General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI want to know if it's GMO!
It's our right to know.
It's a simple addition to food labels.
What harm could that do other than give consumers more information?
More information. How is that bad?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and a good portion of them have gone organic. How do I know it's not GMO? I ask the farmer if their produce is from GMO seed and if they say, "no," I buy their produce. It's just one more reason to seek out local farms or just grow your own (if possible).
djean111
(14,255 posts)Already, the GMO people are really pissy about the higher prices organic food commands. They try to butter that up by saying it is not fair to the poor consumers, but really,they wish they could charge the same prices.
How very weird, the idea that consumers are being told they have no right to know exactly what they are eating.
What hubris. I think the new "trade" agreements will be stuffed full of things like this.
I don't believe the GMO folks can get so far as to demand that no one can put a GMO-free label on food. This may cause GMO labeling to proliferate, ironically. My assumption now is that if something is not labeled GMO-free, is is by default GMO.
roody
(10,849 posts)on milk.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)In the sense, of course, of "add me to the list."
--imm
roody
(10,849 posts)why you should not know.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)What are they afraid of?
Orrex
(63,208 posts)That was his rationale for allowing the NSA to scoop up user data without a warrant and to hold it indefinitely for future use.
Sure. If we have nothing to hide, then what are we afraid of?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)But thanks for asking, Mr. Monsanto.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)For one thing, you stand a better chance of taking the Whitehouse in 2016.
For another thing, Sander proposes a lot of stuff. How much of it has passed?
For yet another thing, what is the compelling reason to require manufacturers to disclose a scientifically irrelevant fact that's 100% guaranteed to damage their sales? Remember, your "desire to know" is not a compelling reason.
Keep 'em coming, Bernie!
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)States should be able to require labeling of all foods produced with genetic engineering technology.
But you're off there with the Monsantos.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)I won't call you a coprophage, because that would be a lie, but it would be no more false than you calling me a Monsanto shill, and arguably less offensive.
What exactly are the boundaries?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I never claimed you were taking money from Monsanto.
Urban Dictionary: shill
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shill
Urban Dictionary
The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services
Response to pnwmom (Reply #102)
Post removed
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I didn't say you took money from Monsanto, and you didn't say I took it from Graham.
What a short memory you must have. I linked you to Monsanto in exactly the way you chose to link me to Graham. If you find that offensive, well then you shouldn't have started the exchange.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #104)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #106)
pnwmom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kali
(55,007 posts)otherwise anybody can read your edited post.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)how much sodium, potassium, sugar, high fructose corn crap, transfat, monounsaturated fat, cholesterol, what have you.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)What are they afraid of?
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Profit cutting moves like this
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/30/why-the-netherlands-just-banned-monsantos-glyphosate-based-herbicides/
Monsanto has a lot to lose it is not just on foods
So they fight it in every country that tries to bring it out in the light
Archae
(46,327 posts)When they have another link at the same site, with anti-vaccination hysterics?
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/15/jim-carrey-continues-his-activism-why-vaccines-should-not-be-mandatory/
Back in the 1950's, science was labeled as "only for eggheads," until Sputnik.
The dominant entertainment media back then were the movies, and they treated science that way, either "mad scientists" or "eggheads" who would try to destroy the world or never get a girl/guy.
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay about this, called "The Cult Of Ignorance."
Some "activists" still haven't grown out of this attitude.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Yep they have nothing . Every one of these countries is known for their wild outrageous flippant laws just enacted for nothing or maybe to piss off scientist I bet. If you are looking for the likes of N Korea it is not on there . S Korea is listed because I don't know they are one of the countries you can not take seriously
Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam. All paper wasters too as you claim below .Save the paper
Archae
(46,327 posts)Many of these countries on that list are third-world, while the reasons for the other countries banning GMO's has nothing to do with science.
And science says GMO's are safe.
Hysterics and profiteers say otherwise.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)You are worried about label paper being wastedand the replies here are not worth it when you and others have replies like that
but 64 countries not all third world say Label by law
I am new and learning about DU ' demos
Archae
(46,327 posts)No, you wouldn't.
Not only does it look gross, it's very bitter.
(I tried one years ago)
But you'll gladly eat this GMO.
Same fruit.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Archae
(46,327 posts)Bananas were created almost entirely by selective breeding, which is a genetic science.
The anti-GMO hysterics and profiteers don't want you to know about this, or think about it.
"Natural" and "organic" labels are worthless, even dangerous.
Did you know that dangerous poisons are commonly used on organic produce?
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)know that and want to bring up pyrethrums as equal it is not . You have you opinion and I don't have time for this thread I will just say the word for other DU s Glyphosate
Orrex
(63,208 posts)It's not a GMO because it's inconvenient to admit that GMO foods have been around for millennia, It then becomes necessary to move the ever-arbitrary goalposts to exclude those foods resulting from modern technology, and shame on you if you imply that anti-GMO-types are science-phobic luddites or anything like that.
SHAME!
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)It is the foods developed with that technology that should be labeled.
Never in all the millennia did the gene of a lightning bug implant itself in a fish. That would require engineering technology that didn't exist.
I love how anti-GMO-types always trot that one out in the apparent belief that they've scored some rhetorical victory.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)has been in use since the dawn of time.
You appealed to nature when you said, "it's inconvenient to admit that GMO foods have been around for millennia." I merely pointed out the fallacy in your justification-by-nature argument. Genetically engineered foods have not been around for millennia.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)Arguing with an anti-GMO zealot is like asking a 11th century serf to explain calculus.
I love how the anti-vax zealots are more or less indistinguishable from anti-GMO zealots, equally impervious to logic, evidence and reason.
I love how I will now be accused of making personal attacks by the same
sanctimonous zealots who invariably deride pro-science DUers as "Monsanto shills."
The world is facing real problems, but instead of worrying about those, the anti-GMO-types complain about scientific progress and pat themselves on the back as if they've done anything more than declare their own ignorance.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Then you can refer to the Scientific Journals and point out the peer-reviewed long term effects of GMO ingestion into the Human Body.
Can't fine it?
That is because it doesn't exist.
