Tolerance of GM food is based on ignorance and fear mongering

I know what the US is missing... Food standards. They were abolished in the US in the 1970's in favour of corporate convenience. Your food quality and societal condition has gone wayward ever since.

Why should I sacrifice something I enjoy for to appease the downfall of your society?

I never asked for your depravity. In fact I am complaining against it.

 

lol! Marshall is a parody of himself!

Okay, Marshall - if you want to convince me, or any of the sensible people on this forum, stop using ignorance and fear mongering. Find a study that shows GM food is unsafe. Find anything substantial that shows it - not a picture with a 'funny' looking chicken, or a picture that shows GM chicken being bigger. That's basing your argument off of ignorance and fear.

 

Stop eating American food. Stick to cabbage and beets. We never asked you to eat our food. In fact I wish you wouldn't so maybe you'd quit whining.

 

Again there is not a single shred of evidence that GM foods are unsafe. Oh and for milions of years we only ate natrual foods and during almost all of that time human life expectancy was less than 4 decades, and famine common place.

 

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-1-myth-gm-foods-are-safe-to-eat


“Some approved GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter haematological [blood], biochemical, and immunologic parameters, the significance of which remains to be solved with chronic toxicity studies.”
– Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Food Sci Nutr Jrnl. 2009; 49: 164–1751


Mice fed GM peas (not subsequently commercialized) engineered with an insecticidal protein (alpha-amylase inhibitor) from beans showed a strong, sustained immune reaction against the GM protein. Mice developed antibodies against the GM protein and an allergic-type inflammation response (delayed hypersensitivity reaction).

The findings showed that the GM insecticidal protein acted as a sensitizer, making the mice susceptible to developing immune reactions and allergies to normally non-allergenic foods. This is called immunological cross-priming. The fact that beans naturally containing the insecticidal protein did not cause the effects seen with the peas that expressed the transgenic insecticidal protein indicated that the immune responses of the mice to the GM peas were caused by unintended and undetected changes in the peas brought about by the genetic engineering process. The reviewers concluded that the insecticidal protein was changed by the GM process making it behave differently in the GM peas compared with its natural form in the non-GM beans – and the altered protein from the GM peas stimulated a potent immune response in the mice.4


Mice fed proposed GM soy showed disturbed liver, pancreas and testes function. Reviewers found abnormally formed cell nuclei and nucleoli in liver cells, which indicates increased metabolism and potentially altered patterns of gene expression.5,6,7


Mice fed GM soy over their lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in the liver than the control group fed non-GM soy.8 Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (sores or ulcers).2,3 This tomato, Calgene’s Flavr Savr, was the first commercialized GM food.


Rabbits fed GM soy showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart.9
Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in uterus and ovaries compared with controls fed organic non-GM soy or a non-soy diet. Certain ill effects were found with organic soy as well as GM soy, showing the need for further investigation into the effects of soy-based diets (GM and non-GM) on reproductive health.10


A review of 19 studies (including industry’s own studies submitted to regulators in support of applications to commercialise GM crops) on mammals fed with commercialised GM soy and maize that are already in our food and feed chain found consistent toxic effects on the liver and kidneys. Such effects may be markers of the onset of chronic disease, but long-term studies, in contrast to these reported short- and medium-term studies, would be required to assess this more thoroughly. Unfortunately, such long-term feeding trials on GMOs are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.11


Rats fed insecticide-producing MON863 Bt maize grew more slowly and showed higher levels of certain fats (triglycerides) in their blood than rats fed the control diet. They also suffered problems with liver and kidney function. The authors stated that it could not be concluded that MON863 maize is safe and that long-term studies were needed to investigate the consequences of these effects.12
Rats fed GM Bt maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and alterations in blood biochemistry.13

A re-analysis of Monsanto’s own rat feeding trial data, submitted to obtain approval in Europe for three commercialised GM Bt maize varieties, MON863, MON810, and NK603, concluded that the maize varieties had toxic effects on liver and kidneys. The authors of the re-analysis stated that while the findings may have been due to the pesticides specific to each variety, genetic engineering could not be excluded as the cause.14 The data suggest that approval of these GM maize varieties should be withdrawn because they are not substantially equivalent to non-GM maize and are toxic.
Old and young mice fed GM Bt maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cells and in biochemical activity.15


Rats fed GM MON810 Bt maize showed clear signs of toxicity, affecting the immune system, liver and kidneys.14,15


Female sheep fed Bt GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system, while their lambs showed cellular changes in the liver and pancreas.16
GM Bt maize DNA was found to survive processing and was detected in the digestive tract of sheep. This raises the possibility that the antibiotic resistance gene in the maize could move into gut bacteria, an example of horizontal gene transfer.17 In this case, horizontal gene transfer could produce antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria (“superbugs&#8221 in the gut.


Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity.18


Rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition and toxic reactions in multiple organ systems.19,20


Mice fed a diet of GM Bt potatoes or non-GM potatoes spiked with natural Bt toxin protein isolated from bacteria showed abnormalities in the cells and structures of the small intestine, compared with a control group of mice fed non-GM potatoes. The abnormalities were more marked in the Bt toxin-fed group. This study shows not only that the GM Bt potatoes caused mild damage to the intestines but also that Bt toxin protein is not harmlessly broken down in digestion, as GM proponents claim, but survives in a functionally active form in the small intestine and can cause damage to that organ.21


Rats fed GM rice for 90 days had a higher water intake as compared with the control group fed the non-GM isogenic (genetically the same except for the genetic modification) line of rice. The GM-fed rats showed differences in blood biochemistry, immune response, and gut bacteria. Organ weights of female rats fed GM rice were different from those fed non-GM rice. The authors claimed that none of the differences were “adverse”, but they did not define what they mean by “adverse”. Even if they had defined it, the only way to know if such changes are adverse is to extend the length of the study, which was not done. The authors conceded that the study “did not enable us to conclude on the safety of the GM food”.22


Rats fed GM Bt rice developed significant differences as compared with rats fed the non-GM isogenic line of rice. These included differences in the populations of gut bacteria – the GM-fed group had 23% higher levels of coliform bacteria. There were differences in organ weights between the two groups, namely in the adrenals, testis and uterus. The authors concluded that the findings were most likely due to “unintended changes introduced in the GM rice and not from toxicity of Bt toxin” in its natural, non-GM form.23


A study on rats fed GM Bt rice found a Bt-specific immune response in the non-GM-fed control group as well as the GM-fed groups. The researchers concluded that the immune response in the control animals was due to their inhaling particles of the powdered Bt toxin-containing feed consumed by the GM-fed group. The researchers recommended that for future tests involving Bt crops, GM-fed and control groups should be kept separate.24 This indicates that animals can be extremely sensitive to very small amounts of GM proteins, so even low levels of contamination of conventional crops with GMOs could be harmful to health.


AND ON AND ON AND ON.

 

So you found a source, albeit a biased one, that indicates there MIGHT be issues with GM products. You keep providing the same, baseless driven, ON AND ON AND ON

 

Almost everything can be allergenic, and the study which you continue cite though it has been repeatedly debunked, is cosidered to be worthless by almost every major scientific body in the world, in and out of the US.

 

How are quotations from scientific journals baseless? If you throw out every opposition to your opinion that's not very scientific.

You asked for journal citations, I gave them to you.

Now you are claiming that only the scientists who agree with your personal viewpoint are valid scientists!

Any idiot with a Gerbal can prove that McDonald's food kills little animals when fed to them!

 

A quick look at the references shows that most of the citations were not peer reviewed. I'm not sure that any of them were peer reviewed. Pusztai in particular stands out as a controversial researcher.

 

Marshall, I have to ask, are there only American foods available where you live? Are Russians not able to catch their own salmon?

 

[SUB][/SUB]

"69... 69 Ruble SuubVay. SubVvay so very good for life. "

 

I want the choice to choose between lab experiments and what I CONSIDER to be food....not what some jerkoff corporate profiteer wants to sell me to eat and not tell me anything about.

 

Hear ye hear ye.

I completely agree!

Why would anyone make meat n' tatos if they can buy a processed meat slime sandwich for 69 Rubles!

It will completely %^*+# destroy the society!

Parts of Eastern Europe are beginning to look like the United States!

 

So that's a no, then? Only American food is available in Russia? I think maybe the problem for you isn't American food, per se, but the lack of initiative of your fellow countrymen? Why don't you be a trendsetter, Marshall? Be the first Russian ever to open a restaurant inside of Russia! You'll be a hero. Little kids will sing songs about you. Artists will make paintings of you playing chess against Putin with a Babushka overlooking the game while eating a bowl of your borscht. It will be a glorious day for you and your country!

 

Apparently, many folks have no problem "giving up" their right to know what they are eating. That's pretty sad but a good indicator of why the country is in the shape that it's in.

 

The thread should be titled: intolerance of GM food is based on ignorance and fear mongering. It's no more than a faster way to do what we have been doing with foods for centuries. It's also necessary in order to keep up with food demands of a growing world population of near 7 billion. Find another issue and don't waste time with this one because opposing it is a dead loser.

 

We haven't had giant pharmaceutical corporations "earning" billions and billions" of dollars every year for "centuries".

Friendly question. Do you have some interest in GMO'd food???

 

Except pharmaceutical companies don't make GM foods...

 

I don't know that for sure. GMO'd food "investors" refuse to disclose what's in the hybrid experiments they want me to not be able to distinguish from actual salmon from. Who knows WHAT is in it since they fight so hard to keep the content so secret??? Certainly not the unsuspecting consumer (the profit maker).

 

Dude if it has to be labeled in order foryou to tell the diference then there probably isn't any difference that would be noticeable.

 

My only interest is in trying to help people understand it's necessity. It's positives as regards necessity far outweigh it's imagined negatives. Lack of diversity being it's only possible negative and that's been overruled now because of need. It's only opposed by some who are operating from a position of not understanding.

 

Potatoes Have protein. I'm a potato eater. If I haven't had potatoes I haven't eaten.
"Potato is a versatile, carbohydrate-rich food highly popular worldwide and prepared and served in a variety of ways. Freshly harvested, it contains about 80 percent water and 20 percent dry matter. About 60 to 80 percent of the dry matter is starch. On a dry weight basis, the protein content of potato is similar to that of cereals and is very high in comparison with other roots and tubers."
http://www.potato2008.org/en/potato/factsheets.html

 

No dude...it doesn't. In fact, they fought tooth and nail to NOT have their GMO pukefish labeled to give consumers any sort of choice. "Probably isn't any difference"? How would we ever know?? Just take their word for it??? Maybe you are happy with that...I'm not.

 

Dude that scarcely proves there is anything wrong with it. It just means they don't want to potentially adversely affect their profits or to go to the expense of adding labels which less than a 1/3rd of the public reads anyway.

Or you could trust your ever benevolent Democratically controlled governments word for it.

 

Liar. It is merely an attempt to cost undercut a market for gross profit.

It will completely destroy that market, akin to putting artificial syrup in the natural syrup industry. It will have the effect of destroying that industry on cost competition and the American consumer will be stuck with the worse food condition.