Log In Register

Our World

  • Thread starter Thread starter dirk d
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Our World

dirk d 654 Replies 36,388 Views
Page 28 of 33 · Replies 541–560 of 655
This is a briefing about the contents of a new, peer-reviewed scientific paper titled: A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet, by Dr Judy Carman, Howard Vlieger, Dr Larry Ver Steeg, Veryln Sneller, Dr Garth Robinson, Dr Kate Clinch- Jones, Dr Julie Haynes and Dr John Edwards.
At a commercial piggery in the US, we took 168 just-weaned pigs and fed them a typical diet for the piggery, containing soy and corn, for 22.7 weeks (over 5 months) until the pigs were slaughtered at their usual slaughter age. Half of the pigs were fed widely-used varieties of GM soy and GM corn (the GM-fed group) for this whole period and the other half of the pigs were fed an equivalent non-GM diet (the control group). The GM diet contained three GM genes and therefore three GM proteins. One protein made the plant resistant to a herbicide and two proteins were insecticides. We chose a mixed diet instead of a single crop because this is usually what pigs and people eat. Regulators do not require animal feeding studies on mixtures of GM genes and their proteins, regardless of whether the genes are all “stacked” into the one plant or spread across several plants that are eaten in the same meal. We chose pigs because they have a similar digestive system to humans, and because some of the investigators had been observing reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed GM crops. We took blood from the pigs a few days before they were slaughtered to do standard biochemistry tests. Autopsies were done by qualified veterinarians who didn't know if a given pig was fed the GM diet or not, so their observations were completely unbiased.
Some of the investigators had previously seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows were fed a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination. Artificial insemination guarantees the presence of a certain number of viable sperm. Because male pigs were neutered at 3 days of age in order to provide meat free of boar-taint, we were only able to look at the female reproductive system in these pigs. We found that, on average, the weight of the uterus of pigs fed the GM diet, as a proportion of the weight of the pig, was 25% higher than the control pigs. We found that this biologically significant finding was also statistically significant. We list some of the pathologies that could be occurring in these uteri in the paper.
Some of the investigators had also previously seen higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from their bowel and die. We weren't able to look inside the intestines, due to the amount of food in them, but we were able to look inside the stomach. We found that the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed the GM diet. Pigs on the GM diet were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs. Males were more strongly affected. While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely. These findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant.
We found that these key findings were not reflected in the standard biochemistry tests that are done in GM feeding studies, probably because standard biochemistry tests provide a poor measure of inflammation and matters associated with uterus size. We did however find a marginally significant change on a measure of liver health in the blood of GM-fed pigs.
 
This is a briefing about the contents of a new, peer-reviewed scientific paper titled: A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet, by Dr Judy Carman, Howard Vlieger, Dr Larry Ver Steeg, Veryln Sneller, Dr Garth Robinson, Dr Kate Clinch- Jones, Dr Julie Haynes and Dr John Edwards.


One thing that's being left out here, and its what I and many chemists looking at this problem have always maintained.

Its not the genetic material or the plants themselves which are causing these problems with toxicity (this doesn't make sense from a biochemical view) but instead it is the way they are being grown. They are totally doused with pesticides/fungicides/defoliants to which they are immune. These are extremely toxic substances and many of the industry standards are systemic--which is why it helps to have resistant genes/proteins.

The long and short of it is the same, it's safer to eat non-GMO plants--but it's not necessarily because they have been genetically modified. Instead its more likely a result of the growth style those modifications engender.

I'd have to read the study to see if they addressed this--and I'll do that if it's in one of the databases I have access to. My guess, however, is that it hasn't been addressed (as its been commonly overlooked in most studies).

If it has, of course these comments don't apply--and I don't mean to suggest that this is absolutely impossible. It just doesn't immediately make good sense so it behooves us to look for answers as to why these results might be showing up. If we consider the source material it doesn't take much imagination to point a finger at the chemicals these plants are exposed to--they are some of the most potent carcinogens, toxins, and drivers of gestational distress/failure known to science.

The only reason it's worth making the distinction is that perhaps a strain which is modified simply to grow bigger rather than to be resistant to a chemical would actually be a good product versus one which encourages rampant chemical treatment.
 
