More on wheat-the GMO kind

unioncreek · #41 10/19/12, 07:18 PM

The French study was vastly flawed. What they didn't tell you was that 50% of the control group of mice/rats ended up rumors. The study was totally biased. I look at it this way if we can use Roundup Ready crops we can cut down on less pesticides and pollution being put into the environment. When a company produces a GMO crop they have to jump through more hoops than when a new medicine is developed. I think the public has the right to know where and what their food is, but their going to bitch and moan when it causes food prices to go up because they will have to keep each product separate.

Of you don't like them don't eat them.

Bob

CaliannG · #42 10/19/12, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unioncreek

The French study was vastly flawed. What they didn't tell you was that 50% of the control group of mice/rats ended up rumors. The study was totally biased. I look at it this way if we can use Roundup Ready crops we can cut down on less pesticides and pollution being put into the environment. When a company produces a GMO crop they have to jump through more hoops than when a new medicine is developed. I think the public has the right to know where and what their food is, but their going to bitch and moan when it causes food prices to go up because they will have to keep each product separate.

Of you don't like them don't eat them.

Bob

1. Where are your sources that the French study was flawed? If "they didn't tell you" that 50% of the control group ended up with "tumors", then where did you learn this information? Please cite.

2. From whom did you hear that the "hoops" needed to release a GMO crop to the market were stricter than the "hoops" required to release a new pharmaceutical to the market? I am sorry, but your informant was wrong. It takes two years of animal study, two years of primate study, and four years of hominid study, half of which has to be done by independent laboratory, to release a new pharmaceutical to the market. It only takes 3 years of environmental impact study to release a new GMO onto the market, and ALL of it can be done by the company itself.

3. If we actually knew what products contained GMO, we *wouldn't* buy them. Most of the complaint is about a lack of labeling! So your comment of "If you don't like them, don't eat them." is completely off base. How can we not eat them if we don't know WHAT contains them?

MO_cows · #43 10/19/12, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

1. Where are your sources that the French study was flawed? If "they didn't tell you" that 50% of the control group ended up with "tumors", then where did you learn this information? Please cite.

2. From whom did you hear that the "hoops" needed to release a GMO crop to the market were stricter than the "hoops" required to release a new pharmaceutical to the market? I am sorry, but your informant was wrong. It takes two years of animal study, two years of primate study, and four years of hominid study, half of which has to be done by independent laboratory, to release a new pharmaceutical to the market. It only takes 3 years of environmental impact study to release a new GMO onto the market, and ALL of it can be done by the company itself.

3. If we actually knew what products contained GMO, we *wouldn't* buy them. Most of the complaint is about a lack of labeling! So your comment of "If you don't like them, don't eat them." is completely off base. How can we not eat them if we don't know WHAT contains them?

The linked article said that 50% of the control group rats, who were eating non-GM food, also developed tumors, and also that there were only 200 rats in the entire study. So at least 100 rats got the tumors anyway without ingesting a speck of GM food. Again, hardly a smoking gun.

In hindsight, there should have been labeling. It would have put the controversy to rest a long time ago instead allowing these "they are poisening us" notions to fester and live on. Labeling will raise the cost, too, but sounds like a lot of people think it's worth it.

rambler · #44 10/19/12, 09:44 PM

It would be nice if there was good science to prove any of the 'sky is falling' stuff.

Unfortunately, the organic folks depend on higher premium prices for their crops, and so they have a huge financial stake in scaring folks into believing their stuff is better.

This leads to poor, unscientific studies, or just plain speculation that this, that, or the other thing might someday be a problem.

Those whose livelyhood and investment into organic totally depends upon convincing people that their higher-priced products are worth the extra prices have a lot of incentive to 'fear' people into believing so.

Study after study shows the GMO stuff is fine; one or 2 unscientific rambling papers come along and - surprise!!! The organic folks all cling to the non-scientific stuff.

The funny part is they - the organic folks - always say GMO is all about the money..... But, that is _exactly_ the organic folks' angle - they want to charge more money for their stuff.

