Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetically Modified Corn – Safe or Toxic?
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Genetically-Modified-Corn-Safe-Or-Toxic.aspx ^ | Amanda Kimble-Evans

Posted on 03/29/2010 5:32:00 AM PDT by truthfinder9

Pick up a box of cereal or other packaged food at the grocery store, and chances are you’re looking at a genetically modified product. The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit organization that seeks sustainable alternatives to harmful methods of food production technologies, estimates that more than 70 percent of the processed foods in U.S. grocery stores contain some genetically modified ingredients — mostly corn or soy. But, in most cases, these modified foods have received only limited testing.

For example, take the three genetically modified corn varieties already being sold by Monsanto that are the subject of new analysis by French scientists. Two of the varieties have been genetically modified to contain unique proteins designed to kill insects that eat them, and the third variety was engineered to tolerate Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide. Foods containing this “modified” corn are now being eaten by people all around the world, but the French researchers contend that Monsanto’s studies do not prove the corns are safe to consume.

Under current U.S. law, corporations are not required to make industry-conducted studies public. But, in this case, thanks to a lawsuit and the involvement of European governments and Greenpeace attorneys, these studies were released for independent analysis by scientists not being paid by Monsanto.

The researchers, affiliated with the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (an independent, nonprofit association dedicated to studying the impacts of genetically modified organisms), published their detailed critique of the Monsanto studies in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (2009; 5:706-726). They concluded that the data — which Monsanto claimed proved the corn varieties were safe to eat — actually suggest potential kidney and liver problems resulting from consumption of all three modified corn varieties, as well as negative effects in the heart, adrenal glands and spleen. The findings confirm a 2007 report from the same researchers on a single variety of modified corn.

An Apple is an Apple is a Genetically Modified Apple The new report also concludes that the Monsanto rat-feeding studies were so small and so brief that they clearly lack sufficient statistical power to prove the corn varieties are safe. So, why did governments grant permission to farmers to grow this genetically modified corn? Back in 1992, the industry persuaded the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rule that their crops are “substantially equivalent” to traditionally bred crops. This assumption — that genetically modified foods pose no particular risk — has led to our current system of weak regulatory oversight.

According to the nonprofit Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a project designed to facilitate dialogue about the pros and cons of genetic modification, “No single statute and no single federal agency govern the regulation of agricultural biotechnology products.” And, compared with the battery of tests demanded of chemical pesticides (evaluation of chronic exposure, carcinogenicity, etc.), the testing requirements for genetically altered crops amount to little more than a polite suggestion

“The corporations can pretty much submit whatever they want to the FDA,” says Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists. “Some have done animal testing, some have not. The United States does not require more than acute toxicity tests where one high dose is fed to the animals once. Even in Europe, where standards are higher, tests of only 90 days are the longest that are required, which is inadequate.”

While the FDA is charged with ensuring finished products containing the modifed proteins are safe to eat, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates the pesticidal protein engineered into the corns. The agency can grant exemptions to even a minimal request for testing, which they did for two of these corn varieties — varieties that produce their own pesticides and that show signs of toxicity in the new feeding studies. The new study from France concludes that the public is consuming modified corn varieties which “contain novel pesticide residues” that may pose grave health risks.

“Roundup residues present in one genetically modified corn are much higher than those found to cause toxicity in human embryonic cells and endocrine disruption,” says Gilles-Eric Seralini, one of the study’s researchers. To learn more, read Roundup Kills More Than Weeds.

Confidential Science In allowing industry to drive the regulation of the technology from which it profits, we are now faced with a reality in which never-before-consumed foods are considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof has been dumped on a scientific community that has to beg and litigate to gain access to what the genetic modification giants call “trade secrets.”

The only solution to this situation is for scientists who work in this field and concerned citizens to demand that the government stop allowing corporate gene giants to have their way. We need laws that require corporations to make their studies public and provide seeds to independent scientists. And, we need laws that require the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients, so consumers can make informed choices.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: agriculture; corn; genetics; gmfood; health; innovation; landofplenty; starvation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: truthfinder9

bump


41 posted on 03/29/2010 7:55:35 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
I guess it must be safe - everyone's been eating it for years, and not even the uber-fascist liberals at greenpeace can find any statistically significant deaths to link to it. Of course, no liberal ever let something as petty as the facts stand in the way of a good ideological attack.