The biotech cheerleader! Our soil and livestock were doing fine until genetic engineering was invented. The yield advantage only comes in to play only due to selective breeding(nothing to do with biotech in a direct sense)..and simply because some farmer's report increase due to pesticides and herbicides. Check out Monsanto's website if ya don't believe me, the leader in biotech and they make no such claims as to increasing a plant's yield simply by toying with it's genetics.
Furthermore, they fail to report super weeds and resistant corn borers...devastation and failure in the millions. The new lazy type of agriculture has rendered farm land leached and food has become of low nutritional value, while creating resistance by use of herbicide and pesticide. Farmer's are waking up as well as consumers and the bans slowly increase. The only solution to our problems is sustainable agriculture..not franken foods.
 
The biotech cheerleader! Our soil and livestock were doing fine until genetic engineering was invented. The yield advantage only comes in to play only due to selective breeding(nothing to do with biotech in a direct sense)..and simply because some farmer's report increase due to pesticides and herbicides. Check out Monsanto's website if ya don't believe me, the leader in biotech and they make no such claims as to increasing a plant's yield simply by toying with it's genetics.
Furthermore, they fail to report super weeds and resistant corn borers...devastation and failure in the millions. The new lazy type of agriculture has rendered farm land leached and food has become of low nutritional value, while creating resistance by use of herbicide and pesticide. Farmer's are waking up as well as consumers and the bans slowly increase. The only solution to our problems is sustainable agriculture..not franken foods.


Please don't mistake me. I am firmly anti-GMO but there are some places where I differ from "the crowd".

1. I mostly want to see GMOs gone for two reasons. First, they increase overall pesticide usage by a metric shit ton, and this is an ENORMOUS problem for our environment (and our water--pesticides are now being seen showing up in rainwater). Second, while people argue that they haven't been tested for eating enough (where I believe they are mostly innocuous PRE-treatment with chemicals) I suggest they haven't been tested in evolution enough. Adding genes willy nilly might see these plants go extinct in a future generation. I don't think we're meant to play "god" this way (much as I hate that phrase).

2. I believe there might be some circumstances where GMO products are beneficial, such as introducing crops to places where they couldn't previously grow (and where they won't intermingle with existing crops). Also I believe that the research field underlying these products is extremely important for understanding how to maximize yield and that future generations of products may see enormous yields being possible (and our species may need this at some point--again perhaps such crops could be quarantined far from places where they might contaminate other strains, like growing a strictly North American crop indoors in Africa or vice versa).

3. I happen to believe the best way to get rid of something which is damaging on a massive scale like these products (and companies) is to PROPERLY IDENTIFY what is wrong with it, versus making wild guesses and throwing shit at a wall until something sticks. I believe, as I've now identified, there are real--demonstrable--reasons with good support as to why these products need to go.

4. I have severe ethical problems with many of the companies behind these products and denounce their shady business practices.

I realize you're not my biggest fan--but please don't put words in my mouth or ascribe positions to me which I don't hold. I'm far from a cheerleader for these companies. As a matter of fact, the only job which was open to me after my undergrad was at Monsanto (who operate nearby in Saint Louis) and I turned it down on principle--despite their EXTREMELY GENEROUS salary offering--instead opting to go further into debt and pursue more education, having been unable to secure other employment at that time.
 
It's nice to here some denouncement.


Totally denounce these guys. I just think we should denounce them for the right reasons. Here's what happens:

1. We say some shit that isn't necessarily true but sounds scary (HERPDERP ERMAGERD THEY CHANGED THE DNA WE'RE ALL GOING TO GROW THIRD ARMS).

2. Everyone is scared.

3. The company continues to profit because we can't prove beyond a doubt that the shit we said is happening/true.

Here's what I want to happen:

1. We say some shit that is definitely true (pesticide usage is out of control and its polluting our water table and has been shown to cause various cancers, is destroying biodiversity across the country, and is accelerating beyond our wildest predictions).

2. Everyone gets scared (because it's equally scary).

3. We can easily prove this shit in court, all scientists agree it's happening--the numbers are very clear on pesticide usage (because it's well regulated), and the cancer/toxicity risks are well known.


Sometimes when you make a company out to be a boogeyman you put yourself in a situation where when you actually come at them with the real problem you're seen as "crying wolf".

