Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto

[MachineGhost]

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or Genetically Engineered (GE) foods have not been proven safe, and the long-term health risks on humans of genetically modified foods have not been adequately investigated. Many small-scale animal studies have connected consumption of GMOs to a host of health problems, ranging from allergies and malnutrition to liver disease and infertility, and many more too numerous to list here.

You have the right to know if your food contains GMOs

On May 26, 1992, former Monsanto lawyer and current FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael Taylor declared that genetically modified food was “substantially equivalent”? to naturally grown food, and therefore should not be subject to any additional regulations. In 1994, a Monsanto employee was quoted as saying, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”? Monsanto has used their power and immense wealth to keep you from knowing what's in your food.

From May 1 to May 26, a broad coalition of food, farm, health, public interest, and environmental groups all over the country, joined by leading organic food companies, will attempt to raise one million dollars to support the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and other state GMO-labeling campaigns.

http://www.carighttoknow.org/

[smurff]

It's about time.

[Tyler]

Genetically engineered foods and animals have been around for centuries.  Just watch any dog show to learn about selective breeding of desirable characteristics.  Also, nearly all wine made in North America is made from european grapes grafted onto native american rootstocks to survive the varying climates.  Modern genetic engineering applies the same principles, just much more selectively.

Personally, I think 60% of the anti-genetic-engineering crowd just don't understand it so they buy into some silly Franken-food myth.  Another 30% are more anti-capitalist than pro-safety.  10% probably have legit questions about particular products and I wish people would focus on them, address the legitimate fears with hard data, and avoid the hysteria.

[Storm]

Genetically engineered foods and animals have been around for centuries.  Just watch any dog show to learn about selective breeding of desirable characteristics.  Also, nearly all wine made in North America is made from european grapes grafted onto native american rootstocks to survive the varying climates.  Modern genetic engineering applies the same principles, just much more selectively.

Personally, I think 60% of the anti-genetic-engineering crowd just don't understand it so they buy into some silly Franken-food myth.  Another 30% are more anti-capitalist than pro-safety.  10% probably have legit questions about particular products and I wish people would focus on them, address the legitimate fears with hard data, and avoid the hysteria.

I'm glad you brought this up, Tyler.  Farmers have been cross-breeding different strains of crops since the birth of modern agriculture.  It has resulted in a huge boom in the world population because now we can actually feed most of the people on this planet.  This is not new.  For literally hundreds of years farmers have been doing this - if they noticed that insects didn't like to eat a certain strain of vegetable they cultivated that strain because it meant more production per acre and less loss due to pests.

There are some legitimate concerns about GMO, such as the Monsanto crops that don't produce viable seeds so you have to buy new seeds from them every year - this scares me.  However, the vast majority of the anti-GMO crowd fails to realize that if you wanted to turn back the clock on this you'd have to go back centuries, not just a few decades, to a point in time when people were lucky if they could get a balanced diet at all.

[MachineGhost]

It's very easy to conflate instant laboratory gene splicing with centuries of genetic modification (plant hybridization):

Plant breeding works within the laws of nature. Nature doesn’t allow you to incorporate DNA from an unrelated species into a crop plant. It doesn’t, for example, allow you to put spider genes into maize plants. It also has a very specific rule system for allowing recombination of DNA between related species. It is therefore a gradual process and does not involve the forced introduction of foreign DNA, antibiotic marker genes and naked cauliflower mosaic virus into its native DNA.

Theres little evidence GMO crops give better yields anyway.  IMO, GMO is more about wanting to make the industry stakeholders involved a continous profit from the razor and razor blade model.  The real issue is the cavaliar attitude by these stakeholders about the short-term and long-term negative side effects, both to human health and the environment.  It is just being swept under the rug for sake of profit.  Haven't we been through that story numerous times before and always with disastrous end results?  The potential scale of disaster makes the nuclear testing in the South Pacific look constrained.

