More on wheat-the GMO kind

This experiment should be redesigned and repeated in several independent laboratories.

It was completed in 2010 so should have had time to do it again. And even if it had been properly designed .... it needs to be repeated in several laboratories.

.... that is protocol for scientific method

Lol. This arguing could be much reduced if the manufacturers creating these GMO seeds, foods, food products, food-like substances that we "Mericans lap up were simply labeled as such. Of all the B.S. that companies like Monsanto do to make a profit, their resistance to labeling their "products" as GMO irks me the most. The only words that I can think to describe them are douche-bag money-grubbing weasels.
One thing I try to remember is the actions of these companies helps me further prepare, prep, learn homesteading skills like saving seeds, growing and preserving my own food and try my best to not participate in Monsanto's little plan to take over our food supply.
Sometimes cheaper and easier is not best.

Read the conclusions of the study. Basically this study was a small one showing a "likely" "very likely" level of conclusion. Those involved want a larger more involved study, that includes 3 species of mammals and if possible multiple generations. Further study might show a lower (or higher) level of damage then this smaller one did, but considering the level of difference between the control group even at only 1/4 as bad as this small study suggests wed still be talking major issues.

Now for ME personally, I believe, literally down to individual varieties should be tested in an intricate multi generational study. We should label them either way. If they are truly superior and healthy after that, people will buy them. Honestly Im not sure why this seems so bad to so many.

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

The poor correlation of dosage to cancer incidence is indicative of random variation.


Also the study needs to be duplicated in several other labs to remove any suspicion of hanky panky.

This ^^^^^. If GMOs are all that great and wonderful and good, then people will WANT to buy them, and will flock to the "Contains GMO" label, right?

__________________
Peace,
Caliann

"First, Show me in the Bible where it says you can save someone's soul by annoying the hell out of them." -- Chuck

90% of the consumers will not even read the label when the buy food. I'm not against labeling. Look how long the "organic" label has been around and if it was that much better that's all there would be now.

Bob

More expert critique or the study

Science Media Centre - gm_maize_rats_tumours

I've been thinking about the GMO wheat thread and how many acres of GMO wheat are out there? I live in one of the highest dry land wheat producing areas of world, if not the highest producing. I know my neighbors don't grow GMO wheat and I haven't heard of anyone in the county growing any.

And for the record Montsanto is just a small fish in the pond when it comes to crop breeding.

Bob

Monsanto owns a BRAND of the herbicide, glyphosate. So what? Many other companies make glyphosate, why no pile on them? Why not bayer? Nufarm? dow? You DO NOT have to purchase monsantos brand of glyphosate to spray RR crops. You can use any glyphosate. Monsanto is not the only maker of glyphosate...

RR crops can be sprayed with MANY herbicides used on conventional cultivars. There are more options when using rr crops, not less. There are MANY reasons to choose a certain variety, not simply for the rr gene. Some varieties have better yields in a given climate zone, some have better lodging resistance, shatter resistance, shorter maturities, better heat tolerance, better cold tolerance. There are hundreds of choices for the farmer to make, and whether it is rr of not, is not always the first reason a farmer will choose a specific variety.

Your last statement is utterly false, sorry. If you do not use rr crops, either use another herbicide anyway, or rely on tillage only to kill weeds (organic). Burning more fuel, allowing more erosion, and massacring the soil in the process. If organic, you are also allowed no fertilizer useage, other than manure (which once in the soil is exactly the same a chemical fertilizer, once the conversion to plant available nutrients is complete). You imply that rr crops would yield less than conventional crops, in the absence of glyphosate. Also not true.


Glyphosate, which once again the farmer is under no obligation, and does not have to use monsanto's version, unlike what you imply here, is very cheap as well. It costs WAY less than using soil killing tillage. It is very cheap indeed. You imply that monsanto has a corner on the glyphosate market, and that glyphosate is expensive. It is WAY cheaper than the conventional herbicides available, not more costly.

Just clearing a few things up.

Cheers,

Dale

Yeah, and then lied about it! lol
And got the sympathy of the removed three generations from the farm folk of the world!!!

How do they keep weeds down if they don't till more?

Wouldn't it take more time if they have to thoroughly clean equipment before harvesting ?

Did you know he's REQUIRED to plant fields of NON GMO corn if he uses certain varieties of seed?

If I ever got straight answers to my questions, I wouldn't need "the last word"

But mostly what I see is the same old "studies" and misinformation every time this subject comes up.

The study made a big deal about "tumors"
Monsanto said the rats were prone to tumors

The "Health Ranger", said "Monsanto talked about a different strain, we used Harlan SD rats"

Here are the rats they used
Note that it's NORMAL for nearly half of them to get tumors, and it can go as high as 76%:

Here's another study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036865

They used rats that NATURALLY get tumors, and thereby lose all credibility

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

There is no gm wheat in north america. Or europe, or asia, or africa, or south america, or anywhere in the world. It has never, and probably never will be released for commercial production. australia, which exports 80 % of its wheat produced, has two tiny field tests of a gm wheat. So the answer is 0 acres are gm here. And generally the farmers here have little interest to have gm wheat, at least rr wheat, as there are already many good herbicides for this crop, and adding too many crops with rr genes technology could wreak havoc with crop rotations by making it harder to kill volunteer crops, and make it much more expensive for we as farmers.

