Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto

[MachineGhost]

http://geneticroulettemovie.com/

Wow, that is one scary movie.  I had no idea it was this bad already, but it explains a lot.

[MachineGhost]

I'm sorry but if someone guzzles cola and cheescake and takes no exersize then to my mind its daft to blame their inevitable dire health problems on the fact that the corn syrup in the cola is from a GMO In the UK we are fast catching up with the USA in terms of eating ourselves to an early grave with vast amounts of over-refined junk- irrespective of the block on GMO food over here.

Did you even watch the entire movie?  You are conflating negative GMO health effects with obesity which is hardly what we're concerned about here.

[stone]

I'm sorry but if someone guzzles cola and cheescake and takes no exersize then to my mind its daft to blame their inevitable dire health problems on the fact that the corn syrup in the cola is from a GMO In the UK we are fast catching up with the USA in terms of eating ourselves to an early grave with vast amounts of over-refined junk- irrespective of the block on GMO food over here.

Did you even watch the entire movie?  You are conflating negative GMO health effects with obesity which is hardly what we're concerned about here.

OK I'll watch it all. My initial reaction was that it was blaming GMOs for bad US health stats (that can be attributed to the reasons I mentioned) and then having a lot of stuff about animals being sick due presumably to chemical herbicides contaminating their feed rather than due to genetic modification.

[Gumby]

I'm actually sorry I didn't read this thread sooner. Wow. I'm going to watch the rest of it this weekend, but I came across this quick summary of the movie on the Weston A Price Foundation website:

If genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not yet on your radar screen, go to http://www.GeneticRoulette.com for a full presentation. Here is a teaser of what you’ll find:

-- The only human feeding study on GMOs ever conducted showed that genes “jumped”? from GM soy into the DNA of human intestinal bacteria and continued to function. That means that long after you stop eating GM soy, you may still have GM proteins produced continuously inside of you. (What if the pesticide-producing “Bt”? gene found in GM corn chips were also to jump? It might transform our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—possibly for the long term.)

-- Most offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks (compared to a 10 percent death rate in the non-GM soy group). Similarly, when a lab switched to rat feed with GM soy, most of the offspring at the facility died within two weeks.

-- Studies with mice also show reproductive problems. Mice fed GM soy had altered sperm cells and the DNA of their embryos acted differently.

-- Hundreds of farm workers complain of allergic reactions when touching GM cotton.

-- After sheep grazed on GM cotton plants after harvest, about one in four died; about 10,000 deaths in one region in India.

-- Farmers on three continents say their livestock became sterile, sick or died, after eating GM corn varieties.

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-food ... avoid-gmos

For tips on how to avoid GMOs in your foods supple, go to:

http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-food ... avoid-gmos

Thanks, Smurff for providing a link to that movie. Very eye opening.

[Gumby]

Stone,

One of the biggest problems, in my mind, is the disruption of the body's microflora. Stokes and Pillsbury, two doctors from the early 1900s came up with a hypothesis about 100 years ago that an imbalance in the stomach's microflora is responsible for most diseases in the human body. The hypothesis was known as the "Gut, Brain, Skin Axis" and it detailed how a compromised gut, caused by inflammation and an imbalance in the microbiome allowed toxic flora and toxins to enter the bloodstream and cause mental issues and inflammatory issues throughout the body.

In fact, their hypothesis was an extension of Hippocrates's famous quote:

“All disease begins in the gut.”?
~Hippocrates (c. 460-377 B.C.)

What we see today, 100 years after Stokes and Pillsbury, is that modern science is just starting to understand this and over the past 10 years, scientists are seeing a ton of evidence to support this theory.

For instance:

Scientific America: Think Twice: How the Gut's "Second Brain" Influences Mood and Well-Being
NYTimes: Tending the Body’s Microbial Garden

Today, what we call "cutting-edge" science is now finding many connections between most major diseases and the gut. For instance, almost 100% of autistic children have severely compromised flora in their guts — their stools are filled with all sorts of toxic bacteria that are not normally found in healthy stools. And we now know that their are millions of neuropathways that extend directly from the stomach to the brain.