Servitude with a Sneer III, small
42 posted on 03/29/2010 7:57:40 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
I don't mean to pick at your story, but farmers don't plant open pollinated corn.

What do you mean by that? All the corn I ever topped was cross-pollinated, but this was 30 years ago, so my memory has faded.

43 posted on 03/29/2010 7:58:34 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (The townhalls were going great until the oPods showed up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9


Genetically Modified Corn – Safe or Toxic?

Just my $0.02...

The GM food should be checked for safety; in the case of corn/maize
only a few trillion test have been run by consumers that eat it
every day of the year.

But rigorous monitoring should be a part of vetting these materials.

And good labeling should be part of the program.

On the other hand...
I can’t help but wonder if some of the GM-food critics are hoping
their shares in Whole Foods, etc. will go up...and short companies
that utilize GM food in their products.

Just call me cynical.


44 posted on 03/29/2010 8:01:25 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

The study done was done by NGOs that are gunning for GM ag products and the studies are total BS.

I know one of the developers of Round Up and our casual conversations about the chemical lead me to believe that these studies have no basis in facts.

Round Up is a solvent for chloraphyll and that is all it is.

The idea that Round Up would show up in corn ears is absurd. It is water soluble and it disappears during the first rain after application.

This is pure fantasy.


45 posted on 03/29/2010 8:06:58 AM PDT by texmexis best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
The accidental cross pollination of corn having a particular genetic trait with corn not having that trait would only create a second generation of corn with that trait if the corn was raised as seed corn. Farmers don't raise their own seed corn because, while the Round-Up Ready trait may be inheritable, most other desirable traits are not.
46 posted on 03/29/2010 8:06:58 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Antibiotics.

No. Improved sanitation is the biggest contributor. Antibiotics help, but they are not the major source of longer lives.

47 posted on 03/29/2010 8:07:22 AM PDT by Ditto (Directions for Clean Government: If they are in, vote them out. Rinse and repeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
HOWEVER, humans have not been modifying crops to make them toxic to insects through protein modification, modification that has been shown in LONGER tests than those done by Monsanto to have Hepatotoxity.

Selective breeding methods of crops to achieve disease resistance has been going on for thousands of years. Modern genetic modification techniques now allow for the same results in a much shorter period of time. There is no credible scientific evidence to show that the ingestion of GM products is harmful to human health or the environment.

Monsanto has done some interesting things, ranging from safety tests that are just funny, to some lobby efforts that are exceedingly questionable (like using their lobbying power, both parties, to try and push through Bovine Somatotropin in milk. Bovine Somatotoprin is a sythentic compound used to boost milk production, with the hormone really improving milk yields.

Monsanto is an industry dynamo that is creaming their competition. No one in the industry can touch their R&D. For some reason, people like to demonize success. How anyone can criticize this company for creating a method for increasing milk production, or overall food production, is a mystery. Norman Borlaug argued for genetic modification of food and saved hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, from starvation. He had to deal with the same fear mongering by people who held a fraction of his knowledge. Thankfully, he prevailed and became the most famous American no one ever heard of.

The issue is that it has been tied with various types of cancers

People fear things they don't understand. bST is naturally produced by a cow's pituitary gland and is no different than the synthetic hormone dairy cows are injected with. Although it does increase the amount of Insulin Growth Factor (IGF) in milk (IGF is the hormone linked to the cancer you mention) this IGF is digested like all other dietary proteins and any hormonal activity is destroyed in the process. It poses absolutely no risk. If these claims were true, then human colostrum, human breast milk and, in truth, all milk would cause cancer.

