| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 610135
5/13/2009 2:06 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 413608
little child, what disturbith you about pirate bay and/or sharing information with fellow GLP family? |
| falldown
User ID: 520470
5/13/2009 4:22 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Thanks for the positive comments folks...and one last bump before it slides into the GLP archives forever... 
~
~
"He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your words." ~Elbert Hubbard |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/13/2009 4:29 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1169
5/13/2009 5:02 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
This documentary was on some movie channel last night...
Beyond the GM issue it also covers these hormones given to dairy cows to produce more milk...Bovine Somatropin or something like that, which has been outlawed in Canada and the EU but is still used here in the states...
When will Americans wake up???? |
| Aquarius 7 
User ID: 673181
5/13/2009 6:23 PM
 | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
This was posted awhile back ... don't remember who posted it, but it is relevant to this thread, and is worth reading again ...
......................................................
Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Global Research, November 19, 2006
The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) - 2006-08-10
Monsanto was quite happy to recruit young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Kirk had grown up on a California farm and had worked in several jobs monitoring and testing pesticides and herbicides. Kirk was bright, ambitious, handsome and idealistic—the perfect candidate to project the company’s “Save the world through genetic engineering” image.
It was that image, in fact, that convinced Kirk to take the job in 1996. “When I was contacted by the headhunter from Monsanto, I began to study the company, namely the work of their CEO, Robert Shapiro.” Kirk was thoroughly impressed with Shapiro’s promise of a golden future through genetically modified (GM) crops. “He described how we would reduce the in-process waste from manufacturing, turn our fields into factories and produce anything from lifesaving drugs to insect-resistant plants. It was fascinating to me.” Kirk thought, “Here we go. I can do something to help the world and make it a better place.”
He left his job and accepted a position at Monsanto, rising quickly to become the facilitator for GM cotton sales in California and Arizona. He would often repeat Shapiro’s vision to customers, researchers, even fellow employees. After about three months, he visited Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters for the first time for new employee training. There too, he took the opportunity to let his colleagues know how enthusiastic he was about Monsanto’s technology that was going to reduce waste, decrease poverty and help the world. Soon after the meeting, however, his world was shaken.
“A vice president pulled me aside,” recalled Kirk. “He told me something like, ‘Wait a second. What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don’t even understand what he is saying.’”
Kirk felt let down. “I went in there with the idea of helping and healing and came out with ‘Oh, I guess it is just another profit-oriented company.’” He returned to California, still holding out hopes that the new technology could make a difference.
Possible Toxins in GM Plants
Kirk was developing the market in the West for two types of GM cotton. Bt cotton was engineered with a gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Organic farmers use the natural form of the bacterium as an insecticide, spraying it occasionally during times of high pest infestation. Monsanto engineers, however, isolated and then altered the gene that produces the Bt-toxin, and inserted it into the DNA of the cotton plant. Now every cell of their Bt cotton produces a toxic protein. The other variety was Roundup Ready® cotton. It contains another bacterial gene that enables the plant to survive an otherwise toxic dose of Monsanto’s Roundup® herbicide. Since the patent on Roundup’s main active ingredient, glyphosate, was due to expire in 2000, the company was planning to sell Roundup Ready seeds that were bundled with their Roundup herbicide, effectively extending their brand’s dominance in the herbicide market.
In the summer of 1997, Kirk spoke with a Monsanto scientist who was doing some tests on Roundup Ready cotton. Using a “Western blot” analysis, the scientist was able to identify different proteins by their molecular weight. He told Kirk that the GM cotton not only contained the intended protein produced by the Roundup Ready gene, but also extra proteins that were not normally produced in the plant. These unknown proteins had been created during the gene insertion process.
Gene insertion was done using a gene gun (particle bombardment). Kirk, who has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, understood this to be “a kind of barbaric and messy method of genetic engineering, where you use a gun-like apparatus to bombard the plant tissue with genes that are wrapped around tiny gold particles.” He knew that particle bombardment can cause unpredictable changes and mutations in the DNA, which might result in new types of proteins.
The scientist dismissed these newly created proteins in the cotton plant as unimportant background noise, but Kirk wasn’t convinced. Proteins can have allergenic or toxic properties, but no one at Monsanto had done a safety assessment on them. “I was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic.” He was particularly concerned that the rogue proteins “might possibly lead to mad cow or some other prion-type diseases.”
Kirk had just been studying mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and its human counterpart, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). These fatal diseases had been tracked to a class of proteins called prions. Short for “proteinaceous infectious particles,” prions are improperly folded proteins, which cause other healthy proteins to also become misfolded. Over time, they cause holes in the brain, severe dysfunction and death. Prions survive cooking and are believed to be transmittable to humans who eat meat from infected “mad” cows. The disease may incubate undetected for about 2 to 8 years in cows and up to 30 years in humans.
When Kirk tried to share his concerns with the scientist, he realized, “He had no idea what I was talking about; he had not even heard of prions. And this was at a time when Europe had a great concern about mad cow disease and it was just before the Nobel prize was won by Stanley Prusiner for his discovery of prion proteins.” Kirk said “These Monsanto scientists are very knowledge about traditional products, like chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, but they don’t understand the possible harmful outcomes of genetic engineering, such as pathophysiology or prion proteins. So I am explaining to him about the potential untoward effects of these foreign proteins, but he just did not understand.”
Endangering the Food Supply
At this time, Roundup Ready cotton varieties were just being introduced into other regions but were still being field-tested in California. California varieties had not yet been commercialized. But Kirk came to find out that Monsanto was feeding the cotton plants used in its test plots to cattle.
“I had great issue with this,” he said. “I had worked for Abbot Laboratories doing research, doing test plots using Bt sprays from bacteria. We would never take a test plot and put into the food supply, even with somewhat benign chemistries. We would always destroy the test plot material and not let anything into the food supply. Now we entered into a new era of genetic engineering. The standard was not the same as with pesticides. It was much lower, even though it probably should have been much higher.”
Kirk complained to the Ph.D. in charge of the test plot about feeding the experimental plants to cows. He explained that unknown proteins, including prions, might even effect humans who consume the cow’s milk and meat. The scientist replied, “Well that’s what we’re doing everywhere else and that’s what we’re doing here.” He refused to destroy the plants.
Kirk got a bit frantic. He started talking to others in the company. “I approached pretty much everyone on my team in Monsanto.” He was unable to get anyone interested. In fact, he said, “Once they understood my perspective, I was somewhat ostracized. It seemed as if once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. I lost the cooperation with other team members. Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside.”
He then approached California Agriculture Commissioners. “These local Ag commissioners are traditionally responsible for test plots and to make sure test plot designs protect people and the environment.” But Kirk got nowhere. “Once again, even at the Ag commissioner level, they were dealing with a new technology that was beyond their comprehension. They did not really grasp what untoward effects might be created by the genetic engineering process itself.”
Kirk continued to try to blow the whistle on what he thought could be devastating to the health of consumers. “I spoke to many Ag commissioners. I spoke to people at the University of California. I found no one who would even get it, or even get the connection that proteins might be pathogenic, or that there might be untoward effects associated with these foreign proteins that we knew we were producing. They didn’t even want to talk about it really. You’d kind of see a blank stare when speaking to them on this level. That led me to say I am not going to be part of this company anymore. I’m not going to be part of this disaster, from a moral perspective.”
Kirk gave his two-week notice. In early January 1998, he finished his last day of work in the morning and in the afternoon started his first day at chiropractic college. He was still determined to make a positive difference for the world, but with a radically changed approach.
While in school, he continued to research prion disease and its possible connection with GM crops. What he read then and what is known now about prions has not alleviated his concerns. He says, “The protein that manifests as mad cow disease takes about five years. With humans, however, that time line is anywhere from 10-30 years. We were talking about 1997 and today is 2006. We still don’t know if there is anything going to happen to us from our being used as test subjects.”
Update
It turns out that the damage done to DNA due to the process of creating a genetically modified organism is far more extensive than previously thought.[
1] GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene. Kirk’s concerns about a GM crop producing a harmful misfolded protein remain well-founded, and have been echoed by scientists as one of the many possible dangers that are not being evaluated by the biotech industry’s superficial safety assessments.
GM cotton has provided ample reports of unpredicted side-effects. In April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherds reported that 25% of their herds died within 5-7 days of continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants.
[2] Hundreds of Indian agricultural laborers reported allergic reactions from Bt cotton. Some cotton harvesters have been hospitalized and many laborers in cotton gin factories take antihistamines each day before work. [3]
The cotton’s agronomic performance is also erratic. When Monsanto’s GM cotton varieties were first introduced in the US, tens of thousands of acres suffered deformed roots and other unexpected problems. Monsanto paid out millions in settlements.[4] When Bt cotton was tested in Indonesia, widespread pest infestation and drought damage forced withdrawal of the crop, despite the fact that Monsanto had been bribing at least 140 individuals for years, trying to gain approval. [5] In India, inconsistent performance has resulted in more than $80 million dollars in losses in each of two states.[6] Thousands of indebted Bt cotton farmers have committed suicide. In Vidarbha, in north east Maharashtra, from June through August 2006, farmers committed suicide at a rate of about one every eight hours. [7] (The list of adverse reactions reported from other GM crops, in lab animals, livestock and humans, is considerably longer.)
Kirk’s concern about GM crop test plots also continues to remain valid. The industry has been consistently inept at controlling the spread of unapproved varieties. On August 18, 2006, for example, the USDA announced that unapproved GM long grain rice, which was last field tested by Bayer CropScience in 2001, had contaminated the US rice crop[8] (probably for the past 5 years). Japan responded by suspending long grain rice imports and the EU will now only accept shipments that are tested and certified GM-free. Similarly, in March 2005, the US government admitted that an unapproved corn variety had escaped from Syngenta’s field trials four years earlier and had contaminated US corn.[9] By year’s end, Japan had rejected at least 14 shipments containing the illegal corn. Other field trialed crops have been mixed with commercial varieties, consumed by farmers, stolen, even given away by government agencies and universities who had accidentally mixed seed varieties.
Some contamination from field trials may last for centuries. That may be the fate of a variety of unapproved Roundup Ready grass which, according to reports made public in August 2006, had escaped into the wild from an Oregon test plot years earlier. Pollen had crossed with other varieties and wind had dispersed seeds. Scientists believe that the variety will cross pollinate with other grass varieties and may contaminate the commercial grass seed supply—70 percent of which is grown in Oregon.
Even GM crops with known poisons are being grown outdoors without adequate safeguards for health and the environment. A corn engineered to produce pharmaceutical medicines, for example, contaminated corn and soybean fields in Iowa and Nebraska in 2002.[10] On August 10, 2006, a federal judge ruled that the drug-producing GM crops grown in Hawaii violated both the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[11]
A December 29, 2005 report by the USDA office of Inspector General, blasted the agriculture department for its abysmal oversight of GM field trials, particularly for the high risk drug producing crops.[12] And a January 2004 report by the National Research Council also called upon the government to strengthen its oversight, but acknowledged that there is no way to guarantee that field trialed crops will not pollute the environment.[13]
With the US government failing to prevent GM contamination, and with state governments and agriculture commissioners unwilling to challenge the dictates of the biotech industry, some California counties decided to enact regulations of their own. California’s diverse agriculture is particularly vulnerable and thousands of field trials on not-yet-approved GM crops have already taken place there. If contamination were discovered, it could easily devastate an industry. Four counties have enacted moratoria or bans on the planting of GM crops, including both approved and unapproved varieties. This follows the actions of more than 4500 jurisdictions in Europe and dozens of nations, states and regions on all continents, which have sought to restrict planting of GM crops to protect their health, environment and agriculture.
Ironically, California’s assembly, which has done nothing to protect the state from possible losses due to GM crop contamination, passed a bill on August 24, 2006 that prohibits other counties and cities from creating GM free zones. The senate is expected to vote on the issue by the end of their session on August 31st (see [link to www.calgefree.org]
[Update 9/1/06: The California Senate session ended without senators voting on the bill to prevent local jurisdictions from creating GM-Free zones. For the time being at least, California counties and cities may still enact GM-Free zones. Click here to read the full press release.]
Jeffrey Smith’s forthcoming book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than 60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect consumers from the dangers. His previous book, Seeds of Deception (www.seedsofdeception.com), is the world’s best-selling book on the subject. He is available for media at info@seedsofdeception.com. Dr. Kirk Azevedo has a chiropractic office in Cambria, California. Press may reach him at (805) 927-1055 or at drkirk@charter.net.
*********
[1] JR Latham et al., “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,” The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Vol 2006 Article ID 25376 Pages 1-7, DOI 10.1155/JBB/2006/25376; for a more in-depth discussion, see also Allison Wilson et al., “Genome Scrambling -Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants, Technical Report - October 2004, www.econexus.info.
[2] Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields – Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh. Report of the Preliminary Assessment April 2006, [link to www.gmwatch.org]
[3]Ashish Gupta, et. al., Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh), Investigation Report, Oct - Dec 2005
[4] See for example, Monsanto Cited In Crop Losses New York Times, June 16, 1998 , [link to query.nytimes.com]
[5] Antje Lorch, Monsanto Bribes in Indonesia, Monsanto Fined For Bribing Indonesian Officials to Avoid Environmental Studies for Bt Cotton, ifrik 1sep2005, [link to www.mindfully.org]
[6] Bt Cotton - No Respite for Andhra Pradesh Farmers More than 400 crores' worth losses for Bt Cotton farmers in Kharif 2005 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture: Press Release, March 29, 2006 [link to www.gmwatch.org]
[7] Jaideep Hardikar, One suicide every 8 hours, Daily News & Analysis (India), August 26, 2006 [link to www.dnaindia.com]
[8] Rick Weiss, U.S. Rice Supply Contaminated, Genetically Altered Variety Is Found in Long-Grain Rice, Washington Post, August 19, 2006
[9]Jeffrey Smith, US Government and Biotech Firm Deceive Public on GM Corn Mix-up, Spilling the Beans, April 2005
[10] See for example, Christopher Doering, ProdiGene to spend millions on bio-corn tainting, Reuters News Service, USA: December 9, 2002
[11] See www.centerforfoodsafety.org
[12]Office of Inspector General, USDA, Audit Report Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Controls Over Issuance of Genetically Engineered Organism Release Permits, December 2005 [link to www.thecampaign.org]
[1 3] Justin Gillis, Genetically Modified Organisms Not Easily Contained; National Research Council Panel Urges More Work to Protect Against Contamination of Food Supply, Washington Post, Jan 21, 2004
*********
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=3912
............................................................
