GM Debate Not Settled, Say European Scientists 'Genetically modified foods'.

Epoch times ^ | Oct 24, 2013 | Justina Reichel,

[Black Agnes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html

Not just the slimes though. We’ve encountered these weeds on our property. The analogy with antibiotics isn’t necessarily a bad one either. Imagine the medical landscape had those who wanted to put antibiotics in the water supply gotten their way?

[PeterPrinciple]

heck we have monsato and GMO supporters here on FR.

---

Not so much supporters as realists. This is a created problem like health care and global warming and .............

Again for all those who think they want labels regarding GMO and that that label will make their life perfect, go buy your organic food if you want to know. We don’t need MORE law.

I will say it again. People with full bellies have a lot of time to complain. We happen to live in a time in history when food is cheap and plentiful. GMO is a part of that reason. Weather is another part of the situation. Is it a perfect situation, hell no, but consider the alternatives. We will see another time where food is hard to come by, don’t think it won’t happen to us.

Do not let food be politicized and the govt control it. Use the choices you have now.

[ifinnegan]

Thanks for your reply.

Let’s stay focused on harm of GMO.

You haven’t cited anything at all that indicates they are harmful.

Is there anything at all?

[Black Agnes]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

This study is disturbing.

But hey, Think Pink!

[PeterPrinciple]

If GMO is the answer to ending hunger why do we still have hunger?

Perhaps for the reason we have hunger in the first place, and it isn’t due to lack of food.

---

There is never just one cause. Government is a major cause (not the only) but GMO and weather are hiding their involvement right now.

I am amazed at the number of people here who think that govt is the solution. I WANT A LABEL ON MY FOOD!!!!

Go around the govt, buy the food you want, don’t empower govt on ANYTHING. Can you tell me of one well intentioned law that wasn’t perverted?

This is a conservative site whose philosophy is freedom, responsibility and choices and limited government. (I thought so anyway?)

[PeterPrinciple]

The coalition cites several studies that suggest GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and raises the concern that many GM products remain under-tested.

---

and this is how global warming started. notice the words suggest, can be, raises concern, under tested.

THINK, PEOPLE, THINK

[ifinnegan]

Thanks.

This, though, does not address safety of GMO.

[driftdiver]

“I will say it again. People with full bellies have a lot of time to complain”

So unless we’re starving we should just keep our mouths shut and let the food industry do whatever the hell it wants?

[Black Agnes]

If the GMO is saturated with a chemical that’s an estrogen mimic in parts per TRILLION it sure as heck does.

[Black Agnes]

And they’re still not entirely sure how the Bt toxin kills:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bt-pesticide-no-killer-on

[nitzy]

As I said before, I do not know the exact mechanism.

Let's break this down piece by piece....

I think it is obvious that we have a widespread health problem in the US.

I think it is probable that the cause of the problem is in our food supply. The previous couple of generations did not live that drastically different of a lifestyle. We did not go from hunter gatherers to couch potatoes in 20 years. Certainly we are somewhat more sedentary today than 1995 but not enough to explain the drastic change in health outcomes.

When you look at the onset of the rise in major health problems you can't help but notice that it coincides with the rise in industrial agricultural practices and GMO production.

I agree with you that it is not clear evidence of causation. It is enough for me to be suspect and want to see labels on GMO products so that they are easier to avoid.

The problem with coming up with hard evidence is that those who are supposed to be spending millions of public dollars a year on research (USDA, Universities, charitable foundations, etc..) are making millions of dollars a year from the companies they are supposed to be researching. On the other hand you have European researchers who are being paid by European agriculture companies and governments to find danger in US GMO products. I would love for there to be more independent research. I am not going to hold my breath though.

Here are a few studies that show possible health risks from GMOs....I am sure there are more on the web but I don't have any more time to look them up. You can refute them if you want and eat as much GMO as you can but I personally wish they were easier to avoid...

GMO Heath Risks

I am not advocating a ban, a tax, a subsidy, a prohibition, a fee, a license, or any other such thing. I am only advocating openness and access to information. That is all.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which GMO is saturated with a chemical that’s an estrogen mimic in parts per TRILLION?

You have any specifics?

[Black Agnes]

Monsanto:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/ma_reding_annex4.pdf

They’ve also petitioned the FDA to raise the tolerance limits for foodstuffs:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.pdf

[Toddsterpatriot]

Neither of those documents mentions estrogen.

[Black Agnes]

In case you have lost the point.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170 Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.

In parts per trillion.

Monsanto just petitioned to increase the glyphosphate tolerance levels of foodstuffs into the parts per million range. That’s roughly 4-6 orders of magnitude greater than the binding assay in the pubmed article. Why petition to increase something that’s not present?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=glyphosate+endocrine

For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200534 A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels.

Abstract

The major herbicide used worldwide, Roundup, is a glyphosate-based pesticide with adjuvants. Glyphosate, its active ingredient in plants and its main metabolite (AMPA) are among the first contaminants of surface waters. Roundup is being used increasingly in particular on genetically modified plants grown for food and feed that contain its residues. Here we tested glyphosate and its formulation on mature rat fresh testicular cells from 1 to 10000ppm, thus from the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels. We show that from 1 to 48h of Roundup exposure Leydig cells are damaged. Within 24-48h this formulation is also toxic on the other cells, mainly by necrosis, by contrast to glyphosate alone which is essentially toxic on Sertoli cells. Later, it also induces apoptosis at higher doses in germ cells and in Sertoli/germ cells co-cultures. At lower non toxic concentrations of Roundup and glyphosate (1ppm), the main endocrine disruption is a testosterone decrease by 35%. The pesticide has thus an endocrine impact at very low environmental doses, but only a high contamination appears to provoke an acute rat testicular toxicity. This does not anticipate the chronic toxicity which is insufficiently tested, and only with glyphosate in regulatory tests.