As an aside, I find it very interesting that my food intolerances/allergies suddenly started shortly after 1992.  Labeling could help big time in resolving the issues.

MG

[Tyler]

On the positive side, there is great evidence that products like Golden Rice (a Monsanto rice variant with additional vitamin A) have saved millions of lives and prevented countless cases of blindness in third world countries. 

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.html

I agree that advances in GMOs require careful study to quantify risks to natural systems.  And I also don't like some applications of GE to destroy seeds so that people are slaves to large companies for their crops every year.  But fighting those battles by scaremongering amazing scientific breakthroughs and yanking beneficial products from the market is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

BTW -- Here's a good link that provides information on both sides of the argument.

http://debatewise.org/debates/588-could ... heir-risks

IMO, I wish the debate about GMOs would stick to facts and specific products rather than drift into corporate conspiracy theories (see my 30% reference in a previous post).  This should be a scientific issue, not a political one.  And where the corporations are at fault, facts are a more powerful change agent than theory.

[lazyboy]

An article supporting the need for GMO labeling and buying organic foods:
http://www.nationofchange.org/first-sup ... 1338362046

"Rats fed another of Monsanto's Bt corn varieties called MON 863, also experienced an activation of their immune systems, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of liver- and kidney toxicity.

Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years, and biotech companies have therefore claimed  that Bt-toxin has a "history of safe use in agriculture." But there's a huge difference between spraying it on plants, where it biodegrades in sunlight and can be carefully washed off, and genetically altering the plant to produce it internally.

Bt crops have the Bt-toxin gene built-in, so the toxin cannot be washed off. You simply cannot avoid consuming it. Furthermore, the plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray."

[lazyboy]

http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto- ... 1340199038

"Lawsuits and criminal charges continue to hit Monsanto, scratching away at the financial foundation of the agricultural behemoth. Monsanto has been found guilty of chemical poisoning in France after their weed killer product led to neurological problems, and the company has even dished out 93 million to victims of toxic dioxin. As Monsanto continues to be slammed with lawsuits, many of which are from multitudes of affected farmers and individuals, awareness spreads among the general public regarding the corporation’s true acts.

It was this same corporation that was caught running what has been labeled slave rings, in which workers were forced to work for 14 hours per day or more cultivating the fields and were not permitted to leave. Monsanto’s crimes are slowly coming to light, and the public is demanding action."

[Tyler]

Ah -- the imminent danger of dioxin.  A horrible cancer-causing chemical found in industrial waste, Monsanto products, and ice cream. 

http://www.rense.com/general3/ben.htm

When it comes to "toxins", too often the right politics trump dosage.

[FarmerD]

Ah -- the imminent danger of dioxin.  A horrible cancer-causing chemical found in industrial waste, Monsanto products, and ice cream.  

http://www.rense.com/general3/ben.htm

When it comes to "toxins", too often the right politics trump dosage.

Air force toxicologists have looked at dioxin as a potential terrorist weapon and have discounted it.  I am only aware of one victim of dioxin poisoning. In 2004, someone tried to kill the Ukraine president by poisoning his food with huge amounts of dioxin.  Result: he developed acne.  Dioxin is just as poisonous to humans as DDT.

I'm not a huge fan of monsanto but almost every environmental health scare you see onthe news (dioxin, gulf war syndrome, agent organge) have been studied exhaustively.  See Michael fumento's website where he debunks these in a convincing manner. 

I'm more open minded about the safety of GMO foods but environmental activists lose credibility when theyattach their concerns about GMO foods to dioxin scares.

[Pointedstick]

I agree FarmerD. My problem with zealots like them is that they seem to have no ability to weigh costs and benefits. GMO food has both, but they only ever look at the costs. It's the same with environmentalists who look at dirty coal plants and don't realize that good solutions include natural gas and nuclear. These other generation methods are realistic mixed bags with both costs and benefits, but they want to jump all the way to an impossible pie-in-the-sky all solar and wind system.