So, what likely happens is that people eat food that compromises their gut and it disrupts their microbiome and causes all sorts of diseases.

Here's one theoretical example...

If a baby is given formula made from GMO soy, it may very well cause the lining of their stomach to become inflamed and compromised. If that same baby was born via c-section, they may not have enough good bacteria in their gut (normally acquired in the birth canal from their mother as well as their mother's milk) to protect the lining of their delicate stomach. As the baby grows, their stomach becomes more permeable, leaking toxins that would normally stay in the stomach into their blood supply. As the toxins enter their blood supply, it can cause inflammatory conditions, mental illness, sensory problems and a long list of other possible conditions.

Even more interesting is that when people find ways to heal and seal their guts — through alternative and integrative medical techniques — their "incurable" diseases tend to disappear.

Interestingly, raw milk from cows and humans have components that actually seal up the lining of the stomach. Calfs are born with leaky stomachs and their mother's milk seals up the lining of their guts to prevent the issues I mentioned above.

So, modern science is just beginning to understand that if your stomach is compromised, it can lead to all sorts of issues.

And yet, most people don't even realize that scientists have been saying this for about 2,500 years.

[stone]

I'm sure gut inflamation is a problem. I've read that "The Second Brain" book and remember quite liking it.  I saw an interesting TV show where people infested themselves with intestinal parasites and that settled down the gut inflamation. I'm sure the gut flora is also important- a reason not to take antibiotics when you don't need to.

All of that has no substantive connection to this anti-GMO stuff though.

For a more balanced view on GMO, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticall ... troversies

[Gumby]

All of that has no substantive connection to this anti-GMO stuff though.

Huh? The very article you cited shows evidence that some GMO crops have been known to cause allergic reactions (i.e. inflammatory responses).

In November 2005 a pest-resistant field pea developed by the Australian CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice.[96] Work on this variety was immediately halted. The protein added to the pea did not cause the reaction in humans or mice in isolation, but when it was expressed in the pea, it exhibited a subtly different structure which may have caused the allergic reaction. The immunologist who tested the pea noted that crops need to be evaluated case-by-case.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticall ... troversies

You've just proven my point for me by posting that link. Your stomach is not some giant garbage can that can perfectly digest anything you put in it. In fact, our stomachs (and our microbiomes) have evolved for millions of years along with very specific foods that have also slowly evolved over millions of years.

So... if the parents of Autistic children are noticing that their kids' symptoms improve when they stop eating GMO food — as was explained in the movie — one who understands the gut-brain connection might conclude that there is something in the GMO food that is causing an allergic or inflammatory reaction in the stomachs of already compromised children.

[MachineGhost]

Interestingly, raw milk from cows and humans have components that actually seal up the lining of the stomach. Calfs are born with leaky stomachs and their mother's milk seals up the lining of their guts to prevent the issues I mentioned above.

What are these components?  And will raw cow milk do the same to human guts?

[MachineGhost]

So... if the parents of Autistic children are noticing that their kids' symptoms improve when they stop eating GMO food — as was explained in the movie — one who understands the gut-brain connection might conclude that there is something in the GMO food that is causing an allergic or inflammatory reaction in the stomachs of already compromised children.

It seems to me it could be the GM pesticide-producing cells or perhaps the excessive use of Roundup Ready on the GM tolerant crops.  But the proteins themselves could also be deranged and altered.

I think the GM DNA transpositioning is insane enough.  And obviously, the conspiracy and persecution of scientists and whistleblowers is a red flag that something huge is being suppressed.  We've seen this scenario play out many times before in history that it is almost hard to believe it is happening again.  Just goes to show how useless and corrupt politicans and bureaucrats in government truly are.  They don't do a single damn thing about protecting the public except when it is politically expedient or there is a profit to be made.  How do these people live with themselves?  Don't they live on the same planet, breathe the same air and eat the same GM food as everyone else?  Dumbasses.