“ Put on the whole armor of God … for our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the wickedness of the evil spirits in the heavens. …” ~ from Ephesians 6:11-12 |
| falldown
User ID: 520470
5/13/2009 6:43 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
This was posted awhile back ... don't remember who posted it, but it is relevant to this thread, and is worth reading again ... Quoting: Aquarius 7
Interesting...thanks, Aquarius 7 
~
~
"He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your words." ~Elbert Hubbard |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/13/2009 6:49 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Monsanto's Bt Cotton Kills the Soil as Well as Farmers
Biosafety refers to ensuring that GMO’s do not harm the environment or health.
The soil, its fertility, and the organisms which maintain the fertility of soil are a vital aspect of the environment, especially in the context of food and agricultural production.
A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).
In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus.
Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.
Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.
At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food.
The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils.
The impact of GMO’s on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms.
The government of India is trying to grant approval to Bt Brinjal without Bio safety studies on impact on Soil organisms. The European Commissión is trying to put pressure on GMO free countries to introduce Mon 810.
The Navdanya study the first that has looked at the long term impact of Bt cotton on soil organisms is a wake up to regulators worldwide. It also shows that the claims of the Biotechnology industry about the safety of GM crops are false.
No shortage of articles to show what is going on with these GMO's. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/13/2009 6:52 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Transgenic Cotton Offers No Advantage
The use of transgenic cotton does not provide increased returns to the farmer. This is the conclusion of a 4-year study reported in Agronomy Journal by researchers at the University of Georgia and the US Department of Agriculture [1].
The researchers grew a number of different cultivars of cotton at two locations in the state of Georgia. The transgenic varieties consisted of two main traits, herbicide tolerance and Bt biopesticides, alone and variously combined (stacked); they were
1. Bollgard (B), expressing the Bt toxin Cry1Ac from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to control the cotton bollworm
2. Bollgard II (B2) expressing two different Bt toxins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab, to delay the evolution of pest resistance
3. Roundup Ready (RR), tolerant to glyphosate herbicide;
4. Bollgard/Roundup Ready (BR)
5. BollgardII/Roundup Ready (B2R)
6. Liberty Link (LL), tolerant to herbicide glufosinate
Five different non-transgenic cotton cultivars were also grown. Each cultivar, whether transgenic or not, was managed to maximise profit, as consistent with practices recommended by the University of Georgia.
The results showed that “no transgenic technology system produced significantly greater returns than a non-transgenic system in any year or location.” The returns are dominated by yields, and could be reduced by 30-40 percent, as in 2004 at one of the two locations, when the non-transgenic variety produced a return of $1274.81 per ha compared with $858.73 for BR, $737.41 for B2R, and $876.14 for LL.
In some cases, the production costs for transgenic varieties (e.g. the cost of applying pesticides) were lower, but this was only enough to compensate for the higher cost of the seeds and technology fees. Choosing the right variety was important, which means that many farmers could improve their returns with more appropriate non-transgenic varieties rather than by adopting transgenic cotton. This will, however, be more difficult in future because seed companies are reducing the number of non-transgenic varieties they offer for sale.
The authors remarked that the high investment for transgenic crops before any yield is realised is a predicament for growers. That is true even in the US, and all the more so in the Third World, where farmers typically have no reserves to draw on. They must borrow to buy the seeds in the hope of paying back the loan from the proceeds of the harvest. A poor harvest or a low price can mean disaster. The authors also commented that a benefit often attributed to transgenic crops is that they allow farms to operate with fewer workers; but this is unlikely to be an advantage in the Third World where farms are small and labour costs are much less.
It is a pity that the researchers have not included organically managed cotton in their study, because it is clearly a much better option. Persistent and massive crop failures of transgenic cotton have contributed substantially to the worsening epidemic of suicides among farmers in India, where a timely return to organic cotton growing is saving lives, and turning despair into hope [2-4] (Organic Cotton Beats Bt Cotton in India, SiS 27; Message from Andra Predesh:Return to organic cotton & avoid the Bt cotton trap, SiS 29; Stem Farmers’ Suicides with Organic Farming, SiS 32).
Across the world, people are becoming aware that pesticide poisoning and devastation of the natural ecosystem are too high a price to pay for conventional cotton, and are opting, not for transgenic cotton, but for organic cotton [5] (Picking Cotton Carefully, SiS 34). World organic cotton supply has been growing at the average rate of 50 percent over the past 6 years (see Chapter 21 of Food Futures Now *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free [5]). It is not too late for cotton farmers in the US to get out of the transgenic cotton trap. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 413608
5/13/2009 6:54 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
here it is. [ link to thepiratebay.org]
little child, what disturbith you about pirate bay and/or sharing information with fellow GLP family?
this is a porn site |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/13/2009 6:58 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton
At least 1 800 sheep reported dead from severe toxicity after grazing on Bt cotton fields in just four villages in Andhra Pradesh India
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
The Bt trail of dead sheep, ill workers and dead villagers over three years
At least 1 820 sheep were reported dead after grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton crops; the symptoms and post-mortem findings strongly suggest they died from severe toxicity. This was uncovered in a preliminary investigation conducted by civil society organisations in just four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh in India. The actual problem is likely to be much greater.
This latest report confirms the findings of an earlier fact-finding investigation, also conducted by civil society organisations, on illnesses in cotton farm workers and handlers caused by Bt cotton in another cotton-growing state, Madhya Pradesh, in India (“More illnesses linked to Bt crops”, this series).
And not so long ago, we reported similar illnesses and deaths among villagers in the Philippines linked to exposure to Bt maize since 2003 (“GM ban long overdue, dozens ill and five deaths in the Philippines”, SiS 29).
It cannot be mere coincidence that similar Bt toxins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis incorporated in the genetically modified crops are involved in all these cases; but the regulators have done nothing. Things are so bad that the European Commission levelled an accusation of bias towards the biotech industry against its own food safety regulatory body (“European Food Safety Authority criticised of GMO bias”, this series).
Grazing lands decline as commercial crops increase
Grazing lands in Warangal district have declined steeply as commercial crop cultivation expanded in recent years, and it has become customary for sheep and goats to be allowed to graze on crop residues after harvest.
This year, there have been several media reports of sharp increases in the deaths of sheep and goats after grazing in Bt cotton fields. There were similar reports in 2005, when complaints were lodged with the Joint Director of Agriculture by a few NGOs, but no action has resulted.
Between February and March 2006, the shepherds of Warangal district again reported high mortality in their flocks after grazing in harvested Bt cotton fields. Some shepherds reported to the animal husbandry department and requested confirmation on whether the deaths were due to grazing on Bt cotton.
Still getting no response, a fact-finding team of five members was constituted by the Andhra Pradesh Shepherds Union: two members from Anthra (NGO working on livestock issues), veterinary scientist Dr. Ramesh and a field researcher Mr. Apparoa; Mr. Jamalaiah, Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Shepherds Union; and two scientists from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture working on Bt cotton issues, Mr. S. Ramprasa and Mr. G. Rajashekar.
The team travelled through three mandals in Warangal district on 22 April 2006 and met with shepherds and farmers. The villages visited were Ippagudem in Ghanapur mandal, Valeru and Unkkucherla in Dharmasagaram mandal, and Maadpalli in Hasanparthi mandal.
Twenty-five percent of sheep dead within five to seven days
The Ippagudem village in Ghanapur mandal has 100 households belonging to the shepherd community. Forty shepherds and ten farmers attended the group meeting when the team visited. They said the deaths began after their sheep grazed on Bt cotton leaves or bolls. This year was the first time some of the shepherds and farmers cultivated Bt cotton hybrids, believing in the propaganda that they can get more yield and profit. They started grazing from the end of January to March. The deaths began within a week of continuous grazing on the Bt cotton crop residues. Mr. J. Parmesh, one of the shepherds got diarrhoea after consuming the affected sheep's meat.
The shepherds said that the sheep became “dull/depressed” after 2-3 days of grazing, started coughing with nasal discharge and developed red lesions in the mouth, became bloated and suffered blackish diarrhoea, and sometimes passed red urine. Death occurred within 5-7 days of grazing. Sheep from young lambs to adults of 1.5-2 years were affected.
The shepherds took their sheep to the government veterinary hospital in Warangal for post-mortem, some shepherds also performed their own post-mortem, as is often the practice of shepherds across Andhra Pradesh. They found black patches in the intestine and enlarged bile duct and black patches on the liver. The shepherds said that the Assistant Director of Animal Health Centre in Warangal told them these deaths appeared to be due to grazing on Bt cotton fields, as she has earlier seen such cases. She prescribed some medicines for the sick sheep, but very few sheep responded, and most died.
Of the 2 601 sheep that belonged to 42 shepherds, 651 sheep died, giving an average mortality rate of 25 percent.
A shepherd in another village, Akkapalli reported that he had cultivated Bt cotton the previous year and allowed his sheep to graze, which resulted in deaths. This year, while he still cultivated Bt cotton, he did not allow them to graze on it, and his sheep did not die.
On the way to Dharmasagaram mandal, the team spoke to a shepherd Shri Kochla Malliah, who has 100 sheep, but 5 died after grazing on Bt cotton crop residues. He reported that sheep had also died in adjoining villages Molakagudam, Kunipatti and Kondaparthi
More deaths and identical symptoms in other villages
Twenty-nine shepherds participated in the meeting in Valeru village in Dharmasagaram mandel. Sheep deaths occurred during February – March 2006. The symptoms described were identical to those reported in the previous village.
Of 2168 sheep owned by the 29 shepherds, 549 sheep died, again giving an average mortality rate of about 25 percent.
In the remaining villages, it was not possible to have a group meeting with the shepherds. But the team was informed that the sheep population is nearly 1 000 in Unkkucherla village, Dharmasagaram mandal, and 150 adult sheep and 70 lambs died within 4 days of grazing on Bt cotton fields between February and March 2006. In Maadipalli village Asanparthi mandal, there are 20 households rearing some 3 000 sheep, and nearly 400 died due to grazing on Bt-cotton fields from the second week of February through to March.
They took their animals to the Warangal veterinary hospital for post-mortem. The Assistant Director at the Animal Health Centre who conducted the post-mortem advised them to stop grazing their sheep on the Bt cotton fields, saying the deaths could be due to the Bt cotton, and prescribed some medicines for the affected sheep.
The team met with the Assistant Director who conducted the post-mortems. When questioned, she replied that while it appeared that the deaths occurred after grazing on Bt cotton fields, and could be due to the effects of Bt toxin, it was not possible to arrive at a definitive conclusion, as farmers also spray different types of insecticides and pesticides on their crops, and this factor confounds the observations. She also said there were no kits or other facilities available within the Department to enable her to arrive at a firm diagnosis that the deaths were due to Bt cotton.
When asked to see the post-mortem results/reports, she said she was not permitted to show them to the team, as permission of the Joint Director was needed. But the Joint Director was not present that day.
Demands for in-depth investigation and moratorium on Bt cotton
The team concludes that “The preliminary information gathered from meeting shepherds across 3 mandals, strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin, and most likely Bt toxin from the foliage.” They were impressed that shepherds from villages located at 20-25 km distance from one another, reported an identical history of grazing on the Bt cotton fields continuously, identical symptoms and death within 5-7 days of grazing exclusively on Bt cotton plant residue, primarily on young leaves and pods. The post-mortem symptoms, as observed by the shepherds, suggest “severe irritation of the intestines and associated organs (bile duct, liver) connected to the absorption and assimilation of food and processing of toxins.”
The team is calling for more “in-depth exhaustive investigation on the impact of Bt toxin on the local Indian livestock”, and a “complete moratorium on Bt cotton cultivation until conclusive results show that the Bt toxin is completely harmless”. Furthermore, they call for the shepherds who suffered losses to be compensated.
What is not yet clear from the report is whether all the sheep that did not fall ill or die also grazed on Bt cotton; if not, then the mortality rate is even higher than reported. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/13/2009 7:01 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 676778
5/14/2009 4:13 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
little child, what disturbith you about pirate bay and/or sharing information with fellow GLP family?
this is a porn site Quoting: Anonymous Coward 413608
No - its an torrenting site, primarily music, movies and games. You need an account to get porn and that doesn't happen by accident, i.e. you have to be looking for it. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/14/2009 11:11 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
The Golden Rice Scandal Unfolds
Clinical trials of unapproved, uncharacterized GM rice on children
More than 30 senior scientists and academics signed an open letter condemning researchers at Tufts University (Boston) in the United States for carrying out clinical trials of genetically modified (GM) ‘Golden Rice’ on children [1] (Scientists Protest Unethical Clinical Trials of GM Golden Rice). The scientists claimed that the trials were in breach of the Nuremberg Code of Ethics brought in at the end of the Second World War to prevent any repetition of the experiments conducted by Nazi scientists including many on children.
The ‘Golden Rice’ in the trials (GR2) appears to be an experimental collection of transgenic events still in the laboratory, uncharacterised in terms of basic molecular genetics or biological and biochemical properties, not tested pre-clinically on animals, or subjected to any other safety assessment.
Of the three studies listed on the US Clinical Trials website, two involved children. The first, “Retinol Equivalence of Plant Carotenoids in Children” [2] - a phase II trial to compare the vitamin A value of b-carotene in oil capsule, spinach and Golden Rice - recruited 72 children 7 to 9 years of age, and the start and finish dates were September 2004 and November 2005 respectively. The second study, with the same title and also a phase II trial [3], recruited 72 children 6 to 8 years of age and registered start and finish dates July 2008 and January 2009 respectively. No results are available for either of the studies (as of 17 March 2009).
The third study [4], “Bioavailability of Golden Rice Carotenoids in Humans”, listed as “ongoing, but not recruiting participants”, was a phase I trial on 6 adults 40 to 70 years of age. The start date was August 2004, and estimated completion date August 2008. Again, no results are available; though an article in Science (25 April 2008) [5] mentioned “a recent, soon-to-be-published study among healthy volunteers who ate cooked golden rice, led by Robert Russell of Tufts University in Boston.”
All the studies were done in the United States, though it appears that trials were also carried out and/or intended elsewhere.
The Golden Rice Project website [6] (accessed 17 March 2009), stated that “Golden Rice has gone through many tests since it was first obtained” Nine items are listed; but no feeding trial on animals among them. The final two items are:
“8. Tests for beta-carotene bioavailability and bioconversion to retinol….with deuterium-labelled Golden Rice fed to adults in USA and a small group of children in China have been conducted. The former were highly successful and the latter are being evaluated at present.
9. Feeding trials with human adults in China were carried out to measure the effect of fat in the diet, on bioconversion and bioavailability.”
