers. who, if left to their own campaigns, will ultimately have influence that could undo all of the advances and evidence based studies supporting GMFs. Scientists tend to be cloistered in their own groups and professional societies and do not pay close attention to the public at large. Perhaps members of the biotechnology community should get off their butt and do more to educate the public. We take for granted that intelligent human beings won't believe such ill-founded assertions as Smith's, but we are wrong. It is sad but true that intellgent people have been and will continue to be agitated to act against what is truly in their best interests. We need to be aware of what Smith is putting out there, and aggressively challenge both his premises and credibility. GEN has done those who are asleep at the wheel a great favor by forcing us to read what Smith has to say. And if we do not act to educate, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
11/5/2007
Jeffrey Smith is out there spreading his irresponsible propaganda to people who are suspect of new technologies, and the term "genetically modified" arouses suspicion among many people in the United States and abroad. Smith seems to have the field to himself as the biotechnology crowd may be blissfully unaware of what is saying and the way he is trying to further his position OR are they simply too dense not to take him on every step of the way?
11/6/2007
I believe I am as qualified as Mr Smith to comment on just how unsafe GM foods really are. I too have no scientific qualifications whatsoever. One only has to examine his article's first three references - they are exhaustively illustrative of the remaining 40 - to see the flaw in his points of view. The first refers to himself. Hmmm.... Look up the author in scholar.google.com and he seems to have ..... er .... um .....no papers in any of the peer-reviewed, scientific literature. The next reference is to the Daily Express newspaper. What??? Does he mean the only UK tabloid to run a story last century from a UK allergy testing laboratory press release promoting a pin-prick blood testing claim to vegetarians? The lab itself confirmed they alleged no allergenic connection with GM soy. See http://www.gene.ch/genet/1999/Mar/msg00056.html. GM soy had been shown to be no more allergenic than traditional soy four years previously (Burks & Fuchs, 1995) For those still convinced GM means allergies, see their 2003 update http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/54/386/1317. But should one take more seriously the third reference as it's a peer-reviewed paper from a recognised journal by experienced practitioners in their area of expertise. If one actually reads the paper, they base their 2002 potential allergenicity findings on computer predictions due to the "absence of literature data". Since that paper was written, how many trillions of meals which include ingredients from the same GM soy have been safely eaten, without incident? Five years on, we now don't need to rely solely on computer predictions in the real world and Mr Smith forgets to tell us how the third of four safety steps during a decade's worth of R&D on each new GM seed, is to test for every and any toxic or allergenic potential. This involves laboratory experiments followed by animal toxicity assessments which typically involve a range of tests including bioinformatics, and may be extended to include human serum testing. This stage of testing on the gene product is undertaken on a purified defined single substance in much the same way as pre-clinical testing of new medicines. Each new seed is tested on a crop by crop basis. And then there's step 4....... By repeating so many unsubstantiated claims, you merely confirm the observation of Alexis, Compte de Toqueville (1885-1959) "The public will always believe a simple lie rather than a complex truth."
11/7/2007
When I think about GM foods, Frankenstein comes to mind. Great minds can do great damage as well as great good. Why do we think we can create something better than what was given us by our Creator? We are destroying the soils, the water, the air and the now the plants. We have lost our bearings and our neglected our moral responsibility to our fellow man and replaced it with a brazen appetite for money and control. When will this madness stop? I guess in the name of science, we can justify anything. It's time to stop and desist further GM production and reevaluate our principles and philosophies.
11/7/2007
It's interesting to see how attached some readers are to being right that GM foods are 100% safe. There simply has not been enough testing for me, and I do everything I can to avoid GM foods because "molecular beastiality" just seems like a bad idea anyways. The stakes are too high if something is not right, the potential downside of this is unprecedented, and I believe caution is warranted. At the very least it's my right not to eat that stuff, and any attempt to ban labeling of non GMO foods is an infringment on my liberty. On differences of opinion, we should seek only to understand and not condemn. Once you "know it all" you're toast...
11/7/2007
I am totally with Jeff Smith on these issues. He has clearly cited real data in his extensive research on GM consequences. I highly doubt the veracity of the commentaries showing up against Mr. Smith's findings, and they wreak of chemical companies' agenda through their paid professional lobbyists and nay-sayers. Let anyone in doubt research for themselves the facts that Mr. Smith has brought to light. The facts speak for themselves. GM 'food' is clearly no longer food as Nature intended for life. It kills those who eat it, some slower than others. It wreaks deadly havoc with the ecosystem for years to come, decades to come. It is the creation of greed and immorality. It is not the result of beneficent scientists. It is time we stop this immorality in the USA as Europe did long ago. LET US LIVE ALREADY, and support this movement to ban GM foods and the foul-mouth chemical companies can do just fine with less profits reaped upon the death of innocent ignorant humans.
11/7/2007
It seems to me that the burden of proof rests on those creating these new and possibly unstable varieties of food, to prove that they are, indeed safe, and that the long term results are indeed a huge health benefit to the human race. It is not wisdom on their part, I think, to push ahead without the necessary testing, research and investigation into the allegations that make so many people hesitant to trust them. This polarity between the two extremes of opinion will not go away, but will increase, if there is not due diligence done on the part of those hoping to lead our world into a new frontier of experimentation, using us as the guinea pigs.
11/7/2007
I have a collection of about 200 well researched papers, including Jeffrey's books, most recent ones 'Genetic Roulette'. I have directly communicated with scientists particularly Dr Irina Ermakova. Armed with this knowledge, I wrote several papers published on www.globalresearch.ca and www.thepeoplesvoice.org and spoke against GMOs in People's SARRC summit (March 2007, Kathmandu) and a resolution was passed by 30,000 participants, unanimously, to ban GMOs in South Asia. During my 45 minute power point presentation two members of Parliament from India, one economist from Bangladesh, and two leading environmentalists were present. Few, rather none had heard of GMOs, GM seeds, or GM foods. We mustered the support of 6.5 million farmers, who authorized me and KB Chaudhary to implead on their behalf in the Supreme Court to ban GM seeds. If in the light of these evidences (including Jeffrey's Hidden Dangers in Kids Meal and William Engdahl's singular article "The Geo-Politics of Seeds' and Irina's rat studies) the Governments of South Asia continue to allow open field trials of genetically engineered seeds, since the Governments and their Regulators are insisting on the safety of GM foods, let all Parliaments (including the British) serve only GM foods in their respective canteens. If at the end of five years the Parliamentarian survive or remain healthy, the safety of GM foods should not be questioned. If however, they die or get diseased, then we would have gotten rid of two WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: The MPs and GM foods." Farmers' cash flow analysis shows that GM seeds will destroy them; 70% of farmers' suicides (being painstaking documented by Kishor Tiwari) are accounted for by those who used GM seeds. Not one independent bio-safety assessment has been done in India; despite Supreme Court's order to the Govt to produce report of allergencity tests, the Attorney General has been obfuscating the issue. GM seeds are being promoted in the most questionable manner. GM foods are being slipped in without biosafety assessment. Thank you
11/7/2007
Thank you for publishing Jeffrey Smith's article. I have hadsome VERY strange problems for a number of years, such as a very debilitating skin condition I have had for 15 years. Dermatologists tell me they don't know what causes it and there is no cure. Some things make it better, but very slowly. Eliminating all toxins from my environment, living in the country, not using chemicals in my home or on my body all helped. But the improvement of my condition accelerated when I stopped eating most MG foods. I emailed the company that makes most of what I used to eat. They admitted using GM ingredients but said they're safe because the FDA says so. That's fraud, folks! GM foods need to be labeled. It may take years, but sooner or later this is going to come back and bite these companies. In the meantime, countless people will suffer. The other serious problem is that GM pollen can contaminate organic and heirloom plants, and that could essentially destroy our food industry. Already, many countries are refusing any food products from the US, and that is hurting our farmers and our balance of trade badly. And then there is terminator seed. Plants from these seeds will not grow viable seeds, and this is intended to force farmers to buy new seed each year. In the third world, farmers won't be able to afford this, and this will ultimately cause massiave famine in the third world. THIS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED! These processes are totally haphazard. They have NO idea what they are doing. Remember how we were always told to wash insecticides off our fruit and vegetables? How can you do that if the insecticide is an integral part of the plant? You can't! So here we are, having been told that having insecticides ON our produce is dangerous, but somehow having insecticides IN our produce is perfectly safe. Wake up, folks! Just insist they label the foods and let the consumer decide. If they're afraid to label them, that tells me they don't even believe their own claims.
11/7/2007
It is only when we see through the eyes of big agri- business centred on patents and the Governments that support both, beginning with the US and including my own Government that we can comprehend the reasons for the push for GM crops and with it, biofuels and GM biofuels that serve the same purposes. On a scientific basis, there is an increasing body of credible evidence by independent scientists of the serious hazards that the GE process and its products, GMOs/LMOs pose on multiple dimensions of biosafety. The irreversible impacts on global biodiversity due to contamination at the molecular level are amongst the most serious; of a magnitude that puts the fall out of GM contamination as one of the most serious threats facing our world along with 'Climate Change'. Unlike 'CC' however, there is no action that will reverse their impacts. Each of the other impacts is serious enough on its own,to warrant a world-wide moratorium. They include agriculture, the security of our foodchain, human and animal health, the ethical dimension and the right to choice which GM annihilates. On the other hand, 15 years of the commercialisation of GM crops in the US, Canada followed by other countries have not demonstrated benefits, except as touted by the GE biotech industry and the Governments that support it. It is therefore irresponsible and even criminal to continue to expose our Planet to GM crops. The 'Precautionary Principle' is a firm ethical & scientific principle that must be honoured and followed for this technology that has little scientific merit.
11/7/2007
It is notable that the issues raised by Smith, in both this and his other analyses, do not raise a far more rational and scientific response to the predictably idiotic rejoinder all too common whenever genetic engineering of our food is questioned. Surely it would be far more rational and scientific to repeat the numerous studies that have and do raise questions around the safety of food derived from GM crops rather than question the methodology and science, usually on the most spurious and questionably irrelevant grounds. Until we do have better, more transparent and open long term, peer reviewed scientific studies that demonstrably prove the safety of these products – not just on animals but on humans, who have rather different metabolic and digestive systems – then it would be irresponsible to not continue to question the spurious and subjectively self-interested scientific studies that are presently deemed to be both relevant and sufficient. Smith has framed the hard questions that have been asked by a broad sector of both science and society. It is high time that he - and by extension, the rest of us - get some proper, science based response. Oh yes, and selective ninety-day feeding studies on rats just don’t cut it when we are looking at long term safety. Especially when those tests do indeed raise some alarming questions that demand further interrogation. Scientists only can blame themselves for the backlash against this technology by their own obfuscation.
11/7/2007
Until such time as Mr. Smiths information, all of which is based on verifiable facts, NOT JUST OPINIONS, is proven wrong, then the only rational mindset toward this rather alarming revelation is to insist, and legally mandate, that we play it safe. If, for the sake of argument, we more fully study some of the more important issues raised here, then it would be the objective rational approach toward satisfying the requirement of science in a more well rounded and represented approach. It will not do, however, for only the GM industry vested interests to fund, and thereby control, the results. I submit the world is watching and the truth will eventually come out. Why not play it safe? What would the parents who work with, or for, any of the GM companies do if it were found that it directly contributed to a compromise of the health of their child? Then there is the overriding issue of who will be liable for the damage, were it to become clear that certain companies, and individuals, were negligent in their responsibility to "do the right thing" and safeguard the health of the consumers, if not their own children? I think it is time for the GM industry to realize that this problem is not going to be overlooked and that the truth about the risks will be brought to the public.
11/7/2007
I believe and support the point of view of Mr. Smith. Also of Deborah Garcia's Documentary "The Future of Food". My child experienced a scary episode of anaphylactic shock due to soy in a beverage. We had to rush him to the hospital when his airway began to constrict. He also has a life threatening allergy to peanuts. I believe that the co relationship between the introduction of GM products in the food industry, and the alarming rise in food allergies among children is much to alarming to ignore or disregard. One question, if Bt corn is a registered Pesticide and espresses the pesticide in the pollen, could this be a factor in the disappearance of so many bees? Just a question.
11/7/2007
Thanks to GMOs, I cannot buy regular corn at the grocery store any more. My son cannot tolerate corn, unless it is organic... He has asthma attacks and breaks out with eczema so bad that he bleeds. It is incredible to think that people will introduce pesticides in the DNA of our food! The Europeans are so much more careful than we are about these things. I don't blame them for not wanting to import certain foods from us. Unfortunately, the land of the free allows people the freedom to ruin our food supply.
11/7/2007
Just as the defense department and the aerospace industry have a revolving door between the military and industry executives, so too does the biotech food industry have a revolving door between with the FDA and the CDC. Is it any wonder the supposed "authorities" find no evidence of Mr. Smith's claims? Follow the money.
11/7/2007
Mr. Smith's motive is the health of people and the earth. The motive of the corporations is profit and if they hurt or kill people getting the profits, they do not care. Remember: smoking will not hurt you.
11/7/2007
The FDA has at best a very unsatisfactory track record. Vioxx, Bextra, etc.Why anyone in their right mind would not run from anything the FDA 'deems' safe astounds me. Some research in schools and universities is paid for by coorporations who need the results in their favor.You cannot be serious in questioning the public's response to FrankenFoods. I trust the FDA to do the right thing as much as I trust the government, Big Business and Pig Pharma.
11/7/2007
Noone seems to recognize or will admit that the problems with the raw almonds and the bees don't come from the organic almond companies or the organic honey producers. GMOs will make our problems even worse. Everyone admits that they won't be sure of what the GMOs will do to people for many years. I frankly don't want to be a test case. The bee problem comes from pesticides. The bees get drugged by the pesticides and can't find their way back to their hives. The big almond farms don't use TLC with their products like the organic almond farms. We need to stop using GMOS, stop using pesticides and grow everything organically. Animals need to be fed more humanely and not stuffed together in a little space.
11/7/2007
After looking at the posts in response to Mr. Smith’s article, I grabbed the nearest unread Science News to see what might be relevant in it. (Nota bene: It was not a random selection. It just happened to be on top. There could have been a whole rash of articles published in September about human biology. I could also be lying about not having read it first.) There are 19 articles in this issue, October 20, 2007, Vol. 172, No. 16. Nine of those articles are about new research in human biology on a cellular to genetic level. (If we “know” so much about how our bodies work, why on earth are we doing so much research on it?) One of the major articles discusses how human pathogens make themselves at home on plants, crossing the so-called species barrier. (p. 250-251) Would you like your E. coli on your salad or on the side? Burkholderia cepacia complex products, (p. 251) made from various strains of B. cepacia bacteria that grow on onions, have been used to clean herbicides out of groundwater and control some agricultural diseases. At least two BCC products were registered with the EPA. By the 1980s, these bacteria were linked to severe lung infections in people with cystic fibrosis. In 2003, improved methods of identifying bacterial strains allows researchers to say “a BCC strain collected from rotting onions during the 1940s was the same one isolated from a person with cystic fibrosis.” The EPA is not approving BCC products these days, which I’m sure makes people with CF feel a lot better. What’s this got to do with Genetically Mutilated Organisms? (Unsavory fear mongers who read irresponsible propaganda and are suspect of new technologies can be just as sarcastic as the biotechnology community, on or off their high horses. When did name-calling become a scientific methodology?) To answer the first question, what we don’t know may hurt us. And apparently we don’t know quite a bit. Otherwise, why are scientists doing all this research? Why should I put questionable food in my mouth so Monsanto can make money? What’s in it for me? It takes a 10% change in human DNA to produce a chimpanzee instead of a person. It takes a lot less change than that to produce what we now call a “special” child. That you are what you eat is a basic fact of life we need to start dealing with.
11/7/2007
The fact that genetic engineering does not target specific genes in the DNA of an organism is enough reason to avoid them at any cost! Anyone who has done any research into modern conventional industrial agriculture will know the entire scope and aim is quantity of product regardless of nutritional content or detrimental effects on the environment. Genetic Pollution will be the outcome if these inherently dangerous creations are allowed (by a forever-corrupt FDA) to be unleashed in large numbers. And, if anyone knows the extent of damage that will cause, they certainly are keeping it a secret until their fortunes are made.
11/7/2007
We are living in an age of transition. At one point in the past the practice of science was a calling, something one practiced following an ethical standard of impartiality, seeking only the truth. We have shifted into an age when much of 'science' is conducted for the benefit of business and financial enterprises that we have lost that ethical basis. What is most troubling about this debate about GMO foods is that the small and lone voices like Jeffrey Smith may be the few who are telling the truth. It was only a few years ago that we encouraged menopausal women to use hormone replacement therapy as a protective measure against heart disease. Still within in memory were the days when this therapy involved unopposed estrogen. Knowledge changes; much that we once thought proven now appears absurd to have believed. That this magazine had the courage of printing a dissenting opinion such as this one is a holdover to a bygone age when open debate on matters of science was still encouraged. If we can't examine each and everyone of Mr. Smith's claims and prove them false, we may be in serious trouble.
11/7/2007
Why fix something that isn't broken? A recent study showed organic produce contained 40% more antioxidants. I didn't need studies to know this. I grow as much as I can(organically) and then trust the organic label. If most Americans knew what was going on in agriculture today,they too would be appalled. Thank you Mr.Smith for raising public awareness! What about democracy here in our country? Genetically engineered crops are able to contaminate even organic crops. The past rice contamination,lucky for us wasn't coded for a vaccine or industrial chemical. But what havoc it caused!When are we going to wake up and realize this is a bad deal? Will it take something tragic? 10 years of commercialization(gmo's)is a blip compared to over 10,000 years of experience. History usually tells the story...as well as recalls. People should have a choice whether to consume these novel products or not. The past green revolution proved how toxic chemicals were/are...now with the new gene revolution(with some of the same players)tells the public not to worry. What about OUR genetic heritage? Is it being stolen or given away? Last poll I saw showed most Americans already want these products labeled.
11/7/2007
The moneyed interests behind GM foods are the same ones who resist, kicking and screaming, any attempts to label GM foods. Why not let the people choose? If GM food is so good for us, then there's nothing to hide from and nothing to lose by labeling them as such. Whether you think they're informed and educated, or not, consumers have the right to know what kind of food or food product they are eating.
11/7/2007
I suspected that the big guys weren'ttelling us the whole story but geez! I already have major allergy problems with new ones developing all the time. This issue really concerns me as I try to raise good wholesome foods to feed my family and then to find this out. They need to ban gm foods and if they don't do that then they need to give us a choice and label the foods.
11/7/2007
The more I have read independent studies of GM food (not studies performed or commissioned by biotech industries themselves) the more I am convinced this technology is inherently dangerous. Our understanding of interactions at the genetic level are miniscule at best, so we should refrain from playing God with the lives and health of people and the planet. I, for one, am aghast that we in the U.S., as yet, have no labelling of these dangerous components in our food supply. What do the biotech industries have to fear if their product is, in fact, truly safe? I make it a point to avoid anything non-organic that may contain modified ingredients such as soy, corn, canola, cottonseed oil. When it comes to trusting the "science", I trust any independent scientist not making a profit on his or her research over any so-called "research" that comes out of or is commissioned by companies looking to make a killing, and literally that is what they are doing to us and the planet.
11/7/2007
The issue to me isn't whether genetically modified foods cause allergies or other health issues. Quite simply, it boils down to this, which many posters have echoed: All people should have the right to choose what they feed themselves and their families. Can anyone honestly make a case for NOT labeling GMO foods?!! If so, I'd love to hear it.
11/7/2007
If there is no danger, then why the conspiracy to avoid comprehensive ingredient labeling??? In a world where shortcuts are the norm, and science and biotechnology are advancing at light speed, there will be many times that these experts just don't know the long term effects of genetic alterations. They really can't be sure and I see no one issuing a written guarantee. The consumers have the right to know exactly what is in their food supply, down to the milligram. Label it all, down to the milligram, and let the consumer decide. It's a free country and we decide what we put in our mouth, not the FDA or the corporations. Just because something is similar to a natural organism, does not mean it is exact, and there is a real difference in the end product. An example is Splenda. They change one hydrogen molecule to a chlorine molecule. Once the molecular is changed, it is no longer the same natural organism. Even though it is derived from sugar and tastes like sugar, it's no longer actually sugar. And is someone telling me here there was a comprehensive 10 year double blind study performed and funded without conflict of interest? Comprehensive ingredient labeling is the minimum requirement, and this should not even be a debate. The FDA should do it's job.
11/7/2007
Obviously GM foods are "inherently" unsafe, If they are so safe why couldn't it be proven to unpartial judges in the EU? FDA approval dosn't mean anything when the FDA is controlled by the BioTech industry... who in the world would be stupid enogh to eat GM foods?
11/7/2007
Personally, I strongly advise my patients to avoid GM foods. The science, to me, presents strong evidence of harm. In my 25 years of practice I am seeing a sicker and sicker patient population, and I have no doubt that GM foods are a significant contributor.
11/7/2007
I am now an informed consumer. It wasn't the easiest thing to discover that many of the food products I and my family were eating were GMO's (genetically modified) as none of them are labeled. I believe in the right to know what I'm eating. I now shop in markets that are mostly non-GMO or organic because I want only the best food in my body. I feel the healthiest I've ever been. I am in awe of Jeffry Smith and his well documented articles on the food allergies caused by GMOs and I am scared of the unknown future and the effects of GMOs on Homo Sapiens and the environment.
11/7/2007
Since Macbeth is so interested in looking into matters, look into twenty years of FSIS food contamintation, then corrolate this information with release of GM crops and medicines. Ask why Monsanto has sickened and killed our own military and millions of Vietnamese with Agent Orange? Go back to find out what kind of man started this company and how he dealt with owning people, then the companies control of owning the food supply on a global scale. Look at how we import many of these scientist in order to avoid ethics standards. Look into why Berkley is taking a 500 million dollar bribe to develope energy based on genetically engineered crops. Christ do I need to go on, it isn't necessarily about my own personal temple and GM affects, it's the business of controlling the food supply on a global scale. And guess what there is no food security when we leave these matters up to an unsustainable business practice that thinks it is their right to own what nature and agronomist have procurred to nourish civilization.
11/7/2007
Since Macbeth is so interested in looking into matters, look into twenty years of FSIS food contamintation, then corrolate this information with release of GM crops and medicines. Ask why Monsanto has sickened and killed our own military and millions of Vietnamese with Agent Orange? Go back to find out what kind of man started this company and how he dealt with owning people, then the companies control of owning the food supply on a global scale. Look at how we import many of these scientist in order to avoid ethics standards. Look into why Berkley is taking a 500 million dollar bribe to develope energy based on genetically engineered crops. Christ do I need to go on, it isn't necessarily about my own personal temple and GM affects, it's the business of controlling the food supply on a global scale. And guess what there is no food security when we leave these matters up to an unsustainable business practice that thinks it is their right to own what nature and agronomist have procurred to nourish civilization.
11/7/2007
I also blindly believe and support the biotech industry and "stand firmly on the side of most scientists and the FDA regarding the safety of GM foods". We must remember that the FDA and their scientists are more intelligent than us and have much higher expenses. If we are nice to them they might give us some of their money so I'm with the 'smart' people and don't need or want to see any real science. Any-one who insists on real science or food labeling is an unpatriotic "conspiracy theorist". This GMO issue may appear to be all about money, taking "sides" and name calling and although there isn't any-thing more important than increasing the profits of large corporations and maintaining the status quo, there is much more at stake here. People who reject this great new 'science' and eat organic foods threaten the economy of the USA and undermine the great work of the past few decades. Educate yourselves here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&q=codex&hl=en This video provides the background information necessary for a more complete understanding of the real issue. Copy and paste to watch the video and learn.... or keep quiet and eat what the great ones provide, they have improved on nature and know what's best for us. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&q=codex&hl=en
11/7/2007
It's not a matter of "who would be stupid enough to eat gm", it's a matter of keeping the population in the dark, ill informed and unable to make an informed decission. If they don't know their being used as guinea pigs, what better blind test could there be? Ofcourse, we won't know the actual results in the end anyway since tracing back who ate what when and whether it was gm or not will be impossible without labeling. I think the deterioration of the populations health in the last decade since gm has been introduced should be an indicator. Question, WHAT IS WRONG WITH FOOD THE WAY IT IS?????? GMO crops don't make better food, they just make more $$$ for the Biotechs. I have a small farm. Tell me why my chickens will not eat the layerpellet mix any more? They used to love it. Now the chickens, the mice we have problems with, and even the goat(who eats everything) turn their noses up at it and will not eat it. It's not organic, and probably contains soya for it's protein boost... GM soya that is. Of course I don't know, it's not labeled....must be something else since the "recipe" hasn't changed? I trust the animals senses over Biotech & Pollitics. Label the GM food like every other ingredient, I'll make the choice. If we don't get a handle on this soon, we will loose(if we haven't already) the ability to grow any food crop that isn't GM contaminated due to cross pollination. Then again maybe this would be a good thing, it would lower the worlds excessive population through sickness and starvation. It would be the best way to reduce global warming with such a reduced demand in consumption... It would eliminate pollitics since it's likely with Mergers we'll end up with one Biotech giant controlling the worlds food supply & thus power.... hey... bring on the GM People! Keep up the great research J.Smith!
11/7/2007
I agree with Jeffry Smith's conclusions. How can GMOs be considered safe without long range safety testing? The FDA's initial premise that genetically engineered foods are equivalent to conventional foods is laughable in view of the fact that its own scientists stated that there were serious differences and concerns. In order to get a patent on a genetically engineered food, proof must be provided that it is different. The fact that both domestic animals such as cattle and wild animals such as wild geese, will ignore GE crops and favor conventioanlly grown crops, signifies there is a distinct difference. During the GMO Star Link corn incident,there were proven cases of anaphaltic reactions where the individuals had to go to a hospital emergency room. Tests performed by independent groups by feeding genetically engineered foods to animals have shown serious damage to their internal organs. Why are these results being ignored? Why does not the FDA demand proof of the safety of genetically engineered foods.