I don't want them to get away with what they're doing simply because a bunch of hippies attacked them with non-demonstrable accusations and refutable science.

I'm perfectly happy to have those people's voices on the side of right--but I just don't want to see their energy wasted on bullshit.

Let's say you had a suspect as a police officer, and for some reason you could either charge the guy with rape OR murder--but not both.

Let's assume that you have no evidence of the rape which isn't circumstantial and somewhat refutable.

Let's assume that when it comes to the murder charge you have them on tape killing someone, their fingerprints on the gun--which is registered to them--and matching slugs fired from the weapon with their fingerprints on the shell casings.

Which charge do you file?

I'm not saying that Monsanto is innocent, I'm just saying we might not get 25 shots at them--we need to make sure we take the right ones, and we have several of them in front of us right now that about 97% of the scientific community will back us up on--versus these outlandish claims which about 5% are even bothering to consider.

Maybe the guy is guilty of rape AND murder--but we KNOW he's guilty of one, lets put the motherfucker away, no?
 
I applaud your denial, knowing that many have taken the lower road when asked. Scientists, doctor's, even more specifically, geneticist's denounce them in large groups and often very official groups! They keep lining pockets, like they offered Squiggley and on Capitol Hill. That's what we're fighting. We are having trouble getting labels for it...while other countries are out right banning all uses for animal and human consumption. I cannot think of one person who wants to eat GMO type foods..for whatever their reason.
Last time I checked an Indian farmer commits suicide every 30 seconds directly due to GMO and the use of pesticide herbicide. People have an innate sense when it comes to what we eat.
 
I applaud your denial, knowing that many have taken the lower road when asked. Scientists, doctor's, even more specifically, geneticist's denounce them in large groups and often very official groups! They keep lining pockets, like they offered Squiggley and on Capitol Hill. That's what we're fighting. We are having trouble getting labels for it...while other countries are out right banning all uses for animal and human consumption. I cannot think of one person who wants to eat GMO type foods..for whatever their reason.
Last time I checked an Indian farmer commits suicide every 30 seconds directly due to GMO and the use of pesticide herbicide. People have an innate sense when it comes to what we eat.


It was a bigger offer than I could've hoped for right out of school like that. It's likely more than I'll earn with a MS. I will maybe get to that level after 5-8 years on a job if I'm lucky and I find the right fit.

To me, though, I chose chemistry because I wanted there to be balance between some kind of security and something that I enjoy doing. If I was only in it for enjoyment I'd be playing my violin in some capacity somewhere. If I was only in it for security I'd likely have gone into some kind of financial sector (accounting, insurance, securities, etc) as my math skills are good enough for it.

Instead chemistry was a way for me to split the difference, and lucky for me over time it's gone from something that interests me to something that I truly do love. I can't go from that to working for one of the worst companies I've ever heard of.

I'd rather just stay in school for ever, or try my hand at entrepreneurship (which is still very much a possible path for me).

I'm not an easy sell. I've never had much money, in fact I've been negative broke for most of my life. That's why swearing off selling drugs was one of the hardest decisions I've ever made--even though it's a shit lifestyle and I was fairly small time in the grand scheme of things, having cash in the pocket is addictive.

I can't lie, I really had to think about this one--but in the end it wasn't worth it to me. I actually looked back at how I felt selling drugs (dirty) and wondered if I'd feel the same way, and I decided from there that I wasn't willing to find out the hard way.

I still regret it sometimes as the job market falls through the floor and my student debt continues to pile up (and I look toward a future with my girlfriend who it seems all but sure will be my wife at some point--and who I'll be responsible to provide for)--but I've got to believe that things will work out for me another way. I can't sell my soul to get rich quick.

Plus, it's not really the type of work I wanted to do anyway. I'm not very big into plants, if I'm going biotech I'm much more interested in pharmaceuticals. You're absolutely right, they are luring people like me by the hundreds because the truth is that MOST of us really aren't interested in doing business with them (nor is their type of research the subject of a great deal of interest in the field in general)--people who love biotech care much more about human based discovery, because it's got a bigger potential for huge amounts of recognition.
 
One thing that's being left out here, and its what I and many chemists looking at this problem have always maintained.