An Indian newspaper reported [7] that a clinical trial was cut short in China in July 2008, when the government found that 24 children 6-8 years of age at a primary school in Henyan, Hunan, were to be used as guinea pigs for a trial with Golden Rice. The trial was sponsored by Tufts University and obtained approval from the US National Institute of Health, though not from the Chinese government, which was alerted by Greenpeace. Greenpeace has also warned the governments of Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam against the risky trials. But at least three state-owned labs in India are conducting research into Golden Rice: the Indian Agricultural Research Institute in New Delhi, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, and Hyderabad-based Directorate of Rice Research.
Although Golden Rice was created by Ingo Potrykus at the Institute of Plant Sciences in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer at the University of Freiburg some ten years ago [8], it has remained in the laboratory since. Speaking to Science journal in April 2008 [5], Potrykus bitterly blamed “2 decades of fear-mongering by organizations such as Greenpeace” that has created a regulatory climate so burdensome that only big companies can afford to get any GM products approved. Closer to the truth may be that the product was never ready for commercial approval.
According to a recent report [9], a sample of the Golden Rice grains was sent to Germany in 2001 for a feeding trial with mice. But when the grains were tested for carotenoid content, the scientists were “surprised to find it contained less than one percent of the amount expected.” After the rice was cooked, this was reduced by another 50 percent, so the trial was abandoned.
In 2005, Syngenta made GR2 [10] using the maize version of the enzyme phytoene synthase that was transferred from daffodil. GR2 produced up to 23 times the amount of carotenoids in the original Golden Rice, GR1.
But GR2 was not a transgenic variety based on a single transformation event. On the contrary, it was explicitly stated that [10]: “The reported transgenic rice events [emphasis added] are experimental.” There is no telling whether all the children or adults taking part in any of the trials were given Golden Rice from the same GR2 event. The results of the trials, as yet unreleased, could well be utterly worthless.
Syngenta was donating these GR2 events, via the Humanitarian Project for Golden Rice, for further research and development (to institutes across China, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Vietnam) “through license under certain conditions”, which include “being governed by the strategic direction of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board” Requests were to be directed to Adrian Dubock, a previous employee of Syngenta.
Dubock helped Potrykus and Beyer work out a deal in which Syngenta could develop Golden Rice commercially, but farmers in developing countries who make less than US$10 000 a year could get it for free [5]. Dubock retired from Syngenta in 2007, but remains a member of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, chaired by Potykus.
Golden Rice, an exercise in how not to do science
Golden Rice, genetically modified to make pro-vitamin A in the endosperm (the grain remaining after polishing), was announced with great fanfare in 2000 as a cure for widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.
The project had already cost US$100 million, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, the European Community Biotech Programme and the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science, and could cost as much again to develop. It was tied up in at least 70 patent claims on genes, DNA sequences and constructs, a problem only partly solved in the “ground-breaking deal” worked out by Dubock (see above)..
Condemnation was swift and widespread, not least because it was absurd to offer Golden Rice as the cure for vitamin A deficiency when there are plenty of alternative, infinitely cheaper sources of vitamin A or pro-Vitamin A, such as green vegetables and unpolished coloured rice (especially black and purple varieties [11], which would be rich in other essential vitamins and minerals, and hence much more nutritious. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) started a project in 1985 to deal with vitamin A deficiency using a combination of food fortification, food supplements and general improvements in diets by encouraging people to grow and eat a variety of green leafy vegetables. One main discovery from the project was that the absorption of pro-vitamin A depends on the overall nutritional status, which in turn depends on the diversity of the food consumed [12].
The main cause of hunger and malnutrition in the Third World is the industrial monocultures of the Green Revolution, which obliterated agricultural biodiversity and soil fertility, resulting in ever-worsening mineral and micronutrient deficiencies in our food. Golden Rice, like other GM crops, is industrial monoculture only worse, and will exacerbate this trend, as well as the destruction of agricultural land, and the impoverishment of family farmers that also accompanied the Green Revolution [13] (see Beware the New "Doubly Green Revolution", SiS 37).
GR1 was made with the standard ‘first generation’ genetic modification techniques, using GM constructs that cause uncontrollable mutations and other collateral damage to the host plant genome, with many unintended, uncharacterized effects [14]. In addition, the viral and bacterial sequences, including antibiotic resistance marker genes, in the construct and in the vectors created for gene transfer enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating new pathogens and spreading antibiotic resistance.
GR2 represents an improvement in so far as antibiotic resistance markers were no longer used, but still includes a medley combination of sequences from plant pathogens Agrobacterium (used in a binary vector system) and Erwinia uredovor, and from E. coli, inhabitant of the human gut, which also contains pathogenic strains. We have highlighted the special hazards of the Agrobacterium vector system since 2003 [15] (Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease, A GM Connection?, SiS 38) (see below).
The main reason for Golden Rice was revealed in the unusually long news feature article [16] accompanying the scientific publication [8] which stated: “One can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard to short-term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.”
A detailed audit on the project [14] (The 'Golden Rice', An Exercise in How Not to Do Science, ISIS Report) uncovered “fundamental deficiencies” from the scientific and social rationale to the science and technology involved. It was being promoted “to salvage a morally as well as financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry.” The situation has changed little since.
The phase II clinical trials of uncharacterized, unapproved, experimental GR2 events on children, some of whom may indeed be suffering from vitamin A deficiency, is morally inexcusable. GR2 has not been assessed for safety, and there are reasons to suspect it is unsafe.
GMO safety in question
The biotech industry has consistently found genetically modified food and feed ‘as safe as their conventional counterparts’, and regulators in the United States and European Union have accepted this assertion overwhelmingly based on studies carried out and interpreted by the industry [17] (GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham, ISIS scientific publication).
There is now a string of evidence that exposure of many species of animals to a variety of genetically modified crops, and food and feed derived from them, can cause illnesses and death, raising the distinct possibility that genetic modification is inherently dangerous [18] (GM is Dangerous and Futile, SiS 40). This is reinforced in results obtained in the most recent studies.
The Austrian government commissioned long term studies showing that mice fed GM maize hybrid (NK603xMON810) with combined glyphosate tolerance and biopesticide Cry1Ab produced fewer and smaller litters with many genes affected compared to controls [19] (GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice, SiS 41). At the same time, the Italian National Institute of Research published a study showing that GM maize MON810 fed to mice produced disturbances in the immune system of the young and the old [20] (GM Maize Disturbs Immune System of Young and Old Mice, SiS 41). In India, the first independent assessment of the feeding study submitted by Monsanto and its subsidiary Mahyco to the Indian regulatory authorities showed that Bt Brinjal (aubergine) caused many changes in several species of animals including diarrhoea, increased water consumption and decrease in liver weight in rats [21] (Bt Brinjal Unfit for Human Consumption, SiS 41).
There are several reasons why genetic modification is inherently hazardous, as spelt out more than ten years ago [22] (Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?) and unfortunately, still not taken on board by the regulatory authorities, let alone systematically investigated. The dangers may come from the transgenic protein itself that may be toxic or immunogenic [23] (Transgenic Pea that Made Mice Ill, SiS 29), the toxicity of herbicides such as glyphosate to which more than 70 percent of GM crops now grown globally are made tolerant [24] (Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42) or it could be totally unexpected, unintended effects resulting from the mutagenic insertion of foreign DNA into the genome, and worse, the instability of transgenic lines, which makes proper safety assessment well nigh impossible [25] (Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection, SiS 38).
One major hazard inherent to GM organisms (GMOs) is enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination [26] (Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 39). This is considerably worse with transgenic plants like Golden Rice (both GR1 and GR2) that have been created using the Agrobacterium binary vector system, basically because the Agrobacterium bacteria as well as the binary vector tend to persist in the transgenic plants, providing a ready vehicle for further horizontal gene transfer to all species that interact with the transgenic plant material, including human cells. Agrobacterium is known to invade human cells. Horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA into human cells has the potential to cause harmful mutations including cancer. In general, horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA facilitates the creation of new pathogens. The identification of Agrobacterium sequences in patients with Morgellons’ Disease raises questions as to whether the widespread use of Agrobacterium vectors in genetic modification has indeed resulted in creating a new pathogen for humans [15].
Golden Rice particularly dangerous
In addition, the unbalanced enhancement of single nutrients in GM crops may do more harm than good [27] (GM Crops and Microbes for Health or Public Health Hazards? SiS 32). As David Schubert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences La Jolla, California, in the United States points out [28], plants possess the ability to synthesize between 90 000 and 200 000 nonessential small molecules, with up to 500 in one species. The enormous repertoire is due in part to enzymes with very low substrate specificity, which are unpredictably altered by mutations and pleiotropic effects associated with GM technology. Furthermore, overdose of many single nutrients are known to be toxic, vitamin A being a case in point. Schubert highlights the toxic effects of retinoic acid and other metabolites of b-carotene, only a few of them can be identified and measured in the current state of technology.
Golden Rice is enhanced in b-carotene, which on ingestion, is cleaved in half to generate retinal for use in the visual cycle. Retinal is also reduced to retinol, or oxidized to retinoic acid (RA), which interacts with highly specific nuclear receptors. Essentially all of the biological activity of retinoids, apart from vision, involves RA. While high concentrations of retinol are toxic, RA is biologically active at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than retinol. Hence, Schubert states [28]: “excess RA or RA derivatives are exceedingly dangerous, particularly to infants and during pregnancy.” RA is required for the development of the nervous system, both by directly controlling nerve differentiation and by generating concentration gradients that direct cell migration, embryonic segmentation, and development. Therefore, RA and synthetic derivative of RA are teratogenic (able to cause birth defects). They can accumulate in fat and plasma, becoming a risk factor for pregnancy for up to 2 years following ingestion, and multiple low doses of retinoids have greater toxicity than a single high dose.
Because of the type of biological functions controlled by low levels of RA, any perturbation of its signalling pathways by plant-derived RA receptor agonists or antagonists will have clinical consequences. “Could the GM modifications used to enhance b-carotene synthesis create such compounds?” (This question remains unanswered to this day.) Six hundred naturally occurring compounds exist in the carotene family, and at least 60 can be precursors to retinoids. “Therefore, plants have the potential to make many potentially harmful retinoid-like compounds when there are increased levels of synthetic intermediates to b-carotene as in golden rice.”
While all retinoids and derivatives are likely to be teratogenic, good assays and information regarding the behaviour and teralogic activity are available for only three: retinol, RA, and retinal. Therefore, at the very least, “extensive safety testing should be required before the introduction of golden rice as a food.”
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/14/2009 11:15 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Bacterium causing rice panicle blight
The United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) carried out an Environmental Assessment [1] in response to a permit application (06-111-01r) received from Dr. Milton Rush of Louisiana State University for a field test of two non-pathogenic, genetically engineered strains of Burkholderia glumae, and is available for public comment by 19 July 2007 at: [link to www.regulations.gov]
Burkholderia glumae Kurita et Tabei is a bacterial plant pathogen that causes bacterial panicle blight in rice, and is transmitted by infected seed. This bacterium was first described in Japan as the cause of grain rotting and seedling blight and is considered one of the most important rice pathogens in Japan. Epidemics of panicle blight occurred in the southern rice producing area of the United States during the 1995 and 1998 growing seasons, with yield losses in some fields estimated to be as high as 40 percent. Currently, there is no control method for panicle blight in the US, where most commercially grown rice varieties are susceptible to the disease. Field-testing non-pathogenic, transgenic strains of B. glumae is supposed to provide information on bacterial panicle blight infection of rice, and indicate potential routes for control of the pathogen.
Non-pathogenic transgenic bacteria contain two antibiotic resistance markers
B. glumae has been modified by disrupting the disease-causing gene, resulting in avirulent or non-pathogenic transgenic strains.
One virulence factor in B. glumae is the compound toxoflavin , a yellowish substance that results in significant damage to rice in the infected plants. Toxoflavin is produced in Burkholderia by an operon (group of genes with a defined function) consisting of the tox gene cluster (toxABCDE) controlled by the toxR gene that is activated when the bacterium invades the rice plant. Disruption of the toxA gene (methyltransferase) results in mutants that do not produce toxoflavin. The cloning vector also contains two selectable markers, the gene (nptII) for neomycin phosphotransferase from Streptomyces kanamyceticus and the gene (bla) for beta-lactamase from Escherichia coli, providing resistance to kanamycin and ampicillin, respectively. The promoter for each of the genes is the Bacteriophage T7 promoter, and the terminator a synthetic TAA codon sequence. The donor DNA sequences are stably and irreversibly integrated into the bacterial genome, where they are maintained and inherited as any other genes of the bacteria cell [1]. The avirulent non-pathogenic strain therefore also carries stable resistance to the antibiotics kanamycin and ampicllin. The potential for horizontal gene transfer of the antibiotic resistance markers to soil bacteria is acknowledged in the USDA/APHIS assessment, but is presumed to have insignificant consequences. This presumption is not borne out by a wealth of evidence we have presented repeatedly to our regulators, the most recent in June 2007 [2] (GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham , ISIS scientific publication)
Pathogenic wild-type bacteria will be released in field-tests of non-pathogenic strains
Two experiments will be conducted; the first evaluates toxoflavin as a disease causing agent by challenging the rice plants with wild-type B. glumae, the second involves inoculating the rice with the transgenic avirulent bacterium followed by challenge with the virulent strain to see whether or not the presence of the avirulent strain will protect rice from B. glumae infection. These are obviously dangerous experiments to be carried out in the open fields; as the wild-type pathogen could easily spread from the experimental fields to other rice crops. The risks are unjustifiable, especially when there are other safer strategies.
An alternative approach to controlling B. glumae is via ‘quorum sensing’, a regulatory network influencing virulence based on the local density of bacteria that intercommunicate with one another. Quorum sensing can occur within a single bacterial species as well as between disparate species, and can regulate a host of different processes, essentially serving as a simple communication network. The bacteria signal to one another via special molecules. For example, toxoflavin is regulated by a quorum sensing mechanism that uses N-acyl homoserine lactones as signal molecules. A Burkholderia endophyte (a bacterium that lives inside the plant) was selected from rice and found to be non-pathogenic to rice and to inhibit pathogenic fungi. The endophyte, modified with a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis specifying N-acyl homoserine lactones, was found to prevent toxoflavin synthesis and virulence of B. glumae [3]. Genetic modification involving quorum sensing provides an alternative, also avoids use of the antibiotic résistance genes described above because toxoflavin can be detected by its fluorescence and its absence is readily detected.
Another danger from the transgenic B. glumae proposed for release is that the genus contains serious pathogens for humans: B. cepacia is a potent pathogen [4] (Bio-remediation Without Caution, SiS 230; B. thailandensis caused pneumonia and septicemia [5]; B. dolosa is pathogenic for people with cystic fibrosis [6]; B. gladioli caused ocular keratitis in an individual with diabetes, and is also found in other diseases [7]; and a number of other Burkholderia species are associated with human infections. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that a B. glumae infection was observed in an infant with chronic granulomatous disease [8]. Further investigation of the clinically isolated strain of B. glumae showed that the bacterium caused severe disease symptoms in rice, and a quorum sensing regulated secreted lipase was implicated in the pathogenesis of the clinical strain [9].
The USDA/APHIS assessment did not consider human infection by B. glumae a serious matter [1] based on the single human case, nor did it recommend precaution for those working with the pathogen, who will most likely take the pathogen to their homes, families and neighbours. The dangers of the transgenic B. glumae itself as a potential pathogen armed with two antibiotic resistance marker genes that could further transfer horizontally to other known Burkholderia pathogens appear to have completely escaped the notice of USDA/APHIS. Both USDA/APHIS and the scientists involved should be held responsible for any harm caused to people and crops, should they allow this field release to go ahead.
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/14/2009 11:35 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto?
Governments approve Monsanto’s GM crops
Percy Schmeiser and his wife Louise are third generation farmers from the prairies of Western Canada in the province of Saskatchewan near the city of Saskatoon. They feel really blessed not only that his grandparents moved there, but by the fact that in Central Saskatchewan so many types of grain crops can be grown; pulses, oil seeds, in what the locals call God’s Country.
The Schmeisers, like hundreds of thousands of farmers all over the world, were using their canola (oilseed rape) seed from year to year and developing new varieties suitable for climatic soil conditions on the prairies. Percy had also been the Mayor of his town for over thirty years, a member of the provincial Parliament and an active member of agricultural committees representing his province on new agricultural policy, law and regulations for the benefit of farmers.
In 1996, the Canadian Federal Government and the US Government gave regulatory approval to four genetically modified (GM) crops: soya, corn or maize, cotton and canola. At the time not all GM crops in Canada were herbicide tolerant except for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola and soya, both resistant to the company’s herbicide Roundup. The US Government had also approved Bt cotton and Bt corn that has the added GM toxin from Bacillus thuringenisis (Bt). The Canadian government were fully complicit in allowing Monsanto to develop GM crops on Government test plots and research stations in return for a royalty on every bushel of GM crops sold.
Monsanto versus farmer
In 1998, two years after the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Canada, the Schmeisers received a lawsuit notice from Monsanto which said that they were growing Roundup Ready canola without a licence from Monsanto and that this was a patent infringement. Monsanto had a patent on a gene to make GM canola resistant to the glyphosate herbicide in its formulation Roundup. This came as a complete surprise to the Schmeisers who immediately realised that all their research and development on canola over the past fifty years had been contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs. They felt that they had a case against Monsanto for liability and the damages possibly caused to them, and that was the beginning of [1] Schmeiser's Battle for the Seed (SiS 19). And 10 years on, the Schmeisers have been invited to London to tell their full story [2].
The Schmeisers stood up to Monsanto’s claims of patent infringement in the Federal Court with just one judge and no jury. The pre-trial took two years to go to court in which Monsanto claimed that despite having no knowledge of Percy Schmeiser ever having obtained any GM seed, he must have used their seed on his 1 030 acres of land because ninety-eight percent of the land was GM contaminated. And, because the Schmeisers had contaminated their own seed supply with Monsanto seed, ownership of the Schmeisers seed supply reverted to Monsanto under patent law.
Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled
The Court ruled after a two-and-half-week trial that it was the first patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge’s ruling and Percy Schmeiser’s name became famous overnight:
·It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property.
·The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it’s 1 percent, 2 percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to Monsanto.
·It’s immaterial how the GM contamination occurs, or where it comes from.
The Schmeisers tracked down the source of the contamination. It was their neighbour who had planted GM crops in 1996 with no fence or buffer between them. Nevertheless, the Schmeisers’ seeds and plants reverted to Monsanto, and they were not allowed to use their own seeds and plants again, nor keep any profit from their canola crop in 1998.
The Schmeisers appealed against the ruling, and after another two years, it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal judges even though they did not agree with all the trial judge’s statements. The Schmeisers believe that the case should have been thrown out of Court and not upheld. After having lost the two trials costing them $300 000 of their own money, Percy took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was warned that there was only a very small chance that the case would be heard; but was granted a second leave of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Schmeiser raised important questions during the Supreme Court Appeal
The Appeal was good news for the Schmeisers, but in the meantime Monsanto had brought another lawsuit against them for $1million in legal costs, fines and punitive damages. Monsanto said that the Schmeisers were recalcitrant and that they wanted a million dollars from them. For good measure, Monsanto brought a third lawsuit against the Schmeisers to seize their farmland, farm equipment and house, in an effort to stop them mortgaging their assets to pay their legal bill.
Percy Schmeiser effectively raised several important questions at the Supreme Court Appeal:
1. Can living organisms, seeds, plants, genes, and human organs be owned and protected by corporate patents on intellectual property?
2. Can genetically modified traits invade and become noxious weeds that then become resistant to weed killers and become superweeds? (The answer was obviously yes, as these are now all over Western Canada and almost the rest of Canada, see below.)
3. Can the farmers’ rights to grow conventional or organic crops be protected, especially organic crops?
4. Can farmers keep their ancient right to save their own seeds and develop them further if they so desire?
5. Who owns life? Has anyone, either an individual or a corporation, the right to put a patent on a higher life form?
On the important issue of “Who owns life?” the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that “Monsanto’s patent on a gene is valid and wherever that gene arrives in any higher life form they own or control that higher life form.” That was considered to be a major victory for Monsanto at the time, but is a decision that has come home to roost in the form of corporate liability for GMOs. Percy explained that if a corporation own and control a higher life form and they put it into the environment where everyone knows it cannot be controlled or contained and co-existence is impossible then the corporation should be liable for the damages done to an organic farmer or a conventional farmer, as well as for the negative impacts on biodiversity.
Despite strong recommendations by the Supreme Court for the Parliament of Canada to bring in new laws and regulations on patents on life and the rights of farmers to use their seed from year to year these issues have yet to be addressed to date. In the US, Monsanto has filed lawsuits against at least ninety farmers (see [3] Monsanto versus Farmers, SiS 26).
Monsanto’s contamination no benefit to farmers, the Supreme Court ruled
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that in the case of patent infringement the Schmeisers owed no money to Monsanto because they did not benefit by being contaminated by the GM genes. Furthermore, they had not used Monsanto’s patent because they had not sprayed the Roundup herbicide on their canola crops. However, both parties had to pay their own legal bills. The Schmeisers legal bill was over $400 000 and Monsanto’s was over $2 million.
In essence, Monsanto had used Percy Schmeiser as a test case to see how far they could exercise intellectual property rights (IPR) over farmers’ rights. “At one point, Monsanto had nineteen lawyers in court, I had one. Talk about intimidation,” Percy said.
No longer able to grow canola in their fields for fear of infringing Monsanto’s patent, The Schmeisers began research into yellow mustard and started cultivating 50 acres of land in preparation for planting. In the autumn of 2005, they noticed canola plants growing despite not having been seeded in those fields for many years. They brought in witnesses and tested the plants by spraying Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on the plants. Monsanto claim that any green plant that is sprayed with Roundup that does not die must contain their patented gene. When the Schmeisers plants did not die they realised that Monsanto’s canola was in their fields again.
The Schmeisers contacted Monsanto and asked them to remove the canola plants from their property. Monsanto took samples of the plants that confirmed they were their patented variety and two days later Louise Schmeiser received a fax from Monsanto containing a signed release statement which was blackened out in parts. Louise refused to sign it and insisted that Monsanto send her the unexpurgated document. Monsanto sent what was essentially a gagging order on the Schmeisers from ever telling anyone, neighbours, and the press about the terms of settlement, or ever taking Monsanto to court again for the rest of their lives no matter how much Monsanto contaminated their fifty acre parcel of land with GM canola.
Victory for Schmeisers and farmers at last
There was no way that the Schmeisers were ever going to sign a statement like that and give up their freedom to a corporation. Monsanto said that if they refused to sign then they would not remove the plants. The argument raged backed and forth; the Schmeisers said they will remove the plants themselves and Monsanto wrote back saying we wish to remind you that the plants that are on your field are our property and you are not allowed to do with those plants what you want. The Schmeisers said get your property off our property, you’re trespassing! Monsanto said only if you sign the release form.
The Schmeisers wanted the plants off their land before the pods ripened and the seeds were dispersed into the field. They hired the neighbours to help remove the plants and notified Monsanto about what had been done and Monsanto sent another fax saying that you can’t do what you want with those plants. A bill was eventually sent to Monsanto by the Schmeisers for $640 to pay for the neighbours help to clear the field. Monsanto refused to pay the bill unless Percy signed the release statement. This went on for about a year so the Schmeisers made a decision to go back to Court amid media reports about the new dispute. The judge in the small claims Court agreed with the Schmeisers and sent Monsanto a summons. Percy said, “We then had a billion dollar Corporation in Court on a $640 bill and you can imagine the publicity that got in Canada.”
In March 2008, the case went to trial and when the judge came into the Court room Monsanto got up with a cheque in hand to pay the $640 plus $20 costs. “I’ll never forget that $20 costs!” Percy laughed. “It was a great victory, not only for ourselves, but for farmers all over the world because it has set a precedent where a corporation has accepted liability for contamination and clean up costs”, he said. Percy Schmeiser had become the first farmer in history to successfully counter-sue Monsanto for liability over damages done to his seeds and crops by Monsanto’s GM crops.
GM in Canada - lessons learned
Thirteen years ago when GM soya and rapeseed was introduced in Canada (and in the US) the Corporations and Government told farmers that GM would increase yields, be more nutritious, use less chemicals, and feed a hungry world. Now we will always have a sustainable agriculture, they claimed. The Canadian Department of Agriculture figures states canola yields have decreased at least ten percent and soya at least fifteen percent [4], but worst of all, farmers are using three to five times more chemicals because of the GM superweeds that have developed. The reality is that the nutritional content of all crops are down fifty percent of what they were before GMOs were introduced and now we have less yields and more chemicals used, exactly the opposite of what Monsanto promised.
Percy Schmeiser said, “Once you introduce GMOs, believe me the days of organic farmers are over, the days of the conventional farmer are over, it all becomes GMOs in a matter of a few years.” In addition, he said, there is no such thing as containment, you cannot contain pollen flow. It doesn’t matter if contamination is by seeds blowing in the wind, or by bees, or by farmers transporting their seeds to market, or so on. Ultimately, farmers, growers and consumers will no longer have a choice because despite Monsanto’s promise that farmers will have choice, they won’t because it’s absolutely impossible for organic and conventional farming to co-exist with GM crops.
Mountains of contaminated produce that cannot be exported
Canadian organic farmers can no longer grow canola and soya crops organically. The seed stocks of those two crops are now totally contaminated by GMOs, which cross- pollinate into other market garden crops from the brassica family. Percy describes the devastating effect GMOs have had on Canada’s markets, as a nation reliant on exporting eighty percent of what it produces. The markets for rapeseed have shrunk to primarily exporting to Mexico, the US and Japan, Canada is now sitting on a mountain of canola, not one bushel can be exported to the EU. Furthermore, Canada’s honey markets throughout the world have been lost because of GM contamination.
Schmeiser is also concerned about a new wave of GM crops in Canada called “pharma-plants”. There are six major types of drugs now being produced by GM plants, including prescription vaccines, industrial enzymes, blood thinners, blood clotting proteins, growth hormones and contraceptives, all known to be much more dangerous than conventional drugs (see [5] Biologicals’, Wonder Drugs with Problems, SiS 42) What if somebody has had major surgery and then eats food contaminated with genes from a plant manufactured to be a blood thinner? Or what about a pregnant woman who eats food contaminated by genes from a plant that is manufactured as a contraceptive? These are just some of the worrying implications of pharma-plants, along with containment and co-existence.
Superweeds now ubiquitous in Canada, requiring supertoxic herbicides
Superweeds have evolved from conventional canola plants that have taken on the genes from three or four companies selling GM canola that has cross-pollinated and ended up in one plant. It had become established in Canada by 1996 (so quickly that horizontal gene transfer was suspected as having been involved, see [6] What Lurks Behind Triple Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape?, ISIS Report). Percy warns that superweeds are ubiquitous throughout Canada in wheat fields, barley fields, cemeteries, university grounds, towns, and golf courses. He said that all these people that never even grew GM canola have this new expense of trying to control it, and this is responsible for the massive increase in the use of chemicals to control the superweeds.
One third of Canada’s insecticides, herbicides and pesticides are used in Saskatchewan, which has the highest rate of breast cancer and prostate cancer in Canada. “We’re killing ourselves with the chemicals we are using and the chemicals are more powerful and more toxic than ever before,” Percy says. He warns that Roundup herbicide is now four times stronger than it was in 1996. Roundup is bad enough as new research reveals (see [7] Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42); the new type “24D”, contains 70 percent Agent Orange, and is being used on the prairies to combat superweeds. The adverse health effect of Agent Orange in Vietnam is common knowledge and could explain the major health problems, environment damage and loss of biodiversity in Canada.
Monsanto’s culture of fear
Monsanto is perpetrating a culture of fear and intimidation in Canada in an effort to gain control of the seed supply, and ultimately the food supply. It was not easy to stand up to Monsanto. Percy said, “They tried everything to break us down mentally and financially.” His main fear was the harm that they would do to his wife and family. Monsanto employees would sit in the road in their vehicles watching us all day long when we were working in our field, he said. They would sit in the driveway for hours at a time watching Louise Schmeiser when she was working in the garden and then phone her and say “You better watch it; we’re going to get you.” Monsanto would then phone their neighbours and say if you support Percy and Louise Schmeiser we’re going to come after you and do the same to you as we’re doing to them. Monsanto offered $20 000 worth of chemicals to the Schmeisers’ neighbours if they would say something negative about them in Court.
Percy warns farmers about Monsanto’s “Inform on your neighbour” policy for a free gift such as a leather jacket or chemicals. He said when the “gene police” arrive on contaminated farm land threatening the farmer and his wife with a court case, what do you think goes through a farmers’ mind? You have a suspicion about your neighbours; it breaks down the social fabric of rural society, farmers’ relationships, farmers not trusting one another, farmers scared to talk to each other about what they are seeding. We don’t know how many thousands of farmers they have done that to. But by 2004 at least 30,000 farmers were paying royalties to Monsanto in Canada [8]. As a former politician, Percy thinks this is the worst thing that has happened with the introduction of GM crops, a whole new culture of fear that Monsanto has been able to establish on the prairies of North America and Canada.