Monsanto is no shrinking violet and has stood up to the toxic terrorists and other assorted and sundry enviro-whackos who would ruin a great American company. They do all of this while outperforming the competition in a tough industry. For that, they deserve admiration. They wouldn't be so successful if they weren't delivering products and services people wanted. The anti-industry whackos don't understand this important point. Monsanto, and all companies like them, should be defended by conservatives against those who would vilify them, and vilify industry in general.

48 posted on 03/29/2010 8:14:36 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM

First, I’m not a ‘greenie’. Many of my friends call me ‘attilla. However, there are other reasons to take a closer look at GM foods;

GMO Seed Prices Skyrocket and Justice Department
Investigates Monsanto for Antitrust Violation

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1686&category=Environment

“Control the oil,you control the nation. Control the food, you control the people.” Henry Kissinger


49 posted on 03/29/2010 8:15:42 AM PDT by maine yankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Irisshlass

You realize, don’t you, that you get ten times more glutamate from naturally occurring sources than you do from added sources? You could stop eating and totally avoid it but dying ain’t much of a living.


50 posted on 03/29/2010 8:23:19 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BobMV
“Roundup residues present in one genetically modified corn are much higher than those found to cause toxicity in human embryonic cells and endocrine disruption,” says Gilles-Eric Seralini, one of the study’s researchers. This is weed killer. This is a new thing in the world.

I was going to say "Well, just dont feed any to embryonic cells." But that would miss the opportunity to say that the above is a buncha hooey.

Considering the threshold of data needed to alarm most readers "buncha hooey" should suffice.

51 posted on 03/29/2010 8:46:51 AM PDT by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mase

“You realize, don’t you, that you get ten times more glutamate from naturally occurring sources than you do from added sources? You could stop eating and totally avoid it but dying ain’t much of a living.”

Why would you want to avoid glutamate? It is an essential amino acid for protein synthesis.


52 posted on 03/29/2010 9:16:41 AM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mase
PLEASE respond to the part where I mentioned about Monsanto lobbying for producers of organic milk to be BANNED by the state from labelig their milk as syntheic hormone free. In your long response calling for Conservatives to stand by Monsanto you forgot to address that perspective. As I mentioned in my post, if people want to drink milk from cows that have been given Bovine Somatotropin (and please do not confuse me with the mindless plebs who cannot differentiate between te effect of IGF in infants - beneficial - and in non infants - increased cancer risk) ...anyways, as I was saying, if people want to drink the milk that is fine by me. Drink straight from the udder for all I care! It's a free world and you can put whatever you want in your own body. HOWEVER I aim organic (and I have more than enough money to be able to pay for what I can track farm to fork), thus I have a major problem when a company exerts major lobbying power (to both parties) to have States remove the choice from customers to buy hormone free milk by trying to BAN such labeling, and then having one of their spokespeople claiming that people are not educated enough to be given such a choice.

Hey, if I do not want to drink milk from cows given bovine somatotropin, and I buy from producers who do not do that, you may (or may not - who knows) understand why I may not be too hot about a COMPANY trying to negate my ability to choose. If Obama doing that is wrong, what makes a company any better?

Please answer that for me since 'conservatives should support Monsanto.'

53 posted on 03/29/2010 9:18:26 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
PLEASE respond to the part where I mentioned about Monsanto lobbying for producers of organic milk to be BANNED by the state from labelig their milk as syntheic hormone free.

Why should organic milk producers be allowed to make a distinction without a difference? Organic milk already contains bST. Synthetic bST is no different than naturally occurring bST. Is it the job of the FDA to create alarm where none exists just to benefit organic milk producers? Should organic milk producers be allowed to claim their product is more healthy than non-organic milk when there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a claim?

In your long response calling for Conservatives to stand by Monsanto you forgot to address that perspective

Industry protecting their customers from ignorance isn't a part of the conservative perspective? We need government to do that since business is inherently evil? I don't understand.