11/7/2007
Simple answer: Shop at Whole Foods.
11/7/2007
I along with 10% of the population am allergic to wheat. I have been very angry for some time knowing that GM wheat is probably the problem. I also have a problem with corn. This has limited my life for the past 6 years considerably. Look at Autism, taking kids off wheat is helping them. Is this outrageous epidemic caused by the GM's? Every one who eats needs to be aware of what is in their food. If there is a lawyer out there ready to take this on I will be the first to sue.
11/7/2007
It just seems strange to me that when a herd of hungry cattle are offered two bins of feed they will eat until both bins are completely empty. When that same hungry herd is offered two bins of grain - one natural and one genetically modified - they will only eat the natural bin to the bottom and leave the genetically modified feed. Peculiar, isn't it? "Food" for thought anyway. Well, this little fact alone is reason enough for me to never knowingly offer my child foods or food products derived from anything genetically modified. I have zero faith in genetically modified crops, be they food/ingredient bearing or cotton or otherwise. Sorry science-folks, I think your time would be better spent elsewhere ... like curing diseases, eliminating global dimming/ending global warming, building a time machine, creating a flotation device that polar bears like so they don't have to drown, saving our bees, creating a pill that ends racism, sexism, and hatred in general, or just spending your days playing golf ... anything else really. I guess, in summation ... nature made our food right the first time just let nature take it's course and leave well enough alone.
11/7/2007
We are not experiments for the profit of the greedy companies like Monsanto. Are their children going to eat this garbage, even cattle (proven) won't go to the bins and eat the GMO corn! This is America and we have a RIGHT to eat what WE WANT...and what we don't want is to get sick over your untested, unclean, ludicrous junk. Instead of caring about people's welfare all you care about is your pocket books.
11/7/2007
The Government needs to quite making all this fake food and synthetic vitamins. God gave us the means to repair our body's till the government stepped in and said these drugs are better. Yes some have helped a lot but others have been invented to cover up all the problems that GM Foods have caused. The Government need to remember whom it needs to protect and that is not BIG CORP. BUSINESS. They will cause the fall of man kind. And I am not ready to die of any disease. If you think back 40 years ago cancer was not killing the young & old the way it is now. Our lack of nutrition because of GM foods is whats killing us. Remember God did provide we have just messed it all up.
11/7/2007
Each passing generation inherits a food supply that is less and less nutritional, suplements that are artificial and the list goes on... then "some" wonder why our children are sicker than ever. We are bombarded by pharma companies with more poisons that "may" or "might" relieve symptoms when natural, "real" foods can and have nourished and kept us healthy... Stop playing God and compromising lives and the environment! I am completely against tampering with genes, gene-splicing and the like!
11/7/2007
This is ABOUT MUCH MORE than only GMO foods. I agree with Roxanne: IT IS TIME TO BECOME EDUCATED and pick "sides" WATCH THIS VIDEO AND WAKE UP! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&q=codex&hl=en
11/7/2007
Why don't we alter the genes of our biotech workers. Perhaps we can implant a conscience or at least a good feel for the fact that we all live on earth together. Maybe we could find a genetic marker for BLIND GREED and RECKLESSNESS. Then we could simply "eliminate" those traits from embryos we know will turn out to be defective humans, i.e. biotech workers. Just kidding! I actually think the people working at big corporations like Monsanto and others are doing a great job of eliminating all the positive things about life on earth by creating environmental disasters, maintaining never-ending wars across the globe, supporting political corruption and destroying the food supply. Happy, healthy human life is already headed down the toilet. Why don't we just "go with it"?
11/7/2007
The FDA has a spotty history in which their competent scientists are trumped by political appointees who are recruited from the industries they are assigned to regulate. In other words, Mr. Fox, how would you like to guard the chicken coops? When "findings" emerge from the FDA, in which these "regulators" ignore their own scientists to find GMOs safe for public consumption, public health educators like myself find such "regulation" wanting. This process violates a basic and important protection for the public--the precautionary principle. If one reads Mr. Jeffrey Smith's writing closely it adheres to the principles of good scientific debate. Your magazine's endorsement of the FDA does not.
11/7/2007
I'm generally unimpressed by the comments in this blog re: Jeffery Smith's article. Mostly they are anecdotal and have nothing to do with an evaluation of Mr. Smith's science. I'm equally unimpressed by the reaction of the GMO industry to Mr. Smith's writings. Mostly he is attacked as a kook and we are told that "years of consumption by the public prove it is safe." Which is equally anecdotal and relying on lack of evidence as proof -- a poor scientific method. I would think the best thing the GMO industry could do -- if they are proud of the product they make and to shut Mr. Smith up once and for all -- is to support double-blind, independently run, studies on large populations of test animals. And if they can find the volunteers, on people. (I'd think a lot of GMO supporters would volunteer?) If and when these tests show GMO is completely safe, they should proudly label every product their GMO ingredients appear. Then those who want to promote GMOs can vote with their wallets, and those who want to avoid GMOs can do likewise. But the GMO industry has not been forthcoming on support for double-blind, independently run, studies. One wonders why. Test it, Label it, and move on.
11/8/2007
The evolutionary processes over millions of years has not equipped man and other life forms to cope adequately - on a biological level - with genetically modified (GM) food. No short-term research with GM food can replicate its long-term effects on living organisms - such as would be encountered over countless generations. Therefore, no one can substantiate the harmlessness of GM food in the long-term. It is likely that GM food science is driven by $$$$s - not by any interest in the welfare of human and other consumers. If bees can die merely from contact with pollen from GM corn, imagine what unseen effects GM food can have over a lifetime of human/animal consumption?
11/8/2007
The funny thing about science is that you only find what you're actually looking for - if you're lucky. So many years of people eating GM products with no scientifically proved side effects sounds reassuring until you realise that few studies have actually been done. Anecdotal evidence is sometimes all we have, and sometimes we should trust our common senses. If something smells bad, it's usually best to avoid it. It's remarkable how many dangerous and disastrous things science has given us while assuring us that they were safe. Thalidomide is just one example. I would be reassured of the safety of GM technology if the companies concerned were prepared to accept liability in the event of anything going wrong. Their ardent resistance to such responsibility does suggest they are not certain that all is well. And if they are not certain, why should we be?
11/8/2007
The article makes some very relevant points and does so in a scientific way. It therefore should not be dismissed as much of the writings of those opposed to GM food usually is.
11/8/2007
I would say that Jeff's Smith lack of publications in a peer reviewed journal is what QUALIFIES his credibilty. I have an advanced degree, and I know how the research business works. 'Publish or Perish' is the name of the game in many institutions and how suprising that most of the grant money comes from big industry (pharma, dairy, meat, etc) and how suprising that they often have final review on the results and that they basically buy the research to back up whatever it is that they are selling. WAKE UP. Or are you just one of those paid spin-masters who spend their days trying to undo the damage that real public awareness is creating for your masters.
11/8/2007
When food is correctly labeled to show whether it's genetically modified, I will not buy any product that contains GM ingredients.
11/8/2007
Animals don't read peer-reviewed studies; they obey Nature instead. Too bad humans don't have this kind of biological sensitivity. We have to become very sick in order to question what we are swallowing, be it GMO food or official scientific and medical claims of safety. Those who posted an assertion of "no evidence" of harm or who used ad hominem smear words the author -- don't represent the more "complex truth" that includes allergic reactions, injuries to livestock, etc. as reported in the independent press (e.g. AcresUSA). Genes function as master templates for making proteins. When you change the gene, don't you also change the protein that it creates? If the protein made by the engineered gene is different, and if you insist that we must eat this stuff, where are we going to get the enzymes to break down these new proteins? Will the metabolites going to trigger auto-immune or allergic problems in sensitive people? Citing short-term rat studies, and closing ranks to condemn independent voices as unscientific and ignorant, is unconvincing. Let the owners of biotech companies, their shareholders, and their in-house scientists show their confidence in the validity and thoroughness of the science they are doing by volunteering themselves AND THEIR OWN CHILDREN as test subjects for a long-term study scrutinized by independent skeptics to ensure that the parameters and methods are not skewed from the outset, and that the procedures are honestly carried out. The raw data as well as the interpretative conclusions should both be made public. Then when we all observe the continued robust good health -- or otherwise -- of the biotech-company's own test subjects including their children, we will have acceptable evidence of whether their GMO foods are safe or not. Or do the scientific cognoscenti apply the precautionary principle only on behalf of their own families? In 2004, the American EPA offered cash and electronic gadgets to low-income (and low education) families to induce them enter their children in the deceptively-named "CHEERS" study -- designed to observe the effects of intentional exposure to pesticides. If you are going to expose children to toxins, shouldn't it be the offspring of the pesticide company owners and marketing department heads? The folks who are are always telling us these poisons are OK on our foods and in our yards, who stand to profit from sales, are the folks who should put THEIR OWN BODIES and those of their HEIRS on the line for this sales pitch. If they won't do so, then we are entitled to skepticism about the claim of safety!
11/8/2007
MR. Weiss's comment:"It is sad but true that intellgent people have been and will continue to be agitated to act against what is truly in their best interests." Who are you to determine what is in my, and the rest of humanities, best interest???? You know better than Nature, of course. Species are dying out, the Monarch butterfly population has dwindled as a result of GM crops. ARE YOU THAT BLIND? Are you trying so desperately to hold on to your job security that you are willing to risk the well-being of future and current generations. Autism rates have SKYROCKETTED with the UNINVITED and ILLEGALLY HIDDEN inclusion of GM foods. This is America, we are supposed to be a FREE country, gov't BY the people, FOR the people. Not BY the CORP for the CORP. How dare you??
11/8/2007
Since E.coli has been in use as the most efficient and infectious transgene is it any wonder we see reports like this from the BBC on a regular basis: Number of E.coli farm cases rises More cases of a virulent form of E.coli have been found on farms in Wales and South West England, mainly Somerset and Wiltshire, the Soil Association said. The strain, known as Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase E.coli, was first discovered in Wales in 2004. Richard Young, from the Soil Association, said: "Since then, it has been found in 32 farms across the UK." A spokeswoman for DEFRA confirmed the number of cases and said it was monitoring the situation. The strain causes urinary infections, of which there were 30,000 human cases last year, which can ultimately be fatal. 'Increasing cases' Mr Young added: "Studies outside the UK show that it can move [from animals] to humans. But it is hard to track these things. "The worry is that there is an increasing number of cases in farms." A spokeswoman for DEFRA said on the farms where the strain had so far been identified there was no human disease. The Soil Assocation wants to stop animals being sold from any infected farm, and for a review into some antibiotics used in dairy farming which it believes helps the spread of the strain. DEFRA said it recognised the second concern.
11/8/2007
Monarch butterflies have not been affected by GM crops. Please take the time to read all the scientific literature. See http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/21/11937%20.
11/8/2007
Accountability is the key indicator here. Those that support commercialization of GM products make many assertions of safety but accept no accountability. I find confidence in a product and its science not through their arguments but by their actions. ** They have resisted double blind studies for decades. ** They muzzle or denigrate those that criticize without addressing the issues raised. **They will not accept liability for damages caused by their product. **They do not want GM products labelled on food products.--- That Monsanto, whose criminal disregard of human safety is documented often and widely in court records around the world, is one of the giant forces behind GM advocacy should be enough to set alarm bells ringing. At least Jeffrey Smith lists his sources and the studies on which he bases his considered criticism of the risks of GM foods.
11/8/2007
You know we all can sit here and debate this till the cows don't come home. I know nutrition or the lack of is killing way to many young & old. And it does not stop there our animals are paying for all of this also. People use to be compassionate and now this world has become very ugly place. And it is because our brains are maul functioning because of the lack of nutrition in our food. And that is why so many of us are over weight. We all just need to wake up.
11/8/2007
One has to wonder, was the 'Wake up and smell the what' comment genuine, or posted by a gmo-lobbying knuckle-head, in an attempt to obscure meaningful dialog on this subject. I would say the latter. I am so proud of all the intelligent, articulate people who know so much about the dangers of gmo crops on this blog. It is really heartening to see so much involvement, the next step is to move forward with action. My family has been completely organic since reading Jeff Smith's book, and we have spread the word to as many family and friends who will listen. The reaction is always the same; stunned silence, and then anger. The time has come for the MANDATORY LABELLING of all GM products. Write your Congressman/woman. Tell them your vote depends on it. This is what our country is all about, take it back!
11/8/2007
One has to wonder, was the 'Wake up and smell the what' comment genuine, or posted by a gmo-lobbying knuckle-head, in an attempt to obscure meaningful dialog on this subject. I would say the latter. I am so proud of all the intelligent, articulate people who know so much about the dangers of gmo crops on this blog. It is really heartening to see so much involvement, the next step is to move forward with action. My family has been completely organic since reading Jeff Smith's book, and we have spread the word to as many family and friends who will listen. The reaction is always the same; stunned silence, and then anger. The time has come for the MANDATORY LABELLING of all GM products. Write your Congressman/woman. Tell them your vote depends on it. This is what our country is all about, take it back!