GMOs were approved for American consumption by the politicians who took money from Monsanto......
and "grandfathered" GMOs into our food stream because
they didn't look any different.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)actually took the time and didn't grab any random link but a long list of peer reviewed studies the poster could t be bothered addressing them but one that Monsanto always debates so the list is below so what do you have against scientist at universities and why you call them eggheads
Archae
(46,327 posts)Who is going to put labels on *ALL* the produce in a supermarket?
Besides, the amount of anti-GMO propaganda is already sending people to the "organic" aisles, where the produce is 2 or even 3 or more times the price.
And to date, *ALL* credible research says GMO food is safe to eat, contrary to the hysterics put out by the "natural, organic" producers, many of whom use far more toxic pesticides and herbicides.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Labels are printed all the time. Adding three letter "GMO' is no cost.
What are you afraid of?
Archae
(46,327 posts)Not a damn thing.
That includes GMO food.
Your all for labeling GMO foods then - right?
Archae
(46,327 posts)I don't give a shit.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Person 2713
(3,263 posts)having to add or change info.
NOW WITH NEW ADDED WHATEVER !
NOW WITHOUT HIGH FRUCTOSE !
NEW NO TRANS FATS !
New improved flavor!
yes all those labels have to readdress content and be changed
Thus a "new different label"
but but its the end of freedom and the loss of great profit now also a waste of paper if the label adds
Contains GMO
The label argument is logic not
I have words but I just can't
longship
(40,416 posts)Also, just about everything you eat is genetically modified. Get used to that fact, too. (But don't worry, it is safe, as *all* the evidence indicates.)
So, no labeling is necessary. Otherwise, people would be spreading fear and doubt for no reason except that a few ideologues prefer to ignore the science and go running into the street screeching "LABELS!"
What will they eat when they get their labeling law and all the food at the store wears the GMO label?
And what would they have accomplished? (Other than making us all seem a lot more ignorant.)
The science is already in on this issue. No labels necessary.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Murcia don't need no labels
longship
(40,416 posts)Genetic modification is safe, just like it has been for thousands of years.
All the food you eat is genetically modified.
Answer my question. What are you going to eat when all the food at the grocers wears a GMO label?
Labeling accomplishes absolutely nothing but spreading fear and doubt about something that has been happening for thousands of years. And it is all based on ignorance.
No labels are necessary.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)One recent study published in the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology has now proven that animals and humans who consume GMO foods those that are loaded with glyphosate chemicals, the main ingredient in Monsantos RoundUp have extremely high levels of glyphosate in their urine.
And I will eat mostly what I eat now . Non soaked in glyphosate food like people in the countries (where you think they can not eat at all ) consume today. Market drives change
But it is very time consuming here to research where other countries have the luxury of looking at the label just like USA consumers can do for sodium at the present. Even countries like Russia and China have that advantage ,
No more answers to people who think other countries can't eat if they are made aware of glyphosate in foods and label or ban
longship
(40,416 posts)I want to read it and see if it passes muster, or if it has passed peer review. And especially I want to know if it says what you claim it does.
Sorry. There's just too many crap studies done by ideologues and crappy science. For instance, the GMO rat cancer study done on rats which are a rat model for cancer. In other words, the rats get cancer no matter what one feeds them. And there are too many scientifically illiterate people who spin science to say something different for their personal ideology.
The science shows no ill health effects for any genetically modified food. Therefore, labeling is not necessary except maybe to spread unnecessary fear and doubt.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That study's probably not worth the paper it was likely plagiarized on.
longship
(40,416 posts)It is the same with all the pseudoscience claimed by the anti-GMO crowd.
I'll look up your claim.
Thanks.
Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology
It is apparently not indexed in Google Scholar as a venue.
It is not indexed in the Finnish journal ranking list (as of October 2014).[1]
It is not found in the NLM journal catalogue.
It is not found in Wikidata (as of October 2014).
It is not found in the Danish journal ranking list.[2]
Apparently not a reputable journal.
No surprise. As usual, the anti-GMO crowd discredit their own claims with their citations.
longship
(40,416 posts)OMICS Publishing Group
Parent company OMICS Group Inc.
Status Active
Founded 2007
Founder Srinubabu Gedela
Country of origin India
Headquarters location Hyderabad
Distribution Worldwide
Publication types Open access journals
Nonfiction topics Science, technology, and medicine
Official website www.omicsonline.org
OMICS Publishing Group is a predatory publisher of open access journals in a number of academic fields. It is part of the OMICS Group, based in Hyderabad, India.[1][2] It issued its first publication in 2008.[3] According to a 2012 article in The Chronicle about 60 percent of the group's 200 journals have never actually published anything.[4]
Academics and the United States government have questioned the validity of peer review by OMICS journals, the appropriateness of author fees and marketing, and the apparent advertising of the names of scientists as journal editors or conference speakers without their knowledge or permission.[5][6][2][7][8] As a result, the U.S. National Institutes of Health does not accept OMICS publications for listing in PubMed Central and sent a cease-and-desist letter to OMICS in 2013, demanding that OMICS discontinue false claims of affiliation with U.S. government entities or employees.[7] OMICS has responded to criticisms by avowing a commitment to open access publishing and threatening a prominent critic with a US$1 billion lawsuit.[4]
So, as usual, the anti-GMO crowd has nothing, and their citations harm their case more than support it.
You have nothing, my friend.
Eat GMO. It is safe. No labeling for GMO.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Scientific Studies
Here are some of the most compelling peer-reviewed studies to come to the forefront in recent months.
Published March 24, 2015
Sublethal Exposure to Commercial Formulations of the Herbicides Dicamba, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, and Glyphosate Cause Changes in Antibiotic Susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium
Brigitta Kurenbacha,Delphine Marjoshia,Carlos F. Amábile-Cuevasb,Gayle C. Fergusonc, William Godsoed,Paddy Gibsona,Jack A. Heinemanna
Author Affiliations
aSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
bFundación Lusara, Mexico City, Mexico
cInstitute of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
dBio-Protection Centre, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand
Address correspondence to Jack A. Heinemann, jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz.
Editor Stephen J. Giovannoni, Oregon State University
ABSTRACT
Biocides, such as herbicides, are routinely tested for toxicity but not for sublethal effects on microbes. Many biocides are known to induce an adaptive multiple-antibiotic resistance phenotype. This can be due to either an increase in the expression of efflux pumps, a reduced synthesis of outer membrane porins, or both. Exposures of Escherichia coli andSalmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium to commercial formulations of three herbicidesdicamba (Kamba), 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), and glyphosate (Roundup)were found to induce a changed response to antibiotics. Killing curves in the presence and absence of sublethal herbicide concentrations showed that the directions and the magnitudes of responses varied by herbicide, antibiotic, and species. When induced, MICs of antibiotics of five different classes changed up to 6-fold. In some cases the MIC increased, and in others it decreased. Herbicide concentrations needed to invoke the maximal response were above current food maximum residue levels but within application levels for all herbicides. Compounds that could cause induction had additive effects in combination. The role of soxS, an inducer of the AcrAB efflux pump, was tested in ?-galactosidase assays with soxS-lacZ fusion strains of E. coli. Dicamba was a moderate inducer of the sox regulon. Growth assays with Phe-Arg ?-naphtylamide (PA?N), an efflux pump inhibitor, confirmed a significant role of efflux in the increased tolerance of E. coli to chloramphenicol in the presence of dicamba and to kanamycin in the presence of glyphosate. Pathways of exposure with relevance to the health of humans, domestic animals, and critical insects are discussed.
IMPORTANCE Increasingly common chemicals used in agriculture, domestic gardens, and public places can induce a multiple-antibiotic resistance phenotype in potential pathogens. The effect occurs upon simultaneous exposure to antibiotics and is faster than the lethal effect of antibiotics. The magnitude of the induced response may undermine antibiotic therapy and substantially increase the probability of spontaneous mutation to higher levels of resistance. The combination of high use of both herbicides and antibiotics in proximity to farm animals and important insects, such as honeybees, might also compromise their therapeutic effects and drive greater use of antibiotics. To address the crisis of antibiotic resistance requires broadening our view of environmental contributors to the evolution of resistance.
FOOTNOTES
Citation Kurenbach B, Marjoshi D, Amábile-Cuevas CF, Ferguson GC, Godsoe W, Gibson P, Heinemann JA. 2015. Sublethal exposure to commercial formulations of the herbicides dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate cause changes in antibiotic susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. mBio 6(2):e00009-15. doi:10.1128/mBio.00009-15.
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00009-15
Published March 17, 2015
Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate
Kathryn Z Guyton, Dana Loomis, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha,
Chiara Scoccianti, Heidi Mattock, Kurt Straif, on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, IARC, Lyon, France
Abstract: In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (table). These assessments will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/abstract
Published November 19, 2014:
Survey of Glyphosate Residues in Honey, Corn and Soy Products
Abstract:
Samples of honey (sixty nine), pancake and corn syrup (twenty six), soy sauce (twenty eight), soy milk (eleven), and tofu (twenty) purchased in the Philadelphia, US metropolitan area were analyzed for glyphosate residue using ELISA. The limit of quantification (LOQ) and range of the method were determined for honey, pancake syrup, and corn syrup to be 15 to 800 ppb; soy sauce, soy milk, and tofu 75 to 4,000 ppb. Glyphosate residues above the limit of quantification were not found in pancake and corn syrup, soy milk, and tofu. Of the sixty-nine honey samples analyzed, forty-one samples, or fifty-nine percent (59%), had glyphosate concentrations above the method LOQ (15 ppb), with a concentration range between 17 and 163 ppb and a mean of 64 ppb. Eleven of the tested honey samples were organic; five of the organic honey samples, or forty-five percent (45%), contained glyphosate concentrations above the method LOQ, with a range of 26 to 93 ppb and a mean of 50 ppb. Of the fifty-eight non-organic honey samples, thirty-six samples, or sixty-two percent (62%), contained glyphosate concentrations above the method LOQ, with a range of 17 to 163 ppb and a mean of 66 ppb. In addition to comparison of production method (organic vs. conventional), the honey results were evaluated according to pollen source and by country of origin, grouped by GMO usage (prohibited, limited, or permitted). Glyphosate concentrations above the method LOQ (75 ppb) were also found in ten of the twenty-eight soy sauce samples evaluated (36%), with a concentration range between 88 and 564 ppb and a mean of 242 ppb; all organic soy sauce samples tested were below the method LOQ.
Fernando Rubio (1)*, Emily Guo(2) and Lisa Kamp(1)
(1) Abraxis, LLC, 54 Steam whistle Drive, Warminster, PA 18974, USA
(2) Boston University, 273 Babcock Street, Boston, MA 02446, USA
Corresponding Author : Abraxis
LLC, 54 Steam whistle Drive
Warminster, PA 18974, USA
Tel: (215) 357-3911
Fax: (215) 357-5232
E-mail: frubio@abraxiskits.com
Received October 02, 2014; Accepted November 13, 2014; Published November 19, 2014
Citation: Rubio F, Guo E, Kamp L (2014) Survey of Glyphosate Residues in Honey, Corn and Soy Products. J Environ Anal Toxicol 5:249. doi: 10.4172/2161-0525.1000249
Copyright: © 2014 Rubio F, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://omicsonline.org/open-access/survey-of-glyphosate-residues-in-honey-corn-and-soy-products-2161-0525.1000249.php?aid=36354
_______
Published 26 February 2014:
Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles
Abstract:
Pesticides are used throughout the world as mixtures called formulations. They contain adjuvants, which are often kept confidential and are called inerts by the manufacturing companies, plus a declared active principle, which is usually tested alone. We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines (HepG2, HEK293, and JEG3). Glyphosate, isoproturon, fluroxypyr, pirimicarb, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, tebuconazole, epoxiconazole, and prochloraz constitute, respectively, the active principles of 3 major herbicides, 3 insecticides, and 3 fungicides. We measured mitochondrial activities, membrane degradations, and caspases 3/7 activities. Fungicides were the most toxic from concentrations 300600 times lower than agricultural dilutions, followed by herbicides and then insecticides, with very similar profiles in all cell types. Despite its relatively benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.
Robin Mesnage,1 Nicolas Defarge,1 Joël Spiroux de Vendômois,2 and Gilles-Eric Séralini1
1University of Caen, Institute of Biology, CRIIGEN and Network on Risks, Quality and Sustainable Environment MRSH-CNRS, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex, France
2CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris, France
Received 28 October 2013; Accepted 11 December 2013; Published 26 February 2014
Academic Editor: Bruno C. Cavalcanti
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/179691/
_______
Published 20 February 2014:
Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?
Abstract:
The current chronic kidney disease epidemic, the major health issue in the rice paddy farming areas in Sri Lanka has been the subject of many scientific and political debates over the last decade. Although there is no agreement among scientists about the etiology of the disease, a majority of them has concluded that this is a toxic nephropathy. None of the hypotheses put forward so far could explain coherently the totality of clinical, biochemical, histopathological findings, and the unique geographical distribution of the disease and its appearance in the mid-1990s. A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties. The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades. Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals.
Channa Jayasumana, Sarath Gunatilake and Priyantha Senanayake
1 Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Rajarata University, Anuradhapura 50008, Sri Lanka2 Health Science Department, California State University, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA3 Hela Suwaya Organization, Malabe 10115, Sri Lanka These authors contributed equally to this work.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 17 December 2013; in revised form: 22 January 2014 / Accepted: 27 January 2014 / Published: 20 February 2014
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125
_______
Published 16 January 2014:
Glyphosate Commercial Formulation Causes Cytotoxicity, Oxidative Effects, and Apoptosis on Human Cells: Differences With its Active Ingredient.
Abstract:
In the present study, the effects on oxidative balance and cellular end points of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and a glyphosate formulation (G formulation) were examined in HepG2 cell line, at dilution levels far below agricultural recommendations. Our results show that G formulation had toxic effects while no effects were found with acid glyphosate and AMPA treatments. Glyphosate formulation exposure produced an increase in reactive oxygen species, nitrotyrosine formation, superoxide dismutase activity, and glutathione (GSH) levels, while no effects were observed for catalase and GSH-S-transferase activities. Also, G formulation triggered caspase 3/7 activation and hence induced apoptosis pathway in this cell line. Aminomethylphosphonic acid exposure produced an increase in GSH levels while no differences were observed in other antioxidant parameters. No effects were observed when the cells were exposed to acid glyphosate. These results confirm that G formulations have adjuvants working together with the active ingredient and causing toxic effects that are not seen with acid glyphosate.
Chaufan G, Coalova I, Molina MD.
1) Departamento de Química Biológica, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria, Buenos Aires, Argentina. IQUIBICEN-CONICET.
2) Gabriela Chaufan, Departamento de Química Biológica, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Ciudad Universitaria, 2 Pabellón, 4 piso, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, CP 1428, Argentina.
International Journal of Toxicology 1091581813517906, first published on January 16, 2014
Clarification of above terms:
Apoptosis (/ˌæpəˈtoʊsɪs/ or /ˌeɪpɔːpˈtoʊsɪs/)[2][3] is the process of programmed cell death. Wikipedia
Hep G2 is a human liver carcinoma cell line. HepG2 cells are a suitable in vitro model system for the study of polarized human hepatocytes. Wikipedia,
Aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) is a weak organic acid with a phosphonic acid group. It is one of the primary degradation products of the herbicide glyphosate.[1] AMPA has low toxicity which is comparable to that of glyphosate and it is therefore considered to be of no greater toxicological concern than glyphosate itself.[2]
Statement from above abstract: These results confirm that G formulations have adjuvants working together with the active ingredient and causing toxic effects that are not seen with acid glyphosate (alone), ie, Roundup formulation is far more toxic than just glyphosate.Note: Lettuce, carrots, and barley contained glyphosate residues up to one year after the soil was treated with 3.71 pounds of glyphosate per acre. 61,62 National Pesticide Information Center.
Rye and other non-GMO, conventional crops are often sprayed with Roundup to kill them forcing rapid seed production just prior to harvest. Therefore Roundup residue is still on and in the grain.
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://ijt.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/14/1091581813517906.full
_______
Published Online 18 December 2013:
Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans
Abstract:
This article describes the nutrient and elemental composition, including residues of herbicides and pesticides, of 31 soybean batches from Iowa, USA. The soy samples were grouped into three different categories: (i) genetically modified, glyphosate-tolerant soy (GM-soy); (ii) unmodified soy cultivated using a conventional chemical cultivation regime; and (iii) unmodified soy cultivated using an organic cultivation regime. Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile with more sugars, such as glucose, fructose, sucrose and maltose, significantly more total protein, zinc and less fibre than both conventional and GM-soy. Organic soybeans also contained less total saturated fat and total omega-6 fatty acids than both conventional and GM-soy. GM-soy contained high residues of glyphosate and AMPA (mean 3.3 and 5.7 mg/kg, respectively). Conventional and organic soybean batches contained none of these agrochemicals. Using 35 different nutritional and elemental variables to characterise each soy sample, we were able to discriminate GM, conventional and organic soybeans without exception, demonstrating substantial non-equivalence in compositional characteristics for ready-to-market soybeans.
T. Bøhn, M. Cuhraa, T. Traavika, M. Sandenc, J. Fagand, R. Primiceriob
1) GenØk, Centre for Biosafety, P.O. Box 6418, 9294 Tromsø, Norway
2) Faculty of Health Sciences, UIT The Arctic University of Norway, 9019 Tromsø, Norway
3) National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research, NIFES, P.O. Box 2029, 5817 Bergen, Norway
4) Earth Open Source, 2nd Floor 145157, St. John Street, London EC1V 4PY, United Kingdom
Received 3 July 2013, Revised 7 November 2013, Accepted 11 December 2013, Available online 18 December 2013
Summary of the findings:
Glyphosate tolerant GM soybeans contain high residues of glyphosate and AMPA.
Soybeans from different agricultural practices differ in nutritional quality.
Organic soybeans showed a more healthy nutritional profile than other soybeans.
