Monsanto the GMO Kings

[NJLiberty]

I don't need to see it Kola because anything that predicts the future is idle speculation. Just as anything I presented to you would be idle speculation. Playing cut and paste all day is a waste of both our time.

No one, not you, not I, not those scientists, can tell with any accuracy whatsoever what will come from GM research. All they can do is guess. To make remarks such as, "the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits," is irresponsible. They don't know what the long term side effects are going to be, any more than they know what the benefits will be. The best they can do is speculate on it based on their interpretation of the current data. They can't know. I certainly don't need to read the rest of their letter to know that.

You took Ron to task for not understanding the long term consequences of GMOs, when no one does, or can know, those consequences.

They may end up being right in their assumptions, but they are assumptions none the less. Don't get me wrong Kola, I don't like the concept of GM. I don't think tampering with nature is a particularly good thing either, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. Whether I like it or not they do have the right to engage in the research and all I can hope for is that they do end up with something beneficial out of it. Your legal scenario concerns me much more than whether Monsanto chooses to cross a corn seed with the wing of a bat and the eye of a newt. 

George

[Dylboz]

Kola, are you just a bit of a Luddite, or what? Should we reject anything new or not "natural," because it could be dangerous? I am happy to ingest GMO foods, since everything is ultimately chemicals, so long as I am not allergic to or poisoned by those chemicals. If a GMO tomato or GMO corn tastes the same, but requires less land or pesticides or water to grow, yet is safe and healthy to eat, then we are all better off for it. What are you afraid of about these foods? What, besides the evil Monsanto corporation hijacking the government's guns to control access to the seeds every season (once again, under the guise of I.P. law), has come of this technology? If I concede that the technology should not be used in food or livestock feed, what about crops for textiles, like flax or cotton? Would you rather they get the plants to excrete their own pesticides, or have them dumped on the crops by airplanes in huge volume? What's the solution? Is there any place in the Kola-verse for genetics or transgenic bio-engineering? Are you urging caution in production and consumption, or an outright ban? And if a ban, how does one work in a truly free market? Is this going to come back to government again? Are we going to point guns at the scientists now?

As an aside, I grow my own tomatoes in my back yard garden, and I use only lady bugs and a keen eye (for Tobacco Horn Worms, aka Tomato Bugs) for pest control, but then I only have 4 plants to look after. But, I would plant GMO tomatoes that were pest resistant if they sold them at the nursery, so long as they were safe to eat.

[ReverendRyan]

The Greatest Man Ever to Walk the Earth:

He has saved over a Billion (with a B) lives.
With FrankenFood.

[kola]

I don't need to see it Kola because anything that predicts the future is idle speculation. Just as anything I presented to you would be idle speculation. Playing cut and paste all day is a waste of both our time.

I see. So I guess you are a crystal ball reader and know what it says. OK.
Playing cut and paste is what I do, yes..and if I dont, I am asked for proof. Cant win can I? And when I do copy and paste, thats not good enough either. And then someone wants more..and on and on.

Kola

[kola]

Dylboz,

whats a dylboz anyway?

I think I will take a bit of Mennos advice (menno is sqrlrebel) and stop answering all the millions of question that get strewn my way.

All of the things I agree with are all the things that many scientists are saying. I am not making them up. They speak of what has happened in the past what is happening now and what could and may happen in the future. They are not just limiting their studies to speculation and the future. But that is the picture you and a few others keep trying to paint.  But anyway, you choose to ignore them and I choose to accept them. You won't change your mind and most likely, neither will I. So whats to talk about? Not much huh? 

The only reason I do this (whether it be about GMO, vaccines etc) is to put information out there for people who may be "on the fence" of may have an interest in learning more and coming to conclusions...OR for the people who have never even heard of this! Its not targeted to the naysayers because I know nothing is going to change and it only turns into a shit festival. The silly arguments that go on here are so very non productive and now it appears anything I post is attacked and ridiculed even when I post a claim to back it. So now a "possibly interested " reader is turn-off by all the fireworks flying and shit slinging.  Honest to goodness debates can be very beneficial but that will never happen here. I enjoy seeing and hearing the two sides of every story. But it appears where this is supposed to be "freedom thinkers" many of you want to suppress information that is opposed by some personal opinions.... and that IMO, is hypocritical crap. Silence the unaccepted, not because its right or wrong but because it needs to be suppressed. It s just powertrippin' to induce constipation of thoughts and ideas. Yes, Beat the bastard into submission so he ends up looking like a raving jackass. Kinda like what the AMA does to one of their "defectors" if they speak out about vaccine dangers.