As I mentioned in my post, if people want to drink milk from cows that have been given Bovine Somatotropin

Why does it even matter? There are people who want access to all sorts of information related to food. Just how much information and differentiation do you need? Do you need to know what kind of feed is used? It makes a difference in the chemical composition of the final product after all. How about knowing the type of dairy cow the milk came from? Jersey cow milk offers a higher fat content and will include a greater amount of naturally occurring trans fats. Trans fats are dangerous, doncha know. There are toxic chemicals in marigold petals yet some chicken producers use them as feed to give the birds a more desirable color. Where does it end?

and please do not confuse me with the mindless plebs who cannot differentiate between te effect of IGF in infants - beneficial - and in non infants - increased cancer risk)

Uh, now you're sounding just like one of those mindless plebes. Maybe you can explain how IGF causes cancer when all hormonal activity is destroyed during digestion. With no hormonal activity you're left with, well...nuthin'.

HOWEVER I aim organic (and I have more than enough money to be able to pay for what I can track farm to fork)

Farm to fork. Sounds real good doesn't it? I could waste hours explaining to you why organic is a scam and, in truth, results in foods offering higher risks to consumers rather than lowering the risk. That would be a waste of my time, wouldn't it? You are free to spend your money as you see fit. I know more than a few people who live paycheck to paycheck but wouldn't think of buying anything other than the higher priced organic products they've convinced themselves they need. Organic is good in that it supports the local and small producers who cannot compete with the Ag giants. That's about it.

thus I have a major problem when a company exerts major lobbying power (to both parties) to have States remove the choice from customers to buy hormone free milk by trying to BAN such labeling

Wow, an American industry lobbying to protect it's business and their consumers from fears based on junk science. What's the world coming to? Given how industry friendly government is, I'm sure the states are doing this to protect the big, bad Monsanto and subject their citizens to the evils of BST and the cancers that result. Sure.

I buy from producers who do not do that, you may (or may not - who knows) understand why I may not be too hot about a COMPANY trying to negate my ability to choose.

No one is trying to negate your ability to choose. That's hyperbolic nonsense. Any lazy-assed American can find out who produces the milk for any particular retailer and call the dairy to find out if they use bST. Or, they can call organic dairies supplying a particular market to learn the same information. People believe all sorts of silly things and most of it is based on scientific ignorance or the alarmism created by businesses or people who stand to benefit in some way from an alarmed public.

If Obama doing that is wrong, what makes a company any better?

Obama has declared war on private industry. The reasons are clear. When conservatives join him in demonizing industry, based on junk science or outright lies, who will stand up for industry if not conservatives? There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support any of the nonsense you've posted on this thread. To demand this and that of industry based on a total lack of evidence is a joke. I'm just pointing it out.

54 posted on 03/29/2010 10:10:46 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead
Why would you want to avoid glutamate? It is an essential amino acid for protein synthesis.

My point exactly. People wring their hands over glutamic acid from added sources ignorant to the vast amount they receive from the food they eat every day. Never made much sense to me but there it is.

55 posted on 03/29/2010 10:12:45 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mase
You realize, don’t you, that you get ten times more glutamate from naturally occurring sources than you do from added sources? You could stop eating and totally avoid it but dying ain’t much of a living.

MSG or glutamates in general? Is there a difference?

56 posted on 03/29/2010 10:49:20 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (The townhalls were going great until the oPods showed up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Irisshlass
Ignore the dumb-asses on this thread. There are plenty of Conservatives who are concerned about the crap that is put into our food & water. Our water is polluted (residue of medications found in our water supply); our food is tampered with (calcium in orange juice; vitamins pumped into other foods); there are hormones in meat and milk; pesticides on fruits & vegetables; etc etc...

Conserve-atives SHOULD be concerned!

57 posted on 03/29/2010 12:05:08 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (Message to the Feds: Get your stinkin' mitts off my vitamins!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Mother Earth News
58 posted on 03/29/2010 12:35:59 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp

Oh, isn’t that clever. Anyone who actually knows something about crop production is a “dumbass”. By that level of discourse, you have pretty well conceded the field.


59 posted on 03/29/2010 12:49:50 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

So I guess you thought I was specifically talking about you. I guess the shoe fits, then.


60 posted on 03/29/2010 1:01:08 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (Message to the Feds: Get your stinkin' mitts off my vitamins!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson