GM corn MON863
 

More good things from your friendly neighborhood scientists at Monsanto. Should we be growing and/or eating this frankenfood?

"Monsanto's GM corn MON863 shows kidney, liver toxicity in animal studies"

"It seems that the more these GM foods are tested, the more frightening the implications seem to be for human health. "

http://www.newstarget.com/021784.html

Lets feed this Corn to Monsanto's C E O and his Family. And then we would see it pulled quickly..

Hey.

I'll have to get me some of that. Sounds like a good way of getting rid of the deer eating my crops.

RF

A little more information on MON863;

"The corn in question, MON863, is made by the Monsanto Company and approved for use in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, and the United States. It has had a gene inserted from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which causes the plant's cells to produce a pesticide. "

The main point here being that these crops are approved for use in Europe contrary to the thinking by some that these are US only crops.

Jeff, when are you going to post a link to site where we can actually look at the results of the study, rather than just some greenie's 'report' of it?

Why don't you go and spew your hate on GC forum?

http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter...ve&newsid=2662
the above link is to an account from "agbio world". it gives a link to the original study...which apparently was done quite a while ago.

I do think that taking a Greenpeace funded study or reinterpretation of another study and using that as a basis for "don't use Genetically Modified grains" is like using a Monsanto funded study to say "USE GM grains" :shrug:

just my 2cents worth
btw, before you start yelling at me, I was an active member of greenpeace for years.

Just because Monsanto "approved" them for use in other countries doesn't mean the countries want them. Many European countries have banned GMO's. There was a big fuss not long ago when China refused to buy US rice because GMO contamination in some of it.

The US gov has partnered with Monsanto to try to force many countries to buy GMO products after the countries outlawed importation of them.

Scientists around the world have studied GMO's and declared them to be dangerous. The US is the only country that embraces them, and only because we've been kept in the dark for years and years while they were being secretly fed to us.

If you want to grow/eat GMO's, then have fun, but it's not fair to force them on people who do not want them. Many GMO crops have spread and contaminated organic crops. Then Monsanto sues the victim! :nono: There are many farmers who are patrolling their perimeters to keep the GMO's from invading. They are fighting a loosing battle because the unwanted stuff gets carried in by birds & the wind.

Monsanto has already gathered some of the wild rice from the Indian nations in the north. What do you think they will do with it. I bet they will alter it, patent it, then turn it loose to contaminate the wild rice. Then they will sue the Indian nation and force them to pay Monsanto for all the wild rice they gather because Monsanto will own the patent on it. :nono:

This is a subject that is dear to my heart. I could preach on it for days, but I'll get down off my soapbox now.

Are you saying you can't "GOOGLE"? :shrug:

A lot of what I'm hearing about GM products starts out with " What if...?" or " Maybe...". Over a hundred years ago there were plenty of people that believed that John Deere's iron plow would taint the soil. What if there was to blind activisim then as there seems to be now? We'd still be using wooden plows. With every new development there are those that prefer to resist change and ignore the benifits. Liver transplanta and heart transplants seemed freaky 50 years ago, but now it is common.Since Bt is approved for use on organic gardens, it must be quite safe. When added to the corn's cells instead of thrown around in the field by a spray rig, it seems safer to me.
To stop the development of round Up ready Alfalfa (it is resistant to this one herbacide) someone has planted his organic alfalfa down wind from the RR Alfalfa. He is collecting seed to sell as organic and can't because some of the RR Alfalfa polen has gotten into his field. Based on this one situation, tons of RR alfalfa can't be sold or planted. If I wanted to grow open pollenated corn, I wouldn't be able to grow it next to someone's hybrid corn, because their pollen would get on my corn. I can't make the grower of hybrid corn keep his pollen on his own property, but we havs a double standard when it comes to GM products.

Over a hundred years ago there were not groups of scientists around the world using modern methods to investigate the dangers of using a iron plow. They are using modern methods to prove the dangers of GMO's.


When the dangers outweigh the benefits it makes sense to search for other methods that can provide the benefits without the dangers.


You're looking at this from only one perspective. The organic farmers have been farming organicly for centuries. The GMO farmers are the new guys on the block that are invading the organic crops. Why do you think someone has the right to force GMO pollen onto the organic farms? If someone wants to play with fire, it does not give them the right to burn other peoples property. So it's up to the new guy on the block to figure out how to burn his own property without letting the fire get out of control and burn his neighbors property too. Why can't the GMO people understand that simple principal?

I heard this past month Brazil has appoved growing of BT corn. In Brazil's very humid, rainy climate, corn doesn't do well - a lot of fungus & insect damage just messes up the corn plant.

So, they have been growing soybeans on soybeans on soybeans.

With the BT corn, corn will yield 35-40 bu per acre more.

This will make corn a competitive crop to grow.

They will benifit from crop rotation, producing more soybeans per acre, and more corn per acre.

This will help their ecconomy, and will produce more raw food/ feed/ energy for world use, and it will not require more rainforest to be cut down to get more crop bushels.

From the BT corn.

BT is a natuarally occuring pesticide found in nature.

Some folks will be against technological advances to the point of hurting humans, the environment, and so forth.

Others, such as the Starlink deal, the current rice gmo issues, and so forth, will want to push technology so fast it causes people problems as well.

There was resistance to hybred corn, resistence to plows, resistance to putting a fish under the hill of corn for fertilizer.

Some look backward, some look forward.

Middle ground, of slowly moving forward, usually wins out & carries the world with it.

I understand the issues against some of the business practices. Talk to your representitives. I personally agree with 'your' side on these. Changing that would greatly reduce future gmo advances - if that is what you want.

It is telling that a member asks for a spectrum of sources, and gets his hinder chewed out for such a simple request. Closed minds doing name calling, you don't need to make informed decisions in your lives? That is the sad part of this thread. Shame on those few.

Debating it, pro or con, that is all part of a healthy society that will hammer things out in the right direction. Good for those of you, on all sides, that participate.

--->Paul

Steve L.,

I am guessing that you are referring to the author of the article as a "greenie". I know very little about author David Gutierrez but he seems to write mostly about health and diet issues. This particular article,

http://www.newstarget.com/021784.html

has conventional views followed by alternative views. Sounds okay to me. I imagine that it is quite possible that he is a "greenie" but I really have no way of knowing. Also I should mention that I myself am not 100% certain what a "greenie" is but judging by the reactions of others it apparently is a bad thing as they see it.

It is also possible that you are referring to the website host, Mike Adams, as a "greenie" but again I have little to go on but you just might be right about him. I did find this information about Mike on his website:

"People call me the Health Ranger. I used to be chronically diseased with borderline obesity, diabetes, depression and severe back pain. I used to visit doctors and follow their advice, and I used to eat anything I wanted: sodas, pizza, donuts, milk, hamburgers... you name it.

And that's how I came to be overweight, depressed and diseased by the age of 30.

But a few years ago, I "woke up," and in a process of regaining true clarity, I realized that practically everything we are taught about health, disease, food and medicine is utterly false. Everything I had ever been told about health -- by my doctors, schools and even my own government -- was a lie. And those lies explain why we are all so diseased today, burdened with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis and many other diseases that are entirely preventable, as you'll soon see. "

He goes on to give very basics facts about himself like this:

"Age: 35
Height: 6' 1"
Weight: 184 lbs.
Body fat: 10.5%
Resting pulse: 48 beats per minute
Blood pressure: 105 / 60 "

I found this information here: http://www.healthranger.org/, where you will find a picture of Mike. Possibly you could take a minute to look at his photo and let me know if he is in fact a "greenie". If that is the case I firmly believe the proper authorities should be contacted because I don't think we should have "greenies" running websites about diet and health that some innocent child might see and worse yet, actually read. Frankly to me he looks a bit like a Marine Corps Recruit. Is it possible to be a "greenie" Marine ? Because if it is, this guy could just possibly be one.

