Monsanto Provision Tucked in Spending Bill Draws Critics

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
65 Health Risks of GM Foods

**2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring
**1. Small RNA sequences can regulate gene expression, most commonly by silencing genes.
2. RNA is stable, survives digestion and can impact gene expression in mammals that ingest it.
3. The impact can be passed on to future generations.
4. Genetic modification introduces new DNA combinations and mutations, which increase the likelihood that harmful regulatory RNA will be accidentally produced.
 
buffalo said:
65 Health Risks of GM Foods

**2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring
**1. Small RNA sequences can regulate gene expression, most commonly by silencing genes.
2. RNA is stable, survives digestion and can impact gene expression in mammals that ingest it.
3. The impact can be passed on to future generations.
4. Genetic modification introduces new DNA combinations and mutations, which increase the likelihood that harmful regulatory RNA will be accidentally produced.
Click to expand...
With all proved harms, guess what?
Obama signed this bill::eek:
rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
 
buffalo said:
65 Health Risks of GM Foods

**2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring
**1. Small RNA sequences can regulate gene expression, most commonly by silencing genes.
2. RNA is stable, survives digestion and can impact gene expression in mammals that ingest it.
3. The impact can be passed on to future generations.
4. Genetic modification introduces new DNA combinations and mutations, which increase the likelihood that harmful regulatory RNA will be accidentally produced.
Click to expand...
I am not a scientist, but I don’t think any of the produced articles actually says (and certainly doesn’t demonstrate) that genetically modified foods alter our DNA. What they do claim is that various DNAs we ingest can modify RNA, which is a communicator to DNA, which then can tell us whether to sneeze, vomit, or whatever.

But then, if I eat grapes from Chile, I’m ingesting DNA. If my DNA is “Ozark specific”, then I take a risk ingesting Chilean grapes (or California oranges, for that matter) because the effect might be negative due to my having never developed a proper means of dealing with Chilean grape DNA. But then, we always knew that, I thought. It’s not really peculiar to genetically modified crops. And, of course, getting back to grapes, those grown here are all “lubrusca” whereas California grapes are all “vinifera”…very different genetically. Fortunately, I have eaten California grapes without evident ill effect, but it’s possible I could have reacted negatively to them.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I am not a scientist, but I don’t think any of the produced articles actually says (and certainly doesn’t demonstrate) that genetically modified foods alter our DNA. What they do claim is that various DNAs we ingest can modify RNA, which is a communicator to DNA, which then can tell us whether to sneeze, vomit, or whatever.

But then, if I eat grapes from Chile, I’m ingesting DNA. If my DNA is “Ozark specific”, then I take a risk ingesting Chilean grapes (or California oranges, for that matter) because the effect might be negative due to my having never developed a proper means of dealing with Chilean grape DNA. But then, we always knew that, I thought. It’s not really peculiar to genetically modified crops. And, of course, getting back to grapes, those grown here are all “lubrusca” whereas California grapes are all “vinifera”…very different genetically. Fortunately, I have eaten California grapes without evident ill effect, but it’s possible I could have reacted negatively to them.
Click to expand...
Check out what happens to the corn borer.
 
The fact bugs die when eat GMO vegetables tells it all. Just GOOGLE on Youtube and you will find many documentaries. Monsanto develops GMO so the crops are easy to grow and grow fast, and they can make big and fast money.
 
buffalo said:
Check out what happens to the corn borer.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything in the information you presented about a corn borer. There is reference to a digestive disturbance induced in COTTON borers by genetically modified cotton. But it’s not changing the DNA of the borer.

Now, we don’t eat cotton, of course. But there’s a lot of cottonseed meal in animal feed. Possibly some scientist can establish that genetically modified cottonseed somehow affects the digestion of the animals who eat it, which then perhaps carries through to us who eat the animal. But I’m not seeing that in any of the information presented.

There are a lot of bio-defensive things in plants of all sorts, not just in genetically modified crops. Sometimes those things can have adverse effects on humans but not on other animals, and vice versa. Sometimes those things can affect one aspect of a plant, but not another. So, for example, I can eat tomatoes in perfect safety, though some people can’t, but I can’t eat the green part of the plant without serious adverse effects. Sometimes certain things are poisonous only in certain circumstances. Wild cherry tree leaves are edible to cattle. Totally dead leaves are not harmful, though they wouldn’t be eaten in the first place. But half-dried, still-green leaves are highly poisonous to cattle.

Even organically grown plants can be accidentally be made poisonous. If I lavishly manure a field, and if the plants uptake the nitrates and then are hit with a drought so that growth stops, the plants can be highly toxic, and usually will be. Possibly that’s a defensive “strategy” on the part of plants. A stressed plant kills those creatures that would stress it even more by munching on it, perhaps?

I suspect nature is much weirder than anything Monsanto ever does, and perhaps more dangerous to boot.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I suspect nature is much weirder than anything Monsanto ever does, and perhaps more dangerous to boot.
Click to expand...
That I might agree with you on that point.