[Tyler]

Just to be clear, I was looking for the sarcasm tag in my last post but couldn't find it. 

Agree with you both. Like I've said before, trumped up scare tactics only serve to discredit those claiming the "scientific" high road.

[MachineGhost]

Don't Allow the Biotech Industry and USDA to Override Court Rulings!

This week, the House of Representatives will likely vote on the “must-pass”? FY 2013 Ag Appropriations bill. A rider was added, the so-called Farmer Assurance Provision (Section 733), that will strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of illegal, potentially hazardous GE crops while USDA is performing an environmental impact statement.

If this provision is becomes law, it will be a huge blow to the justice system, completely overriding judicial safeguards that protect both farmers and the public, and rendering judges’ rulings irrelevant.

Rep. Peter DeFazio is preparing an amendment to strike the pro-GMO rider from the bill. Please send your message to your congressional representative TODAY, and tell him or her to support the DeFazio amendment!

https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Ad ... on&id=1174

[smurff]

Don't Allow the Biotech Industry and USDA to Override Court Rulings!

https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Ad ... on&id=1174

Thanks MachineGhost, I'll look into it.  This has implications for all sorts of things beyond agriculture.

[lazyboy]

Monsanto contributes to world suck.

http://www.nationofchange.org/report-na ... 1340975688

"Will nature adapt to Monsanto’s genetically modified creations and lead to their downfall in the end? Time and time again researchers and agricultural professionals have been calling upon Monsanto and the United States government to return to traditional and sustainable farming practices — even citing the fact that Monsanto’s GMOs produce even less yield. Instead, the modified crops have overtaken much of the food supply. Now, in the face of collapse, the only answer provided by Monsanto is to drench crops in even more pesticides and modify their genetic coding to an even greater degree."

[lazyboy]

More on the "Monsanto Protection Bill"
http://ecowatch.org/2012/more-than-3000 ... ction-act/

Congressman Peter DeFazio (OR-D) will introduce an amendment this week that will strike the Farmer Assurance Provision currently included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill, and Democracy Now! is urging people to show their support of the DeFazio amendment to strike the Farmer Assurance Provision currently included in the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
“If allowed to pass, the Monsanto Protection Act will only open farmers and the agricultural economy to very real and significant harm from cross-contamination events like the StarLink corn incident,”? said Dave Murphy, Founder and Executive Director of Food Democracy Now!. “The new provision set forth in the FY 2013 House Agricultural Appropriations Bill will allow biotech seed and chemical companies to openly skirt even minimal protections of human health and environmental concerns. It’s time that our elected officials start putting our rights over profits for Monsanto and the biotech companies.”?

[MachineGhost]

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a man-made chemical present in a variety of products including food containers, receipt paper and dental sealants and is now widely detected in human urine and blood. Public health concerns have been fueled by findings that BPA exposure can influence brain development. In mice, prenatal exposure to BPA is associated with increased anxiety, aggression and cognitive impairments.  Emilie Rissman, from the University of Virginia School of Medicine (Virginia, USA), and colleagues fed female mice chow with or without BPA before mating and throughout gestation. Plasma levels of BPA in supplemented female mice were in a range similar to those measured in humans. Juveniles in the first generation exposed to BPA in utero displayed fewer social interactions as compared with control mice. The changes in genes were most dramatic in the first generation (the offspring of the mice that were exposed to BPA in utero), but some of these gene changes persisted into the fourth generation. Observing that: “exposure to a low dose of BPA, only during gestation, has immediate and long-lasting, transgenerational effects on mRNA in brain and social behaviors,”? the study authors conclude that: “Heritable effects of an endocrine-disrupting chemical have implications for complex neurological diseases and highlight the importance of considering gene-environment interactions in the etiology of complex disease.”?

[Pres]

Genetically engineered foods and animals have been around for centuries.  Just watch any dog show to learn about selective breeding of desirable characteristics.  Also, nearly all wine made in North America is made from european grapes grafted onto native american rootstocks to survive the varying climates.  Modern genetic engineering applies the same principles, just much more selectively.