[stone]

Gumby, that GMO caused an allergic reaction for those mice. That doesn't mean that in general GMOs are more likely to cause  allergic reactions than non-genetically modified foods.

Lets imagine that when the first European explorers returned from the Americas with peppers, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, chocolate, Brazil nuts etc everyone quite understandably had wanted safety tests done. Had they been feeding lots of those things to various animals and checking them all, I'm sure they would have seen some allergic reactions just as they would have done with enough tests with domestic crops. I really don't think that their is any more to this GMO scare than that.

[MachineGhost]

Lets imagine that when the first European explorers returned from the Americas with peppers, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, chocolate, Brazil nuts etc everyone quite understandably had wanted safety tests done. Had they been feeding lots of those things to various animals and checking them all, I'm sure they would have seen some allergic reactions just as they would have done with enough tests with domestic crops. I really don't think that their is any more to this GMO scare than that.

Except when your farm animals (or kids) are getting weaker and sicker over time and eventually dying, its far beyond just an "allergic reaction" that can be waved off as inconsequential, especially if you can't easily avoid the "allergens" in the food supply and there is a risk of "safe" food being dominated by the "allergenic" food due to corporate interests.

Due to the political supression, I think the whole issue will come down to empirical observations via marketing propaganda.  Only one will win. 

BTW, it's real easy to armchair quarterback when you're in the UK and have no first-hand experience with the potential negative effects of GE food.

[Gumby]

That's just it, Stone. Many foods are allergenic and have been for millennia. A handful of raw wild almonds can kill you in a matter of hours. But through careful selective processes and cultivation, over generations and generations, we now have almonds that are edible. That is no accident. It's the slow evolution of the food supply.

Today, some build a gene in a lab and shoots it into the genome of a plant. It's by no means an exact science and the injection causes all sorts of unintended and undocumented mutations. Then they take the resulting product and feed it to a handful if mice for a few weeks. If all goes well, it becomes the food supply.

There is no controlled human trial. No long term study. No FDA approval. Just dump the seeds in the food supply and hope for the best.

Stone, we really don't really even know how children's and babies' stomachs react to GMOs — particularly those with stomachs that are already compromised with permeability. Would you feed your baby GMO food or formula?

[MachineGhost]

MG, your posts often sound so angry, cynical and miserable that, even when I agree, I still cringe. I feel bad for you. It must be incredibly difficult thinking that most in the world (except perhaps manufacturers of supplements) are conspiratorial and ignorant dumbasses. We live in an imperfect world, surrounded by imperfect people and imperfect institutions. When we acknowledge this fact, we can see the beauty and blessing of it all. We can live intelligently, prudently, and cautiously and still live wholesomely. We can work to affect positive change in the world without becoming disillusioned and miserable.

Don't take what I say 100% seriously.  I may be cynical, but I like to have a lot of fun with it because the sheer absurdity of our reality is comical.  It would suck to be all prim and proper and serious all the time!  Unfortunately, I'm also not as witty as The Great MediumTex is on these kinds of things.

[WiseOne]

To whoever posted the "Genetic Roulette" video:  THANK YOU!!!  I've only watched the first few minutes, but this is one I'm definitely passing along to friends & family.  A shame I didn't delve into this thread sooner.

The allergy link completely makes sense (Bt toxin disrupts gut walls -> undigested food particles getting into circulation --> antibodies created --> allergy).  We've all seen the huge increase in celiac disease, to take just one example.  Although, the charts in the movie showed increases that started before 1992.  Obviously there are other factors than just GMO foods.