Organic soy contained more sugars, protein and zinc, but less fibre and omega-6.
This study rejects that GM soy is substantially equivalent to non-GM soybeans.
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201
_______
Accepted For Publication 12 November 2013:
Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance
Abstract:
Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers from it. Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, macrocytic anemia and depression. It is a multifactorial disease associated with numerous nutritional deficiencies as well as reproductive issues and increased risk to thyroid disease, kidney failure, and cancer. Here, we propose that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®, is the most important causal factor in this epidemic. Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria. Characteristics of celiac disease point to impairment in many cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, activating vitamin D3, catabolizing vitamin A, and maintaining bile acid production and sulfate supplies to the gut. Glyphosate is known to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes. Deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, and other rare metals associated with celiac disease can be attributed to glyphosates strong ability to chelate these elements. Deficiencies in tryptophan, tyrosine, methionine, and selenomethionine associated with celiac disease match glyphosates known depletion of these amino acids. Celiac disease patients have an increased risk to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, which has also been implicated in glyphosate exposure. Reproductive issues associated with celiac disease, such as infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects, can also be explained by glyphosate. Glyphosate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing recently due to the growing practice of crop desiccation just prior to the harvest. We argue that the practice of ripening sugar cane with glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America. We conclude with a plea to governments to reconsider policies regarding the safety of glyphosate residues in foods.
Anthony SAMSEL 1 and Stephanie SENEFF 2
1 Independent Scientist and Consultant, Deerfield, NH 03037, USA
2 Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA
ITX060413R01 Received: 24 September 2013 Revised: 10 November 2013 Accepted: 12 November 2013
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.gmofreepa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Glyphosate-II-Samsel-Seneff-Toxicology_FNL.pdf
_______
Published Online 14 June 2013:
Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest
Abstract:
An agroecosystem is constrained by environmental possibility and social choices, mainly in the form of government policies. To be sustainable, an agroecosystem requires production systems that are resilient to natural stressors such as disease, pests, drought, wind and salinity, and to human constructed stressors such as economic cycles and trade barriers. The world is becoming increasingly reliant on concentrated exporting agroecosystems for staple crops, and vulnerable to national and local decisions that affect resilience of these production systems. We chronicle the history of the United States staple crop agroecosystem of the Midwest region to determine whether sustainability is part of its design, or could be a likely outcome of existing policies particularly on innovation and intellectual property. Relative to other food secure and exporting countries (e.g. Western Europe), the US agroecosystem is not exceptional in yields or conservative on environmental impact. This has not been a trade-off for sustainability, as annual fluctuations in maize yield alone dwarf the loss of caloric energy from extreme historic blights. We suggest strategies for innovation that are responsive to more stakeholders and build resilience into industrialized staple crop production.
Jack A. Heinemannab*, Melanie Massarobc, Dorien S. Corayab, Sarah Zanon Agapito-Tenfenbd & Jiajun Dale Wene
Published online: 14 Jun 2013
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408
_______
Published 11 June 2013:
A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet, associated with weight gain & severe stomach inflammation
Abstract:
A significant number of genetically modified (GM) crops have been approved to enter human food and animal feed since 1996, including crops containing several GM genes stacked into the one plant. We randomised and fed isowean pigs (N=168) either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet (N=84) or an equivalent non-GM diet (N=84) in a longterm toxicology study of 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter). Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM corn contained double and triple-stacked varieties. Feed intake, weight gain, mortality and blood biochemistry were measured. Organ weights and pathology were determined post-mortem. There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).
A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a mixed GM diet. Adverse effects of GM crops found.
By Dr. Judy Carman 11 June 2013
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Full-Paper.pdf or http://gmojudycarman.org/relevant-research/ for other research papers.
_______
Published 18 April 2013:
Glyphosates Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases, Enhances Damaging Effects of Environmental Toxins
Abstract:
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosates inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimers disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the textbook example of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.
Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff
Independent Scientist and Consultant, Deerfield, NH 03037, USA
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Received: 15 January 2013; in revised form: 10 April 2013 / Accepted: 10 April 2013 / Published: 18 April 2013
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
_______
Published Online 19 September 2012:
Seralini Study-Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.
Séralinis 2012 study tested the long-term effects of Monsantos GM NK603 maize, which is engineered to survive being sprayed with Roundup herbicide, and Roundup.
Abstract:
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
1) Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnagea, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defargea, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequinc, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois
2) University of Caen, Institute of Biology, CRIIGEN and Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, EA 2608, Esplanade de la Paix, Caen Cedex 14032, France
3) University of Verona, Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Motor Sciences, Verona 37134, Italy
4) University of Caen, UR ABTE, EA 4651, Bd Maréchal Juin, Caen Cedex 14032, France
Received 11 April 2012, Accepted 2 August 2012, Available online 19 September 2012
Summary of the findings:
Escalation of signs of liver and kidney toxicity found in Monsanto 90-day feeding trial (Hammond, B., et al. (2004). Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42(6): 1003-1014), leading to liver / kidney failure and premature death, especially in males
Unexpected increase in tumor incidence, especially via Roundup in females (mammary tumors)
Unexpected low dose toxicity from Roundup (10,000 times lower than that permitted in drinking water in USA)
Females: died prematurely from mammary tumors and pituitary dysfunction.
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GES-final-study-19.9.121.pdf or here for more studies http://gmoseralini.org/research-papers/
_______
Published 18 February 2011
Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
Abstract:
Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.
Aris, Leblanc S.
1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
Scientific Study Research Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
_______
Accepted For Publication 10 February 2009:
Clastogenic Effects of Glyphosate in Bone Marrow Cells of Swiss Albino Mice
Abstract:
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, C3, H 8, N O5, P), a herbicide, used to control unwanted annual and perennial plants all over the world. Nevertheless, occupational and environmental exposure to pesticides can pose a threat to nontarget species including human beings. Therefore, in the present study, genotoxic effects of the herbicide glyphosate were analyzed by measuring chromosomal aberrations (CAs) and micronuclei (MN) in bone marrow cells of Swiss albino mice. A single dose of glyphosate was given intraperitoneally (i.p) to the animals at a concentration of 25 and 50?mg/kg?b.wt. Animals of positive control group were injected i.p. benzo(a)pyrene (100?mg/kg?b.wt., once only), whereas, animals of control (vehicle) group were injected i.p. dimethyl sulfoxide (0.2 mL). Animals from all the groups were sacrificed at sampling times of 24, 48, and 72 hours and their bone marrow was analyzed for cytogenetic and chromosomal damage. Glyphosate treatment significantly increases CAs and MN induction at both treatments and time compared with the vehicle control.