If Monsanto can’t find the farmer at home they go to the municipality office and get the farmers address and extortion letters follow. Percy has collected a lot of letters that farmers have given to him that say: “We have reason to believe that you might be growing Monsanto’s GM rapeseed without a licence. We estimate that you have so many acres. In lieu of us not sending you to court send us $100 000 dollars or $200 000 dollars in two weeks time and we may or may not send you to court.” Can you imagine the fear of a farm family when they receive this letter from a billion dollar Corporation? The letter ends, “You’re not allowed to show this letter to anyone or we will fine you.” One farmer’s wife sent Percy a letter from Monsanto because she was at her wits end. Her husband had four heart attacks and she pleaded with them to put her in jail. Monsanto replied, “We don’t want to put you in jail lady, sell your farm and we’ll let you go for half the money.” This behaviour is ruthless and if Monsanto can victimise farmers in First World countries such as Canada and America, it is a given that they will do this in many countries all over the world.
No new GM crops for Canada
But the Schmeisers’ struggles have brought a ray of hope.
In Canada food is not labelled, and campaigners have protested to find out what’s in their food by demanding labelling. The National Farmers Union has warned farmers not to buy Monsanto’s GM seeds because of their aggressive attitude. The Government has been unsuccessful in introducing any new GM crops such as wheat, rice, flax, and alfalfa because there was such an uproar by the people who have seen the damage and don’t want any more GM crops. Schmeiser said, “If we’re trying to stop them in the US and especially Canada, why would you want to introduce them in the UK and Europe?” He believes that now the Corporations have lost the ability to introduce any more GMOs in Canada they have turned their attention to other countries in the world. He compared this dominant strategy with the sale of agricultural pesticides and chemicals that have been exported wholesale to Africa and Asia once the North American markets were saturated.
Percy said we do not know if you can ever recall out of the environment a life form that you put into it. And in relation to GMOs, what are we leaving for the future? We are at a fork in the road. If you go the GM way, this is what will happen; if you go down the other fork, you will maintain good food, safe food, and your environment. “I don’t think any of us want to leave to the future generations our environment, our soil, our water, our food, and our air full of poisons, none of us want to leave that,” he concluded. Percy has five children, fifteen grandchildren and two great grandchildren and that is why the Schmeisers have taken such a strong stand because they want to leave a legacy of safe food, water, air and soil.
He leaves us with a final question: “What will happen if you introduce GM crops in the UK?” We still have the chance to make the right decision.
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/14/2009 12:04 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
for awareness |
| A_Leopard_Sanctuary
User ID: 679048
5/14/2009 2:50 PM
 | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
trout 'maters, human eyes of potato and snail broccoli are for serious. They are here and you eat them if you eat the frozen meals.
Last Edited by ALeopardSanctuary on 5/14/2009 at 4:18 PM
Brother sun, intuition moon. Home at the forest.
Sure every post I have mentions goat blood...How do you think we get plasma tv's?
Organic needs are being assaulted. I'm not amused by this & encourage all to grow heirloom seed for themselves.
The garden gives greatest power.
Diabetes curing food list [Forget the FDA - Think for yourself]:
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com] |
| Aquarius 7
User ID: 673181
5/14/2009 4:30 PM
| | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
This was posted awhile back ... don't remember who posted it, but it is relevant to this thread, and is worth reading again ...
.
Interesting...thanks, Aquarius 7 Quoting: falldown
.
You're welcome. :)
.
“ Put on the whole armor of God … for our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the wickedness of the evil spirits in the heavens. …” ~ from Ephesians 6:11-12 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/14/2009 5:51 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
|
| The Jurist
User ID: 670882
5/14/2009 6:02 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
for exposure
`
(Be) Divide(ed) and (be) Conquer(ed)...
Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.
~There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner. —me
~What luck for Rulers that Men do not Think. —Adolf Hitler
:damned: Doom is optional. There is good news abounds. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 669569
5/14/2009 7:46 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
finally watched this.....
if anything in this world is truly evil, it's monsanto.
real doom. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 1:19 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
GM Food Nightmare Unfolding and the Regulatory Sham
GM nightmare unfolds
Female rats whose diets were supplemented with genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soybeans gave birth to many severely stunted pups, with over half of the litter dead by three weeks, and the surviving pups were sterile [1] ( GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile , SiS 33 ). This is the first time that anyone has investigated the effects of GM feed on reproductive function, foetal and neonatal development, in an experiment lasting more than 90 days, a period set by the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) [2], and the GM soya has been commercialised worldwide for food and feed since 1996.
Like a long string of scientists who have tried to tell the public what they have found, Dr. Irina Ermakova, senior scientist of the Russian Academy of Sciences who heads the investigation, has had her funding cut, and is now strongly discouraged from continuing with the research. She is pleading for other scientists to repeat her experiment to see if they can replicate her results.
Ermakova's findings are not an isolated case. They top a growing stack of evidence accumulated from all over the world, indicating that GM food and feed may be inherently hazardous to health (see Box 1). GM crops are also proving disastrous for agriculture [3, 4] ( Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Superweeds, Allergens... , Scientists Confirm Failures of Bt-Crops , SiS 28), which is all the more reason they should be banned.
Box 1
Accumulating evidence on the health hazards of GM food and feed
1. Between 2005 and 2006, scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups and more than half of the litter dying within three weeks, while the surviving pups are completely sterile (see main article).
2. Between 2004 and 2005, hundreds of farm workers and cotton handlers in Madhya Pradesh, India, suffered allergy symptoms from exposure to Bt cotton [5] ( More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops , SiS 30).
3. Between 2005 and 2006, thousands of sheep died after grazing on Bt cotton crop residues in four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh in India [6] ( Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton , SiS 30).
4. In 2005, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra Australia tested a transgenic pea containing a normally harmless protein in bean (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1), and found it caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivities to other proteins in the diet [7] ( Transgenic Pea that Made Mice Ill , SiS 29)
5. From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and Pavia in Italy published reports indicating that GM-soya fed to young mice affected cells in the pancreas, liver and testes [8] ( GM Ban Long Overdue , SiS 29)
6. In 2003, villagers in the south of the Philippines suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower; antibodies to the Bt protein were found in the villagers, there have been at least five unexplained deaths and some remain ill to this day [8]
7. In 2004, Monsanto's secret research dossier showed that rats fed MON863 GM maize developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities [9] (see main text).
8. Between 2001 and 2002, a dozen cows died in Hesse Germany after eating Syngenta GM maize Bt176, and more in the herd had to be slaughtered from mysterious illnesses [10] ( Cows Ate GM Maize & Died , SiS 21)
9. In 1998, Dr . Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the Rowett Institute in Scotland reported damage in every organ system of young rats fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin, including a stomach lining twice as thick as controls [11]
10. Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in the gut of mice fed Bt potato [12]
11. The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening had developed small holes in their stomach [11]
12. In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience) submitted data to UK regulators showing that chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die compared with controls [13] ( Animals Avoid GM Food, for Good Reasons , SiS 21 ).
Many varieties of GM crops - soybean, tomato, maize, cotton, potato, pea - with different transgenes, fed to rats, mice, cows, sheep, chickens, or human beings, resulted in illnesses and deaths. The obvious suspect is the GM process and/or the artificial genetic material used. It is worth mentioning here that synthetic approximations of the natural genes are invariably used, and in new combinations that have no counterparts in billions of years of evolution.
Numerous publications from the Institute of Science in Society have spelt out the potential dangers of the GM process based on extensive review of the scientific literature (see Box 2) [14-16, for example] ( FAQ on Genetic Engineering , ISIS Tutorial; Special Safety Concerns of Transgenic Agriculture and Related Issues , ISIS Briefing; GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of our Food Supply , ISP Report),.
Box 2
Potential Hazards of GMOs
* Synthetic genes and gene products new to evolution could be toxic and/or immunogenic for humans and other animals
* Genetic modification represents greatly enhanced and facilitated horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating pathogens responsible for major disease epidemics
* GM DNA consists of antibiotic resistance marker genes as well as copies of genes from many viral and bacterial pathogens, which further increases the likelihood that it will transfer horizontally and recombine to create new pathogens and spread antibiotic resistance in the process
* The uncontrollable, imprecise process involved in making GMOs can generate unintended toxic and immunogenic products, a problem exacerbated by the instability of the transgenic varieties
* Endogenous viruses and viral genes that cause diseases could be activated by the transgenic process
* The GM DNA, enormously amplified in GMOs released into the environment, is readily transferred to other species via pollen, or by direct uptake into cells of all organisms interacting with the GMOs, within the GMOs themselves, in the soil, the water and the gut of animals feeding on the GMOs, providing plenty of opportunity for horizontal gene transfer and recombination to create new pathogens and spread antibiotic resistance
* GM DNA is designed to integrate into genomes; unintended integration of GM DNA into the genome of cells of animals including humans can result in harmful insertion mutagenesis including those that trigger cancer
* Herbicide tolerant GM crops accumulate herbicide and herbicide residues that could be highly toxic (see main text)
“GM food is safe”
For those who believe our regulators assuring us that “GM food is safe” because people have been eating GM food since its first release in 1994 and no one has fallen ill or died from it, think again. First, there has been no labelling in countries like the US where GM food and feed are most available. Second, many GM products are helpfully ‘de-regulated' by US regulators and hence not known or traceable as such. Third, there has been no post-release monitoring, so it is impossible to tell how many people and animals have become ill or have died from eating GM food and feed, although researchers at the Centers for Disease Control have published a paper in 1999 suggesting that food-related illnesses went up 2 to 10 fold compared with a survey done just before GM food was commercially released in 1994 [17, 18] ( US Foodborne Illnesses Up Two to Ten Fold , SiS 13/14 ) . Fourth, GM food and feed may be linked to chronic illnesses such as autoimmune disease, slow viruses or cancer [19] ( Horizontal Gene Transfer – The Hidden Hazards of Genetic Engineering , ISIS Briefing ) , which may be difficult to detect. Finally, animal feed accounts for up to half the world's harvest [20], so most of the GM produce so far has probably ended up in animal feed after being processed for seed oil, corn starch and syrup, and increasingly, ethanol and biodiesel [21, 22] ( Biofuels for Oil Addicts , Biodiesel Boom in Europe? SiS 30). That means GM produce is seldom eaten directly by either animals or human beings so far, except in Argentina, with dire consequences for health [23] ( Argentina's GM Woes , SiS 20 ). In Argentina, GM soya has been promoted as a staple food especially for the poor, which has no precedent in the world, so it is not possible to tell which effects are due to soya per se , which due to GM soya, and further, due to the toxic herbicide Roundup (see later) sprayed from the air, dousing people and their homes.
Unfortunately, GM food is still being send to Africa as ‘food aid', after widespread rejection and protest [24], putting millions of the most hungry and vulnerable people at risk from the health hazards of GMOs, and threatening to contaminate their food supply for years to come.
Regulatory bias towards GMOs
The list of evidence of GM hazards in Box 1 consists of both laboratory experiments reported in the scientific literature and experience in the field where GM crops are grown, and is by no means complete. In fact, evidence of GM hazards has been building up since the 1980s that should have halted the development or commercialisation of many, if not all GM crops [5], if the precautionary principle had been applied. But our regulators were biased in favour of GM from the first, and have systematically ignored and dismissed research findings that might harm the fledgling biotech industry [25] ( Fatal Flaws in Food Safety Assessment: Critique of the Joint FAO ... , ISIS Scientific Publication). By now, the evidence has accumulated to such an extent that the regulators should be answering a charge of criminal negligence at the very least in continuing their campaign of denial and misrepresentation while failing to impose a ban on further releases of all GM crops until and unless they have been proven safe by thorough independent investigations [8].
Meanwhile the biotech industry is hyping the ‘success' of GM crops as opposition heightens worldwide [26] ( Global GM Crops Area Exaggerated , SiS 33), and aggressively pushing new generations of products [27, 28] ( GM Crops and Microbes for Health or Public Health Hazards? , GM Food Animals Coming , SiS 32) potentially even more dangerous as well as unethical. The latest are cloned transgenic animals that the regulators are presenting in a misleadingly positive light for market approval [29, 30] ( Is FDA Promoting or Regulating Cloned Meat and Milk? , Cloned BSE-Free Cows, Not Safe Nor Proper Science SiS 33).
In short, there is no protection for the public and the environment under the current regulatory regime that has no regard for the precautionary principle, where crucial evidence is ignored or dismissed, where scientific data are routinely manipulated and science abused, and regulators are colluding with industry to promote the products they are supposed to regulate, even to the extent of breaking the law.
Abusing science and the precautionary principle
Our regulators are bound by law to operate on the precautionary principle as stated in the international Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety for genetically modified organisms (GMOs); and UK and the European Union have signed up to that, as have 137 other countries worldwide [31]. It is “taken into account” in the European Directive (2001/18/EC) for deliberate release into the environment of GMOs [32]
The European Commission (EC) published a Communication on the precautionary principle in 2000 [33] clearly stating that: “the Commission considers that the precautionary principle is a general one which should in particular be taken into consideration in the fields of environmental protection and human, animal and plant health.” It recognized that the precautionary principle has become “a full-fledged and general principle of international law”, since it was written into the UN's Framework Convention of Climate Change, Convention on Biological Diversity and then in January 2000, Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety; it is also in the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
The EC Communication cites the Rio declaration that, “ in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation .” The EC also emphasized that the precautionary principle is much wider in scope, and covers also human, animal or plant health in the EU [33, p. 9]: “ Although the precautionary principle is not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty except in the environmental field, its scope is far wider and covers those specific circumstances where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and there are indications through preliminary objective scientific evaluation that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the chosen level of protection .”
In practice, however, scientific evidence has been manipulated, and science abused and pressed into service to prevent the precautionary principle being ever invoked at both the international and national levels, let alone applied. Science is used to exclude important evidence arising in the real world where farmers are growing GM crops in the fields, and farm workers and crop handlers are exposed for the first time and made ill, and livestock are dying from the new GM feed (see Box 1). Scientists have been drawn into a tightly closed loop of self-reinforcing “advocacy science” [34] that deliberately excludes not just counter scientific evidence but input from the real world, the only goal of which is to smooth the passage of GM produce into the market, without regard for safety or moral, ethical concerns.