I wonder if they'll get to something that might explain the early puberty that's also becoming something of an epidemic.  It's now common for 8-10 year old girls to start menstruating.  20 years ago that was unheard of.  I thought it might have to do with growth hormones fed to cattle (same idea with diabetes), but now I'm curious if it could be related to gmo somehow.

[Gumby]

Gumby, that GMO caused an allergic reaction for those mice. That doesn't mean that in general GMOs are more likely to cause  allergic reactions than non-genetically modified foods.

Stone, besides all of the evidence that unintended allergenic reactions have already been documented in some GMOs and the fact that these crops have not been thoroughly tested on adults or infants in controlled studies, you seem to be under the impression that the largest risk is that highly powerful insecticides are sprayed onto the crops. While that's an obvious risk, let's not forget that one of the key aspects of many GMOs is that the crops are engineered to act as pesticides themselves!

A GMO crop that has been modified to emit Bt-toxin is literally designed to cause a bug's stomach to split open if it takes a bite of a GMO crop. Think about that for a second. The GMO crop is engineered to rupture the stomach of an insect.

Swiss scientists have already discovered unintended lethal effects of Bt toxin in birds that weren't even the desired target of bt toxin-producing crops:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111158.htm

If you think that there's no way that Bt toxin-producing crops could possibly cause an unintended consequence in a human stomach, or the stomach of an infant, I think you might have a bit too much faith in modern science. Most people would not feel comfortable feeding a pesticide-producing crop to a child. Would you?

Before you answer, consider that UK researchers have already discovered evidence that Bt toxin kills human kidney cells — even though Bt toxin is advertised to be inert in the human body:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt_Toxin_Kills_ ... _Cells.php

And there is evidence that these bt toxin-producing genes can jump to the bacteria in the lining of the stomach and cause an individual's own microbiome to turn into a pesticide factory for weeks after the food has left the intestines.

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n ... bt934.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-1995-0605.ch012

Even cotton engineered to produce bt toxin has been known to cause rashes in those who handle and touch the cotton. Animals who have grazed on those cotton plants have died within hours of eating them.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... foods.aspx

Remember, in the United States, the biggest challenge is that most people don't have any ability to screen their food, due to inadequate labeling. There's almost no way to avoid it when most of the corn and soy in the US is now GMO.

The FDA is supposedly responsible for food safety. However, it doesn’t do any testing on GMO food and doesn’t require any independent tests. The only studies done are by the same companies developing the foods and they’re not required to give all their data to the FDA.

So, how about it? Would you still feel comfortable feeding bt toxin-producing crops to children or infants? No worries, Bt toxin from GMOs has already been found in the blood of pregnant mothers and their unborn fetuses...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

Hmm... What could possibly go wrong?

[MediumTex]

To whoever posted the "Genetic Roulette" video:  THANK YOU!!!  I've only watched the first few minutes, but this is one I'm definitely passing along to friends & family.  A shame I didn't delve into this thread sooner.

The allergy link completely makes sense (Bt toxin disrupts gut walls -> undigested food particles getting into circulation --> antibodies created --> allergy).  We've all seen the huge increase in celiac disease, to take just one example.  Although, the charts in the movie showed increases that started before 1992.  Obviously there are other factors than just GMO foods.

I wonder if they'll get to something that might explain the early puberty that's also becoming something of an epidemic.  It's now common for 8-10 year old girls to start menstruating.  20 years ago that was unheard of.  I thought it might have to do with growth hormones fed to cattle (same idea with diabetes), but now I'm curious if it could be related to gmo somehow.

We seem to be breeding a new type of humans who may live longer than their predecessors, but who will require a much more expensive set of medical services to achieve this longer life.

Humans circa 1900 might be thought of as a 1978 Honda Civic, a car that would go 200,000 miles without much more than gas, oil and tires.  Humans today are more like a 2012 Honda Civic, which might go 220,000 miles, but it's going to need a heck of a lot more than gas, oil and tires to get there.