The cytotoxic effects of glyphosate were also evident, as observed by significant decrease in mitotic (cell division) index (MI). The present results indicate that glyphosate is clastogenic 1 and cytotoxic 2 to mouse bone marrow.
Academic Editor: Brad Upham
Proteomics Laboratory, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow 226001, India
Received 17 September 2008; Revised 22 December 2008; Accepted 10 February 2009
Clarification of above terms:
1. A clastogen in biology is a mutagenic agent giving rise to or inducing disruption or breakages of chromosomes, leading to sections of the chromosome being deleted, added, or rearranged.[1] This process is a form of mutagenesis, (mutation) and can lead to carcinogenesis, as cells that are not killed by the clastogenic effect may become cancerous. Exposure to clastogens increases frequency of abnormal germ cells in paternal males, contributing to developmental effects in the fetus upon fertilization.
2. Treating cells with the cytotoxic compound can result in a variety of cell fates. The cells may undergo necrosis ,(turn black) in which they lose membrane integrity and die rapidly as a result of cell lysis (meaning a rupture of the cell wall
or membrane, as in popping a balloon). The cells can stop actively growing and dividing (a decrease in cell viability [ability to thrive]), or the cells can activate a genetic program of controlled cell death (apoptosis).
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2009/308985/
_______
Published Online 8 February 2007:
Histological, digestive, metabolic, hormonal and some immune factor responses in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., fed genetically modified soybeans.
Abstract:
The paper reports the second and final part of an experiment aiming to study physiological and health-related effects of genetically modified (GM) soybean meal (SBM) type Roundup Ready soybean (RRS) in diets for post-smolt Atlantic salmon. For 3 months salmon were fed diets containing 172 g kg(-1) full-fat SBM from RRS (GM-soy) or an unmodified, non-isogenic line (nGM-soy), or a reference diet with fishmeal as the sole protein source (FM). Slight differences in anti-nutrient levels were observed between the GM and nGM-soy. Histological changes were observed only in the distal intestine of the soy-fed fish. The incidence of moderate inflammation was higher in the GM-soy group (9 of 10 sampled fish) compared with the nGM-soy group (7 of 10). However, no differences in the concomitant decreases in activities of digestive enzymes located in the brush border (leucine aminopeptidase and maltase) and apical cytoplasm (acid phosphatase) of enterocytes or in the number of major histocompatibility complex class II+ cells, lysozyme activity, or total IgM of the distal intestine were observed. GM compared with nGM-soy fed fish had higher head kidney lysozyme (11,856 vs. 10,456 units g(-1) tissue) and a tendency towards higher acid phosphatase (0.45 vs. 0.39 micromol h(-1) kg(-1) body mass in whole tissue) activities, respectively. Plasma insulin and thyroxin levels, and hepatic fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase and ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase activities were not significantly affected. It is not possible, however, to conclude whether the differences in responses to GM-soy were due to the genetic modification or to differences in soy cultivars in the soy-containing diets. Results from studies using non-modified, parental line soybeans as the control group are necessary to evaluate whether genetic modification of soybeans in diets poses any risk to farmed Atlantic salmon.
A M Bakke-McKellep1,2, E O Koppang2, G Gunnes2, M Sanden3, G-I Hemre3, T Landsverk1,2, Å Krogdahl1,2
Article first published online: 8 FEB 2007
Scientific Study Research Paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17298562
longship
(40,416 posts)We've seen them over and over again.
But let's just take the Seralini study, which is one which I am most familiar. It has been retracted and Seralini has apparently republished it in some open journal. It is also very bad science.
Read here:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/
And the peer review on the republished study here:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/
And here's an article about Seralini's latest study, in which he has a big conflict of interest:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-new-seralini-study/
So you cite studies from bogus journals, and one from a known journal that has been retracted and was conducted by a poor scientist with an apparent ideological bias? That is typical of ideologues who want to create a consensus out of whole cloth, one that does not exist.
Please don't waste any more time trotting out the same rejected science. It gets tiring debunking the same rubbish over and over again.
And no, I am not going to bother with your other citations. I apologize but I firmly believe it would not be worth any further effort by me.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Won't bother with other citations because all those universities are so ridiculous
longship
(40,416 posts)Plus, with those citations I have little faith that the other information is correct.
I don't give a damn if GMO is safe or not. (Hint: it is.) However, I very much care that science is related accurately, which anti-GMO folks seem incapable of doing. They make shit up and continue to cite the same discredited bad science, even after they have been corrected. They undermine their own arguments by their ideologically based inability to see what the science really says.
So I don't have to take anything they write seriously. And as long as they behave the way they do, I don't.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)listed some rRECENT ones . You don't have to take anything seriously is correct but others here can read the iinfo
longship
(40,416 posts)That has been totally rejected as crap by the scientific community. It was retracted by the journal that originally published it. It failed peer review.
That's why I have no patience for people who trot out that failed rubbish, yet again. No doubt we'll see it again in yet another DU GMO thread. I will ridicule it then, too. It deserves no better.
If people cannot make an argument against genetic modification without stooping to such sleazy and unscientific tactics, I have no sympathy for them. Certainly they deserve none.
Yet the scientific consensus supporting the safety of genetic modification remains beyond dispute. (Made up controversies notwithstanding.)
progressoid
(49,988 posts)So it must be true.
By 2070 there will be more Muslims in the world than Christians. By sheer numbers, that must mean that they are worshiping the true God.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Your true god is mythology
progressoid
(49,988 posts)Because these people reviewed 1783 peer-reviewed scientific studies and found
We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop
safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific
consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated
worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research
conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard
directly connected with the use of GM crops.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Jon Entine: scientific credentials.
Science degree? No.
Statistics degree? No.
Medical degree? No.
Media communications degree? No.
His degree? BA in philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Entine
Genetic Literacy besides being American ,is not a likely source Parliaments across Europe would have addressed before the laws were made but i am sure if you try you can research the laws and reference to the bills passed.
Mother Jones has a good read on them. More myth
progressoid
(49,988 posts)I just click on the first 5 and they came from:
Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic
Funding country:
Czech Republic
Funding type:
government
Syngenta
Funding country:
Switzerland
Funding type:
industry: same
Levin Foundation
INCO-DC
Israel and Siana Safer
Funding country:
European Union
Israel
Funding type:
NGO: independent
government
individual
Not reported
Funding country:
Not reported
Funding type:
Not reported
Swiss National Science Foundation
National Research Programme, Switzerland
Funding country:
Switzerland
Funding type:
government
Let me know if you find these damning studies the European countries used.
Also, I did Google "Mother Jones and GMOs" and this popped up: No, GMOs Won't Harm Your Health
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)I guess as you said these countries are showing their ignorance hmmmm
The following 64 countries require GMO labeling of some kind:
Yep they have nothing . Every one of these countries is known for their wild outrageous flippant laws just enacted for nothing or maybe to piss off scientist I bet. If you are looking for the likes of N Korea it is not on there . S Korea is listed because I don't know they have nothing better to do than require GMO labeling based on scammers . I guess it depends on your definition of ignorance
Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And apply that label to foods without GMO ingredients, then, through amazing superhuman deductive powers, people can guess foods without that label contain GMO ingredients.
Oh wait, that label already exists.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)Farming is hard. Organic farming is even harder, I know first hand, that's what I do for a living. We need a massive influx in the amount of farmers in the next generation if we are going to step away from large scale corporate farms.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)to labels that already exist.
The vast majority of GMO food has been developed to withstand large doses of Roundup, the pesticide whose safety is in question.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)'Afraid?
I want to know if it's GMO!
Simple.
How can your scientific studies deny us the right to know?
longship
(40,416 posts)Simple, isn't it?
BTW, people do know that genetically modified foods (everything we eat, basically) have no ill health results whatsoever. This is after decades of research. The stuff is safe and we have been eating it for years and years.
And if people do manage to mandate labelling, what will they eat when they realize that it all has a GMO label?
I am against labelling because it is based on crap science and ideological anti-science and it would only increase such abject ignorance.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The label either has to be general to the point of meaninglessness--damn near everything "contains GMO"--or has to be so specific and jargon-laden that it's incomprehensible to the layperson.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Some of it via deliberate irradiation, some via cross-pollination (where you don't know which genes end up in the result), and some via deliberate genetic manipulation.
Sorry, you think that the Organic[super]TM[/super] beer you're drinking hasn't been genetically modified? Woops, it's made with golden promise barley, which was created by irradiating barley with gamma radiation.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1017592618298
mythology
(9,527 posts)Please say yes.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Orrex
(63,208 posts)Get to it!
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Duppers
(28,120 posts)Where's the frikin harm in labeling.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)I'd rather not know.
Camel_Camel
(10 posts)*Dun dun dun*
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I would just assume everything else is GMO.
Not opposed to food labeling laws, but not a big deal to me.
progressoid
(49,988 posts)Recombinant DNA
Recombinant DNA is one of the core techniques of genetic engineering. It is the process of removing DNA from one organism and inserting it into the DNA of another organism, giving it new traits. Recombinant DNA can be used to make crops resistant to pests or disease, it can be used to make livestock leaner or larger. In medicine, the technique can be used to develop drugs, vaccines, and to reproduce important human hormones and proteins. By engineering human DNA into a host organism, that organism can be turned into a factory for important medical products. Insulin production is an excellent example of the recombinant DNA process. Host organisms can range from bacteria like E. coli, to plants, to animals.
Genetically Engineered Pharmaceuticals
- insulin for diabetics
- factor VIII for males suffering from hemophilia A
- factor IX for hemophilia B
- human growth hormone (GH)
- erythropoietin (EPO) for treating anemia
- three types of interferons - fight viral infections and cancer
- several interleukins
- granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for stimulating the bone marrow after a bone marrow transplant
- tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) for dissolving blood clots
- adenosine deaminase (ADA) for treating some forms of
- severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID)
- angiostatin and endostatin for trials as anti-cancer drugs
- parathyroid hormone
http://www.iptv.org/exploremore/ge/uses/use2_medical.cfm
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Everything that you eat is in some way genetically modified, whether that is in a lab or in the fields (either intentionally or unintentionally). Genetic modification is why my dog doesn't try to eat my face, it's why I'm not homo habilis still discovering my opposable thumbs.
By itself genetic modifications aren't inherently bad, nor are they inherently good.
I'm linking to two really good facebook posts from Neil deGrasse Tyson on GMO and the hysteria around them:
https://www.facebook.com/neiltyson/posts/10204439688771816
Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.
https://www.facebook.com/neildegrassetyson/posts/10152652892786613
Furthermore, I never said GMOs were safer or more dangerous. I implied that if you think GMO-laboratory is **inherently** more dangerous to human life than GMO-agriculture you are simply wrong. They both can be bad for the environment. They both can be less healthy. They both can disrupt the local flora and fauna. But both methods wield an awesome power to improve food in every way that matters to humans: yields, appearance, vitamin content, sweetness, resistance to insects, resistance to weather extremes, and so forth.
Imagine if today, scientists showed you the Aurochs Wild Ox, and said -- "Give us time. In just a few years, we will genetically modify this wild animal, turning it into a different sub species whose sole purpose is to provide vast quantities of milk for humans to drink. They will produce 10x as much milk as did the original animal. But they will require vast grasslands to sustain. And some of you will get sick because you won't be able to digest the lactose. But no need to label this fact. People will just figure this out on their own. The rest of you will be fine. We'll call the result a Holstein Milk Cow."