In the European Union (EU), scientific assessment on safety of GM food products is done by the EFSA; and a ‘positive opinion' from the EFSA would invariably result in commercial approval for the product. But EFSA's positive opinions have been challenged [35, 36, for example] ( Approval of Bt11 Maize Endangers Humans and Livestock , SiS 23; No to GM Oilseed Rape GT73 , SiS 24) and accusations of bias towards the biotech industry have come from both member states and civil society organisations. So much so that in April 2006, the EC decided to introduce improvements to EFSA's “scientific consistency and transparency of the decisions on GMOs.” [37] ( European Food Safety Authority Criticised for GMO Bias , SiS 30).
UK's watchdog, the Food Standards Agency (FSA,) is advised by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), which advertises itself as “a nonstatutory independent body of scientific experts,” even though the majority of its members, including the chair, have vested biotech interests as shareholders of companies, paid consultants or recipients of research grants [38].
A search for ‘precautionary principle' on the FSA website gave no result. But a document entitled The Food Standards Agency's Approach to Risk [39] states: “We will take a precautionary approach – that is, we will not always wait until we have proof of a potential hazard to take action or issue advice. Such action will be taken on the best available evidence to protect public health. It will be reviewed if new evidence becomes available.”
In reality, the manipulation of scientific evidence appears to be the mainstay of the regulatory process. Both the FSA and the ACNFP have been operating on the anti -precautionary principle [40] ( Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle , ISIS Briefing). Not only do they require the public and genuinely independent scientists to prove there is hazard, they have persistently ignored all evidence of hazards submitted to them, and instead, continue to misinform the public by citing highly flawed studies that claim to find no effect against the latest findings [1].
Many of the papers cited by the regulatory agencies that failed to find significant effects of GMOs, or failed to detect GM DNA in meat or milk, have been thoroughly reviewed and exposed to be highly misleading and/or seriously flawed [41-45, for example] ( Swallowing the Tale of the Swallowtail , ISIS News 5; Exposed: More Shoddy Science in GM Maize Approval , Bogus Comparison in GM Maize Trial , SiS 22; DNA in GM Food & Feed , SiS 23; Cover-up over GM DNA in milk , SiS 27)
The EFSA put out a consultation document on the role of animal studies in assessing the safety and nutritional value of GM foods and feed in December 2006 [2]. Its review of the evidence is selective and biased, citing all studies that find no effect without comment, while excluding most of the evidence of serious adverse effects - all that comes from the real world and several laboratory studies that have been published or available in the public domain - practically the entire list in Box 1 except for items5, 9 and 10. The few studies it has cited that found significant adverse effects are all dismissed with irrelevant, unsubstantiated criticisms. It made no mention at all of the large volume of literature on the potential hazards of transgenic DNA (see Box 2) and its detection in food and feed and in tissues and cells of animals fed GM produce [44, 45].
The EFSA consultation document [2], having failing to cite Ermakova's findings [1], insists that 90 day feeding trials in rodents are adequate to detect chronic effects, ignoring impacts on reproductive, embryonic, foetal and postnatal development , which would require much longer trial periods of between one to two years.
Studies that claimed GM feed had no adverse effects came mainly from biotech companies , as Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini and colleagues at Caen University in France point out [46]; but even these were often contested by independent scientific review , including those from ISIS [13, 41-43]. In Monsanto's study on glyphosate tolerant maize NK603 which claimed no effect, Seralini and colleagues [46] found “more than 50 significant differences between GM fed and control rats” . They further point out that glyphosate tolerant crops, which cover some 80 percent of the global area of GM crops grown, are likely to be contaminated with toxic levels of glyphosate and Roundup (Monsanto's formulation) herbicide and metabolites. Seralini's research team has found that glyphosate is indeed highly toxic to human placental cells and embryonic cells, and Roundup even more so [46, 47] ( Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse , SiS 26), while other researchers have shown that the herbicide is lethal to frogs [48] ( Roundup Kills Frogs , SiS 26).
The most notorious case is Monsanto's study on MON 863 maize with insecticide Cry3Bb1, where many adverse effects were found [9], but Monsanto and EFSA both dismissed the effects as “biologically insignificant.” Monsanto, supported by EFSA, kept the study from the public domain under a bogus claim of confidential business information. It was only after a German court order a year later that Monsanto was forced to release the full report including the raw data. Preliminary analysis by Seralini and colleagues revealed serious flaws in the study at every stage, from experimental design, to data collection, analysis, and reporting [49]. The GM fed group was compared, not just to the group fed the non-GM isogenic line (from which the GM line was derived), but also to five more ‘control' groups fed other non-GM varieties. This had the effect of increasing the range of variation and making the treatment group of animals too small, thereby considerably decreasing the sensitivity of the trial. The researchers then used the wrong statistical tests on the results, and despite having compared many variables, failed to use the correct standard statistical tools that analysed multiple variables at the same time. Instead, they compared one variable at a time, and failed to note significant trends in body weight differences between experimental and control animals. Statistically significant differences that nevertheless turned up were then all dismissed as biologically insignificant; and the EFSA agreed and gave it a ‘positive opinion'. It is an absolute travesty that the health of people and planet is hanging on such gross distortion and corruption of science, aided and abetted by our regulators.
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 10:11 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham 2
Regulator agencies like the European Food Safety Authority and the UK Food Standards Agency have been ignoring the precautionary principle, manipulating and corrupting science, sidestepping the law, and helping to promote GMOs in the face of massive public opposition and damning evidence piling up against the safety of GM food and feed
These charges are made in a devastating report [1] ( GM Food Nightmare Unfolding and the Regulatory Sham ) released today by the Institute of Science in Society*. The report has been submitted to the European Food Standards Agency, the World Health Organisation/ Food and Agriculture Organisation Expert Consultation on GM Food Animals, and the UK Food Standards Agency, and it has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The 19-page report contains more than 130 references. It draws together evidence from all over the world indicating that GM fo od and feed may be inherently hazardous to health, regardless of the plant species or the genetic modification involved. For example,
* Female rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans gave birth to many severely stunted pups, with over half of the litter dead by three weeks, and the surviving pups were sterile; Roundup Ready soya has been approved worldwide for food and feed since 1996
* Farmers and workers exposed to Bt cotton and Bt maize have suffered serious allergy-like symptoms
* Livestock feeding on Bt crops and crop residues became ill and died in large numbers
“The evidence has stacked up to such an extent that our regulators should be answering a charge of criminal negligence at the very least in failing to ban GM crop and continuing with their campaign of denial and disinformation, and worse, helping to promote even more dangerous GM produce from the industry,” said Dr. Mae-Wan Ho. Dr Ho is the director of ISIS and lead author of the report co-authored with Joe Cummins , e meritus Professor of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and Peter Saunders, emeritus Professor of Mathematics at King's College, London University.
That Bt toxins can cause serious immune reactions was known long before they were widely incorporated into maize and cotton crops. Similarly, evidence that pieces of genetically modified (GM) DNA can be taken up and incorporated into the genomes of other cells – a process called horizontal gene transfer - has been steadily accumulating since the mid 1990s, when the ISIS scientists first sounded their warning to the regulators.
“GM DNAs often contain antibiotic resistance marker genes and other genes from bacteria and viruses that cause diseases. In addition, they have strong control signals - ‘promoters' - that force the cell to express a foreign gene at high levels,” Dr. Mae-Wan Ho explains. “As a result, horizontal gene transfer not only spreads antibiotic resistance genes to harmful bacteria, it can create new bacteria and viruses that can cause epidemics. And if the strong promoter jumps into the wrong place in the genome of animal cells, it can boost the expression of oncogenes and cause the cells to multiply out of control, or cancer by another name.”
Europe and the UK are required by law to abide by the precautionary principle. Both have signed up to the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety regulating GMOs, and a string of other international treaties for protecting health and the environment based on the precautionary principle. But systematic manipulation of scientific evidence and abuse of science by the regulatory authorities has meant that the precautionary principle is never invoked.
“GM food/feed looks like joining asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), BSE, tobacco and many others as yet another example of the government relying on bad scientific advice and ignoring the precautionary principle, with devastating consequences,” said Prof. Peter Saunders.
In three recent cases, American courts have ruled that the US Department of Agriculture failed to carry out proper environmental impact assessment before giving approval for releases of GM crops to the environment, and that the releases are therefore illegal.
“Regulation of genetically modified food crops in North America is a complete sham. It's time for a shake up. The regulatory agencies must represent the law and the people not just corporate interests,” said Prof. Joe Cummins
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 10:16 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Global GM Crops Area Exaggerated
PR masquerading as fact
The biotech industry’s mouthpiece, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agrobiotechnology Applications (ISAAA), has been exposed for grossly inflating the figures of GM crops grown globally. Its latest report lists countries growing GM crops that do not grow them, or that have banned them. For example, Iran is down as having grown tens of thousands of hectares of commercial GM rice in 2006, despite the fact Iran has never approved or grown GM rice on any commercial scale.
Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics Network criticizes the report for making these unsupported claims and ignoring the negative impacts of GM crops: “The report emphasizes that 10.3 million farmers grew GM crops in 2006, but this is just 0.7 percent of farmers world-wide. And just 600 000 farmers grew 85 percent of all GM crops on industrial farms in North and South America. Small Third World farmers are misused as fodder in the ISAAA’s PR war.”
India’s bid to ban all GM field trials
The ISAAA launched the report in India, where the Supreme Court has recently banned any new GM crop trials until further notice. However, the exception to the ban, GM mustard developed at Delhi University, involves a genetic engineering “Terminator” technique called a GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) that renders the seeds from the plant sterile. (See Chronicle of An Ecological Disaster Foretold, SiS 16). The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) group, which instigated the ban on GM crops in India, are now pursuing a ban even on GM mustard because the University failed to reveal the full scientific facts to the Court.
PIL are also concerned by the conflict of interest with the body that regulate GM crops in India, the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee), whose co-Chair also sits as a Director of the ISAAA. There is deep concern in India from all corners that their agricultural policy is being manipulated by corporate entities that have targeted Third World farmers with the full force of the US Government behind them. The ISAAA report claims cost reductions for Indian farmers growing GM cotton, which is another outright falsehood that should be challenged. In fact, more than 100 000 farmers in India that became involved in growing GM crops have committed suicide in the ten years since 1993 (See Stem Farmers’ Suicides with Organic Farming, SiS 32.) And on average, a further 16 000 farmers a year have killed themselves since 2003 because of crop failures and debts incurred by buying the expensive GM cottonseed and herbicides touted around Indian farms by Monsanto (India's Bt Cotton Fraud, SiS 26). (To support the ban please see: [link to www.gopetition.com]
Romania reduces GM planting to zero and eight other EU countries have imposed bans
Meanwhile in Europe, Romania has announced a ban of GM soya as of 1 January 2007, that is, a drop to zero planting, and is therefore unlikely to plant the 100 000 hectares listed by the ISAAA.
Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini at Caen University, France, explained on Radio Romania International that, “The soybeans grown in Romania are treated with a very powerful pesticide named Roundup Ready, which has a very toxic effect on human placentas and embryos. Roundup Ready genetically engineered soya is not approved for growing in the EU” (Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse, SiS 26; Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Superweeds, Allergens..., SiS 28). The ban on GM soya coincides with Romania’s inclusion in the European Union. So far, all GM crops grown in Romania have been unregulated, untraceable and unlabelled. The lack of regulation is also a serious threat to farmers who may find their produce restricted from entering into the EU market. Furthermore it also hinders the potential for organic agriculture. The proposed decontamination of GM crops in Romania is a process likely to take many years, and may also become a test case of whether such decontamination is possible.
The ISAAA has also glossed over the ban of GM maize in Austria, and in a further seven European countries, including Germany, that have banned one or more GM crop.
Poland pushes for rejection of GM
Poland’s National Seeds Catalogue has already banned genetically engineered seeds from its collection in 2006. In the European Parliament in January 2007, a resolution towards the use of more GM technology was supported by 22 MEPs, but rejected by 15 MEPs with 6 abstentions. However, the Polish vice-Chairman of the Agricultural Committee in the European Parliament, Janusz Wojciechowski, announced recently that he fully rejects the resolution and supports a completely GM-free Europe. The ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside -is therefore hopeful that there is time for more MEPs to be informed of the facts before the resolutions’ final plenary session on 14 March 2007. (For more information and for a letter to send to your MEP to reject the motion, see [link to www.icppc.pl]
GM crops grown mostly in North and South America
Despite the ISAAA’s claims that agrobiotechnology is a global industry, only 8 countries worldwide are growing 99 percent of GM crops commercially. These are: USA 53.5 percent, Argentina 17.6 percent, Brazil 11.3 percent, Canada 6 percent, India 3.7 percent, China 3.4 percent, Paraguay 2 percent and South Africa 1.4 percent.
The ISAAA figures for China’s planting under GM are 3.4 million hectares, but Kraft Foods, the world second largest food producer has committed to supply China with GM-free foods from 1 January 2007. The Chinese Biosafety Committee has also stymied GM rice crops approval for another year while more data on safety are assessed.
Brazil is listed as growing 11.5 million hectares of GM soybean and cotton, but it continues to resist the GM industry’s attempts to gain approval for GM maize.
South Africa’s hugely hyped figures called into question
South Africa is hyped up as having a massive increase in biotech crops from 500 000 hectares in 2005 to 1.4 million hectares in 2006. But according to a press release from Monsanto three months earlier, the 2006 area was a much more modest 609 000 ha. As Mariam Mayet of the African Centre of Biosafety points out, it would mean an additional 800 000 ha planted in the space of three months if ISAAA figures were to be believed.
South Africa has already rejected field trials of GM sorghum to protect their own local varieties from contamination. The South African wine industry has also closed ranks against the Biotech companies by opposing two applications for field trials of GM yeasts and GM grapevines in 20 wine producing regions both in the Southern and Western Cape [13] (For more on GM wines, see Self-Cloned' Wine Yeasts Not Necessarily Safe and GM Grapevines & Toxic Wines, SiS 33).
The true picture emerges
Greenpeace pre-empted the ISAAA’s report with a summary of their own to get a truer picture of the global status of GM crops. Jeremy Tager, spokesperson for Greenpeace International said, “There is irrefutable evidence that governments, farmers and consumers throughout the world recognise that genetic engineering in unreliable, unviable or downright dangerous.” (See GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of our Food Supply; also GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile SiS 33, and GM Crops the Unfolding Nightmare, SiS33, for the latest evidence of serious health hazards inherent to GM technology.)