Its not the genetic material or the plants themselves which are causing these problems with toxicity (this doesn't make sense from a biochemical view) but instead it is the way they are being grown. They are totally doused with pesticides/fungicides/defoliants to which they are immune. These are extremely toxic substances and many of the industry standards are systemic--which is why it helps to have resistant genes/proteins.

The long and short of it is the same, it's safer to eat non-GMO plants--but it's not necessarily because they have been genetically modified. Instead its more likely a result of the growth style those modifications engender.

I'd have to read the study to see if they addressed this--and I'll do that if it's in one of the databases I have access to. My guess, however, is that it hasn't been addressed (as its been commonly overlooked in most studies).

If it has, of course these comments don't apply--and I don't mean to suggest that this is absolutely impossible. It just doesn't immediately make good sense so it behooves us to look for answers as to why these results might be showing up. If we consider the source material it doesn't take much imagination to point a finger at the chemicals these plants are exposed to--they are some of the most potent carcinogens, toxins, and drivers of gestational distress/failure known to science.

The only reason it's worth making the distinction is that perhaps a strain which is modified simply to grow bigger rather than to be resistant to a chemical would actually be a good product versus one which encourages rampant chemical treatment.
This imo is actaully very true, in the future plants will have to be gmo; especially at the rate in which climate, pollution, soil degredation etc etc are happening; however like squiggs said the gmo plants themselves aren't inherently toxic but rather their so toxic because they can survive even thrive living in toxicity, extreme toxicity, so it's not so much the plants themselves that are toxic but the people who use gmo's practices in "food" production......take it easy
 
anytime you mess with the genetic code that we DO NOT UNDERSTAND you risk serious consequences. IMO there should be absolutely no modification of any gene whatsoever. If we need a bigger producing plant then it should be BRED properly with heirloom strains. Nothing will come close to my Organic Meds. It is not our place to dictate to Nature what it should do. We should be in harmony with Nature and if we can do that then there is no shortage of anything.

p.s. fyi we have no shortage of food. just shortage/will of transportation of food to regions that need it.
 
fyi fwiw..talk about being embedded into government
947071 305479226253747 447109342 n
 
;)


If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence
It’s no longer tenable to call GM ‘unnatural’ and so inherently wrong



It is nearly 20 years since the first GM crops were grown.
Some 28 countries cultivate them on a commercial scale, and many hundreds of millions of people now safely eat GM food – directly or indirectly – on a regular basis. Yet, to judge from the rhetoric of anti-GM activists – from the rough-cut environmentalists to the smooth-talking purveyors of organic food – you could be forgiven for thinking that medical catastrophe and genetic Armageddon are upon us, courtesy of the “Frankenfoods” revolution.
Calestous Juma, a professor of international development at Harvard, is not one to mince his words when it comes to genetically modified crops. To paraphrase his speech at McGill University in Montreal later today, Juma believes the time has come for the vociferous opponents of GM to put up or shut up. The use of transgenic crops, he points out, has to date prevented the spraying of 473 million kilograms of toxic pesticides, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 23.1bn kg – equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road – and saved 108.7 million hectares of land from being turned into farmland. Rather than creating environmental havoc, GM crops have, by and large, been better for the environment than growing the equivalent conventional crops, with relatively lower yields and higher chemical input.
Equally, no-one has died or fallen ill directly as a result of eating GM food. Studies showing that GM food damages the health of laboratory animals have been discredited. Contrary to what the pro-organic lobby would have us believe, it is actually more dangerous to eat organic food – as the 53 people in Germany who died in 2011 from eating organic beansprouts tragically discovered.
It is no longer tenable to say that GM technology benefits no-one but the multinational agrochemicals industry. Scientists in Africa are working on GM crops that could directly benefit Africans, such as a transgenic banana plant resistant to bacterial wilt disease, and a GM blackeyed pea that can fend off attacks by insect pests.
These are real technological breakthroughs that could help those who would otherwise find it difficult to grow enough food to sustain a rapidly growing population. To them, the real Frankenfood is the sort that never reaches their plates because of losses in the field or during storage.
Those who have actively opposed GM technology have frequently expressed anti-science rhetoric – hence the Frankenstein allusion – but it is now incumbent on them to produce the scientific evidence to back up their claims. It is no longer possible to argue on simplistic grounds that GM is “unnatural” and therefore inherently wrong – if we opposed everything that is unnatural we wouldn’t practice medicine for a start.
GM crops are cultivated for good reasons, supported by scientific evidence. It is time for GM opponents to accept the facts.