Personally, I think 60% of the anti-genetic-engineering crowd just don't understand it so they buy into some silly Franken-food myth.  Another 30% are more anti-capitalist than pro-safety.  10% probably have legit questions about particular products and I wish people would focus on them, address the legitimate fears with hard data, and avoid the hysteria.

Sorry Tyler, but this reminds me a lot of how the pro nuclear crowd talk about nuclear protesters. "Nuclear is safe, the protestors just don't understand science." Yeah go tell that to the Japanese.

IMHO, labeling is the least that should be done.

Page 9 to 20 of this new book are an attempt at debunking your first paragraph:
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/G ... hs_1.2.pdf

[TBV]

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a man-made chemical present in a variety of products including food containers, receipt paper and dental sealants and is now widely detected in human urine and blood. Public health concerns have been fueled by findings that BPA exposure can influence brain development. In mice, prenatal exposure to BPA is associated with increased anxiety, aggression and cognitive impairments.  Emilie Rissman, from the University of Virginia School of Medicine (Virginia, USA), and colleagues fed female mice chow with or without BPA before mating and throughout gestation. Plasma levels of BPA in supplemented female mice were in a range similar to those measured in humans. Juveniles in the first generation exposed to BPA in utero displayed fewer social interactions as compared with control mice. The changes in genes were most dramatic in the first generation (the offspring of the mice that were exposed to BPA in utero), but some of these gene changes persisted into the fourth generation. Observing that: “exposure to a low dose of BPA, only during gestation, has immediate and long-lasting, transgenerational effects on mRNA in brain and social behaviors,”? the study authors conclude that: “Heritable effects of an endocrine-disrupting chemical have implications for complex neurological diseases and highlight the importance of considering gene-environment interactions in the etiology of complex disease.”?

"Anxiety, aggression, cognitive impairment, a decrease in social interaction, negative effects which can be observed in subsequent generations...."  Sounds similar to symptoms that arise after long-term exposure to our government-controlled educational system.  Perhaps we need labels for that too.

OK, OK.  Back on point.....

The implication here is that non-GMO products are superior in some way and that consumers might benefit from knowing that certain products had such desirable characteristics.  Then why don't enlightened manufacturers simply advertise their products as such and charge whatever premium they think should be charged for the alleged benefit?  This would give consumers informed choice, just as they have with rBST-free milk, fair trade coffee, or "Angus Beef."  One suspects that this is not the course of action being pursued because some prefer using the power of the state to stigmatize and ultimately ban products and practices which they personally dislike.  I'd rather see people retain their right to choose.

While we're on the subject of warning labels, here's some we could have...  

On those increasingly popular mobile food trucks: "This food provider lacks employee personal hygiene facilities."

At seafood restaurants: "Consumption of sushi, ceviche, or similar seafood that is not fully cooked is associated with elevated risk levels for cholera, cancer and exposure to parasitic nematodes."

At trendy coffee bars: "Our gourmet coffee and cocoa products are sourced from regions which the World Health Organization has identified as high risk areas for bilharzia, sleeping sickness and other pandemic diseases."

At your local Whole Foods store: "This artisanal cheese product is produced through prolonged exposure to airborne bacteria in facilities with close proximity to fecal material and other animal waste."

Unlike some food-safety claims, the above contain info which is without question 100% accurate.  But if employed, would you view them as primarily focused on public health, or on scaring off customers?  The same may be true of other health warnings.

[Tyler]

Good article, Pres. Thanks for the link.  I have no doubt that issues like this at far more scientifically complex than can be distilled in a few sentences on a message board.  I do not believe that genetic engineering is 100% safe under all circumstances. Nor do I believe it needs to be banned, as it has tremendous promise to improve our lot in life.