Elsewhere in the world, rice suppliers in Thailand and Vietnam are committed to keeping rice exports GM free. So is the world’s largest rice processor, Ebro Puleva. This is a strategic move to capitalise on the market opportunities that have opened up after the contamination of US long grain rice stocks with an unapproved genetically engineered variety LLRICE601 (USDA Poised to Deregulate Illegal GM Rice, SiS 32). The Bayer rice scandal was financially disastrous for US rice producers, as it met with strong disapproval from rice farmers, processors, and governments worldwide. The Rice Producers of California have called for a ban on the cultivation of GM rice, be it for commercial purposes or for field trials.
Basmati farmers burn down GM rice
The All India Rice Exporters Association has lobbied the Indian Government to prohibit field trials of GM rice in many basmati rice growing states, including Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and the Punjab. So strong is the desire to keep their fields GM-free that Indian farmers burnt down the GM test plots that could potentially contaminate their rice fields.
Rakesh Tikait, a national spokesperson for one of the largest farming groups in India, the Bharathiya Kisan Union, explained the extreme reaction of rice farmers. He said, “The threat to farmers’ livelihoods is clear. Examples from across the country of Bt cotton failures show that this technology is unsafe for humans and the environment, and that it can neither be controlled nor regulated. We consider the threat serious enough to warrant the destruction of test fields of GE rice to stop its introduction and to protect ourselves”.
Goodbye biotechnology, hello nature
The ISAAA and the biotech industry may delude themselves with the ‘successes’ of genetic engineering and the constant expansion of acreages planted to GM crops. The stark reality, however, is that the global market has remained steadfastly hostile to GM crops, as the recent tainted rice episode so amply demonstrates. And far from benefiting the poor as the report claims, GM crops cost the poor at least 3 times more in terms of seed and herbicide, misappropriation of land and precious water resources, and incalculable harm to human, animal, and environmental health.
Greenpeace concludes that the rejection of GM crops by farmers, processors, consumers and governments alike reiterates the global message to the biotech industry that there is no place in our future for genetic engineering.
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 10:25 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees
Genetically modified trees without caution
There is growing pressure to commercialise the numerous GM tree species that have been modified with a variety of transgenes. One major reason is that GM trees have been proposed for plantations on the mistaken assumption that they can offset carbon emissions, and more so, qualify for subsidies under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism . At the same time, rising worldwide demand for biofuels has opened up an opportunity for proponents to rescue genetically modified (GM) crops from chronic market failure by promoting them as ‘energy' crops (see Box 1). Unfortunately, energy crops, including GM tree plantations, are far from sustainable or environmentally benign [1-3] ( Biofuels for Oil Addicts , SiS 30; Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits , Biofuels Republic Brazil , SiS 33). But in the rush to exploit GM trees, caution will be scattered to the winds, like the pollen of the GM trees currently being tested.
Box 1
Industry's spin on GM energy crops for saving carbon emissions
Biotech industry sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agrobiotechnology Applications (ISAAA) continues its yearly inflated estimates of area planted with GM crops [4] ( Global GM Crops Area Exaggerated , SiS 33), and makes unsubstantiated, very likely false claims on how GM crops can contribute to saving greenhouse gas emissions on the coat tails of the Stern report on The Economics of Climate Change [5] ( SiS 33). To set the record straight, the Stern report does not support GM crops nor does it favour biofuels from energy crops, and for good reasons (see main text).
Nevertheless, the ISAAA says that GM crops save carbon emissions by reducing pesticide use through insecticidal Bt crops and by sequestering carbon in the soil through conservation tillage with herbicide tolerant crops [4]. In 2005, it claims, the combined savings were equivalent to 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or removing 4 million cars from the road. And looking to the future, even greater contributions could be made through cultivation of additional areas of GM energy crops to produce ethanol and biodiesel.
Commercial releases and field tests
Even though the first GM tree, papaya, was approved for commercial release more than ten years ago there have been only two petitions for non-regulated status, the first for another papaya GM event and the other for virus resistant plums [6, 7] ( USDA Proposes to Deregulate Its Own Transgenic Plum , SiS 31). However, the United States has undertaken about 264 field test releases of numerous GM trees spread over most of the states and possessions. Modified species include tropical trees (banana, avocado, grapefruit, lime, papaya and coffee), horticultural fruits (apple, plum, pear and walnut), and numerous forest and shade trees such as eucalyptus, American chestnut, American elm, poplar, cottonwood, aspen, white spruce and pine. Transgenic traits range from disease or insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, to lignin modifications, sterility, and bioremediation [8].
Canada has undertaken 33 field trial releases of GM trees mainly near Quebec City; and these are limited to insect resistant or herbicide tolerant poplar, black spruce and white spruce [9].
Of the 205 permit applications listed at the end of 2003, 73.5 percent originated in the USA, 23 percent in other OECD member nations (in particular, Belgium, Canada, France, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) and 3.5 percent elsewhere (Brazil, China, Chile, South Africa and Uruguay) [10]. Four traits accounted for 80 percent of the permit applications: herbicide tolerance (32 percent), marker genes (27 percent), insect resistance (12 percent), and lignin modification (9 percent). Of the tree species involved, Populus , Pinus , Liquidambar (Sweet Gum Tree) and Eucalyptus account for 85 percent of applications.
Potential hazards of GM trees
Genetically modified (GM) trees have all the potential hazards of GM crops and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in general (Box 2) [11]( Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare ) , only worse.
Box 2
Potential Hazards of GMOs
1. Synthetic genes and gene products new to evolution could be toxic for humans and other animals or provoke serious immune reactions
2. The uncontrollable, imprecise process involved in making GMOs can generate unintended toxic and immunogenic products, exacerbated by the instability of the transgenic lines
3. Endogenous viruses that cause diseases could be activated by the transgenic process
4. The synthetic genes in GMOs, including copies of genes from bacteria and viruses that cause disease as well as antibiotic resistance genes, may be transferred to other species via pollen, or by direct integration into other genomes in horizontal gene transfer
5. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria are created by horizontal transfer and recombination of the synthetic genes and genetic modification is nothing if not facilitated and greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination
6. GM DNA are designed to invade genomes and insertion into the genome of animals including human beings results in insertion mutagenesis some of which may trigger cancer
7. Herbicide tolerant GM crops accumulate herbicide and herbicide residues that could be highly toxic to humans and animals as well as plants
Trees are larger and longer lived, and therefore can spread transgenes further and wider, while their extensive root systems are a hotbed for horizontal gene transfer and recombination.
Belated environmental impact studies show GM tree pollen cannot be contained
ISIS alerted the public to the serious health and environmental impacts of GM trees in forestry [10] ( GM Forest Trees - The Ultimate Threat , SiS 26) and earlier, in bioremediation and low lignin applications [12] ( GM Trees Alert , SiS 16). Numerous field releases were approved in the absence of information on the spread of pollen and seed in forest and orchard ecology. Only recently have models of pollen dispersal from forest trees begun to appear. Significant amounts of oak pollen were deposited up to 30 km downstream from a stand of oak trees, and lower quantities deposited up to 100 km [13]. It has been claimed that conifer pollen dispersed to between 6 and 800 m from a source; but a more comprehensive study revised this figure upwards to between 8 and 33 km [14, 15].
Eucalyptus pollen is spread by small insects, which can carry pollen to distances of 1.6 km, although most of the hybridisation is found within 200 m of the plantation [16]. It is essentially impossible to contain GM trees; the probability of spreading transgenes from GM conifers is 100 percent at a distance of one km from a source [17]. Pine seeds, too, are transported over great distances, the probability that seeds are transported further than one km from a source was nearly 100 percent [18]. Canadian regulators, recognizing that transgene containment is not possible for GM forest trees, are now suggesting that regulations should be altered to accommodate the uncontrolled release of GM trees with transgenes for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance or low lignin content [19]!
The low lignin trait is one much desired by foresters as it provides greatly reduced costs in preparing fibre for paper. However, reduced lignin results in reduced strength to resist wind damage in the GM trees, and tends to make the trees susceptible to disease [20] ( Low Lignin GM Trees and Forage Crops , SiS 23). A recent field study showed that the trees with reduced lignin decomposed more rapidly in the soil and that decay was associated with major restructuring of the soil microbial communities, the adverse impacts of which have yet to be fully evaluated [21].
Terminator trees no answer to containment
‘Terminator trees' are trees genetically modified to produce either no flowers or no pollen. For the most part, the methods to control flowering interfere with the genetic programme for floral development, or kill cells involved in floral development [22] ( Terminator Trees , SiS 26). Controlled cell killing is achieved using an enzyme barnase that breaks down RNA, in combination with a specific inhibitor called barstar [23]. The barnase–barstar system has been approved for some transgenic food crops, but its toxicity and immunogenicity have been ignored or dismissed [24] ( Chronicle of An Ecological Disaster Foretold , SiS 18).
Much effort is dedicated to producing male-sterile or sterile modification events, which are supposed to prevent the spread of the transgenes. A male-cone specific promoter from Pinus radiata was used to drive a stilbene synthase gene from grape transferred to tobacco (as a first step to modifying pine), leading to greatly decreased pollen viability in the transgenic tobacco. The stilbene synthase inhibits flavonol synthesis resulting in sterile pollen [25]. The system is still in preliminary development and seems quite ‘leaky' in that viable pollen is produced. The killing gene used in this male-sterile system is far less toxic to humans and animals than are many of the others, but the male-sterility trait will more readily spread to contaminate non-GM crops and natural species.
If and when GM trees are released for commercial use, many releases are likely to use terminator genes. Such genes, regardless of their inherent toxicity, will produce trees that do not sustain many mammal, bird and insect species that eat seeds or pollen. The plantations and contaminated natural forests will both become huge green desserts.
There has been a suggestion of using old forests as buffer zones to ‘contain' GM trees [26], and Dr. Claire Williams at Duke University, North Carolina in the United States sees transgenic contamination as inevitable, and introducing GM forest trees as opening a Pandora's box in ecological term. It could be a recipe for disaster as GM pollen contaminates indigenous species in the old forest and undermine its tightly balanced circular ecology that's vital for regulating climate [27] ( Why Gaia Needs Rainforests , SiS 20).
Gene therapy for trees could bring nightmares
Gene therapy uses vectors to deliver genes to treat disease or to enhance growth in humans or animals. Viral gene vectors have also been developed to rapidly produce large quantities of pharmaceutical proteins in plants. A locally replicating gene-silencing vector based on Poplar mosaic virus was developed to deliver gene-silencing RNA sequences [28]. Gene silencing provides a means of regulating metabolic pathways and controlling plant diseases, and small synthetic RNA molecules have been developed to control plant viruses [29, 30]. Such synthetic RNA molecules are readily delivered using viral vectors, which could be sprayed onto forest stands from helicopters, for example, similarly to the current delivery of herbicides and fertilizers. Small RNA molecules require careful and extensive safety evaluations, as mice receiving ‘gene therapy' from small interfering RNA died in droves [31, 32] ( Gene Therapy Nightmare for Mice , SiS 31 ) . Forests sprayed with small RNA vectors could have disastrous effects on bystander plants and animals including humans.
New modifications of forest trees
The main focus of genetic modifications in forest trees has been on herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and flowering discussed earlier [10, 20, 22], but there are some other new developments.
Transgenic poplar with enhanced growth was constructed using a maize uridinediphosphoglycosyltransferase gene accompanied by an Arabidopsis gene for acyl-CoA-binding protein, which enhanced the production of the growth hormone indoleacetic acid. The transgenic poplar grew much faster than the unmodified poplar [33].
An ethanol-inducible promoter from the fungus Aspergillus driving a GUS colour marker gene was used to transform aspen. Ethanol or ethanol vapour at concentrations as low as 0.5 percent induced the marker gene [34], and this presumably has applications in both the laboratory and in the field.
A bacterial gene for producing mannitol from fructose was used to induce salt- tolerance in Chinese white poplar ( Populus tomentosa ). The transgenic poplar grew about half as fast both in the presence and absence of high salt levels, but the untransformed poplar did not survive in the high salt environment [35].
Transformation of a poplar hybrid with the tryptophan decarboxylase gene from Camptotheca acuminate (tree of life, cancer tree) caused the gene to over-express. The tryptophan decarboxylase converts tryptophan into tryptamine, which provides resistance to caterpillars of Malacosoma disstria [36]. Excess of tryptamine may result in hallucinogenic tryptamines, but that aspect was not explored in the report.
A transcription factor from Capsicum annuum (pepper) transferred to pine trees resulted in enhanced multiple stress tolerance (drought, salt and freezing). The transcription factor increases polyamine biosynthesis [37-39]. But polyamines such as putresine and cadaverine are toxic to humans.
China has planted over one million transgenic poplars since 2002. The plantations are located mainly in the northwest regions of Xinjang province, while a further 400,000 trees are planted in the headlands of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers [40] ( GM Trees Lost in China's Forests , SiS 26). China has an extensive programme of poplar genetic improvement including transgenic technology and marker assisted selection. Poplars modified with the Bt Cry1Ac gene or with a Cry1Ac gene fusion with the cowpea protease inhibitor gene have been most extensively deployed in China. The level of resistance of the transgenic trees to the main target insects has not dropped since deployment, but some insect pests are tolerant to the transgenic trees [41]. There have been no reports on whether or not the resistant insect pests have proliferated since the transgenic trees were released.
Transgenic fruit trees
Fruit trees are much targeted by genetic engineers. Papaya and plum trees resistant to virus were the first trees approved, or petitioned for commercial release in the United States, with flagrant disregard of safety [6, 42] ( Allergenic GM Papaya Scandal , SiS 18).
A long term study of transgenic marker gene stability in Higan weeping cherry ( Prunus subhirtella ) showed that the markers were relatively stable but 91 percent of the transformation events also contained various lengths of the bacterial plasmid vector backbone, as Agrobacterium transformation is far from precise [43].
A grape stilbene synthase gene accompanied by a bar gene for herbicide tolerance was used to transform apple to enhance picied (reveratrol glucoside) production in the apple. Picied is both a phytoelexin for pest control and a health-promoting antioxidant [44].
Bacterial fire blight disease is a significant problem in pear and apple. Pears were transformed with a gene from a bacteria phage that dissolves the extracellular polysaccharide of the bacterial pest. The transgenic pears were only partially resistant to the bacterial pathogen but researchers thought improvements in the process might be possible [45].