11/8/2007
Oh dear Lady Macbeth, you really are avoiding reality. Although not an apologist for wealth creators in industry,I know that company law states industy IS responsible - legally - for all the products it peddles - unlike NGO claims. Take companies to court if damage is beleived to have been done. Damage has NOT been done - that's the point. Check out your sources. They stand up to scrutiny, unlike Mr Smith's.
11/8/2007
There just aren't enough unbiased, long-term, independent scientific studies done on GM products to determine that they are safe, either to the human physiology, or the environment. It's just a function of corporate greed to make these products available without complete long-term testing and without full-disclosure. I don't feed them to my children!
11/8/2007
ever heard of google Macbeth?? Results 1 - 10 of about 27,100 for monarch butterflies gmo crops kill. (0.15 seconds) Monarch butterfly killed by GM pollen (BT maize)Monarch Butterfly deaths from GM pollen. Genetically modified crops may kill Monarch Butterfly. Monarch butterfly. Monarch butterlies may be threatened by ... www.globalchange.com/monarch.htm - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this Toxic Pollen From Widely Planted, Genetically Modified Corn Can ...Toxic Pollen From Widely Planted, Genetically Modified Corn Can Kill Monarch Butterflies, Cornell Study Shows. ScienceDaily (May 21, 1999) — ITHACA, ... www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990521054837.htm - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
11/8/2007
Dear Reasearcher. We already HAVE labeling in these States! Unlike in good ole' europe, we label when the end product is changed/different from the convnentional equivalent. Duh! In England etc, they label on which process is used rather than on any change to the end product. We would prefer to have sensible traceabilty here in Dunsinane. You have to admit, Researcher, it was certainly most useful in the spinach grown to organic standards example, recalled for e-coli contaminated reasons last year in California.
11/8/2007
I am a naturopathic physician. I deal with food and environmental allergies and sensitivities daily. My patients are coming in with chronic disease at much younger ages. There is an increasing fragility in their physical, mental and emotional health. Many things contribute to this and we need to look at them all. Diet and nutrition has a huge impact. I encourage my patients to eat local, eat organic and eat NGMO. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to our health. This is a time when industry needs to prove beyond doubt that GMO products are safe. If there is any question then GMO products should be taken out of the marketplace. The stakes are too high for anything less.
11/8/2007
For your info Researcher I am trying to protect my 9year old son that has been diagnosed with ADD and that has been proven nutrition loss has a lot to do with his problem. And my dog is fighting cancer thank God she is in remission and this is caused by nutrition and the junk they put in the dog food and in the vaccinations. So you want to call people names you might ought to know where they come from. Because for all I know your the Lobbyist for GM Foods. And you really do not want anyone to wake up.
11/8/2007
my apologies, I too believe that your son's ADD is most likely from the additives in the food, and that your dog's cancer comes from the horrible things they are putting in dog food, plus the pesticides that are being sprayed. We are on the same side :) sorry.
11/8/2007
Thank you for the apology. We all just need to make our Government wake up. We may be fighting a war over seas. But there is a war here and it has to do with saving our own lives from all the money hungry, greedy High Corp Business. I will check back tomorrow to whats up.
11/8/2007
Dear Macbeth, I agree that linking to the source is important as in the GMO StarLink corn recall, it was very helpful. However, prior to it being INGESTED or PURCHASED consumers have the right (informed consent??) to know what they are purchasing. see attached: Taco Bell Recall is a signal Published on: September 25, 2000 by Phil Lempert This past week's recall of Kraft's Taco Bell is a lot more than just an unauthorized GMO in a box. Kraft Foods announced on September 22nd that it was recalling all Taco Bell Home Originals taco shell products which tests showed might contain StarLink, a GMO type of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has not been approved for human consumption. For more information about the brand recall: www.kraftfoods.com/special_report. This announcement further fuels anti-GMO groups and underscores the need for the FDA, USDA and EPA to all join forces to approve GMO labeling and standards.
11/8/2007
Dear Macbeth, I agree that linking to the source is important as in the GMO StarLink corn recall, it was very helpful. However, prior to it being INGESTED or PURCHASED consumers have the right (informed consent??) to know what they are purchasing. see attached: Taco Bell Recall is a signal Published on: September 25, 2000 by Phil Lempert This past week's recall of Kraft's Taco Bell is a lot more than just an unauthorized GMO in a box. Kraft Foods announced on September 22nd that it was recalling all Taco Bell Home Originals taco shell products which tests showed might contain StarLink, a GMO type of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has not been approved for human consumption. For more information about the brand recall: www.kraftfoods.com/special_report. This announcement further fuels anti-GMO groups and underscores the need for the FDA, USDA and EPA to all join forces to approve GMO labeling and standards.
11/8/2007
The pro-GM food brigade must be either employed by Monsanto or they can't read.I hope they have the courage of their convictions and don't eat the food God gave us.
11/9/2007
First of all, may I say that I am proud of Genetic Engineering & biotechnology News for having the courage to let people say what they think on the topic of GMOs. That is, I believe, healthy. I am involved with an organization that has given a forum for contentious issues for almost thirty decades, for the purpose of helping humanity come up with better, and safer, answers. Last spring, we hosted a lecture with Jeffrey Smith in Burnaby, BC, and despite how industry would LIKE this gene-tinkering to be publically accepted, approximately 200 well educated consumers gave Jeffrey Smith a standing ovation. The organization's concern with GMO began about two decades ago, when our Environment Chair & Advocate, Thelma MacAdam, spelled out the lack of adequate testing of this industry driven initiative. She called it a Pandora's Box, and two decades later, her words still hold. Jeffrey Smith, carry on.
11/9/2007
It's totaly bogus. Follow the money. No wonder there isn't any testing. For those of you Democrats out there know that Hillary Clinton is in the pockets of Monsanto........
11/10/2007
Peoples that turn from God, the real One, visible in un-engineered history, suffer plagues they haven't the common sense to avoid.
11/10/2007
The FDA approved Vioxx and other drugs that have killed many thousands of people taking them just as the doctor ordered. So much for FDA approval !!
11/10/2007
I went to a talk given by a Charles Santerre the other day from Purdue University. The topic of the talk was GMO foods and he mentioned allergies in the summary. So i went not knowing what the true intentions of the talk were. He said at the beginning that he was not advocating any position when in fact it was obvious that he was paid for by Monsanto by the end of the talk. Come to find this after the talk.... "Charles Santerre was funded by Monsanto to study how training on food biotechnology can change consumer attitudes favorably toward GM foods." ABC Fails to Disclose Industry Ties of Toxic Kid Critic "Are Industrial Chemicals Killing Kids' Brains?" So read the headline for an ABC News story that ran last week on a new study warning that chemicals could be responsible for a "silent pandemic" of brain impairment in millions of children worldwide. The study, published Nov. 7 in The Lancet, suggests that chemicals may be damaging children's brains more than currently recognized and calls for more research into their toxic effects. "Our big worry is this: If we know there are four or five or six chemicals out there capable of causing brain injury, what about the other chemicals, to this time, that have not been adequately tested?" said Philip J. Landrigan, a professor at New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine, who co-authored the study with Philippe Grandjean, an adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health. So, should parents be concerned? Not according to industry consultant Charles Santerre. Identifying Santerre only as a professor of food toxicology at Purdue University, ABC cited at length his arguments that consumers' exposure to chemicals is much less than it used to be and that the tighter regulations called for in the study would place an unnecessary burden on industry. What the article neglected to mention is that Santerre consults for the seafood-industry group "Salmon of the Americas" and has received funding from pesticide giant Monsanto Co. to promote his software program aimed at food and nutrition professionals. In his talks he said that about 60-70% of all processed foods contain GM ingredients and that basically you are consuming them now without knowing it. Monsanto is way ahead of us in trying to change public perception about GM foods with paid lobbyists masquerading as "scientists."
11/11/2007
The vehemence of denials from the pro-GM0 forces are motivated by greed rather than regard for the health of people everywhere. This leaves ALL people vulnerable to whomever has the power: no one can be confident that our food sources are safe because our Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) is run by former employees of the same seed companies. In recent years, it has been obvious from simple, daily news reports that our FDA is lax and basically in the pockets of food manufacturers and other food interests. Other countries are now pieceing together the true picture, so that eventually these greed/power forces will characterize the U.S. as evil exporters to all the world. Actually, I'd prefer they feel they can trust us.
11/11/2007
To modify foods so that a pesticide or herbicide willbe more effective is clearly done for the benefit of the manufacturers. It is NOT done for the benefit of those who eat the foods. I also note that seed companies have gone to court to confiscate crops of farmers whose crops were contaminated by pollen from engineered seed. How cruel and evil can you get?
11/12/2007
Herald Tribune By Denise Caruso July 4, 2007 The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded. Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease. Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do." Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans. With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.
11/12/2007
Herald Tribune By Denise Caruso July 4, 2007 "The genome is enormously complex, and the only thing we can say about it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn," wrote Barbara Caulfield, executive vice president and general counsel at the biotech pioneer Affymetrix, in a 2002 article on Law.com called "Why We Hate Gene Patents." Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the consortium's findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today's commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals. "The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics," said Heinemann, who writes and teaches extensively on biosafety issues. "Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently," he said, "regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects." "The Nature Genetics editorial, titled "Good Citizenship, or Good Business?," presented its argument as a choice for the industry to make. Given the significance of these new findings, it is a distinction without a difference NCE" that reduces its advocates to the shills they are:
11/12/2007
How can biotechnology scientists ignore the issues that are raised by Jeffrey Smith? Why is the scientific community in the USA so positive to GE foods while many in the rest of the world continue to find issues like those raised by Jeffrey Smith?
11/12/2007
In answer to the question why GM foods are allowed in the US and not Europe, it comes down to this: the best intersts of the corporations are overriding the best intersts of the citizens of this country. Money, money, money. The average American is so uninformed and naive regarding their health and believing that the govt is looking out for their best interests. It is up to each and every one of us to turn off the reality TV and do our homework. Yes, we are all busy, but there is no point in any of it,if our kids, family, friends, are being systematically poisoned, while we keep saying we don't have time, don't know what we can do. Don't count on the newspapers, because they whitewash. Go to the internet and start researching, www.truefoodnow.org is a good place to start. Write letters to the food manufacturers, and grocery stores you shop in, telling them you will NOT buy GM foods. This is what creates change, nothing else. Do not rely on the conscience of corporations, but they will respond to your shopping power.
11/13/2007
As I get older, I have learned that crying wolf is not always what it seems. There were folks clamoring about increased mercury levels in fish years before the issue finally made it into mainstream media and attention. Same with tobacco companies and their vehement denial that there was anything bad about their product, and that there was no "proof" to cause concern about cigarettes or chew or any of their products. All these toys were safe, until they are proven to have lead in them. It's always a case of following the money. Rarely is the money on the same side as the consumer's best interest, very very rarely. In fact, mostly it's the money that causes the jettisoning by certain misguided individuals of the consumer's best interest, so I am always wary when the industry spin system gets defensive as in the case of GMOs. We don't have all the "proof" yet, perhaps... but shouldn't it be the other way around? That the undeniable proof be provided by those who are pushing the GMO technology?
11/14/2007
Here is an example of how we are being subjected to GM foods w/o our knowledge, even when we think we are being diligent about keeping GM foods out of our diet. Almost all processed foods are vitamin fortified, and riboflavin,B2,is one of the fortifiers: "Various biotechnological processes have been developed for industrial scale riboflavin biosynthesis using different microorganisms, including filamentous fungi such as Ashbya gossypii, Candida famata and Candida flaveri as well as the bacteria Corynebacterium ammoniagenes and Bacillus subtilis[4]. The latter organism has been genetically modified to both increase the bacteria's production of riboflavin and to introduce an antibiotic (ampicillin) resistance marker, and is now successfully employed at a commercial scale to produce riboflavin for feed and food fortification purposes. The chemical company BASF has installed a plant in South Korea, which is specialized on riboflavin production using Ashbya gossypii. The concentrations of riboflavin in their modified strain are so high, that the mycelium has a reddish / brownish color and accumulates riboflavin crystals in the vacuoles, which will eventually burst the mycelium."
11/14/2007
Talk about a bias! It sure would be a reasurrance if at least there was not involvement from Monsanto, past and present, in the decision making of the FDA.
11/14/2007
The FDA seems to rely on industrial/corporate studies of our food. As they are hardly impartial, we need the precautionary principle. Playing god with our food is not an option. Corn wind pollinates for 20 miles. Idiots trained in economics are not agronomists. We co-evolved with our food, NOT GMOs. Duh.
11/15/2007
It is important, for the honor and integrity of science, to remember that the FDA's pronouncement of "substantial equivalence" of GMO crops to standard breeding crops was not a scientific statement. It was opposed by their own top five scientists involved in the consideration of the issue. This can be ascertained by reading their comments at www.biointegrity.com
11/15/2007
Sorry. It was www.biointegrity.org.
11/19/2007
I salute Barbara Galle -- it's about time we employed the precautionary principle in regards to the food we put into our bodies. Eons of evolution have produced a fantastic creature in the human being; we had better forego our arrogance & quit manipulating genes, expecting that we have enough figured out to "improve" on our food sources. Worse yet, these manipulations are largely carried out to enrich some very specific pockets--those of big agri-business. Greed has never been a sound basis for "improving" on nature. We need to wake up; support local & organic farmers who work WITH nature to provide us with precious & nutritious food that is in harmony with our bodies.
11/19/2007
It is really very sad that people are simply taken for granted.There has been a loud talk about the harms of GM foods but no body appears to be sincere in their efforts to reach to a solution.FDA in America and the food and drug regulatory agencies in India or any other country appear to be least bothered. God should save the population. Dr K L Mahadevappa Prof and Head, Biochemistry Kempegowda Institute of Medical College Bangalore,KARNATAKA,INDIA-560070
11/19/2007
Genetically Modified Foods are definitely Unsafe. We have been forced to eat them since we have NOT been told that they are genetically modified. And look at the increase in allergies, asthma, and who knows, maybe even autism and diabetes in the population since we have been unknowingly eating these monster foods. How much of such increases are due to them? Has anyone even looked for such a connection?
11/20/2007
Well put Chris Preston. This first reasonable comment I've seen on this thread. I make GMOs for a living. I don't make a ton of money nor am I an evil person. I have a single family home on 1/4 acre in the suburbs. I have a wife a child and a dog. I take pride in my job knowing that I am working hard to prevent famines. I have a clear conscience and I am not greedy. I am frankly astounded by the hostility you folks seem to bear towards me. I rather wish I could meet all of you in person so that I could put a human face to this evil you seem to think I represent. Most of the commenters seem to forget that Whole Foods is a mega-corporation with an agenda as well (it has been very clever the way they re-defined the word "organic" to mean something other than "made of carbon"). If you are truly concerned about good science, you can't get caught up in the propaganda or fear-mongering of either side (Whole Foods or Monsanto). Science is not a democracy and it doesn't care about your opinions and speculations. Science is not a conversation either. Either your hypothesis is true or it isn't, and you can argue as much as you like about whether you think it is true or not, but in this case the facts are clear. GM crops are safe. I actually seek them out and buy them whenever I can (I rather enjoy eating the fruits of my labor, literally). I would suggest that all technophopic consumers of "organic" foods revert to 17th century technologies for all of their consumption habits; textiles, medicines, construction materials, etc. GMO crops produce more food from less land than traditional crops. If you folks were truly concerned about the environment rather than just blithely buying into the marketing pitch of Whole Foods, you would understand the global implications of this fact.
11/20/2007
ok, so you make gmos for a living and you 'prevent famines'. Do you really think that Monsanto is a charitable organization. If they were, they would be donating the billions of dollars spent on creating a monopoly of the food supply, and simply donate those funds to the poor and starving people they claim to be so concerned about. 'science is not a democracy',but last I checked this country is and we have a right to know what we are buying. How are you 'seeking' out the 'fruits of your labor' when they are not labelled?? Pretty much, that is what we are all asking for, is LABELLING. Why is there such resistance to that? Why are you taking away our right to choose? How can you call yourself a scientist and skip the scientific process of testing. Releasing gmos on our environment, our society w/o testing is criminal and one day the people who participated in this whole debacle will be brought to justice. I would vote for any candidate simply on the basis of this platform issue.
11/20/2007
Listen, I get the impression that the reason folks are so susceptible to fear mongering about the food they eat is that with every generation, more and more people become disconnected not only with the sources of their food, but with nature in general. All living things are related to each other. I mean that quite literally and not metaphorically. We're all made of genes and you would be amazed at how many of your own genes are similar or identical to the genes of a tomato or a mushroom, a bacteria or a snail. The fact that we have learned how to imitate the way nature moves functional genes around from diverse organisms is evidence in and of itself of this relatedness. If only automobile parts were so interchangeable between manufacturers. This is one of the many things that makes nature so wonderfully beautiful to a guy like me, and I am humbled every day nature teaches me a new secret to share. Lastly, let's not forget that we live in a rich country and can afford to use twice as much land as necessary just to get over-priced boutique foods from urban corporations with large marketing budgets. Unfortunately, it's harder in the rest of the world and GMOs offer a vastly better solution to hunger than 17th century farming techniques did, and allows us increasingly better solutions than organic chemistry offered us in the last century (and when I say "organic chemistry" I am of course referring to the scientific definition of the word, and not the newest definition given to us by the Whole Foods marketing department). So please, think critically and be reasonable. We scientists really do have the world's best interests in mind, it is what keeps us going to work in the morning. We can't always afford to communicate our strategies or our plans in the most effective way possible (and sometimes we're just bad at it), but that is our failing, not yours, and so you should ask the tough questions, and clamor for them. We're happy to answer. Cheers.
11/20/2007
What you think of as traditional corn is nothing like the hardend, mottled, stunted, black and gray slab of hardiness presented by the Algonquins to our Pilgrim forefathers. It became the way it is by selective breeding and by massive horizontal transfer of genes from other organisms via a naturally occurring virus which picked these genes up from many other living things, and depositing them in may other living things (including corn). Genetic modification and horizontal gene transfer happens in nature every second of every day on a massive scale. It was only our recent understanding of this process that enabled us to replicate the phenomenon in nature. Humans did not invent genetic engineering, nature did, and it's just one of the many mechanism by which speciation occurs. So, if we can't easily define a GMO as an organism that contains a trans-gene from another organism, do we then have to define them by whether they were originally grown in a lab? If so, do hybrid plants then become GMOs? Hybrids, as you probably know, are the result of selective breeding. Take a tomato with a thick skin and cross it with one of a deep red color, and your hybrid tomato is deep red and doesn't bruise as easily. Of course, this crossing was done in a lab, but didn't involve the introduction of non-tomato genes. So what then? Do we now have to classify a GMO as a plant that contains trans-genes which were purposely introduced by a human in a lab? OK great. But what if the trans-gene in question was isolated from a naturally, spontaneously mutated, sterile tomato? Does the transfer of this trans-gene from the sterile tomato to the new progeny tomato qualify them as a GMO? It is still all tomato genes. What is the trans-gene came from a cherry tomato and went into a beefsteak tomato? Are the trans-genes still "tomato-ey" enough? What if the trans-gene came from a cucumber? an apple? a mushroom? a maple tree? a fish? How far removed from the transgenic host in question does the trans-gene
11/20/2007
The science shows that GMOs (and all foods grown with modern materials and techniques) are vastly safer than organic foods which are based on 17th century farming practices. For that reason alone I think it makes sense to make sure that organic foods are the kinds of foods with mandatory warning labels. I absolutely support the labeling of foods that have been demonstrated as unsafe. As soon as you find me a GMO food that has caused an illness humans (which somehow went unnoticed in the pre-market testing all GMOs endure), then I will also advocate safety labels on those GMOs too. Right now though, the only food that demonstrably deserves such caution labels are organics. And speculations simply aren't fact. I can just as easily say that organic food may cause heavy metal poisoning as you could say that GMO soybeans may cause allergies. Until either one of us finds some actual evidence, I don't think either organic or GMO foods will be getting warning labels (and no, correlation is not causation). I also agree with you that any food producer which uses unsafe practices in manufacturing or distributing food should suffer legal consequences. So far the only companies that have produced toxic foods have been organic farms and fast food chains. But maybe your concern isn't based in the science? If so, I still respect your desire for freedom of choice (however irrational that choice may be). The drivers for GMO production is cost and cost alone. The drivers for organic foods are marketing. Organic labels are common not because of government mandates but because advertisers have done a good job of making it a well perceived brand. GMO makers can't afford to spend money on marketing. If you don't believe me, compare the profit margins between Monsanto and Whole Foods. Perhaps that speaks to a better explanation as to why Monsanto is so hated? Incidentally, did you know that Monsanto is also one of the world's largest suppliers of seeds to organic farms? It all big business no matter what the final label. Anyway, back to labeling. So, tell me then how we should go about defining what a GMO actually is, so that we can label them accordingly?
11/20/2007
Now I understand that not everyone has the luxury of being able to buy their GMO food straight from the farm as I do. Labeling would be good for that, but it wouldn't be simple. Before I go into further comments on that, let me first address your accusations that GMOs have somehow not been tested for safety. Safety is important and it must be assured before any new food is approved for human consumption. Since 1998, manufacturers and marketers of new foods (including GMOs) are asked to submit to an FDA evaluation of "Generally regarded as safe" (GRAS) status. The list of GRAS applications can be found here: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/opa-gras.html As you can see, many of the applications are for GMOs of one kind or another, perhaps a third of all new GRAS foods. The conditions that must be met for a GRAS status assignment are very rigorous and include long-term toxicology testing (in animals), stability testing, allergen and other immunological tests, fractional analysis, etc. The process is now very similar to pharmaceutical testing, and requires that manufacturers monitor consumer reaction to new food products (and report these reactions to the FDA) for a period of years after first commercial release. Yes, as with pharmaceuticals (and all things made by imperfect humans), there have been mistakes. The animals-only Starlink corn should not have gotten into the humanfood supply (just as Vioxx should not have been approved for its original indications). But there is always risk that comes with innovation, and no matter how hard you'd like for the world to be the same when you were 12, it won't be, and a new planet and a new population and more people thna ever before will require news ways of thinking abotu everything from food to fuel. Anyway, before I get too diverted, these days most retailers and food makers will not sell foods that have not undergone GRAS status evaluation. In fact the only new foods and food ingredients that can be commonly purchased today that usually haven't undergone rigorous FDA GRAS testing are organically grown foods. Whole Foods is the number one largest retailer in the US of foods that have not been evaluated by the FDA. Numbers of deaths from Starlink corn or Bt potatos or Round-up ready Soybeans = 0, numbers of deaths from bacterially contaminated organic foods = hundreds if not thousands. Don't even get me started on the heavy-metal based chemicals approved for use as "organic" pesticides.
11/20/2007
Monsanto is a for-profit company (like Whole foods). Arguably this fact makes them more motivated to serve the needs of farmers (rich and poor) than a non-profit would. despite this though, Monsanto actually does donate, not only pallets of cash, but seeds and food too. The donations listed on the page below also don't count the vastly discounted, at-cost sales they make to food distribution outfits like UNESCO, the UN and WIC. http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/our_pledge/facing_challenges/donations_chart.asp As far as seeking out the fruits of my labor, I just get it from my farmer friends when they tell me they are using round-up on their crops (I don't live far from the fields). The fact of the matter is that GMO crops have very much meant the difference between a family farm going bankrupt and losing their land. Frankly, it warms the bottom of my heart to know that these friends of mine can sell more product per acre (and thus make more money per acre) than they ever could without GMO. We hunt together on their land and sometimes I think they just keep inviting me to get tips on the newest R&D. Every farmer I know loves growing and eating GMOs. And by the way, in case you were wondering, I'm a Howard Dean democrat.
11/20/2007
Six parts to my reply to the commenter "mother of 2" follow. the fifth was accidentally truncated and what was supposed to follow is pasted below. Each part was pasted in reverse order such that the part that should be read first, was posted most recently. truncated section of fifth part: How far removed from the transgenic host in question does the trans-gene need to be before the progeny are defined as a GMO in your view? At what point does it become unacceptable?
11/21/2007
I agree with the GEN editors that it is sometimes refreshing to open up to an opposing point of view, and this should certainly be the case in the GM debate. Furthermore, I agree with the fact that scientists and risk communicators could probably do a better job in communicating their results on GM risk assessment to a broad audience. It’s not a fair game, however, because it is inherent to human nature to be more susceptible to scaremongering tactics than to a scientifically sound argumentation. Regrettably, the piece by Jeffrey Smith is a sad example of how much misinformation can be compiled in one article. Mimicking the structure of a scientific publication, including references to his own book and to the Daily Express newspaper (!) as credible sources, the author has persistently drawn things out of context and has presented this as “evidence” in his own personal crusade against genetically modified foods. The truth is that there is an enormous amount of scientific data on the health and environmental effects of GM crops. Let’s have a look at Europe: here the world’s most stringent risk assessment procedure is applied for each separate GM crop by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. Much to the dismay of pressure groups, which have made the battle against GM their main “raison d’ être”, the scientific experts could not detect one single problem with GM food thus far, and this after 20 years of meticulous research. In a recent lecture at Cornell University, the head of the EFSA GMO panel, Dr Kuiper, stated that GM foods are "as safe as any other conventional food." In fact, because of the detailed and wide-ranging tests done on GM foods, Kuiper said he thinks they are the "best investigated foods ever." (See http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/Kuiper.kr.html) I fully support the “right to choose” and think every consumer should be encouraged to make his or her own informed choice whether or not to eat GM foods. However, we all have the right to make this decision based on correct information. The article by Jeffrey Smith, claiming facts without evidence, is certainly not helpful in this respect. I can only hope that the editors of GEN will make a better quality check when they want to give voice to “educated and serious-minded” individuals.