What would anti GMO-laboratory people say this story? Would they embrace it or reject it? Of course, over the past 10,000 years, this is exactly what we've done to that Ox - or whatever is the agreed-upon origin of the domesticated Cow. Call it GMO-agriculture. If you reject GMOs you fundamentally reject it all.
What you're probably asking is for the labeling of food that has been modified in a lab, but there really isn't an argument as to why that is inherently more dangerous that other methods of modifications.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)And the Monsanto shill accusations will be coming soon.
I eat organic because Mrs GoS doesn't get that GMO's aren't really a thing, but I started doing it because I'm supporting local farmers.
Far more to do that than to bolster the multi-billion dollar "Organic" industry.
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)Alittleliberal
(528 posts). . . unlike the anti-GMO crowd.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)we'd be letting our mentally and physically disabled die.
Natural selection isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Deadshot
(384 posts)A biological engineer figured out which gene it was thought "hey, a lot of corn usually dies from this type of fungus. We should put this gene in the corn so the corn is resistant to this fungus and we won't have to spray fungicide X on the corn all the time".
How is that a bad thing?
BTW, your argument is the logical fallacy of appeal to nature: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)https://www.bing.com/search?q=corn+smut+mexican+delicacy&pc=MOZI&form=MOZSBR
Edited to add:
But, then, come to think of it: Who gives a damn about some poor Mexican farmer whose gourmet corn-fungus crop is decimated by windblown pollen from fungus-free GMO corn?
Deadshot
(384 posts)Which is what fungus does.
I don't care about delicacy. People think bird nests are a delicacy.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Stop worrying so much.
You could get knocked down by a bus.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)So we know what is in our pillows and mattresses but not our food. What kind of logic is that???? If GMO is do darn safe, why is Monsanto and the government denying us the right to know when our food has GMO????!!!!
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)I've cut all my tags off.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)If you're eating sugar in the US and it's not labeled "Pure Cane" or Organic you're most likely eating GMO sugar from GMO sugar beets.
Obviously this includes candy.
Sugar beet industry converts to 100% GMO, disallows non-GMO option
The US sugar beet industry coordinated an industry-wide conversion to genetically modified sugar beets, thus eliminating a non-GMO alternative for food manufacturers and consumers. Meanwhile, production of GM sugar beet seed is likely to contaminate organic and conventional vegetable seed production in Oregons Willamette Valley...
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/jun08/sugar_beet_industry_converts_to_gmo.php
************
In the United States, genetically modified sugar beets, engineered for resistance to glyphosate, a herbicide marketed as Roundup, was developed by Monsanto as a genetically modified crop.
...In 2005, the US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) deregulated glyphosate-resistant sugar beets...
This GMO Sugar beet invasion is a recent phenomenon.
Perhaps the anti-gmo-labelers (anti info) would prefer no labels at all. Why did Obama campaign on labeling GMO's (and then do a 180)
Obama in 2007: "We'll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they're buying"
Green: Mandatory labeling
Red:Ban on import and cultivation of GMOs 64 countries as of 10 May 2015.
Source: Center for Food Safety
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-laws
djean111
(14,255 posts)Corporate influence, corporate cash. As is usual.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)come down to organic sugar.
Beet or otherwise
I thought most of the Caribbean had a GMO ban but maybe it has not happened yet or was stopped .
Thanks for the map but I am done here with this OP
Everyone has to decide where they are with labeling laws and most here seem to already have their stance . I am new and learning DU demos
I prefer a ban because it not just our health but environmental problems too
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)chemically indistinguishable from sugar produced from non-GM sugarbeets:
It's exactly the same stuff
Orrex
(63,208 posts)I have a right to know the name of the spouse of the truck driver who delivered the non-GMO produce to the grocery store.
I have a right to know the names of every employee at the non-GMO farm, their employment history and their residency status.
I have a right to know the date on which each non-GMO tomato was picked as well as the precise location of the plant that produced it.
I have a right to know the source of the water that irrigated these non-GMO tomatoes.
I have a right to know the exact dollar amount of subsidies received by the non-GMO farmer.
I have a right to know if the non-GMO farmer has been approached by any anti-GMO groups, the purpose of their meeting, the subject of their meeting, who was involved, what was discussed, and the outcome of their meeting.
These would be a simple addition to food labels; a QR code could easily direct me to a website where this information can be stored and accessed easily.
What harm could that do other than give consumers more information?
More information. How is that bad?
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)And if she had any friends.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)only I hate the pissing contests that the Monsanto shills invariably turn these threads into.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)I should think that the anti-GMO crowd would love it.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)Orrex
(63,208 posts)I wouldn't have counted myself among even the Top Five GMO Shills! This is a real honor!
Please, help yourself to a bucket of clean, safe and organic manure--your crops will appreciate your sanctimony!
arikara
(5,562 posts)But are only doing their job, following orders as it were. Its best to either actively ignore them or at least not feed them by responding.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)that were clearly labeled "Made with non GMO ingredients."
Trying to convince the government and the food industry to include GMO labeling is both futile and unnecessary.
There is nothing preventing makers of non-GMO foods from stating it prominently on their labels.
If it doesn't say "Non GMO" it contains GMOs.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)What evidence do you have that GMO's are harmful, bad, poisonous, etc?
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)that they are harmful, bad or poisonous. For those who do there are non-GMO products available.
My point is, in the real world, if the label doesn't say "GMO Free" it contains GMOs.
I bought the flatbreads because I want to make flatbread pizza for dinner. I only noticed the label when I got home.
Deadshot
(384 posts)progressoid
(49,988 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)One of the reasons he got my support in 2008.
Of course, we heard ZERO about it after he took his seat in the Oval Office where he appointed Tom (Mr Monsanto & Factory Mono-cropping) Vilsack in charge of the US Department of Agriculture( USDA).
Obama: "Because have a RIGHT to know what they are buying."
longship
(40,416 posts)Which the safety of genetic modification is beyond rational scientific dispute.
If I were President Obama, I would be supporting GMOs too.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,185 posts)Otherwise assume it's GMO, especially any wheat, corn or soy.
Response to tecelote (Original post)
LostOne4Ever This message was self-deleted by its author.