In a pilot experiment, transgenic orange trees with a GUS marker gene driven by a CaMV promoter accompanied by a neomycin antibiotic resistance gene bore fruit that was harvested. The fruit was processed to make juice, to which was added bacterial plasmid DNA, yeast DNA and additional transgenic orange DNA. The orange juice-DNA soup was then pasteurized and stored. The pasteurization and acidic environment of the orange juice degraded all of the added and endogenous DNA molecules to molecular sizes smaller than the size required for bacterial transformation [46]. The experiment would have been more informative if the ability of the transgenic orange juice to actually transform bacteria were investigated. Transformation may well occur before all of the DNA was degraded.
Trifoliate orange ( Poncirus trifoliate ) is a member of the family Rutaceae closely related to Citrus, and sometimes included in that genus, being sufficiently closely related for it to be used as a rootstock for Citrus. The plant is fairly hardy and will tolerate moderate frost and snow, making a large shrub or small tree 4-8 m tall. Because of the relative hardiness of Poncirus , citrus grafted onto it are usually hardier than when grown on their own roots. A gene from Arabidopsis CiFT that promotes transition from vegetative to floral development was transferred to trifoliate orange. The transgenic trifoliate oranges flowered as early as 12 weeks of growth in a green house while the untransformed plants takes several years [47]. Reducing the generation time can greatly facilitate genetic improvement of the rootstock for commercial citrus production, subject to satisfactory safety assessment.
The biotechnology of temperate fruit trees and grapevines was reviewed in 2005 along with marker-assisted selection [48]. It seems likely that marker assisted selection may provide the most long lasting and best fruit-tree improvement.
Moratorium on releases of all GM trees and GM forest trees should be banned
In conclusion, even though most of the work on transgenic forest and fruit trees is well meant and promises rich financial reward, no GM trees should be commercialised or released at this time. A moratorium on release of all GM trees is essential, and GM forest trees, in particular, should be banned. The inevitable spread of transgenes in pollen and seed cannot be prevented. Sterile trees promise no real remedy, as sterile forests will be green desserts at best, at worst, it will turn them from effective carbon sinks into massive carbon sources, thereby greatly exacerbating global warming [10].
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 11:36 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Transgenic Animals for Food Not Proven Safe
This report was submitted to the United States Food and Drugs Administration on behalf of ISIS .
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a draft guidance document (GFI187) entitled [1] “Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs.” This draft guidance is intended to clarify FDA's requirements and recommendations for producers and developers of genetically engineered (GE) animals and their products. It describes how the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) apply with respect to GE animals, including FDA's intent to “exercise enforcement discretion regarding requirements for certain GE animals.” The current Draft Guidance deal with GE animals that provide food or drugs; FDA decided to include all GE animals in this guidance and indicated that another guidance would be prepared to deal with GE animals used in gene therapy and vaccination.
In 2006, the Institute of Science in Society commented to the Codex Alimentarius on foods derived from transgenic animals that included both animals engineered for gene therapy or vaccines [2] ( GM Food Animals Coming , SiS 32) . In 2007, we commented on cloned transgenic animals to the FDA [3] ( Is FDA Promoting or Regulating Cloned Meat and Milk? , SiS 33) . The comments below will deal with studies on transgenic animals published since in the past two years and their implications for the FDA Guidance.
Transgenic animals as pharmaceutical bioreactors
Transgenic animals have grown in importance as ‘bioreactors' (factories) producing pharmaceutical proteins for disease treatment and for vaccines. A recent review [4] compared the advantages of producing pharmaceuticals in transgenic animals with bacteria, yeast, insect or vertebrate cells, and transgenic plants. Transgenic animals appear to avoid the glycosylation patterns provoking immune responses that complicate pharmaceutical protein production in plants and microbes. For the most part, the animal products are isolated from milk, but may be recovered from urine, semen, blood or eggs. A number of the transgenic animal pharmaceutical are in preclinical development while others are in clinical and advanced clinical development; and a few may soon be approved for the market [4]. A fuller list of the transgenic animal pharmaceuticals in clinical or preclinical development was published earlier [5]. Transgenic animal bioreactors were proposed as a new line of defence against chemical weapons by producing enzymes that destroy the chemical weapon after being injected into the bloodstream [6].
A wide range of animals have been exploited to produce pharmaceuticals. Transgenic chickens expressing parathyroid hormone is being developed as a treatment for osteoporosis. The chickens were engineered using a Moloney murine leukemia virus as a vector for delivering the human gene to the chicken genome [7]. Human erythropoietin (stimulating red blood cell production) was produced in chicken using a retrovirus vector derived from the Woodchuck hepatitis virus [8]. A cattle mammary bioreactor was created by transforming bovine fibroblast cells with the human lactoferrin gene. Nuclei from the transformed cells were cloned to produce calves making elevated levels of the anti-bacterial protein [9]. A human vitamin K dependent blood clotting factor was recovered from the milk of transgenic pigs [10]. Human lysozyme (an antibacterial enzyme) was produced in transgenic goats. Pasteurized milk from the transgenic goats was found to influence gastrointestinal morphology in young pigs [11]. Transgenic goats expressing recombinant human butyrl-cholinesterase in its milk were found to produce high levels of the human enzyme at the expense of milk production. Butylcholinesterase could be used to treat pesticide or war gas poisoning [12]. One salient point is that the FDA Guideline document did not lay out details of any scheme to deal with accidental or purposeful entrance of the transgenic bioreactor animals into the human or animal food chain .
Xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation is the transplant of animal organs and cells into humans. Transplant of transgenic humanized pig organs to humans has been promoted for over a decade. The major concern that has delayed the widespread transplantation of soft tissue organs from pigs to humans is not graft rejection. Hyper acute rejection of the pig organ has been prevented by transgenic modification of pigs to resemble human in their immune signature. In addition, transplant recipients require severe immune suppression of both B and T cells. Using that strategy , lo ng term survival of transgenic pig kidney and heart has been observed in non-human primates [13, 14]. One main remaining hurdle to xenotransplantation i s po rcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV ) i ncorporated into the pig genome. Pig cells when exposed to human cells causes the PERV to be activated and potentially able to invade and infect humans with a new and dangerous virus disease New strategies such as the use of small inhibitory RNA molecules are being implemented to prevent activation of PERV on transplantation or the development of anti-PERV vaccines may prevent the spread of a PERV disease [15]. Until an effective anti-PERV defense is found, xenotransplantation should not be undertaken. The Institute of Science in Society has pointed out that PERV provides a major obstacle to xenotransplantation since 2000 [16] ( Xenotransplantation - How Bad Science and Big Business Put the World at Risk from Viral Pandemics , ISIS Report)and continues to highlight the fact that the danger of releasing a virus that crosses the species barrier has not yet bee n solved [17] ( Xenotransplant Fails All-round , ISIS News 7/8) . ‘Humanising' transgenic pigs to address immune rejection will also enhance the potential for PERV to cross species barriers [16].
Problems with transgenic farm animals
Dairy products from cloned cattle derived from somatic cells and cloned transgenic cattle derived from modified somatic cell lines were compared with control cattle from the same area. The clon ed transgenic cattle were modified with additional gene copies for the milk proteins b- and k - casein and previously shown to express the transgenes at high levels. Based on gross composition, fatty acid and amino acid profiles and mineral and vitamin contents, milk produced by clones and conventional cattle were deemed e ssentially similar and consistent with reference values from dairy cows farmed in the same region under similar conditions. Whereas c olostrum produced by transgenic cows with additional casein genes had similar IgG secretion levels and kinetics to control cows, milk from the transgenic cows had a distinct yellow appearance, in contrast to the white colour of milk from control cows. Processing of the m ilk into cheese resulted in differences in the gross composition and amino acid profiles; ‘transgenic' cheese had lower fat and higher salt contents and small but characteristic differences in the amino acid profile compared to control cheese [18]. The cloned transgenic cows were certainly not substantially equivalent to cloned cattle or control animals .
I n many instances, transgenic animals have been allowed to be destroyed by composting rather than incineration. Transgenic pigs modified with the Escherichia coli appA gene, which codes for phytase to reduce phosphate elimination in manure, were composted, and it was claimed that composting satisfactorily eliminated the transgenic pig remains. There were a number of significant differences between transgenic and control pig carcasses in organic matter, ash, organic carbon and a number of inorganic chemicals [19]. The significant differences recorded were not discussed, but certainly require a fuller comment.
The interaction between cloning and inserted transgenes in farm animals requires fuller investigation. Cloned and cloned transgenic animals are not substantially equivalent to control animals [20] (see Cloned BSE-Free Cows, Not Safe Nor Proper Science , SiS 33) .
Transgenic Salmon
Transgenic salmon appears to be the most advanced transgenic fish preparing for commercial release. The Aqua Bounty company has developed hybrid transgenic salmon with four linked copies of a salmon growth hormone. The transgenes were inserted at one site in four head to tail complete repeats along with two partial copies of the gene. The insertion site caused a 587 base pair deletion of Coho DNA and an insertion of 19 base pairs of unknown DNA upstream and a 14 base pair direct duplication of a sequence downstream. The growth hormone insertion was adjacent to a pseudogene for a membrane protein of a salmon parasite acquired by horizontal gene transfer [21]. The chromosomal DNA insertion site for the transgene adjacent to a site already modified by horizontal gene transfer suggests that the transgene may be an unstable mobile insert capable of horizontal transfer to natural salmon stocks and other organisms.
Horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA has been ignored or denied by regulatory regimes and is a matter of major concern for biosafety [22] ( Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen , SiS 38). In addition to the health and ecological hazards arising from the spread of transgenes, transgene instability compromises safety assessment and quality control of the transgenic line released. Transgene instability is well documented in genetically engineered plants, which also makes nonsense of patent protection [23] ( Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection , SiS 38).
There is also concern that the large fast growing transgenic salmon would escape to the natural environment, threatening natural fis h populations and over consume resources. The reply of the producers of transgenic salmon was [24] “ When reared under standard hatchery conditions, the transgenic fish grew almost three times longer than wild conspecifics and had (under simulated natural conditions) stronger predation effects on prey than wild genotypes (even after compensation for size differences). In contrast, when fish were reared under naturalized stream conditions, transgenic fish were only 20 % longer than the wild fish, and the magnitude of difference in relative predation effects was much reduced.” The predation effects of transgenic salmon were reduced under natural conditions but not eliminated.
The glutathione antioxidant system was enhanced (up-regulated) in the transgenic Coho salmon, to combat reactive oxygen production from the increased metabolic rate [25]. The transgenic Coho salmon had altered hepatic gene expression related to iron-metabolism, innate im munity, reproduction and growth [26]. In wild salmon, food intake is reduced during the short days of winter but this was not the case for the tra nsgenic Coho salmon. The transgenic salmon had higher levels of hormone regulating food intake [27], and were unable to cope with low oxygen levels. The inability to cope with low oxygen levels may represent a general constraint on the evolution of rapid growth in natural salmon [28].
Genetic and epigenetic changes resulting from transgenesis need to be characterized
Transgenesis is associated with major rearrangements and mutations in the host genome. This was comprehensively reviewed in 2003 ( Living with the Fluid Genome , I SIS publication [29]), and confirmed by numerous publications since [30].
In addition, transgenesis is expected to affect the epigenome extensively, altering the expression states of many genes, and this has yet to be properly investigated. Epigenetics – the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve alterations in DNA sequence – is a maturing discipline with growing applications in toxicology, cancer, nutrition, and brain and behavioural sciences [31-34].
There is already evidence of serious health impacts from transgenic food and feed (see GM is Dangerous and Futile , SiS 40 [35] for the most recent summary). Within the past week, a comprehensive study commissioned by the Austrian government showed that transgenic corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. In the course of three generations fed on the transgenic corn, significant changes in gene expression were detected with DNA microarray analyses. More than 400 genes were either up or down regulated [36].
Introducing a change to the human diet as far-reaching and fundamental as transgenic foods demands a thorough investigation of both the genetic and epigenetic effects resulting from transgenesis. Genomic and post-genomic technologies such as DNA microarrays, proteomics, and metabolic profiling are now routinely used in laboratory and field studies. They must be included in safety assessment of transgenic food and feed, along with multi-generational and other long-term feeding studies.
The FDA Guidance Document highly inadequate
FDA's Guidance Document provides little or no substantive information on the introduction of transgenic animals, particularly those used as bioreactors, into the environment in general and into the human food supply to be specific. FDA seems to take a passive stance on the matter. Environmental assessment is mandated by FDA but no guidance was provided on the substance of the assessment. It does not call for any health impact assessment that is urgently needed. It does not even call for labelling of the food products of transgenic animals, which is a prerequisite for health monitoring. There is also no provision to prevent surplus bioreactor animals from being released to the food supply. Our successive reviews of the literature on transgenic animals have left us in no doubt that transgenic animals are different from conventional animals and they must be clearly labelled if they are eventually to be sold as food, which we most strenuously oppose. We hope that FDA would protect the public, but the Guidance Document suggests that FDA is more interested in promoting the use of transgenic animals.
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659821
5/15/2009 11:38 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
finally watched this.....
if anything in this world is truly evil, it's monsanto.
real doom. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 669569
I know. And not even a conspiracy- right in your face. |
| The Jurist
User ID: 670882
5/15/2009 11:55 AM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
finally watched this.....
if anything in this world is truly evil, it's monsanto.
real doom.
I know. And not even a conspiracy- right in your face. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659821
You mean, conspiracy theory.
It surely is something done illegaly by many people.
`
(Be) Divide(ed) and (be) Conquer(ed)...
Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.
~There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner. —me
~What luck for Rulers that Men do not Think. —Adolf Hitler
:damned: Doom is optional. There is good news abounds. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659821
5/15/2009 12:02 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
finally watched this.....
if anything in this world is truly evil, it's monsanto.
real doom.
I know. And not even a conspiracy- right in your face.
You mean, conspiracy theory.
It surely is something done illegaly by many people. Quoting: The Jurist
Very true. It IS a conspiracy, not a theory. Thanks for pointing that out. :)
And notice the shills didn't spend much time in this thread. Too many people are armed w/facts that can be easily verified. I guess they were hoping this thread would just 'go away' because they can't debunk in your face truth. They don't want this one to be bumped. They laid off when it became unpinned. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 669569
5/15/2009 12:03 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
finally watched this.....
if anything in this world is truly evil, it's monsanto.
real doom.
I know. And not even a conspiracy- right in your face.
You mean, conspiracy theory.
It surely is something done illegaly by many people. Quoting: The Jurist
exactly this is a bona-fide conspiracy.
i don't really go for the whole reptile thingy.....but when the footage of the 2 monsanto excutives was played i thought,"if there are such things as reptillian shapeshifters it's these two".
just complete, cold, bold face lying.....what could be their intent other than greed rum amuck? |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | |
|