Kola

[Raineyrocks]

Dylboz,


I think I will take a bit of Mennos advice (menno is sqrlrebel) and stop answering all the millions of question that get strewn my way.

All of the things I agree with are all the things that many scientists are saying. I am not making them up. You choose to ignore them and I choose to accept them. You won't change your mind and most likely, neither will I. So whats to talk about?

The only reason I do this (whether it be about GMO, vaccines etc) is to put information out there for people who may be "on the fence" of may have an interest in learning more and coming to conclusions. Its not targeted to the naysayers because I know nothing going to change and it only turns into a shit festival. The silly arguments that go on here are so very non productive and now it appears anything I post is attacked and ridiculed even when I post a claim to back it. So now a "possibly interested " reader is turn-off by all the fireworks flying and shit slinging.  Honest to goodness debates can be very beneficial but that will never happen here. I enjoy seeing and hearing the two side of every story. Bt it appears here is what is supposed to be "freedom thinkers" many of you want to suppress information that is opposed to personal opinions.... and that IMO, is hypocritical crap.

Kola

I appreciate the posts that you have put on vaccines and stuff Kola, so thank you!  I also agree with your statement above, remember you can lead a horse to water but you make them drink.

[ReverendRyan]

The only reason I do this (whether it be about GMO, vaccines etc) is to put information out there for people who may be "on the fence" of may have an interest in learning more and coming to conclusions.

If that were true, it would be presented as "my view" rather than "the one and only inerrant truth". But alas......

[Dylboz]

Dylboz,

whats a dylboz anyway?

In answer to your query, it's a me. It is what I call myself in teh intarwebz. It happens to be derived from my name. What's a kola, anyway?

I think I will take a bit of Mennos advice (menno is sqrlrebel) and stop answering all the millions of question that get strewn my way.

All of the things I agree with are all the things that many scientists are saying. I am not making them up. You choose to ignore them and I choose to accept them. You won't change your mind and most likely, neither will I. So whats to talk about?

The only reason I do this (whether it be about GMO, vaccines etc) is to put information out there for people who may be "on the fence" of may have an interest in learning more and coming to conclusions. Its not targeted to the naysayers because I know nothing going to change and it only turns into a shit festival. The silly arguments that go on here are so very non productive and now it appears anything I post is attacked and ridiculed even when I post a claim to back it. So now a "possibly interested " reader is turn-off by all the fireworks flying and shit slinging.  Honest to goodness debates can be very beneficial but that will never happen here. I enjoy seeing and hearing the two side of every story. Bt it appears here is what is supposed to be "freedom thinkers" many of you want to suppress information that is opposed to personal opinions.... and that IMO, is hypocritical crap.

Kola

No one wants to suppress anything, I think we just don't want to get too worked up over something that isn't a real concern. Also, I know that I'd like to keep people focused on the real enemy, which is the state and the coercion it uses to contribute to all these rotten things you're worried about. Free markets, free media and free people will always wind up making better, more informed choices than those we're offered at gunpoint. I'm worried that you seem a little, well, overwhelmed by the chunks of the sky that are falling on your head. Upon closer examination, you may find the situations less dire than you think it is. You may also discover simple solutions, or you may realize some things beyond your ability to change, nor do they bear any relevance to your daily life. Further, you seem to be really combative if your information is not well received at first pass.

Which brings me to why I got involved at all. I appreciate your efforts to bring information to us, but one of the reasons I have always argued against conspiracy theorists and their dogma, is because I think their strong association with the freedom movement is genuinely to our detriment, and so I seek to influence "fence-sitters" away from believing these unscientific and dubious claims that have little to back them up but repetition and volume. I think it is important to do your own research, but you can go pretty far down the rabbit hole if all you ever look at is that which supports what you already believe. Genuine research is not a hallmark of "Truthers" or CT's in general. Their idea of research is reading whatever breathless website they link to or cut and paste, and only that. Once you look at the quality of the sources and apply a rigorous and logical analysis, comparing them to more objective and critical materials, many of these threats vanish, as they are revealed to be fear-mongering hysteria.