Genetic engineering, nuclear energy, space travel, investing - all things worth doing carry risk.  The precautionary principle would have us prove something is 100% safe before ever trying - something that is scientifically impossible to do.  Progress is risky, but worth it in the long run as long as you're smart about it.

And that's the rub that usually trips people up. Many just don't trust entities like the genetic, nuclear, or pharmaceutical industries, no matter what they do or how heavily they're regulated, on principle alone.  That's the point where politics trumps science and progress gives way to Luddites.  And others see one failure (such as the Challenger or Japanese nuclear disasters) and would prefer to give up entirely rather than learn from our mistakes and improve our planning and designs. Fear is a powerful de-motivator.

Scientific advancement requires a healthy balance of progress and review. Cutting either (out of fear or abandon, respestively) would be a sad indictment on the stagnation of scientific thought in America.  

[MachineGhost]

"Anxiety, aggression, cognitive impairment, a decrease in social interaction, negative effects which can be observed in subsequent generations...."  Sounds similar to symptoms that arise after long-term exposure to our government-controlled educational system.  Perhaps we need labels for that too.

I often wonder if caged lab mice don't miss out on the socially complex neurological influences and adaptions that would be present in a natural setting.  So without ameliorating growth influences, its it any surprise such mice would be more suspectible to displaying negative outcomes when exposed to specific synthetic chemicals?

I mean, ever since Silent Spring kicked off the environmental movement with DDT, our environment has been flooded with thousands of other xenoestrogens like BPA and yet, other than a dramatic increase in autistic spectrum disorders that seems more related to toxic metals in vaccines, insane mega-dose vaccine schedules or vitamin D insuffiency in the birth mother, we don't have generations of kids massively displaying negative outcomes equivalant to the mice. 

What we do seem to have in society presently is a rampant epidemic of obesity.  I am currently hypothesizing it may be due to environmental xenoestrogens rather than a mere 10% calorie shit from fat to carbohydrates.

[MachineGhost]

A dangerous set of riders in the House Farm Bill would create serious risks to farmers, the environment, and public health by forcing the rushed commercialization of genetically engineered crops. It would also eliminate all meaningful review of the effect they might have on our environment or our health.

These riders establish unworkable deadlines and backdoor approvals—if the crops aren’t reviewed and approved within an absurdly short time, they would default to immediate approval and commercialization. They also would bar all analysis of the impact of GMOs from any agency other than the USDA, and even then any environmental analysis won’t have an affect on the approval decision.

This makes a mockery of USDA’s GMO crop reviews. Contact the House Ag Committee leadership today and tell them you won’t stand for it!

https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Ad ... on&id=1177

[Storm]

"Anxiety, aggression, cognitive impairment, a decrease in social interaction, negative effects which can be observed in subsequent generations...."  Sounds similar to symptoms that arise after long-term exposure to our government-controlled educational system.  Perhaps we need labels for that too.

I often wonder if caged lab mice don't miss out on the socially complex neurological influences and adaptions that would be present in a natural setting.  So without ameliorating growth influences, its it any surprise such mice would be more suspectible to displaying negative outcomes when exposed to specific synthetic chemicals?

I mean, ever since Silent Spring kicked off the environmental movement with DDT, our environment has been flooded with thousands of other xenoestrogens like BPA and yet, other than a dramatic increase in autistic spectrum disorders that seems more related to toxic metals in vaccines, insane mega-dose vaccine schedules or vitamin D insuffiency in the birth mother, we don't have generations of kids massively displaying negative outcomes equivalant to the mice. 

What we do seem to have in society presently is a rampant epidemic of obesity.  I am currently hypothesizing it may be due to environmental xenoestrogens rather than a mere 10% calorie shit from fat to carbohydrates.

The "vaccines cause autism" argument has been pretty widely debunked.  I don't mean to disparage your other concerns, but by adding this to them, you quickly steer the conversation away from scientific consensus towards tin-foil hat conspiracy.