To me, the really elegant approach to longevity would be to take many aspects of a 1900 human's lifestyle, and then apply selected aspects of modern medicine to it.  That would seem to be the best mix, IMHO.

[smurff]

Lets imagine that when the first European explorers returned from the Americas with peppers, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, chocolate, Brazil nuts etc everyone quite understandably had wanted safety tests done.

This actually happened.  When Christopher Columbus returned to Italy bearing tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, and potatoes, knowledgeable people of the time feared they might be poisonous.  Why?  It seems that these foods are members of the Nightshade family, which in Europe, Asia and Africa had a family member, the Deadly Nightshade, also known as Belladonna, that produced a poison in the berries and leaves.  This poison had been used for centuries to make poison-tipped arrows, and by various wives of Roman Emperors to kill off their enemies.  They banned the cultivation of the tomato plants and banned their consumption. 

It was only after they listened to detailed reports from Columbus and his men about what happened when they ate them, and after they conducted lengthy feeding studies--in Columbus' time it was probably using paupers and prisoners--that they realized the imported Nightshade-based plants were not poisonous.  Italy now makes one of the best cuisines in the world, largely based on New World Nightshades (tomatoes, eggplants, peppers).  But they were wise to be wary and to test the unfamiliar food before planting and consuming it en masse.

[smurff]

To whoever posted the "Genetic Roulette" video:  THANK YOU!!! 

You're very welcome, WiseOne. 

Although, the charts in the movie showed increases that started before 1992.  Obviously there are other factors than just GMO foods.

GMOs have been laboratory-grown since the 1970s, and had open-air cultivation tests since the mid 1980s, so their pollen has been out there a lot longer than the early 1990s.  It was in 1992 that the first ones were approved as food.  In other words, they've been around in the environment a lot longer than they've been formally marketed.

I wonder if they'll get to something that might explain the early puberty that's also becoming something of an epidemic.  It's now common for 8-10 year old girls to start menstruating.  20 years ago that was unheard of.  I thought it might have to do with growth hormones fed to cattle (same idea with diabetes), but now I'm curious if it could be related to gmo somehow.

The high body fat content of American children, together with the widespread contamination of the environment by endocrine disruptors (especially from estrogen and estrogen mimics), have been blamed for this precocious puberty. There have been rumours that in certain countries in Central and South America that rely on agribusiness for a major portion of their trade, the situation is much worse because of environmental contamination.

In addition to the ordinary growth hormones, there are the antibiotics, which as a side effect cause mammals to grow fat; this is the main reason they are used in edible livestock, not to kill microorganisms. Body fat plays a major role in estrogen production. 

Also, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH/rBST) genes were cloned into E. coli bacteria in the early 1980s by Genentech and Monsanto.  They brought this GMO-based rBGH to the USA market for use in cattle to increase milk production in the early 1990s. Among other things, milk produced from cattle treated with rBGH contains a lot of IGF-1 (Insulin growth factor -1, implicated in cancerous tumor growth). 

Can GMO milk can be tied directly to the increased levels of precocious puberty?  Who knows?  Milk is one of the few foods where the label is allowed to suggest rBGH is not in the milk, but then the dairy cattle eat GMO grain and who knows what problems get passed on from that.  And I don't know whether any independent researcher is looking into it.

[MachineGhost]

I wonder if they'll get to something that might explain the early puberty that's also becoming something of an epidemic.  It's now common for 8-10 year old girls to start menstruating.  20 years ago that was unheard of.  I thought it might have to do with growth hormones fed to cattle (same idea with diabetes), but now I'm curious if it could be related to gmo somehow.

It's definitely environmental xenoestrogens.  Everything from DDT to BPA to plastic to skim milk.  Best load up on your cruciferious veggies!