The takeaway sentence from this one? “At lower non toxic concentrations of Roundup and glyphosate (1ppm), the main endocrine disruption is a testosterone decrease by 35%.” Some feeds accept up to FOUR HUNDRED times that amount.

And this particularly delightful paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684 Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in different formulations. Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in some feed. We exposed human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We measured cytotoxicity with three assays (Alamar Blue, MTT, ToxiLight), plus genotoxicity (comet assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERalpha, ERbeta) and anti-androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24h. These effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is discussed.

It’s an androgen disruptor. In parts per trillion. The FDA allows it in foodstuffs in parts per million.

Please tell me you eat lots of this stuff? Please? :)

[KeyLargo]

10 American Foods That Are Banned in Other Countries
July 10, 2013

” Americans are slowly waking up to the sad fact that much of the food sold in the US is far inferior to the same foods sold in other nations. In fact, many of the foods you eat are BANNED in other countries.

Here, I’ll review 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere, which were featured in a recent MSN article.

Seeing how the overall health of Americans is so much lower than other industrialized countries, you can’t help but wonder whether toxic foods such as these might play a role in our skyrocketing disease rates.”

See list at:

http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/10/10-american-foods-that-are-banned-in-other-countries

[Black Agnes]

Hey, thanks for that link. If we weren’t so fat and sick, selling us socialized healthcare would have been more difficult.

[Mase]

If you two don't recognize the incestuous relationship between big government bureaucracy and the big industries they "regulate" then you are blind.

Incestuous? Is that why it requires more than 10 years and $800 million to bring a NME to market? If you think the relationship between industry and the FDA (and the USDA) is chummy, then you really don't understand much about the subject. If the government wants someone in a regulatory role dealing with foodstuff, should they hire someone from the automotive industry, or someone who understands food science?

I share your concern about big government and its impact on businesses, but I see absolutely nothing in your post that supports your contention that Monsanto is bribing government in return for "rights."

The USDA is not a "tool" for big ag. The relationship between big ag and the USDA can be highly adversarial. Again, just because you see something that alarms you doesn't mean we should be alarmed. People see things all the time that scare them, but are not scary.

By the way, every food you eat has been genetically modified at some time. And we are living longer than at any other time in our history. Using a gene gun simply gets you where you want to go faster, and more accurately, than with selective breeding methods. As a matter of fact, selecting just one gene to be modified is much less risky than utilizing hybridization, because we are not messing with the other genes. With selective breeding, we are making all sorts of changes without really knowing what the outcome will be. Not so with modern methods of genetic engineering. To claim or suggest that modern genetic engineering is riskier than traditional methods cannot be supported by science. Like with so many of the anti-GMO crowd, it is nothing more than feelings.

[Mase]

I chose healthy non-GMO food over drugs.

Ok. The next time you come down with a MRSA infection be sure to eat non-GMO foods offering large doses of vitamin C instead of taking Xyvox. Let me know how that works out for you. If you are ever so unfortunate as to come down with chronic myelogenous leukemia, will you treat it with non-GMO foods containing high doses of B complex vitamins or with Gleevec? I'd be also be interested in how using non-GMO foods high in riboflavin to treat that migraine works for you instead of using a tryptamine based drug.

Does that make me some of nut?

Do you really want an answer?

[Mase]

Your post proves only that you can find just about any research on the internet to support just about any position that you want to take. The trouble is, if you happen to actually understand what you're posting, that most of it is crap. The fact that you throw crap against the wall and it sticks doesn't mitigate the fact that it is crap.

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.

Sounds scary until you take the time to get past the scare. The average person who doesn't read the research, or worse, doesn't understand it, would take away that glyphosate causes breast cancer. But it doesn't indicate that glyphosate causes cancer, only that it can increase the growth rate of hormonally influenced cancer by acting like estrogen. Your first cited study, in actuality, has nothing to do with inducing cancer at all because the researchers used existing cancer cells. In addition, their conclusions are contrary to a whole lot of existing in vitro and in vivo studies that show no such thing.

In vitro studies can make a lot of things seem scary, especially when it involves a single cell, or cell type, that is looked at independent of how our bodies function as a whole. Fact is, and if I remember correctly, a very minute amount of glyphosate ends up in human fat or muscle tissue. It also doesn't hang around for long as your body easily passes it through normal bodily functions. To get to the levels that these guys saw in vitro, you'd have to be exposed to very high doses of it over a very long period of time. If this were to happen, you'd experience a lot of other serious health problems long before you'd ever develop breast cancer.

I fully understand why you choose to ignore the large amount of existing and peer reviewed literature that contradicts your alarmist claims that glyphosate is estrogenic. That's because these many studies show that it doesn't bind to human estrogen receptors.

Developmental and Reproductive Outcomes in Humans and Animals After Glyphosate Exposure: A Critical Analysis

“the literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.” This analysis includes several studies showing that “glyphosate did not demonstrate estrogenic activity.”

Wait, there's more...

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review

.....“no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.”

Maybe you'd prefer farmers use 2,4-D?

Again, throwing all these links up on the wall doesn't change the fact that most of it is alarmist nonsense designed to further an agenda. No one has the time to debunk every mess you throw up. Do you spend your days Googling this stuff to scare yourself, while everyone else goes calmly through their day? The people who populate these evil food companies, and create these alarming and unsafe products, also feed them to their families. They do this without a second thought. That's because they see your nonsense for what it is.