Washington state produces high per acre yields in some regions, but rank number six in wheat producing states. I am not sure if you mean per acre, or total production, but it is a pretty small producer of wheat in the world, or north american scheme of things.

You are very correct about monsanto being one of many fish in the breeding and crop input pond. They are just so easy to attack though!!!

As previous reply stated, there is no need for RR wheat. And there's little need for Bt wheat. Therefore we can't find anyone who is working on developing any. There is work being done to engineer more drought resistance and those lines will probably be available in 10-15 years. Anyone who followed this year's drought should agree that such new varieties will be warranted. There were corn varieties which weren't around 20 years ago and which produced better this year than anything from that period and it wasn't from RR or Bt genetics. It was done by working with existing genes. That's the same way the new and better strains of wheat are being developed. The summer of 2012 was a good example of a need for such things.

Martin

Like a lot of new procedures popping up today, nobody knows the long term effects of them. When I say long term, I mean generational or even over the course of 40 years, which is in fact generational for both humans and other species.

Take for instance Lasix eye procedures. Relatively new and promising surgical correction for many forms of vision problems. But it is a new procedure, new enough that while the short term look for many is very promising, no body knows what effects it is going to have on people's vision as they age. Many do not have any problems at all. They see perfect or their vision is much improved. If you are in your twenties or thirties, that is a BIG plus but what is going to happen to your vision when you are in your 60s or 70s? The procedure has only been around for about 20 years so nobody really knows.

The same with GM grain. if the studies are factual they are throwing up red flags everywhere, enough that if I knew that I was eating a product with GM grain in it I would probably avoid it. But long term effects known and unknown need to be taken into account with anything.

Interesting bi-note on vaccines. I was in an Amish store one day and somebody had pinned a flier on the community bulletin board asking people if they realized that if they got vaccinations they were injecting 'pus' into their children? The Amish avoid vaccinations like they were light bulbs. They also regularly have outbreaks of Whooping Cough in the community.

Nothing is without risk in this life, the question is, what risks are you willing to take?

__________________
I'm in my own little world, but it's ok. They know me here!

Disclaimer: I am a college graduate with above a 3.5gpa. Biologist for those wondering. I just haven't been able to explain the following;

Women of child bearing age have better access to superior diet and prenatal care than ever before and our children are subjected to the same level of healthy living and yet,

We see a level of autism never before seen in history.
We see a significant increase in potentially deadly food alergies.


Despite the increased level of care and the main differences I have seen is a decrease in physical activity which I can't connect to either of the above and changes in diet which I can connect to the above.

What triggered the change?

Good point OkieDavid. One difference you didn't take into account is all the processing that is done to our food and all the extra ingredients. All kinds of additives for preservation, texture, color, flavor, etc. If you buy anything in a can, box, bag, etc., you are getting much more than the meat, vegetables and grains that the food company started with. And even though these food additives have been tested for safety, I wonder if any testing has been done on additive A in combination with additive B, etc.

__________________
It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with the simple pleasures and to be cheerful and have courage when things go wrong.
Laura Ingalls Wilder

The first time just creates a precident. I'm not willing to sit back and see how many more times it's allowed to happen. Fool me once-shame on you .....

Agreed-and this is why Monsanto and the likes are totally out of control.

BUT-labeling can slowly start to open the eyes and couple that with someone who questions all the sick kids and perhaps change can happen. Someone is scare to label it-no matter how few people read labels. A quick search will give you corporations that are against Prop 37 and spending MILLIONS to confuse consumers in CA, lying to them and scaring them into thinking labeling will cause the price of food to skyrocket.

The same could be said for alfalfa, today.
Give it a few years and compare it to GMO corn and soybeans. The % of GMO crops for both is near the 90% mark if not more. Organic corn or soybean-or heck, even conventional without the organic label-is hardly even around anymore.

I think you might confusing "well fed" with "well nourished". Just because we are not starving as a general rule in this country, we are definitely lacking in nutrition. You can LOOK at people and see that they are under nourished. Other than being obese, the vast majority of dental problems represent malnourishment. Children have dark, sunken eyes, thin shallow faces, young to mid-aged men and women are balding, autoimmune diseases are out of control (why would a properly nourished body attack it's self?), bones are fraile, cancer is rampant, (Cancer Is Not A Disease - It's A Survival Mechanism: Andreas Moritz: 9780976794424: Amazon.com: Books) mental capacity is low in children and adults .... yet no one is going hungry. Low fat, high grain diets are not proper nourishment.

Couple that with the onslaught of chemicals delivered to our bodies daily, from soap, shampoo, lotion, fancy smelling candles, Plug-Ins, drugs, vaccines (which don't list peanut oil as carrier oils yet are injected into babies-causing a rise in peanut allergies), flouride and other chemicals in the water, pesticides in the food, fake lighting in the office, recycled unfresh air, sitting in traffic on the way home to sleep on the mattress that is off gassing fire retardant chemicals in pjs sprayed with the same chemicals ... you may have a idea of what is killing us.

But what do I know? I quit junior college 3 times before I decided I wasn't smart enough for formal education and fancy French studies. I'm just a scaredy cat, crazy "back to nature" momma bear who's trying to keep my kids alive with old fashioned ideas.