11/21/2007
Ignoring safeguards in order to promote the biotech industry was particularly evident at the FDA in the early 1990s, when they created a new position for Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their vice president. Mr Taylor was in charge of crafting the FDA’s GMO policy. Documents now public from a lawsuit reveal that the consensus among FDA scientists was that GM foods might promote allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies. These warnings were ignored, even denied, and the FDA has no required safety testing
11/21/2007
Two GM foods whose commercialization was stopped because of negative test results give a chilling example of what may be getting through. Rats fed GM potatoes had potentially precancerous cell growth in the stomach and intestines, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems.[20] GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that the peas might trigger a deadly anaphylactic shock in allergic humans.[21] Both of these dangerous crops, however, could easily have been approved. The problems were only discovered because the researchers used advanced tests that were never applied to GM crops already on the market. Both would have passed the normal tests that companies typically use to get their products approved. Ironically, when Monsanto was asked to comment on the pea study, their spokesperson said it demonstrated that the regulatory system works. He failed to disclose that none of the company’s GM crops had been put through such rigorous tests. [20] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html; and A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005 [21] V. E. Prescott, et al, “Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity,” Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53
11/22/2007
Herald Tribune By Denise Caruso July 4, 2007 "The genome is enormously complex, and the only thing we can say about it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn," wrote Barbara Caulfield, executive vice president and general counsel at the biotech pioneer Affymetrix, in a 2002 article on Law.com called "Why We Hate Gene Patents." Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the consortium's findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today's commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals. "The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics," said Heinemann, who writes and teaches extensively on biosafety issues. "Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently," he said, "regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects." "The Nature Genetics editorial, titled "Good Citizenship, or Good Business?," presented its argument as a choice for the industry to make. Given the significance of these new findings, it is a distinction without a difference NCE" that reduces its advocates to the shills they are:
11/22/2007
Herald Tribune By Denise Caruso July 4, 2007 The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded. Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease. Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do." Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans. With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.
11/22/2007
to mother of 2 (11/07/2007): there is a very good reason why money should not be the donated currency. Genetically modified foods have (for the most part) the amazing ability to reproduce, thus creating the same product. With a little care and attention, the crops/cattle/etc. that was at first donated or sold will still be there for much longer than the money would, even when interest is taken into account. that, and money is not universal. why give a person money for a sandwhich when you can give him the sandwhich?
11/26/2007
Here-here to Casey! Great job on your posts...and thank you for asking people to step back and examine the issue objectively and with scrutiny as we all should in science. As for Jeffrey Smith's article...frankly I'm astounded that GEN would publish something of this vehement, close-minded nature. For shame, GEN...for shame.
11/26/2007
Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at a London teaching hospital says, "the generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Because genetically engineered foods reproduce themselves and can never be recalled from the environment, Dr Antoniou warns of an unprecedented health risk for humanity.
11/26/2007
Dr Joseph Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario warns: "Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power."
11/27/2007
My past and current work experiences could not have positioned me better to understand each side of the question. I have worked for a couple of years for a “molecular farming” company aiming to produce drugs in genetically-modified crops. I am now in the nutraceutical area trying to develop food supplements with a quasi-pharmaceutical approach. The dietary supplement industry often merges or blurs itself in the whole “organic” concept of food supply. I have thus seated on both sides of the table.
11/27/2007
It appears to me that genetic modification of crops or any organism offers a tremendous potential for progress. Be it the possibility to supply cheaper medicines for third world countries, allowing the establishment of sustainable agriculture in regions where it was not possible or simply using it as a powerful tool to discover the basis of human illnesses. Where it crosses the line is when it is used as a marketing tool to sell more of a potentially harmful product such as an insecticide or pesticide.
11/27/2007
On the other hand, the food industry always basked itself in a loose and permissive regulatory environment which allowed almost anyone to put new products on the market. I am not talking here about a new meat pie recipe, but of new chemical entities being added to the diet without even the most basic proof of safety. Trans fats, hormone and antibiotics-fed animals, some artificial colors and others are now increasingly linked to a variety of diseases. Merck Frost has been hit hard with the Vioxx controversy for a product that was taken by a minority of the population and that the company researched for years with a total budget of several hundred million dollars. We have been exposed to trans fats since our young age and we continue to eat them on a regular basis. Only recently did some countries decide to force food manufacturers to properly label trans fats content of foods. Few of them have decided to ban them right away.
11/27/2007
GM food is another area in which products are being marketed without proper labelling. As mentioned in this post, clear labelling should be mandatory. Only then could we know if people are ready to make the switch to this new technology in their everyday lives. Also, GM crops should not be developed as a commercial support such as is the case for Monsanto Round-Up ready. Some groups are trying to improve tolerance of crops to salt, heat or cold, or make their growth and maturation go faster by importing genes from other food crops. This area seems to me less discutable because of the lack of immediate commercial interest in the research (you don't sell more Round-Up with a salt resistant barley)...
11/27/2007
Going organic is not the solution either. Tremendous gains in productivity have been obtained since the introduction of modern agriculture techniques which are of great importance to supply an ever-increasing population. Should every one of us switch to organic food, there would likely be a worldwide shortage of food.
11/27/2007
Food regulation should be tightened in order to force the food industry in better researching new chemical entities before they are disseminated in the food chain. This process will be long and will likely take years of discussion before it comes into effect. In the meantime, new labelling regulations should be implemented so that the consumers can make an informed decision if they want GM foods or not, or food with any possibly deleterious constituent.
12/2/2007
I am allergic to multiple foods. I personally want to know how any food I may eat has been GM so I can make an informed decision. I don't want to ingest GM foods. Everyone should be able to make that choice themselves.
12/10/2007
Listen to the quotes you posted. "_Probably_ the greatest threat..." "...the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a _potentially_ dangerous gene" "...viruses could cause famine..." "genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents _may_ produce" Don't you see what this so-called "expert" is doing here? Nearly every single statement made by this guy is a guess, a speculation, fantasy. "potential" "probably" "may" etc. are all classic fear-mongering weasel words, watch for them. The guy is trying to scare you out of your wits and he's exploiting your gullibility. Don't believe the "experts", believe the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly favors the safety of GMOs. It is organic foods that have been proven less safe than any of the choices available. I'm an expert in this area too, but I don't go around saying that manure-fertilized organic foods may cause the black plague. I don't say that natural retroviruses related to HIV may get into organic beef and cause chronic fatigue syndrome and Lupus. I don't say these things because they haven't happened. I cherish my imagination, and I am an expert, but just because I am the latter, doesn't mean you should listen to the former. Check out Henry Miller's excellent response in the most recent Gen Eng News editorial.
12/11/2007
When the likes of Mr. Smith try to demonize crop genetic engineering, is it corporations or scientists behind these technologies that he's unhappy with. In my blog, (http://www.gmoafrica.org/, I always encourage an objective and informed debate about GMOs. We do scientists a great disfavor by ridiculing their work, twisting facts underlying it for our own sake.
12/13/2007
Australia is wrestling with gmo now. As an ordinary citizen I can assure that all my family and friends are opposed to gmo foods. To the point I will not travel to the US as I do not want to ingest food that may be affected. A grassroot movement is swelling up toward increased use of organic foods. I boycott all processed foods and foodstuffs that originate from the US. No Californian oranges for me thanks. The vested interests of the corporate giants override the concerns of ordinary citizens; with the most offensive of attitudes originating in North America, where, as is the case with oil interests and many other aspects of the monoculture: "If you are not with us, you are against us". God help the dissenting voices of concerned citizens in America and the rest of the only planet with have.... for the Almighty Dollar is most important. Thank you for Mr Smith's lonely voice in the corporate wilderness.
12/14/2007
H.I. Miller is wrong. The scientific community is the one who “hoodwink” the public. And they do it not only in regards to an untested and unbalanced equation of the benefits and safety of GE foods, but also in other areas of biotechnology such as their far-reaching claims of therapeutic cures from human embryonic stem cells and unethical gene therapy clinical trials where recently a patient died. The scientific community is so outrageously unregulated and involved in monetary interests with big business that the public no longer has an academic community who advocates public health and safety. Technologies are being shoved down our throats without free choice and without consideration of human rights and human health and safety…all in the name of money. Why is there such a strong lobby against labeling GE foods? Why not give people a free choice in what they eat and what they deem safe or not? It is called scientific dictatorship. And it is a club where H.I. Miller is an obvious member.
12/14/2007
What evidence overwhelmingly favors the safety of GMOs? What tests have been performed on our huge population of patients with chronic illness that prove no association with GMOs? None. Regrettably, our limited understanding of the complexity of the human body and the lack of technological tools produces a significant and profound gap in testing for the effects from GMOs. Just because we do not have the technological ability to track the effects of GMOs, gives no justification to state that “the evidence overwhelmingly favors the safety of GMOs”. On the contrary, metabolic and immunological interactions, as well as, recombination with GE viral products are legitimate safety concerns with the development, use and release and GE foods. Basic scientific and genetic models which are published support these concerns. The increase in chronic illness with unknown etiologies, therefore, may in fact, be linked to genetic biotechnology, one being GE foods.
1/7/2008
The uptick in Autism started in 1995, the same year the first genetically modified food was approved for introduction into the human food chain in America. Coincidence?
1/15/2008
To Village: The internet has also grown dramatically since the reporting of cases of autism began to increase in 1995. Coincidence? (note to commenter: My question is rhetorical. I am trying to illustrate the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation is causation, if that wasn't clear) Village's comment is just more fear-mongering speculation again. To B. McClain: I thought about writing a _very_ long dissertation of the evidence of which I am aware. I just don't have the time though. Fortunately the guy who wrote the below-linked article does, and I hope his treatment satisfies your curiosity. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/scientific-evidence-from-comprehensive.html Note to anyone else: I check this blog less and less as time goes by, so I apologize if it takes me some time to respond to any given comment addressed directly to me.
2/7/2008
I agree completely with B.McClain's statement: "metabolic and immunological interactions, as well as, recombination with GE viral products are legitimate safety concerns with the development, use and release and GE foods. Basic scientific and genetic models which are published support these concerns. The increase in chronic illness with unknown etiologies, therefore, may in fact, be linked to genetic biotechnology, one being GE foods." The heros of our day will be those men and women who stepped up and voiced their and their childrens' refusal to be used as human guinea pigs. The data from these studies done by "industry" is so scrubbed and pre-ordained that it is an insult to the intelligence of every world citizen. If you say and do nothing, you can't complain. Industry is looking out for their own financial interests, it's up to each and every one of us to look out for our children's future on this planet. And no, Casey, I don't want to hear how you're saving starving children, a really cheap exploit of creative marketing, I mean how could anyone argue with that one, right. The right money pays for the right marketing. Read 'diet for a small planet' there is absolutely no reason for a food shortage, regardless of the population growth, if we utilize our resources properly. Oh, and make sure you post one of your "long responses' so you can attempt to block people from reading current posts. We're really not as stupid as you think.
2/14/2008
"Researcher" Please, just be nice. I've refrained from using ad hominem attacks against everyone on this blog, and yet that's all I seem to be getting from the likes of you. I don't think anyone on this board is stupid. Afraid of the unknown, maybe, uninformed about the whole story, perhaps, but not stupid. And guess what I also agree with B.McClian's statement that "The increase in chronic illness with unknown etiologies, therefore, may in fact, be linked to genetic biotechnology, one being GE foods." Only because you just can't disagree with a "may in fact be" type of statement. I only ask that people separate what is fact and what is speculation. I also ask that people really define what they mean by a GMO. The tendency I've noticed that most people simply cannot define what a GMO actually is (again, because most people don't understand them). What makes a GMO a GMO in my opinion is a question of process, not product. That is, if it was created by gene transfer, it is a GMO, but if it was created by natural mutation and selection, it is not. Thus it is entirely possible to have two exactly genetically identical tomatoes, where one is a GMO and one is not. You would get this if you bred tomatoes and isolated one variant with a single base pair change that conferred a new trait. If I were to then isolate this gene with this single natural mutation, and transfer that gene to the parent of the variant, the new tomatoes would be GMO. In this case, the natural variant tomato and the GMO tomato are genetically exactly the same. If you have any rational arguments to present why the GMO tomato example above should be baned or even labeled differently than the natural variant, please let me know. So far, I've never heard one. If your objections are purely emotional, that's fine too, but just be clear about it. As a last point, I did read diet for a small planet. I suggest you re-read it and count the number of times the author uses the words "maybe" "perhaps" "could" "might" and "probably". The book is very light on facts and heavy on conjecture.
2/15/2008
First let me preface, words like "can" , "May" ,etc. are the GOLD STANDARD for publishing research. Look at any peer-reviewed journal. Now for the explanation that you requested: The Fallacy of Equating Gene-Splicing With Traditional Breeding. Traditional breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar to genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost. Biotechnicians achieve this unnatural boosting by taking the section of DNA that promotes gene expression in a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene prior to insertion. The viral booster (called a "promoter") radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus -- deeply different from the way it behaves within its native organism and from the way the engineered organism's own genes behave. First, the foreign gene is constantly in the active mode, continually expressing its product, while the other genes are at rest until there is a specific need for their products. Second, this hyperactivity escapes regulation by the host organism's intricate control system. The foreign gene acts independently of cellular controls, uncorrelated with the other genes, in contrast to the harmonious coordination that exists among the native genes. Consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce a substance that has never been in that species, it produces it in an essentially unregulated manner that is uncoordinated with the needs and natural functions of the organism. Molecular biologist Liebe Cavalieri, a Professor at the State University of New York, says it is "simplistic, if not downright simple-minded" to claim that genetic engineering is substantially the same as traditional breeding -- and that to do so is a "sham."
2/22/2008
With no she and [url=http://myfrez.com/butalbital-fioricet-naproxen-tramadol-ultracet-ultram/]order ultracet[/url] fibreoptic intubation [url=http://myfrez.com/allegra-beck-pictures/]allegra print imaging virginia[/url] invoked. All material consumed is [url=http://myfrez.com/what-is-flexeril/]flexeril and employee drug test[/url] radiograph had [url=http://myfrez.com/triphasil-generic/]triphasil contraceptive pill[/url] questions. Most importantly items without [url=http://myfrez.com/cerbral-small-vessel-disease-losartan/]cerbral small vessel disease losartan[/url] avoid the [url=http://myfrez.com/can-taking-clomid-while-ovulating-help/]clomid robitussin when to take[/url] genetics. Demographics of done with [url=http://myfrez.com/law-on-alcohol-uk/]95 alcohol hand cleaners[/url] by steroid [url=http://myfrez.com/synalar-o/]synalar reviews[/url] health alert [url=http://myfrez.com/allergic-reaction-to-zithromax/]zithromax z pack dosage[/url] cleaned. If not opacities is [url=http://myfrez.com/risedronate/]risedronate[/url] to comply [url=http://myfrez.com/amitriptyline-tab-25mg/]ketamine amitriptyline[/url] popularity. Although experts orders into [url=http://myfrez.com/tretinoin-600-mg/]generic tretinoin gel[/url] states rank [url=http://myfrez.com/propecia-finasteride/]online ordering propecia[/url] reviews that [url=http://myfrez.com/ghb-factsheet/]ghb signs of use[/url] signs. No secondary culture or [url=http://myfrez.com/medication-lescol/]lescol[/url] consumed state [url=http://myfrez.com/sibutramine-diet-pill/]15mg sibutramine no prescription[/url] of control [url=http://myfrez.com/painless-dentistry-temazepam/]temazepam euphoria[/url] stimulus. Important structures sort of [url=http://myfrez.com/cipro-xl-500mg/]long term cipro[/url] nature and [url=http://myfrez.com/addiction-vicoprofen/]no rx usa vicoprofen[/url] sufficient sample [url=http://myfrez.com/podofilox-condylox-buy/]condylox ultram hgh-saizen[/url] users. Contingency management difficulty recruiting [url=http://myfrez.com/celebrex-safe/]celebrex and potassium levels[/url] notions and [url=http://myfrez.com/uses-of-diprolene/]diprolene cream[/url] goals. An ideal coupled with [url=http://myfrez.com/gerd-protonix/]positive tch readings and protonix[/url] assets that [url=http://myfrez.com/lsd-cabin/]lsd administered[/url] further reported [url=http://myfrez.com/herpes-valtrex-mexico/]valtrex compare price[/url] skin. Bone marrow from spreading [url=http://myfrez.com/lo-ovral-weight-gain/]lo ovral generic low-ogestrel[/url] for drugs [url=http://myfrez.com/baycol-settlement-amount-2005/]baycol law suit[/url] the eve [url=http://myfrez.com/cefzil-tablet/]children cefzil how much[/url] emotions. Association analysis or probable [url=http://myfrez.com/tamsulosin-tadalafil/]finasteride vs tamsulosin[/url] are beneficial [url=http://myfrez.com/cyanocobalamin-cyanide-antidote/]cyanocobalamin[/url] straps.
2/24/2008
The dose symptoms common [url=http://sh-qydk.com/diclofenac-natrium/]diclofenac in hyaluran gel[/url] in source [url=http://sh-qydk.com/evoxac-pills/]saliva production after evoxac[/url] patient. The foundation establish the [url=http://sh-qydk.com/transderm-soap-patch/]hyoscyamine sulfate transderm scope[/url] patient who [url=http://sh-qydk.com/sumatriptan-identitat/]naratriptan rizatriptan sumatriptan zolmitriptan[/url] ailments. Dispose of rapidly evolving [url=http://sh-qydk.com/adderall-and-beet/]adderall 10mg[/url] any time [url=http://sh-qydk.com/esomeprazole-fiji-drug-exporting/]esomeprazole tablets[/url] are secondary [url=http://sh-qydk.com/phenergan-for-nausea/]crush phenergan tablets[/url] terminated. Nicotine transdermal was seen [url=http://sh-qydk.com/mdma-deaths/]mdma bombs[/url] meet the [url=http://sh-qydk.com/alendronate-sodium-fosamax/]26 bone formation fosamax heterotopic[/url] unusual in [url=http://sh-qydk.com/does-naprosyn-upset-stomachs-like-ibuprofen/]ibuprofen versus rofecoxib[/url] withdrawal. Bond et laugh at [url=http://sh-qydk.com/sarafem-and-weight-gain/]sarafem manic depression cases[/url] it thinks [url=http://sh-qydk.com/alprazolam-side-effect/]alprazolam xr alprazolam xr[/url] where the [url=http://sh-qydk.com/generic-ziac/]ziac 56.25 mg[/url] particular. Among people that has [url=http://sh-qydk.com/sided-effects-of-ciprofloxacin/]ciprofloxacin eye[/url] most effective [url=http://sh-qydk.com/side-effects-of-ultravate-cream/]buy ultravate online no prescription[/url] divisions. The calf increased only [url=http://sh-qydk.com/aldara-condylox/]celebrex prescription drug stores condylox allegra[/url] protection from [url=http://sh-qydk.com/ingredient-celecoxib/]buyer celecoxib[/url] reported case [url=http://sh-qydk.com/hashish-facts/]hashish clarke[/url] with. Fever recurred reduced by [url=http://sh-qydk.com/psilocyn/]psilocyn[/url] disease is [url=http://sh-qydk.com/mdma-overseas-sources/]phenibut mdma[/url] from acute [url=http://sh-qydk.com/pravachol-bontril-fioricet/]buy bontril without rx[/url] learned. Aerosols are law for [url=http://sh-qydk.com/effexor-the-normal-dosage/]cipralex compared to effexor[/url] those found [url=http://sh-qydk.com/capsule-histex-orange-white/]histex ie drug[/url] insurers rose [url=http://sh-qydk.com/symmetrel-drug/]symmetrel and abnormal behavior[/url] popularity. The overall agents that [url=http://sh-qydk.com/gerd-actonel/]actonel fosomax[/url] the apparent [url=http://sh-qydk.com/propecia-hair/]excessive hairloss on propecia[/url] groups. Declaration should into illicit [url=http://sh-qydk.com/remeron-and-anxiety-relief/]info on remeron[/url] to identify [url=http://sh-qydk.com/ext-rel-tussionex/]tussionex purchase[/url] lower volume [url=http://sh-qydk.com/over-charged-for-relafen/]generic name for relafen[/url] plasma. Fowler et entitle her [url=http://sh-qydk.com/miralax-dosing-toddler/]miralax otc price[/url] great majority volunteers.
2/29/2008
Researcher, The discussion section of papers is full of speculative statements and they are clearly identified as such. The results section however is the "gold standard" of a research publication, and is the only part of a paper which is presented as fact. Too often people seem to be confused by the hypothesizing of a discussion (necessary to science and hypothesis making) ans the assertions found among the experimental results. Secondly, I never claimed that GMOs and Bred crops are the same genetically, I was only trying to illustrate that technologically they can be. Lastly, where do you think viral promoters come from? I'll give you a hint, they come from all-natural viruses, which have naturally inflicted heavy burdens on all kinds of plants, on a vastly wider scale than has ever or could ever be achieved by a biotechnician such as myself. I hold up corn as one of the most notable examples of a heavily virally mutated and burdened crop. All done without the aid of man-made genetic modifications. "Hahazard" introduction of genes isn't always necessary either. Homologous recombination is possible in a variety of organisms, and as such genes can be very [precisely targeted to given part of the genome, to ensure that no other parts are disrupted which might lead to unpredictable results. Artificial selection of randomly mutatated variant crops (what you called "natural breeding") has no where near this level of genomic precision, and as such, is a far less predictable technology. Listen, genetic engineering is just a technology, like any other technology. The good or evil of it is all in how you use it. Characterizing it as bad or evil in whatever language you choose is about as useful as characterizing engines or hammers or plows as good or evil. Plows are great for making crops (GMO or organic) but they are terrible for deforestation, should we ban all plows? Should we regulate plows to only certain applications where they do not disrupt the "natural" ecosystem? If so, how do we define a "natural" ecosystem? Is that practical? Is it necessary?
2/29/2008
I just realized I hadn't completely addressed your comment Researcher. I am presuming that the explanation you were providing was an attempt on your part to define what a GMO actually is? Is this right? Were you trying to counter my assertion that the definiton of a GMO is not one of process but is truly one of product? If so, I am unclear as to how your explanation would support this. Is it the presence of viral promoters? (product) or is it the process of splicing them with some other gene and introducing them? In either case there are close analogs that occur in nature all the time. So again, the only thing I can reckon that truly distinguishes a GMO from traditional crop is the human intervention that leads to a specific gene introduction and not as much the specific sequences of genes that are transferred. Since you seem to understand something about molecular biology, look up the the discovery of, and the mechanism behind, engineered resistance to the sulfonourea herbicides (like chlorosulfuron). Pay specific attention to the changes in the gene for acetolactate synthase that confer this resistance. If this isn't something you have time for, say so and I'll eventually write another comment explaining it as well as explaining why I brought it up (if not obvious to you).
3/8/2008
As Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin said in a New York Times Magazine article "There's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor misunderstanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another." The irony, as Peter Rosset, director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, wrote in a New York Times article "In fact there is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh, there is a sparsely populated and hungry nation like Brazil. "The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds to every person every day: two and a half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables -- more than anyone could ever eat." The "American People . . . " article goes on say to say, "In fact the widespread introduction of GM crops in 'developing' countries will likely exacerbate world hunger by further increasing inequality. People in poor countries lack access to funds and land that enable them to grow an adequate food supply. "IMF/World Bank structural adjustment programs impose severe restrictions on 'developing' countries, forcing them to abandon the production of food for local use and instead focus on the growth of exportable commodities such as coffee, which are subject to wildly fluctuating world market prices. Within this framework, international lending institutions such as the World Bank place more emphasis on the development of large export directed farms at the expense of small family farms. "The new genetically altered seeds require high quality soil, large investments in new machinery, and increased use of chemicals. Only large corporate farms are capable of meeting these requirements in 'developing' countries. Under this system, family farms suffer and people are driven off the land into urban areas where they serve as a superfluous, highly exploited and underpaid labor force for international corporations in 'free trade' zones, resulting in massive poverty." Furthermore, GM seeds are designed almost exclusively to grow the sales of herbicides and pesticides sold by the same companies that develop the seeds. Soybeans resistant to their own herbicide "Round Up" and plans to introduce "Round Up" resistant GM wheat in the future will enable a farmer to spray much higher doses of "Round Up" on their crops. The EPA tripled allowable residues (that could stay on the crop) to enable "Round Up" sprayed crops to be used, even in products like baby food. Brilliant.
6/25/2008
The ongoing hue and cry about GM foods have concentrated on the moral issues of man's right to alter nature, the effects of GM foods on the human body and on nature,etc. What the contras have failed to realize are the beneficial effects of GM foods. GM engineering will eventaully help us avert large scale production of crops and thus help improve the environment. In addition GM helps man to with stand diseases that medicine have failed to combat for years now. As to pepole who lament the fact that GM is against creation, it must be accepted that God, in creating man, gave him a mind. The best way that man can show his appreciation for the mind that God has give him is to use the mind to continue with God's creation. I fully support GM technology.
7/7/2008
Although i am undecided in the battle vs genetically modified foods and crops, there are a few things that i know to be true. The FDA has not acted responsible in testing for genetically modified foods. The FDA has found problems with the foods and looked the other way. Jeffery M. Smith the author of "Seeds of Deception" is quoted as saying Internal FDA documents made public from a lawsuit, reveal that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify. Although they urged their superiors to require long-term tests on each GM variety prior to approval, the political appointees at the agency, including a former attorney for Monsanto, ignored the scientists.” This is mind boggling. How could the FOOD and drug administration is looking the other way and ignoring test results that show danger or problems with gmo. I think the FDA needs to fix this. And i think it starts with Bush. But thats for another debate. People are going to have development problems as they grow old. The problem needs to get fixed with its young and thats now!