[MachineGhost]

The "vaccines cause autism" argument has been pretty widely debunked.  I don't mean to disparage your other concerns, but by adding this to them, you quickly steer the conversation away from scientific consensus towards tin-foil hat conspiracy.

It hasn't been debunked conclusively.  A lot of media and literature hype was made out to be that it was, including outright persecution of the involved parties for nothing more than personal or political reasons.  Given how corrupt things are nowadays at the highest levels of government and medicine, is that really any surprise?  The biggest problem with the medical community is they have too much ego and profit involvement to admit their "mistakes" cause irreparable damage or kill.  Need I remind you that iaotrogenic is the third leading cause of death?  There's no tin-foil hat conspiracy here other than the usual human B.S..

Nonethless, due to the outcry, mercury was removed from pretty much everything except for flu shots.  Yet, aluminum still remains in many vaccines and is still causing austim in vulnerable children.  Why did the vaccine manufacturers need permanent government immunity from litigation if they're so allegedly safe?

Personally, I don't believe it is vaccines per se, but the dysfunctional epigenetic changes caused by Vitamin D insuffiency in pregnant mothers brought on by decades of hysteria over sun exposure and widespread sunscreen use.  There is a much stronger correlation of the rise of autism to that than vaccinations.  So, the resulting dysfunctional immune system likely predisposes certain children to be more vulnerable to the front-loaded, vaccine bombs that would kill an adult.

The sensible thing to do if anyone believes in vaccination, is to avoid vaccines containing toxic metals and spread out the dosage schedule over time instead of giving a batshit insane 25 doses or so all at once.  That may require standing up to the physician and not kowtowing to their flippant or cocky attitude of institutional ignorance.  I do find the "acquired immunity" defense to be weak when held up to the statistics, however.  But, that shouldn't be enough validation to avoid safe methods of vaccination when death or disablement is so seemingly preventable.

[smurff]

It hasn't been debunked conclusively.  A lot of media and literature hype was made out to be that it was, including outright persecution of the involved parties for nothing more than personal or political reasons.  Given how corrupt things are nowadays at the highest levels of government and medicine, is that really any surprise?  The biggest problem with the medical community is they have too much ego and profit involvement to admit their "mistakes" cause irreparable damage or kill. 

Those in power (government, business) who say things like the vaccines-cause-autism argument has been debunked do so to deceive.  They make use of the differing ways that scientist use a word like "cause" compared to the way the general public uses the word, and take advantage of that difference to try to bring any serious discussion about the issue to an end ("We've debunked that years ago."). 

For something to "cause" a disease, it has to happen in all cases of exposure to that "something" under medical arguments about causality.  It's obvious that does not happen with vaccines and autism.  But if a small population within a larger population is susceptible to a disease when in the presence of a possibly offending substance ("something"), that difference between the populations will be enough to say, yes, there is causality here, at least for that population.  Another group of scientists can say, no, there is no causality here, because the entire larger population is not affected.  Both can make legitimate arguments over the facts.  But the longer the argument can continue, the less money has to be spent paying for activities that would settle the issue one way or another, including studies of populations made up of parents who have never vaccinated their children since the technology was invented a couple of hundred years ago, for religious reasons, compared to populations of parents who do.  (Pro-vaccine-bomb scientists will say that such studies are unethical.)  Studies of children whose received a reduced number of vaccines any one time compared to those on the typical schedule won't get done if all the time and energy are spent arguing and re-spinning the wheel.

Meanwhile, doctors will continue to treat people with autism documented to be caused by vaccine injuries, courts will still award compensation to families of children whose autism developed as a consequence of vaccination, and many doctors and other health care workers will quietly avoid having their children vaccinated.  As an example, this threatened to grow into a mini scandal when a couple of years ago Dr. Oz said he would not have his own kids vaccinated against swine flu while recommending the general public get the vaccine.  When asked why, he blamed "Mrs. Oz."

So no, the argument that vaccines cause some cases of autism has not been put down.