I can’t say I know much beyond the very basics of genetics. But, it is common around here to have Roundup Ready weeds that produce the same effect as the GMO crops.

My biggest concern is that when you start messing with nature, you have no idea what the future consequences might be. There is no way to control nature’s affect on these modifications.
 
Dawnia said:
That I might agree with you on that point.

I can’t say I know much beyond the very basics of genetics. But, it is common around here to have Roundup Ready weeds that produce the same effect as the GMO crops.

My biggest concern is that when you start messing with nature, you have no idea what the future consequences might be. There is no way to control nature’s affect on these modifications.
Click to expand...
I understand your concern, and I share it to some degree. I strongly suspect Monsanto and companies of that sort are very careful about what they put out in the environment. But will we soon be seeing poorly controlled and designed GMO products coming out of China? That prospect troubles me a lot more than what Monsanto might be doing.

But we do still have to recognize that nature probably has even more complex systems than Monsanto will ever produce. I’m a cattleman on the side. One of the blessings of my part of the country is a grass called tall fescue, an Australian import. It’s good here because, although it’s a cool-season grass, it goes dormant in the hot weather and doesn’t kill out like a lot of species will in a drought. It comes back in the fall, green and lush. In addition, if one is in the right latitude, it stays green all winter long, providing good forage for cattle and saving hay and the fuel to produce hay.

However, nature has given it a “trick”. It is symbiotic with a fungus that produces a toxin that’s deadly to most insects. By and large, that aspect is harmless to cattle. However, if, during hot, dry weather it’s grazed too close to the ground, cattle will get too much of that toxin and suffer ill (though not usually fatal) effects. Very “clever” of the plant. If it’s already stressed by drought and dry weather, the munching animal will absolutely die if it’s an insect, or get half sick and lose its appetite somewhat if it’s a grazing animal. But if the grass is growing during cool weather, it will kill the insects but won’t affect grazing animals at all.

How did tall fescue acquire that very complex defensive characteristic? Nobody knows, but it has had it ever since people knew anything about tall fescue. As far as anybody knows, that characteristic is not harmful to humans, though it might be if we ate fescue close to the ground. But fescue is indigestible to humans, so we wouldn’t do it anyway.

As far as anybody knows, it has no effect on the meat of the animal whatever.

Some company or other has developed a tall fescue that is symbiotic with a closely related fungus whose toxin is still deadly to insects but has no visible effect on grazing animals. It works, but its toxicity to insects is not as complete as the original fungus. So most ranchers don’t change over to the newer variety.
 
Dawnia said:
That I might agree with you on that point.

I can’t say I know much beyond the very basics of genetics. But, it is common around here to have Roundup Ready weeds that produce the same effect as the GMO crops.

My biggest concern is that when you start messing with nature, you have no idea what the future consequences might be. There is no way to control nature’s affect on these modifications.
Click to expand...
I agree! When you start messing with nature, who knows what is going to happen. Isn’t messing around with nature like messing around with God’s creation? He gave us brains to know how to do things, figure out solutions to problems and such. So, are we, as a human race, trying to relive the “Tower of Babel”? To create things that could be or are harmful to us?
Maybe I am way off base here, but I think that we ought to leave our food supply alone. There are studies that have shown that the honey bees are dying in massive numbers because of the chemicals or type of seeds that are used or planted. Honey bees are extremely important to us and our food supply. Yes, other insects pollinate plants, but do they give us a pure product, like honey?
Perhaps we should stand up for our beliefs and what is right. I know I have written letters to my congress people to get rid of the “Monsanto bill”. I am thankful to report that with all the letters from people from our state, he is doing something about it.
For too long, we have let the big companies and groups to control what we can do or not do, whatever happened to “We the people, for the people and by the people”? Enough, I say. Stand and do something about these things that are against our faith, our human rights and dignity.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t see anything in the information you presented about a corn borer. There is reference to a digestive disturbance induced in COTTON borers by genetically modified cotton. But it’s not changing the DNA of the borer.

Now, we don’t eat cotton, of course. But there’s a lot of cottonseed meal in animal feed. Possibly some scientist can establish that genetically modified cottonseed somehow affects the digestion of the animals who eat it, which then perhaps carries through to us who eat the animal. But I’m not seeing that in any of the information presented.

There are a lot of bio-defensive things in plants of all sorts, not just in genetically modified crops. Sometimes those things can have adverse effects on humans but not on other animals, and vice versa. Sometimes those things can affect one aspect of a plant, but not another. So, for example, I can eat tomatoes in perfect safety, though some people can’t, but I can’t eat the green part of the plant without serious adverse effects. Sometimes certain things are poisonous only in certain circumstances. Wild cherry tree leaves are edible to cattle. Totally dead leaves are not harmful, though they wouldn’t be eaten in the first place. But half-dried, still-green leaves are highly poisonous to cattle.

Even organically grown plants can be accidentally be made poisonous. If I lavishly manure a field, and if the plants uptake the nitrates and then are hit with a drought so that growth stops, the plants can be highly toxic, and usually will be. Possibly that’s a defensive “strategy” on the part of plants. A stressed plant kills those creatures that would stress it even more by munching on it, perhaps?