Still, I support everyone's right to opt-out of vaccinations, just don't be surprised if you die of a preventable disease. It makes more sense to be careful, avoid mercury containing Thimerisol and only get shots you really need. I support your desire to avoid aspartame, as I do too, though I don't think it's a plot to poison our minds. I have stated my opinion of 9/11 "Truth" elsewhere, and again, I repeat, I think the stronger the association between libertarians in general and these kinds of conspiracy theorists, the more marginalized and ignored we will be. We need to bring more people into this movement, not drive them away because we're all whackos. If you add to that all the other tinfoil hat stuff, well, libertarians might as well all be carted off to the nut house and put in straight jackets for all the average Joe cares. We'll be on the level with those polygamists in their mind, and who gives a shit when they bust our doors down, after all we're just a bunch of kooks, right?

We have the best ideas about human interaction, the free market, conflict resolution, economics, the limits of government and the use of force and so much more. We need to focus on that and not wander off the reservation into a paranoid, schizophrenic parody of Alex Jonesville. I'd like to be the rational, level headed voice of reason, and rise above all this anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-medicine woo-woo stuff and show the world that libertarian doesn't always mean crackpot.

[kola]

the problem i have is almost anything questioned that is outside the so-called
"accepted" is quickly labeled "conspiracy". Its a default that is used to shuffle everything into the box of kookery and hoaxes.

In my world I don't think "the sky is falling" but I have only seen it get worse drastically in the last 10 years and now that this country is recognizably(spl) and undeniably in tumoil, it seems awful hard to convince me that everything is going to be just dandy. IMO we have overstepped our bounds and the more with mess with stuff the deeper in shit we get. If your opinion is one that supports our current path of science and that it s going to cure our problems, then they better get on the ball.

GMO's aint saving the world of hunger and modern medicine has still not come up with a cure for cancer. We still burn gas and oil by the tons when there are much more safer ways to produce energy. Our gov seems to have zero interest in solar power but take a look at what other countries are doing. The US are supposed to be leaders and the superpower of the world but we are not doing so good are we? All I see is more sick people who have no healthcare, job losses around the country, bankruptcy and foreclosure at an alltime high and the middleclass being stomped into the lower class. Disease is rampant everywhere in the world despite the socalled "progress" of vaccines and pharma drugs and high tech surgery methods. And in the meantime, BushCo keeps borrowing money we don't have to fund an illegal and immoral war. Whether it be the current path of our treasonic leaders or the questionable paths of  todays "science" (which is dictated by corporate/political ties) neither has shown any inkling that hope is on the horizon. IMO its gonna get a hellavalot worse before it ever gets better, if it ever does happen. 


I still do not understand your username but thats ok.

Kola is my NA Indian name given to me by my Grandmother which means "brother warrior" or "warrior friend."
I am a half breed indian, Italian and Indian. My buddies used to kid me and call me a Wopaho. I was raised mostly by my Granny and taught NA ways. This is why i think differently and have different belief systems...and why I disliked "schooling". I rarely went to school and skipped often to fish or hunt or learn form her (herbs, healing, NA way of life). I was stuck in the middle and wanted nothing to do with government institutions or anything associated with them. We took no assistance money from the gov and grew up very happy buy quite poor. When I finally decided to become a "licensed" chiropractor, I took out loans to fund my 7 years of schooling and paid every dime back. My grandmother was a proud woman and this I learned from her: to be independant, think for yourself, stand up for what you believe and beware the government. Maybe she created me to be non-trusting but thats the way it is and that is the truth, now isn't it?


My name Kola? Many warriors often named their warhorses Kola. I am a huge horselover and started riding at 4 years old (by myself). I was in the saddle atop with my granny at about 1 year old. I was always a fighter(warrior) (yeah imagine huh?) and a great horselover thus she thought the name was appropriate.

Kola has nothing to do with drinking the pop (cola) or the Kolanut from Hawaii.

Kola 

[J’raxis 270145]

These folks seem to have an opinion.
-----------------------------------------

The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops unnecessarily risks the health of the population and the environment.
Present knowledge is not sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant genome, and the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits.

We urge you to stop feeding the products of this infant science to our population and ban the release of these crops into the environment where they can never be recalled. "

-from an Open Letter by the Independent Scientists', read at the Joint International GMO Opposition Day, April 8, 2006

That's exactly what they have: an opinion. They believe there's been insufficient research to justify engaging in GM; others don't. They believe the risks outweigh the benefits; others don't. It demonstrates that some people are, in my opinion, far too conservative about when a technology is ready to be used. It does not demonstrate that GM is inherently flawed.