Finally it is possible that the "greenie" you refer to is me. I'll have to check with my friends on this as self evaluation is difficult for the vast majority of us and that would include me. Should it turn out that I am in fact a "greenie" in the opinion of those who know me I will let you know right away.

The part that puzzles me most is the relationship between a "greenie" and Monsanto's GM corn MON863. I'll have to give that some thought.

Jeff

Sounds like a whack job...I listened to my doctors..but I ate anything I wanted to.

A sensible diet and exercise wow what a concept.

I also think it's funny how the study of the GM corn didn't find problems when looked at by 3 other entities, yet when Greenpeace backed an investigation they found problems.

Thank you for that link, Wisconsin Ann. It states pretty much what I expected. When I have a little more time, I'll follow up on references on that page.

And, thank you, Jeff54321, for your polite reply. I didn't intend to insult you, and I was referring to the obvious 'spin' of the whole website.

My question to you (and my phrasing of it) was really based on that rather long thread on this subject a couple of months ago. These GMO threads are almost always based on 'spun-up' popular articles written by people with a 'green' or anti-GMO agenda. Why should I (or you, for that matter) take their word, any more than we would the word of Monsanto? I just want to see the results of the studies.

Garbage
 

Garbage studies to skew results in my opinion.

I read the info a few days ago but opted not to respond at that time.

One thing I did notice was the high percentage of the diet was corn. How many humans do you know that will have 10% to 30% of their entire diet of corn?

What the heck, you may soon have to find a new whipping post company as Monsanto may be sold. Just wait until the foreign investors get ahold of it and want maximum return on their investment. News articles reported the majority of those attempting to buy Monsanto was middle east investors. Whee!

Steve, You and I both know that in this day and age the corporate funded study is, in many cases, a bogus essay designed to blanket the truth. This is hardly a hidden fact.

The results of modern day studies are determined by the highest corporate bidder. Facts and the truth are but a minor obstacle to study results. For example (and I realize that this is way off topic), numerous studies have been done regarding cell phone use and brain tumors. Many of those studies show an alarming increase in brain tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone is held. When paid for by the cell phone manufacturers those very same types of studies show no such results. Who might be telling the truth??

I choose not to believe the phone manufacturers, Monsanto, the drug companies and so on and so forth, as reality has shown they often fail to tell the truth. On the other hand it seems that outside agencies have a much better track record for accurate reporting.

Many Americans seem more than willing to trade the health of their families for a 5% increase in the price of the stock in their portfolio. That's not my choice. Just as I choose not to ingest Monsanto's crops.

Others might place their faith and trust in Monsanto and to those I say, "I wish you well."


Jeff

Too many have watched way too much Science Fiction Movies.

Most of the population!


"Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by human beings: 20"

http://www.crescentlife.com/dietnutr..._realities.htm

http://www.ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/consumption1.asp

Annual corn sweetener consumption increased to 79 pounds in 2003, up 400 percent from 1970. This steep rise in corn sweetener consumption is largely due to high-fructose corn syrup, a low-cost substitute for sugar in beverages.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/N...onsumption.htm

http://www.leeleffler.com/action/index.html

http://www.corn.org/CRAR2004.PDF

"Corn starch is used in virtually every bread or pastry you can buy in a major chain grocery store. And with a few scattered exception, every bread you can buy anywhere else too.

Corn starch, syrup and cellulose are used in every medicine you can put in your mouth.

Then there's the sugar. Any time you see the simple word sugar on an ingredient list you can substitute "corn syrup." That means in soda, in cookies, in candy bars, even in BAGS OF SUGAR. And not just sugar. Almost every sugar-free sweetener on the market today is made from a corn product.

But just because it doesn't taste sugary doesn't mean you're clear. Corn syrup, starch and/or oil is added to french fries, peanut butter, saltines, steak sauce, table salt, margarine, iced tea, fruit juice (even ones that claim to be 100% juice), "raw" honey, fish sticks, soy milk, wine, beer, liquor, chicken nuggets, flour, barley, caramel, Vitamin C, vanilla extract, vinegar and/or yeast. Corn-derived glycerin is found in almost every soap, lotion, toothpaste and shampoo.

Anything on the label you can't pronounce is better than even odds to be corn."

http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/corn/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...001/AO283e.pdf

http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/final_soda_petition.pdf

"The consumption of fructose (corn syrup) has risen considerably in the general population within recent years. In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose. This 149 pounds is approximately 19% of the average person's diet.

This increase is due to several factors. There was a decreased use of cane and beet sugar (sucrose) in processed foods and a wide spread use of corn syrup due to economics. Corn is much cheaper and twice as sweet as table sugar. It is absorbed only 40% as quickly as glucose and causes only a modest rise in blood sugar."

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/5/fructose.htm

To learn just how much corn we're eating and drinking (and how many varied products contain corn) just take a trip to the local grocery store and read a few labels.

I assume this is a reference to the cell phone issue. While it is certainly your full entitlement to this opinion you just might want to read some of the following articles. Or not and just think of it all as "fiction".

http://www.mercola.com/2003/apr/2/cell_phones.htm

http://www.newstarget.com/021634.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...rs_sweden.html

http://www.bioprotechnology.com/Pres...ain_Tumor.aspx

http://science.slashdot.org/article..../05/12/1228221

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=14583

http://www.purezing.com/living/gen_a...honecancer.htm

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chri...ell_phones.htm

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/411984

http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_jan2006.html

This severe thread drift is my fault for mentioning this and I think that any further comment on the subject should be in a new thread.

As the number of people demanding food and the basic right to eat increases steadily. How is the agri industry going to produce more on an ever smaller number of acres? I see no other option but to increase the yield per acre - not to mention, the farmer is now going to have to contribute to fuel being produced. If all GM corn companies were shut down today. The execs would die rich and with full stomachs.....what about everyone one else? At what point do we say that mass- cheap foodstocks are a must?

When food or the production of starts killing people then maybe we might get some protection from big corporations. Until then we will just slowly die of cancers or increasingly poor health until it is proven that cheap, mass produced food is a death sentence.

I really should cut back on my fructose intake. It would make everyone healthier.

We have a window of opportunity to produce ALL of our own food and animal feeds from open pollinated seed stocks. It is our choice. If we do this then the GM seed outfits will go out of business without any further prompting. :cool:

That window has always been there, guess what, it isn't big enough.

Most farm land is burnt up.... it takes more input today than it did 50 years ago....More tillable ground is double cropped and pushed to the limits. The necessary production to stay afloat in dollars is the driving force. The GM corn is widely popular for a reason.....it gets the the job done. It is exspensive, but twice as good as the competitor. If you can show us an alternative that dosn't involve losing the farm. More farmers would change.

Well said...totally agree! :clap:

And this is exactly why we need to see the studies, NOT the spin.

I find it interesting that folks like Jeff are against Monsanto and everything they produce, assume that all GMO are dangerous and harmful. Yet they seem perfectly satisfied with pork from Maxico, Beef from South America and fruit and honey from China. Seems to me that a product that doesn't need herbacides is safer than those that come from countries without much pesticude regulations. People don't seem to want/care about marking where their food comes from but they insist on GM be labeled. Think about your choices the next time you give your grandchild a glass of apple juice or spread some honey on a homemade dinner roll.

Okay, I give up.

The way you know that I am "perfectly satisfied with pork from Maxico, Beef from South America and fruit and honey from China." ... is:

You looked in my cupboards?

My neighbors told you what I bring home from the grocery store?

It's on my breath?

You and Homeland Security got together and went over my grocery shopping records?

George Bush told you?

You've really got me stumped on this one.

Jeff

p.s. The implication of your amazing mind reading abilities is that "folks like Jeff" are responsible for the near total destruction of the American economy because of their preference for foreign goods. To this all I can say is wake up.

mindreading
 

My comments were intended to be very general. I see lots of concern over GM corn and Monsanto, but I don't see any concern over what I see as much more pressing food issues. Perhaps people that are responding with such emotion against Monsanto really are concerned over the other food issues, just silent about them.