[stone]

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-con ... -bacteria/

Genetic Roulette claims that because Bt in crops doesn’t wash off, because it is modified to be active upon ingestion, and because there is much more of it, we should believe that the Bt in crops is more toxic.  Yes, it is more toxic to insects—that’s why Bt crops work so well.  There is no data presented by Smith in this section that shows that Bt in crops is more toxic to humans or animals.  Studies have repeatedly shown that animals can consume large amounts of Bt without ill effect–in fact, Bt protein is digested just like any other. This is called nutrition.  Once again Smith makes a scary claim for which he can advance no factual evidence or logical argument.

1.  Bt-toxins that are sprayed on plants don’t persist, while Bt proteins that are produced in plants do persist, which is one of the reasons Bt crops are more effective than Bt sprays. Scientists incorporate Bt into plants so that the plants produce biopesticide continually.  Not surprisingly, they often target Bt production to the leaves, stems or roots depending on the insect pest that is being defended against (Ely and others 2000, Russell and Fromm 1997, Song and others 2000). This lowers costs since less insecticide is used, along with less labor and fuel (Brookes and Barfoot 2007).  Research shows that Bt crops also have far less environmental impact than spraying chemical pesticides (and probably less than spraying Bt biopesticides)

2.  The Bt-toxins incorporated into plants are modified so that they will act quickly and they are present at high levels in order to delay development of resistance. Scientists are able to produce plants that more effectively control pests than Bt sprays. Bt sprays are not always effective and it is difficult to achieve high concentrations of Bt on crops plants (Nester and others 2002).  Because of this, resistance to Bt has emerged in the Diamond Back moth (Shelton and others 1993).  Developers of Bt crops found a way to make Bt more potent as well as to increase the levels of Bt in the plant tissues in order to retard the development of resistant insects. They also modified the molecule so that it didn’t need to be partially digested by the insect to be active.

3. The Bt used in Bt crops is safe for humans and animals so increases in exposure to humans and animals are of no consequence. Smith’s claims that the modified Bt molecules used in groups could cause more antibodies to be formed are meaningless since IgE antibodies associated with Bt allergy have never been reported (Siegel 2001, Betz and others 2000).  Despite years of planting hundreds of millions of acres of Bt crops, allergies or other adverse effects in humans have not occurred.  Similarly, increases in Bt potency and concentration are not important because not only have adverse effects not been observed during widespread use, there are scientific studies that tell Bt proteins are not allergens or toxins in animals (Siegel 2001, Betz and others 2000).  Bt proteins are very specifically toxic to a few closely related insects (Nester and others 2002; Whalon and Wingerd 2003).  Developers of Bt crops, and other researchers, have published studies which show that animals can be fed Bt at doses that are thousands to millions of times higher than a human or animal would encounter in a Bt crop without any toxic effect.  Put another way, these studies show that we can safely eat grams of Bt proteins while Bt crops contain only micrograms.  That’s why regulators are able to approve Bt crops.  Bt proteins don’t hurt mammals.  We have to add here that the life-cycle of the bacteria that produce these Bt proteins is one of natures’ wonders.  They are insect pathogens that produce proteins that kill only their host insects but which do not affect other insects.  This phenomenon is called biological specificity.

4.  Smith’s arguments in section 3.4 offer no evidence of harm. Smith argues that exposure is higher and that the molecules are different but he provides no evidence that this causes harm.  He is essentially arguing more is worse and different is worse.  Many of the claims in Genetic Roulette follow this pattern.  The only actual claim of adverse effect is to Green Lacewings that have consumed lepidoptera that has consumed Bt corn containing at Bt called Cry1Ab— a study that was shown to be in error in 2004 (Romeis and others 2004)—long before Smith wrote Genetic Roulette.  There are two important points to note here: 1) for scientific findings to be accepted they must be independently validated—in this case the claim was shown by other scientists to be incorrect, and 2) Smith either doesn’t know the scientific literature or is intentionally hiding information from the reader that doesn’t support his views.

References

Betz FS, Hammond BG, and Fuchs, RL (2000). Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-protected plants to control insect pests. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 32:156-177.