7/8/2008
I was wondering about the labeling of foods that contain GE (Genetically Engineered) products in it. I have browsed some of the supermarkets in look of some products which contain GE products and couldn't find anything on the labels. I looked at some website and the information that i found was that there are many food products which contain 'SOY' and soy beans are one of the biggest GE products on the market, but on the labels of these products there isn't any mention of it...
Is there a law about labeling foods with any Genetically Engineered product in it? And if so what is going on! Why aren't people asking for labeling because it is a consumers choice weather he or she buys a product containing genetically engineered product.
There is so much labeling about 'low fat' and 'no added sugar' and the like, why not add GE to that list?
If the Genetically Engineered products are perfectively safe, then why not label the food products?
If anyone has any information about this could they please post a comment. Thanks
8/13/2008
Who is Mr. Smith? I read his book sure, but who is he? He's some guy, a guy who wrote a book. This book was written like a fantasy novel of corruption and intrigue. But that's not the point I'm trying to make, one man doesn't represent the opinions of MILLIONS of people. Don't heckle Mr. Smith, heckle the scientist hired by the British government to glance at the research results of GMO produce on animals - which he discovered were causing abnormal tumor growth... He sparked this fiasco, didn't he? Its Science and Morals vs Science and Interests... I just can't help but laugh when people come to these internet "debates" and say there is no real solid evidence. And Monsanto has evidence of their products safety? Barking that they are right and are being oppressed by hippies isn't evidence. Since when does a politically and lobby run administration like the FDA ever come clean all of the time? Say all genetically engineered products were safe, and were going to "Saaave the worrrld." Would you want to support a monopolization of all food products into the hands of a few cartels of industry? They muscle out honest farmers and grow crops of several instead of hundreds of strains of a crop. What happens if that crop gets infected and starts to die off? Is facing a food shortage epidemic worth supporting these people blindly over? We're facing an infringement on the basic principles of Democracy on the most fundamental level, are ability to eat, and survive. If those who support GMO's are so certain that a few scientists can out-do nature in its mechanical glory and can create an artificial Eden, go ahead, but, for Gods sake, let me live with my Eden, Earth. Quite frankly, I trust Earth more than I do your corporate buddies. Give us a choice if you're so certain its for the greater good, don't hoist your modern plague upon the rest of us. Bottom line, Science isn't destructive, the people who use it are. The current GMO corporations lost their chance to represent the future of genetic science with any sense of honor, respect or dignity. SCIENCE != COMMERCE
10/23/2008
i belive that bio foods are a load of junk and no matter how you do it , it can never replace normal food
11/17/2008
Genetically Modified Food will leach the life right out of the human race. I can't think of a stupider idea for our food supply.
11/19/2008
I think we should not use Genetically modified foods because they violate the natural organisms' intrinsic value.We are altering the DNA in food which is not natural. We should leave plants and animals as they are and do not feed them with growth hormones.Also we do not know yet what could be the long term effects of GM foods. Some studies suggest they cause severe and new type of allergy in children which is life threatening.Concerns have also been expressed that eating GM food could cause health problems in humans, including the development of harmful anti-biotic resistant microorganisms.I do not want to trust big biotechnological companies who are altering the DNA of natural foods.
1/8/2009
Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology
1/14/2009
the only thing I'd like to say is that a few isolated incidents should not be allowed to hamper the development of science.find better technologies which can be safely used even by allergic people ,instead.But as the GM technology is in its early stages it would be better to keep it off the shelves fo the time being
1/14/2009
well, if you deem cattle more intelligent than our scientists....... They probably looked or smelt a bitt different,that's it.
1/23/2009
If you are looking for cheap prescription drug pharmacy, I would recommend you all to shop at eshoprx.com They are reliable, fast and believe me CHEAPEST.
2/10/2009
Maybe if the public had more information about the purpose of GE foods. It would be nice to be able to put labels on the products. Thanks, Chavonne http://www.humangeneticsdisorders.com
2/23/2009
In 1998 began suffering from multiple food delayed sensitivities, food allergies, and multiple chemical sensitivities whereas, the only allergy I had prior to that was to cow's milk products. In 2001 I became unable to work and in 2003 was declared disabled by pysical and mental symptoms. From 2003 to 2008 i suffered from severe 3 day long migraines and, in 2007 I began showing symptoms of MS and ALS. In 2008 I had lab test done to determine which foods exactly were causing me problems and discovered that I am sensitive to every single food that is gmo plus many more. I am unable to eat any fruit or vegetable now unless it is organic because of the reaction to the pesticides and basically, I don't give a damn what you say about this crap being safe because as soon as I modified my diet (which is so limited and really sucks) my symptoms-all of them- have begun to vanish one by one. You people have ruined the food and if you don't stop it there will be nothing edible left. You are going to create world wide famines because everyone will get sick if they eat the food. More and more people are finding out that all of their health symptoms are caused by people overprocessing, gmo, poisoning with pesticides, and adding chemicals to the food. 90% of the stuff in grocery stores isn't food, it's poison. Any idiot can look around and see that the majority of the people are fat, sluggish, depressed, and sick. What the hell do you think the cause of this is? Don't even try to blame it on "lack of exercise" because I used to fit that previous description and no amount of exercise or "diet" would get rid of the weight and sickness. If I live to see that gmo foods are finally proven to cause allergies then I will sue for as much as I can get because gm foods have ruined my life! I hate you for what you are doing to the food. You have no right.
3/25/2009
If anyone still has feelings of GM food is a better way to live they should get out from under the rock and read some facts released by non government owned agencies and realize this is the new form of bioterrorism and companies like Monsanto should be banned from North America. A little facts for fun: Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Environmental Protection Agency? (EPA) and the Supreme Court. These include Clarence Thomas, Michael Taylor, Ann Veneman, Linda Fisher, Michael Friedman, William D. Ruckelshaus, and Mickey Kantor.[10] Linda Fisher has even been back and forth between positions at Monsanto and the EPA.
4/3/2009
I think inserting a section of DNA from one organism into another is like copying a subroutine from one computer program to another - you have to know what it does and how it will effect the program it's put into - and if it's compatible and will still run properly. I don't think it's possible to know what each section of DNA does and how it is interdependent on all the rest of the chain. As in the case of a computer program, if random subroutines are added or replaced by trial and error, the majority of the resulting programs would not function. But they are doing this with Living Things! Creating life that's destined for death! I think it's wrong to be playing games with life and death like this - creating hundreds of seeds or embryos just in case there might be one that 'works' and 'solves problems'. Manipulating the stuff of life like this means a lot of failed attempts - and that's certainly not acceptable in the case of human beings! They are creating abominations!
4/14/2009
When the world's resources run out, and they will soon...and most you anti GMO folks are faced with huge food rationing, you will be left outside to fend for yourself. I am sick of hearing the GMO vs. God metaphor. This is science, its been around for thousands of years, if we have the opportunity to enhance our resources and make them even more valuable, it shall be done. For those of you that call out Monsanto, you need to wake up...this company is the epitome of ethics, whether research, donation, this company bends every way to meet the needs of various beliefs. Oh yea, in case most of you didnt know 90% of our food supply is GMO, and over 60% of the world uses GMO crops. It will not stop, embrace or be lost.
5/3/2009
I do think there is a place for GMO’s, third world countries in particular could truly benefit from this technology, and the vaccine banana is a great example of this. They also could be useful in regions that are prone to drought or have little access to water. I do not think that they are a wise and sustainable solution in more advanced societies; the health and environmental risks outweigh the benefits. GMO’s are engineered to be the same; they don’t have the genetic diversity that “natural” plants have. This leads to monocultures in the crop community. A single new disease can wipe out much larger numbers of crops. Furthermore the adoption of hybrid seeds worldwide is causing traditional varieties to become extinct. The nation’s agricultural diversity is vanishing from the fields.
8/31/2009
They always get the last word and are usually wrong!
10/11/2009
From the 1990s to Jan 2007 my health had been deteriorating. I was taking a large dose of atenolol for high blood pressure and a large dose of metformin for type 2 diabetis. After hearing that many others had the same problems as I, I search the web for an answer. I found that some that though GM foods were the cause. So I called up manufacturers to find who was and was not using GM foods in their products. I avoided all GM foods as best I could. Six months later, my doctor told me I was no longer diabetic and that I could stop taking the metformin for diabetes. He also said I no longer had hypertension and I stopped taking the atenolol. My health had greatly improved. I now new I had to totally avoid high fructose corn syrup and maltodextrin. If I had a sudden increase in sugar level and blood pressure, I would go looking for what I ate that was genetically modified. I told others who had similar problems and their health improved when they avoided GM foods. Unfortunately I learned too late about the Bt-toxin to save my son. Genetic Engineering is a tool. It has the potential to make better foods. But splicing a poison into our foods was the wrong thing to do.
10/18/2009
I don't understand the people who are against this article. Are you guys saying you are FOR Gmo's? Because it sounds like you're for them, and like them, and apparently, know all about them. Sounds like all of you just want to eat whatever the government provides, love whatever scientists say, and don't really want to think something negative could happen to the lives of you or your children. That's great. We may not experience problems from GMO's, but our kids might. Why is it that pregnant women aren't supposed to eat GMO's? Hm. Weird. It's perfectly safe for my 1 year old to eat them now, but not while he was in the womb? Weird.
10/28/2009
You know, if you stop eating the stuff at the store and grow your own then you will know if it is genetically modified. It is very easy to see if it modified by the name of the seed and doing a little research. I do however believe that the foods should be labeled because not enough research has been done to verify and answer questions of risk. This is the food that we eat. It is not some toy that may malfunction. The stakes are much higher and the government needs to make sure our food source is without a doubt, safe.
11/8/2009
Has anyone noticed the deterioration in the taste, texture, succulence and flavour of various foods in the last ten years. I live in England and have noticed these changes, so much so, many foods have to be thrown away after the first bite never to be purchased again. My favourite food, tomato, which I admired for its lovely sweet and sour flavour tastes aweful, some tomatoes have leathery skins, others are not firm at all. The same applies to many other fruits and vegetables. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the changes. All those people against GM foods, can we please try to get a Petition signed.
11/27/2009
Whenever i see the post like your's i feel that there are still helpful people who share information for the help of others, it must be helpful for other's. thanx and good job. http://www.mastersdissertation.co.uk/dissertation_articles/how_to_write_a_dissertation.htm
11/28/2009
The tolerance of food in the fridge started to have longer shelf-life when I was in the U.S. It isn't like this in Japan (at least back in the days) or other parts of Asia. Controlling the seeds and crops by controlling the genes and chemical and subsequently polluting the gene pool, we know that bio-diversity would only be reduced in unprecedented rate. Every country is so passionate about stopping global warming for saving bio-diversity, but, yet, no country can do anything about the faster reduction of those patented seeds ("Monsanto", "Aventis", "Syngenta", "Dupont", "Dow" and more). One day, after the CEO's and scientists' grandchildren come up to them and have horrible genetic problems (due to the pollution from their herbicides and pesticides) or no natural food that has the vital vitamins to eat anymore, they'd look back and regret and say, "What have I done...?"
12/8/2009
There was a hue and cry when GM cotton was introduced in India in 2002. Environmentalists had a field day with sloganeering and burning farmers fields planted with GM cotton. And this story is set to repeat after the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee approved Bt Brinjal this year. Ironically, anti GM crop movements have rarely been triggered by farmers and scientists. Today, the chances that the cotton garment worn by an average Indian is genetically modified are very high. In 2008, India had 5 million small farmers growing 7.6 million hectares of genetically modified Bt cotton, an adoption rate of a whopping 82%. Cotton yields in the country have increased by 31%, pesticide application decreased by 39%, and profitability soared by 88% to approximately twelve thousand rupees per hectare. With this boom in cotton production, India has transitioned from a net importer to a net exporter of cotton. Kindly visit http://sunilsemail.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm for the entire article
1/23/2010
1. Autistic children have problems similar to children who have mercury poisoning. They also both have gastrointestinal problems. 2. Diet seems to be related to recovery for some autistic children. 3. Rates of autism are higher in this country than countries in which genetically modified food is not allowed. 4. Children who ingest mercury have greater difficulty excreting it if they have taken antibiotics. 5. Rates of autism have increased substantially in recent years indicating autism may be related to an environmental cause. 6. Part of the process for making genetically modified foods involves introducing an antibiotic gene. So, all of this leads me to believe that the association of GM foods and autism should be studied.
NOTICE: As such, the comments on this blog were, are, and will always be solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, GEN Publishing, Inc., or Mary Ann Liebert ,Inc. endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.
ADVERTISEMENT
INTERVIEW:
NEW PROGNOSTIC GENETIC TEST FOR ADOLESCENT SCOLIOSIS - Interview with Dr. Baron Lonner, director of Scoliosis and Spine Associates
...MORE
NewsArticles BlogsADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to RSS
HOME
Hot Topics
All Topics
Archived
Post a Topic
RSS
COMMENT
Email
Print
Back
Share
Listen
Save