GMO producing less

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

This demonstrates that one of the major talking points in favor of GM crops, higher yields, is incorrect. It may be a good reason from a capitalist perspective not to plant GM crops, or it may merely indicate that the current specific instances of GM are not producing as well as specific instances of GM yet to be invented. It does not demonstrate that GM is inherently flawed.

Scientists Find Evidence Of Pest Resistance To GMO Crops
AFP via Morningstar.com, February 8, 2008
Straight to the Source

...

This demonstrates that a specific instance of GM—crops producing this Bt pesticide—isn't working out as planned, because the bugs are adapting. This demonstrates that Bt GM is or will soon be pointless, and since evolution will always win battles like this eventually, it demonstrates that GM for the purpose of producing pest-resistant plants is a flawed idea. It does not demonstrate that GM is inherently flawed.

[J’raxis 270145]

Dr. Arpad Pusztai on the Toxicity of Genetically Engineered Bt Crops
By Dr, Arpad Pusztai
GM WATCH, January 8, 2008
Straight to the Source

...

Same as above—this demonstrates that Bt-producing GM crops are dangerous—not GM technology in general. This says nothing, for example, about GM being used to increase yield, or GM used to produce pharmaceuticals, &c., it merely says Bt crops are toxic.

[J’raxis 270145]

+ GM CORN MAY AFFECT AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS - STUDY Extremely important new study showing genetically engineered Bt corn (maize) byproducts could be endangering aquatic life. It also raises big questions as to how U.S. and other regulators gave the go ahead to Bt corn without undertaking sufficient testing of their impact on aquatic ecosystems. The study by scientists at Indiana University was published online by the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8358 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8368 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8422

More on Bt. Addressed above.

+ BT TRANSGENE DETECTED IN AQUATIC SYSSTEMS The Canadian Department of the Environment (also known as Environment Canada) has determined that the pesticidal Bt gene cry1Ab, found in GM corn, persisted in aquatic areas near the site where the Bt crop was planted. Varying amounts of the cry1Ab gene were found in sediment, soil, and surface water samples. The sediments were found to contain about 100-fold more cry1Ab DNA than the surface water. The cry1Ab transgene was also detected as far away as the Richelieu and St. Lawrence rivers - 82 km downstream from the corn cultivation plot. Because of the concern that the cry1Ab gene could be transferred to microorganisms through horizontal gene transfer, the researchers recommend monitoring and sustained attention to the fate of transgenes in the environment. Abstract in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, with links to the complete paper for subscribers at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2006.01.002

More on Bt. Addressed above.

+ CONTAMINATING THE WILD Useful introductory article to the report by Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman on the danger of permanent escape of transgenes, that have undergone little risk assessment, into the natural environment. http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/dgs1.php

Since it's not been demonstrated that GM is in general dangerous (some are merely assuming that it is, as a result of insufficient risk assessment—guilty until proven innocent?), who cares if transgenes are released into the wild? This article presupposes that GM is dangerous, and goes from there to conclude that there's an additional danger if such products are released into the wild. But if GM, or specific instances thereof, are harmless, release into the wild is equally harmless.

+ BT CORN SUSCEPTIBLE TO ROOTWORM Bt corn fails to protect against rootworms despite farmers paying Monsanto hefty sums for that protection, according to research carried out at the University of Illinois. Rootworms were found to have done significant early damage to GM varieties. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8126

More on Bt. Addressed above.

+ AERIAL SPRAYING OF ROUNDUP DAMAGES DNA Aerial spraying of the Roundup herbicide by the Colombian government on the border of Colombia and Ecuador has caused a high degree of DNA damage in local Ecuadorian people, according to a study. DNA damage may activate genes associated to the development of cancer, and may also lead to miscarriage or malformations in embryos. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7899

RoundUp and RoundUp-ready crops are unsafe. What does this say about other GM crops? Nothing.

+ ANOTHER MONSANTO MAIZE POTENTIALLY TOXIC New research into the health impacts of GM food already approved in Europe casts further doubt on the safety of the approvals system. The study, carried out by French scientific research institute CRIIGEN on the results of rat feeding trials using Monsanto's GM maize NK603, highlights 60 significant differences between the rats that were fed the GM maize and those fed normal maize (all for 90 days). The first group showed differences in their kidney, brain, heart and liver measurements, as well as significant weight differences. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8018

NK603 may be another example of a dangerous GM product. (It's notable, however, that this study is claiming "differences," but not saying whether or not those "differences" were bad, neutral, or good.) Anyway, what does this say about other GM crops? Nothing.