Brookes G and Barfoot P (2007). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996-2006. AgBioForum, 11: 21-38. Available on the World Wide Web: www.agbioforum.org.

Ely S, Evans IJ and Schuch WW (2000). Root specific promoter. World Patent WO/2000/029594 International Application No.PCT/IB1998/002000

Nester EW and others (2002).100 Years of Bacillus thuringiensis: A Critical Scientific Assessment.  A report from the American Academy of Microbiology.  2002.http://academy.asm.org/images/stories/d ... tcolor.pdf

Romeis J, Dutton A, and Bigler F (2004). Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology 50:175–183.

Russell DA and Fromm ME (1997). Tissue-specific expression in transgenic maize of four endosperm promoters from maize and rice. Transgenic Research 6, 157–168 (1997)

Shelton AM, Robertson JL, Tang JD, Perez C, Eigenbrode SD, Preisler HK, Wilsey WT, and Cooley RJ (1993). Resistance of diamondback moth to Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies in the field. J. Econ. Entomol. 86: 697-705.

Siegel JP (2001). The mammalian safety of Bacillus thuringiensis- based insecticides. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology.  77:13-21

Song P, Heinen JL, Burns TH, and Allen RD (2000). Expression of two tissue-specific promoters in transgenic cotton plants. The Journal of Cotton Science 4:217-223

Whalon ME and Wingerd BA (2003). Bt: Mode of action and use Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology, 54: 200-211.
Genetic Roulette Falsely Claims:
The Bt in crops is more toxic than the Bt spray
1. The Bt-toxin in GM crops is more harmful than Bt spray due to differences in the concentration and form of protein.

2. Bt sprays are used intermittently and degrade in the environment.

3. The Bt-toxin in crops is thousands of times more concentrated and is continuously produced in every plant cell.

4. The form of the Bt-toxin protein in GM crops is also more toxic.

Smith claims that the Bt-toxin in GM crops is more toxic than the Bt-toxin in bacterial sprays.

[stone]

If none of the transgene encoded protein were expressed in the part of the plant that is eaten, would you still object to GMO crops? For instance if the transgene encoded protein were expressed in maize leaves, stems and roots but not the grains then would that be OK by you?
That link Gumby posted showing uptake of a plant transgene by gut microbes did not show any expression of the gene in those microbes (it was actually not even all of the transgene, just a fragment of it).

[Gumby]

If none of the transgene encoded protein were expressed in the part of the plant that is eaten, would you still object to GMO crops? For instance if the transgene encoded protein were expressed in maize leaves, stems and roots but not the grains then would that be OK by you?
That link Gumby posted showing uptake of a plant transgene by gut microbes did not show any expression of the gene in those microbes (it was actually not even all of the transgene, just a fragment of it).

Uh... no, Stone. I would never eat a GMO food if I had the choice. And frankly I'm shocked that you would consider feeding it to your family given the fact that GMO food is full of undocumented mutations.

http://www.foodrenegade.com/mutated-gmo ... -cattle-2/

A field of hybrid Bermuda grass that’s been happily feeding a Texas cattle rancher’s small herd for the past 15 years spontaneously started producing cyanide gas, killing 15 of his 18 cattle.

K-EYE TV in Austin, TX broke the story yesterday, sharing how the mysterious mass death of the herd has prompted a federal investigation. Just a few short weeks ago, Jerry Abel opened the gate to a field containing lush Tifton 85 grass and let his herd in for the first time this year. It was a hot Texas day, and the cattle were eager to chow down on some tall, green grass. According to the news story, the grass is a genetically-modified version of Bermuda grass. It’s higher protein and specifically designed to be better for feeding livestock, making hay, and withstanding fluctuations in weather.

Not long thereafter, the bellowing began. Thinking one of the pregnant heifers was possibly trying to have a calf, they raced to the field — only to find all the steers and heifers on the ground in agonizing pain.