Just too funny.

As to labeling, we already have that. If you don't want GMO, buy 'organic' labeled stuff. The govt went through a lot of hoops and expense to give you that option, it's there for you.

There are also a couple of privately developed 'Natural' labels that say they don't use GMO stuff. Not nearly as much oversite on those, but likely they are selling you non-GMO products, check their labels.

So you have your labels.

As I said above, very understandable folks want to be careful about what they eat.

But - deeply flawed, unscientific, or just raw opinion pieces really don't help the organic side at all. It's just more of the same fear-mongering to prop up their higher prices, for their finantial gain.

And that kinda upsets folks, when that segment of the organic market goes out of it's way to just lie about things.

There are many good organic/ natural producers out there, and they make good honest sales. More power to them. Not all of them are dishonest, I should hope not too many are. But the fake-science stuff does get old after a while.

I understand my words will not change anyone's opinion on these forums. And I don't want to get into a pointless shouting match.

But really, a person has to speak up and defend truth and honesty, and I will continue to do that.

'Studies' like this French deal are just obviously bad science if one looks at them objectively, there is nothing to support such.

--->Paul

rambler · #45 10/19/12, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

With GM methods this work could be much faster, and the potentials blow away current corns. Many might not want this anyway even if proven safe but my point being is If yields and outcomes rather then profit were goals of these companies they are doing it all wrong. Youd think having the most superior corn would win you market share but apparently the folks at GM companies dont agree... Or perhaps they dont understand corn? that seems doubtful, not much else makes sense on that.

Breeding efforts aim to save non-GMO and organic corn seed

Looking at that link, it was written in 2008, with possible release of seed lines in 2010. We would have just harvested seed for a 2013 release....

Anything come of this, you hear of any followups? I realize breeding can take a decade to see a small improvement, but this is according to their own timetable, we should be seeing the seed somewhere?

We've gone from 35-50 bu corn in the 1930's to getting 200-250 bu corn in 2010's, with record plots of corn near 500 bu per acre. I think the companies have been advancing corn breeding pretty darn good, us farmers pick our corn seed based 90% on yield - give is the best yield? I'm not sure where your critizism is based on of the breeding advancements?

--->Paul

silverseeds · #46 10/19/12, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambler

Looking at that link, it was written in 2008, with possible release of seed lines in 2010. We would have just harvested seed for a 2013 release....

Anything come of this, you hear of any followups? I realize breeding can take a decade to see a small improvement, but this is according to their own timetable, we should be seeing the seed somewhere?

We've gone from 35-50 bu corn in the 1930's to getting 200-250 bu corn in 2010's, with record plots of corn near 500 bu per acre. I think the companies have been advancing corn breeding pretty darn good, us farmers pick our corn seed based 90% on yield - give is the best yield? I'm not sure where your critizism is based on of the breeding advancements?

--->Paul

I dont think you understood me.

i didnt criticize breeding. I was making the case that with GM methods we could tap that amazing potential in corns wild relatives much faster and more efficiently then mary did. If building the best corns was the real goal.

I wasnt knocking breeding in general. Heck Im a plant breeder (amateur although taking on some large projects) and personally know several of them I could give names to and they are known enough you could read about them all over the net.

although breeding wasnt the only thing that increased yields, higher atmospheric co2, and dramatically higher fertilization rates played major roles in that as well.

either way, not all crops is it as dramatic as corn is, but most staple crops Ive looked into have similar essentially untapped potentials. With conventional breeding its a looooong process. Im doing many such project myself by the way. With GMs in maybe 3-5 years they could likely do what might take me 20 or more to do myself. unless I get really lucky, because its a numbers things sometimes you get lucky and things line up well... Very obvious that building the best plants isnt the goal. For anyone that knows much about the untapped potentials anyway.

rambler · #47 10/19/12, 10:17 PM

I'm sorry - yes the parts I didn't quote, you had some interesting thoughts. If I may try to put in my own words, you'd be interested in GMO processes that create better corn, but only using corn DNA from start to finish?

We farmers would be all over a corn that produced 20 bu more per acre..... So, if it could be done, I think it would be done. But I donno, haven't been in the labs myself.

Couple of the seed breeders are working hard on a drought tolerant corn; big topic with the 2 drier years we've had. What little I know, it's so terribly hard to get the right traits to come out. You need to keep the stalk strong, you need to get the roots to suck up nutrients using less water, and so on.

But - I was curious on the Sun Dance company. My short searches show some older (pre-2000) sweet corn hybred with that name, but nothing about real corn, or anything relating to new corn hybreds?

--->Paul

Bearfootfarm · #48 10/19/12, 11:21 PM

Quote:

~sighs~ In the U.S., and other countries where they hold patent, Monsato blocked independent studies by claiming infringement and/or risk of industrial espionage.
In countries where the did not hold patent, they have blocked independent studies by causing funds to be withheld from the institutions that proposed such studies. (Research takes *money* after all.)

"SIGHS"
LOL
Who is this mysterious "they" that controls all the money in the world and why can't someone ELSE come up with the money for research?

Doesn't "independent" MEAN "independent"?

You're just making excuses, and not very good ones, since they are all recycled, but rarley proven

Bearfootfarm · #49 10/19/12, 11:31 PM

Quote:

However I do find it curious that companies are against labeling

It's not "curous" at all.
It's EXPENSIVE to label all products and meet all REGULATIONS.

If they mandated labeling tomorrow, you'd see EVERY product and commodity sold with a label that says "MAY contain GMO's", because there is NO WAY to be postive it's not there unless you keep it entirely seperate from normal marketing channels.

It really makes no sense to label it now anyway
Everyone KNOWS it's there unless you're buying "Certified Organic"

CaliannG · #50 10/19/12, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

"SIGHS"
LOL
Who is this mysterious "they" that controls all the money in the world and why can't someone ELSE come up with the money for research?

Doesn't "independent" MEAN "independent"?

You're just making excuses, and not very good ones, since they are all recycled, but rarley proven

"They" means "Monsato Corporation". "Independent studies" means studies NOT done, or directly or indirectly funded, by the corporation whose product is being studied.

It is not a new technique to block independent studies by greasing the right palms, from direct bribery of government officials, to threatening Universities with grant or funds withdrawels if they should pursue studies. The Tobacco companies did that a LOT in the 50's and 60's. Where have you been?

CaliannG · #51 10/19/12, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

It's not "curous" at all.
It's EXPENSIVE to label all products and meet all REGULATIONS.

If they mandated labeling tomorrow, you'd see EVERY product and commodity sold with a label that says "MAY contain GMO's", because there is NO WAY to be postive it's not there unless you keep it entirely seperate from normal marketing channels.

It really makes no sense to label it now anyway
Everyone KNOWS it's there unless you're buying "Certified Organic"

Ummm, there would be "MAY contain GMO" or "Contains GMO". There is a difference.

And just how expensive is it to add some ink to packaging? More expensive than adding the words "New and Improved"? Puh-LEASE!

Paquebot · #52 10/20/12, 12:17 AM

Little confused here. The company involved in the OP's thread is an Australian one which has been in the wheat business for many years. Monsanto is the "new kid on the block" when it comes to wheat. They've only been involved with wheat for about 3 years.

Martin

silverseeds · #53 10/20/12, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

Ummm, there would be "MAY contain GMO" or "Contains GMO". There is a difference.

And just how expensive is it to add some ink to packaging? More expensive than adding the words "New and Improved"? Puh-LEASE!

To me it is VERY telling that GM folks want people to believe this would be costly. If anything it hurts GM competition through added costs. It could only hurt GMs if consumers choose not to buy them.

We all know how pervasive these things are. GM products would simply write the new label, it would only be organic or conventionally grown non GM products that potentially need to prove they are GM free.

It wouldnt alter costs for GM companies besides maybe a one time cost of adjusting labels for the new info.

Pretty clear to me, they know some percentage or another would bypass their products to various degrees more then some of us do now.

Anyone believe they have proof labels would make GM products themselves cost more?

Jena · #54 10/20/12, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

You might want to look at the science a bit closer actually.

Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

The variety from this french study is literally consumed in our country today by both humans and animals.

This IS what the science is showing us.

Did you read the part where the rats also drank roundup everyday too? You cannot blame either roundup or the corn for the tumors since they fed the rats both.

Jena · #55 10/20/12, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by springvalley

Russia and 49 other countries, think about it. > Marc

I think the banning is mostly political. Yes, it's a popular notion, but they banning the import of much of our crops to protect their own agriculture.

silverseeds · #56 10/20/12, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jena

Did you read the part where the rats also drank roundup everyday too? You cannot blame either roundup or the corn for the tumors since they fed the rats both.

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

Perhaps the article was simply confusing. This link is to the actual study. The study would instantly be meaningless or rather wouldnt be conclusive whether it was GMs or RU if you were correct. One of these GMs naturally has trace amounts of RU.

Quote:

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Bearfootfarm · #57 10/20/12, 02:08 AM

[QUOTE]"They" means "Monsato Corporation". "Independent studies" means studies NOT done, or directly or indirectly funded, by the corporation whose product is being studied.
[/QUOTE]

Then "THEY" had no control over anything in foreign countries, and if "independent", there was really nothing to stop them from doing the research.

The actual reason most don't do it, is there aren't really any proven problems with GMO's in realistic studies

Half the rats got tumors, and they are INBRED RATS.
Many strains of lab rats are PRONE to develop breast tumors anyway:

Tumors and Spaying

Quote:

Wistar rats:

25.3% of females developed benign mammary fibroadenomas, 13.1% developed mammary carcinomas (Walsh and Poteracki 1994)
36% of females developed benign mammary fibroadenomas, and less than 7% developed mammary carcinomas (Poteracki and Walsh 1998)

Sprague-Dawley rats:

47% of female Sprague-Dawley rats developed mammary tumors. 12% of these tumors were malignant (Solleveld et al. 1986).
49% of female Sprague-Dawley rats developed mammary tumors (24 our of 49), 8.2% developed mammary carcinomas (4 out of 49) (Hotchkiss 1995)
71% of female Sprague-Dawley rats developed mammary tumors, of which 18% were carcinomas (Durbin et al. 1966)
76% of female Sprague-Dawley rats, most of which were benign fibroadenomas (Kaspareitt and Rittinghausen 1999)

Don't fall for hype when there is not enough data to be sure

Bearfootfarm · #58 10/20/12, 02:16 AM

Quote:

One of these GMs naturally has trace amounts of RU.

Totally false.
The plants DO NOT PRODUCE Roundup.
It means what they used had been SPRAYED with Roundup

It's statements like that which show many really don't know how GMO's work, but they are convinced they are "evil"

Quote:

NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation.

If it PRODUCED it's own Roundup, Farmer's would never have to spray a field again.
The corn would weed itself

Paquebot · #59 10/20/12, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

One of these GMs naturally has trace amounts of RU.

Are you certain that that is correct? It would have contained the genes to tolerate Roundup but not Roundup itself.

Martin

silverseeds · #60 10/20/12, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

Totally false.
The plants DO NOT PRODUCE Roundup.
It means what they used had been SPRAYED with Roundup

It's statements like that which show many really don't know how GMO's work, but they are convinced they are "evil"

If it PRODUCED it's own Roundup, Farmer's would never have to spray a field again.
The corn would weed itself

Oh I understand GMs just fine.

You mis interpreted me by the way. I meant they did not feed additional RU to them as the other poster thought. And of course they didnt. It was "naturally" there because it had been sprayed with it. personally I thought all this was obvious... Maybe thats just because i read a lot about these things, I dunno.

When did I say they were evil on their face? Oh wait i didnt. I in fact said I can see positive uses for them.

You also apparently havent read the results yet.

Quote:

"The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."

There were marked differences between the controls and those feed GMs. Are you guys even reading this stuff? Ive seen no indication any of the pro GM folks have even read the study yet.