+ SKIN ALLERGY AND PULMONARY PROBLEMS REPORTED FROM BT COTTON In the Punjab, India, farmers and laborers are suffering with skin allergy and pulmonary diseases after picking Bt cotton. Dr Gurpiar Singh, who runs a private clinic, says that many cases have come to his notice. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8398

More on Bt. Addressed above.

[J’raxis 270145]

Independent Research Confirms - GMO Food is Dangerous

On October 10[2005], during the symposium over genetic modification, which was organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS), Doctor of Biology Irina Ermakova made public the results of the research led by her at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). This is the first research that determined clear dependence between eating genetically modified soy and the posterity of living creatures (Regnum, 2005).

Over half of the rats born to mothers who ate GM-soy (55-56%) were dead in three weeks, as opposed to a 9% mortality rate in rats whose mothers ate normal soy. "The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained very disturbing," said Irina Ermakova to NAGS press office. (Regnum, 2005)

Another glaring example of the dangers of GMO food is that of Syngenta and the German farmer, Gottfried Glockner of North Hessen. As William Engdahl explains in Seeds of Destruction,

This farmer found evidence that planting Syngenta Bt-176 genetically engineered corn to feed his cattle in 1997 had been responsible for killing off his cattle, destroying his milk production, and poisoning his farmland. Syngenta's Bt-176 corn had been engineered to produce a toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis, which they claimed was deadly to a damaging insect, the European Corn Borer (pg. 230).

The rat study seems to indicate that "GM-soy" is dangerous, but there are other genetically modified crops besides soy. What of those?

Glockner's issue is specifically with Bt-176 GM, which if that's the same as the "Bt" above, we've already established is dangerous.

GMO Technology Threatens the World's Food Supply

Not only is GMO food harmful to the animals that eat it, but it also has the potential to overcome the crops around it. Insects, birds, and wind carry seeds into neighboring fields and beyond. This is cross-pollination, and cannot be controlled in an outdoor environment. Genetically engineered plants are no exception to this. The pollen from GM plants can cross-pollinate with normal plants and contaminate entire fields. With the proliferation of GM crops, this is a real danger.

In 1996, there were approximately 6,563 square miles of farmland in the world devoted to GMO crops. In 2006, there were 393,828 square miles devoted to GMO crops (GMO Compass, 2007). This is a 5900% increase in land devoted to GMO crops in a 10-year period! At this rate, the amount of GM crops will double in the next ten years, not including cross-pollination factors.

This article makes the same presuppositions that the one about transgene release did. It has to be demonstrated that GM products are dangerous first, before it matters if those crops are overtaking non-GM crops. Thousands of years ago, crops that humans had created through artificial selection overtook earlier crops. No disaster happened. Now GM crops (a form of artificial selection using modern technology) may overtake earlier crops produced through artificial selection. So?

Is "Organic" Really Organic?

Even foods labeled "organic" are allowed a percentage of GMO contamination.

"EU Agricultural Ministers have decided to allow organic food accidentally contaminated with genetically modified organisms to be classified as organic as long as the GMO presence is less than 0.9%" (Shield, 2007).

In the United States, "the US National Organic Program (NOP) rules prohibit GMOs in organics but don't require methods to prohibit GMO contamination or establish thresholds for adventitious GM presence" (Roseboro, 2007).

Many organic companies simply do not want to undergo the expense and effort necessary to test their fields for GMO contamination, but some say that it is essential in order to maintain integrity.

Jack Olson is an organic farmer in Litchville, North Dakota, who grows organic soybeans, wheat, and other crops. "It's hard for one organic farmer to fight Monsanto," he says. Still, Olson puts up with the inconveniences because he is committed to organic agriculture. "At least we're clean, that's why we grow organic. It's God's way," he says. (Roseboro, 2007)
http://spktruth2power.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/gmo-a-dangerous-experiment/

An interesting example of possible labeling fraud. What's this say about the danger of GM at all?

[kola]

I will ask you this once again.

What is your basis that GMOs are safe and beneficial?

[J’raxis 270145]

The problem with the stuff that kola posted is it misses the point.

Some GM products will turn out bad, that doesn't make GM itself bad.

The entire crux of my entire week-spanning debate with him. He can find all the specific examples of bad GM he wants (and throw in irrelevant articles, too). It doesn't invalidate the technology itself.