Choking up, Abel says, “That was very traumatic to see, because there was nothing you could do, obviously, they were dying.”?

[align=center]
[VIDEO LINK][/align]

The preliminary autopsy report revealed that the grass, which had been successfully feeding Abel’s herd for 15 years, had spontaneously started emitting poisonous cyanide gas. Right now, they’re guessing the mutation was prompted by the extreme drought Texas ranchers faced last year, although it’s all just speculation.

Local farmers, prompted by the news, have begun testing their own Tifton 85 grasses, only to find that they, too, have fields that are now toxic with cyanide.

Scientists at the United States Department of Agriculture are testing the various grass samples, trying to determine exactly what caused the mutation.

Source: http://www.foodrenegade.com/mutated-gmo ... -cattle-2/

[Gumby]

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-con ... -bacteria/

Thanks so much for the Monsanto propaganda, Stone. Do you have any more short term industry-sponsored studies that you can post for us?

[stone]

Gumby, you're very astute at working out the ins and outs of websites. I couldn't see where it says that that website I posted is Monsanto propaganda. I didn't realize that it is. Please quote the info suggesting that it is.

What do you mean about the undocumented mutations? We are all chock full of undocumented mutations. That is why inbreeding causes problems. If brothers and sisters have children together then those mutations become apparent. Anyway, not all methods of transgenesis are mutagenic and even in those cases where they are, the transgene can be bred out into a different genetic background.

To my mind the genuinely sinister, greed and hubris driven conspiracy is that biology research gets directed so much towards biomedicine rather than towards agriculture. Rich people have plenty of food and so don't need technology to improve food security with lower inputs of land, water and minerals etc. So instead research is all directed towards a vain attempt to postpone aging.

[Gumby]

Gumby, you're very astute at working out the ins and outs of websites. I couldn't see where it says that that website I posted is Monsanto propaganda. I didn't realize that it is. Please quote the info suggesting that it is.

Stone,

The website you posted was created by two individuals — Bruce Chassy and David Tribe — who receive substantial money from the GMO industry.

With support from the highest levels of government, biotech defenders quickly mobilized a coordinated attack campaign trying to distort and cover up the evidence. Their attempts continue with the biotech industry propaganda website, Academics Review (www.academicsreview.org), run by GM advocates Bruce Chassy and David Tribe, which recycles old lies about Pusztai's research. Jeffrey Smith expertly takes apart the deception in two articles:
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option= ... e&id=12410
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option= ... e&id=12411
Source: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option ... number-296

So, yes, what you posted was pure industry-sponsored propaganda.

What do you mean about the undocumented mutations? We are all chock full of undocumented mutations. That is why inbreeding causes problems. If brothers and sisters have children together then those mutations become apparent. Anyway, not all methods of transgenesis are mutagenic and even in those cases where they are, the transgene can be bred out into a different genetic background.

Like the Tifton-85 grass that spontaneously started producing cyanide-gas, documented by K-EYE TV in Austin, TX (above)?

To my mind the genuinely sinister, greed and hubris driven conspiracy is that biology research gets directed so much towards biomedicine rather than towards agriculture. Rich people have plenty of food and so don't need technology to improve food security with lower inputs of land, water and minerals etc. So instead research is all directed towards a vain attempt to postpone aging.

Stone, based on your comments its seems pretty clear that you don't have any children. When you have a baby, or a child, it's not wise to base your decisions on industry-sponsored propaganda. Seriously, that's a pretty dumb way to make decisions about health and well-being.

Frankly, I think you are purposely avoiding discussing the well-documented allergenic reactions discussed above (unintended animal deaths from GMO crops; irritants in touching GMO cotton; cyanide gas from Tifton-85 grass) just to maintain an opposing viewpoint in this discussion.

So, I'll ask you again...and hopefully you'll answer the question this time:

Would you give GMO food to a child or infant knowing that there was even a possibility that the food could harm that child?