I suspect nature is much weirder than anything Monsanto ever does, and perhaps more dangerous to boot.
Click to expand...
Do some research on corn borer control.
 
mountainmama said:
I agree! When you start messing with nature, who knows what is going to happen. Isn’t messing around with nature like messing around with God’s creation? He gave us brains to know how to do things, figure out solutions to problems and such. So, are we, as a human race, trying to relive the “Tower of Babel”? To create things that could be or are harmful to us?
Maybe I am way off base here, but I think that we ought to leave our food supply alone. There are studies that have shown that the honey bees are dying in massive numbers because of the chemicals or type of seeds that are used or planted. Honey bees are extremely important to us and our food supply. Yes, other insects pollinate plants, but do they give us a pure product, like honey?
Perhaps we should stand up for our beliefs and what is right. I know I have written letters to my congress people to get rid of the “Monsanto bill”. I am thankful to report that with all the letters from people from our state, he is doing something about it.
For too long, we have let the big companies and groups to control what we can do or not do, whatever happened to “We the people, for the people and by the people”? Enough, I say. Stand and do something about these things that are against our faith, our human rights and dignity.
Click to expand...
I understand, and I do agree that humans can probably produce something harmful by genetic engineering, and probably have, but we have done that since the dawn of human history. Where are the bulldogs of 15,000 b.c.? They didn’t exist. Where are the bones of the ancient Herefords? Nowhere, because they didn’t exist either. Both represent DNA changes. There was no such thing as “corn” then, an entirely human-developed plant that can’t exist in nature at all by itself. We think of corn as the kinds of corn produced here, but in Mexico there are hundreds of varieties. Did the ancient Romans have Zinfandel? No, they didn’t. That’s a modern hybrid. Did the Incas have Idaho russet potatoes? No. Did the Mohawks have domestic turkeys at all? No. Were turkeys then like turkeys now? No. Where did cherry tomatoes come from? Not from nature. Humans developed them by changing their DNA.

We have been “genetic engineering” plants and animals for thousands of years, and have massively changed both in selected species by massive DNA changes. It has speeded up greatly in the last 200 years, and not just by companies like Monsanto. Yes, Monsanto speeds up the process, but how is that different from developing corn in the first place except in terms of the passage of time?

Parenthetically, nobody really knows why there are bee die-offs. The ones we know about are species specific. It seems to affect only Italian bees, the ones most popular with commercial beekeepers, but there are other kinds of bees, including native bees that don’t seem to be affected. Africanized bees certainly don’t seem affected. Around here there are plenty of bees, including Italians. Is that possibly because we don’t move them hundreds of miles to some location whose flora an fauna they are not used to? The big die-offs seem to affect those commercial beekeepers who move the hives around to the crops. We might be looking at the wrong things for the causes.
 
It’s plain for everyone to see that Monsanto uses evil business practices–worldwide. India will probably starve because of Monsanto.

If we all bought into Monsanto’s plan, they’d have all our money and we’d have almost no food.
 
buffalo said:
Do some research on corn borer control.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of articles on it. But I’m guessing you’re talking about the introduction of a Bt bacillus gene that harms corn borers by causing them to stop eating. As I understand it, the bacillus is common in the soil and is toxic to corn borers (and other insects) in the same way, but what the manufacturer has done is incorporate that one gene into the corn itself.

And that is different from the naturally-occurring endophyte in tall fescue how? If nature didn’t somehow do something wrong in creating symbiosis between tall fescue and the endophyte, how can we say man did something wrong in incorporating the anti corn-borer gene into corn? Again, remember that corn is a manmade product to begin with. Why is the introduction of that one gene more worrisome than all the other DNA changes man has introduced into what used to be a grass that didn’t produce corn at all?

Apparently the corn borer is a European originated pest that devastates an American originated plant. Not to0 surprising. Reminds me of the fact that there are no true vinifera vines left on earth since a north american mite to which they had no resistance killed all their roots. Viticulture was saved, however, by grafting vinifera cuttings onto American lubrusca rootstock, which men have been doing ever since. Next time you enjoy a European or California vinifera varietal, you can thank the Ozarks, where the wild lubrusca rootstock came from. 🙂 Why did it work? It worked because lubrusca roots’ DNA causes it to generate chemicals that turn the mite from a killer to a creature that lives in symbiosis with it.

Of perhaps passing interest is the current work going on in north American vineyards to create lubrusca/vinifera hybrids that combine the taste of vinifera with the winter-hardiness of lubrusca AND ALSO have the ability to live with the mites. If that isn’t genetic engineering, I don’t know what is. But nobody is going to complain about it because the DNA exchanges are (as with Idaho russets) not direct.

Without resorting to speculation and unproved theories, why is the Bt gene snippet harmful to anything other than corn borers and similar insects? Seems to me all they did was bring the gene from the dirt up into the plant itself. Lots of organic sources recommend treating corn with microbial agents applied exteriorly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top