(I don't generally read people's comments to articles- but I thought it might be worthwhile in this case- and it proved interesting )
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-gm-crops-are-bad-show-us-the-evidence-8641168.html
 
anytime you mess with the genetic code that we DO NOT UNDERSTAND you risk serious consequences. IMO there should be absolutely no modification of any gene whatsoever. If we need a bigger producing plant then it should be BRED properly with heirloom strains. Nothing will come close to my Organic Meds. It is not our place to dictate to Nature what it should do. We should be in harmony with Nature and if we can do that then there is no shortage of anything.

p.s. fyi we have no shortage of food. just shortage/will of transportation of food to regions that need it.

This is correct if and only if you are referring to consequences like the plant going extinct at a later time and things along that line. We're not looking at a situation where we don't understand what kind of stuff we'll be eating if we modify a gene.

We have an excellent understanding as far as that goes. The problem is the short-sightedness in terms of our ability to predict what evolution can do. We're probably never going to end up in a situation where a plant is producing some monster protein that causes cancer in a bunch of people--we should be more concerned that we're going to decimate the food supply by trying to alter it this way.

At the same time, understand that we can do the same thing through selective breeding practices--and that nature can do the same thing all by herself. I think we increase the liklihood of that happening by taking this shortcut, but the same dangers are posed in a totally normal situation. That's why a lot of stuff goes extinct in the first place.

At the end of the day I think it's a bad idea to do this--but as far as the danger of growing an arm from your forehead we need to be much more concerned about the pesticides than the plants themselves.
 
Please don't mistake me. I am firmly anti-GMO but there are some places where I differ from "the crowd".
Glad to hear you are Anti GMO..
what do you think of this story Squiggly?


New Study Proves GMOs Cause Severe Inflammation of the Stomach and Abnormally Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
 
Glad to hear you are Anti GMO..
what do you think of this story Squiggly?


New Study Proves GMOs Cause Severe Inflammation of the Stomach and Abnormally Enlarged Uteri in Pigs


Without even reading it I can tell you the article itself is bullshit because it says:

"New study proves........."

Any time you see the words:

1. Proof
2. Proven
3. Prove

in a scientific context they should look like this to your brain:

A new study released today [BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!!]-------->proves<--------[BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!!] that.....

In science, we NEVER prove. EVER. NEVER EVER EVER.

We demonstrate, we support, we suggest--but NEVER prove.

I'll read the study and get back to you on what I think it ACTUALLY says/does. I can tell you without even reading it that it hasn't proven shit (just the same way that no experiment in the whole of human history has ever proven a single thing--not one).
 
Glad to hear you are Anti GMO..
what do you think of this story Squiggly?


Checked out the study.

The feed used was commercially grown and was glyphosate resistant. I can nearly guarantee it was totally inundated with pesticides. It's not possible to delineate which of the effects on the animal were a result of genes versus those which might be a result of pesticide use.

In order to do this, feed would need to be laboratory grown.

That said, it's still alarming. As I said it's bad either way, obviously SOMETHING is going wrong right? From my perspective it's very unlikely to be a result of genetic differences, and is more likely to be a result of pesticide toxicity (which are known to cause these types of disorders).

As I said before I think the battle cry should be to get these fuckin' pesticides the hell away from our food. The studies should be focusing on the effects of exposure to pesticides, because then we could see some comparative data:

IE

1. One set of pigs gets the GMO diet, not treated with pesticides.

2. One set of pigs get the GMO diet, treated with pesticides.

My money, and the smart money, says that #2 will be where you see lots of problems with the animals. End of the day there's no money to be made by doing this study though--and it's for three very simple reasons.

#1. We already know that pesticides are responsible for a myriad of ill health effects. IE the discovery wouldn't be novel.

#2. No commercial farmer on the planet has any intention of undertaking a plan for the cessation of pesticide usage. Its not economically viable in any sense of the word.

#3. Pesticides aren't controversial enough right now--everyone is focused on the "GMO" moniker.
 
Page 28 of 33 · Replies 541–560 of 655
Back
Top Bottom