See other Health Articles
Title: GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY LINKED TO STERILITY, INFANT MORTALITY
Source:
News With Views
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey130.htm
Published: Apr 26, 2010
Author: Jeffrey Smith
Post Date: 2010-08-19 21:39:36 by Original_Intent
Keywords: GMO, sterility, mortality, death
Views: 2644
Comments: 35
GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY LINKED TO STERILITY, INFANT MORTALITY By Jeffrey Smith "This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry. After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups. And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths - a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy. The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010) --so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email. He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals. Surov told The Voice of Russia, "Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly." He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died. Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile." The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples. Hair Growing in the Mouth Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters. "Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous." (The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting. Trust me, or look for yourself.) At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before. Preliminary, but Ominous Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how. In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're called "Roundup Ready." Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering. Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce. In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%. When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently. An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were. Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn. Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock. In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously. Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies. In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem! Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure. Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment. Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them." © 2010 Jeffrey Smith - All Rights Reserved
April 26, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine, farmfriend, CadetD, wudidiz, HighLairEon, TwentyTwelve, James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull, Horse, Lod, Kamala, Eric Stratton, HAPPY2BEME4UM, randge, X-15, scrapper2, AllTheKingsHorses, FormerLurker, Itistoolate, Esso, ratcat, Cynicom, abraxas, all (#0)
(((((Accidental or Intentional Ping?)))))
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Katherine Albrecht talks about this a lot on her GCN radio show.
#2. To: Original_Intent (#1)
Waiting too late to oppose tyranny has always led to bloodshed.
Hair Extensions Five Towns Merrick Manhasset Roslyn Massapequa Amityville Wantagh Farmingdale East Meadow Long Island, NY
#3. To: Critter (#2)
The faster Monsatan tries to bury it the faster stuff keeps coming out. I don't think I would be buying Monsanto's Shares at this point. However, I would like to see their management indicted.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#4. To: Original_Intent (#0)
#5. To: TwentyTwelve (#4)
That's about the size of it.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#6. To: Original_Intent (#0)
That was just the first few words of the article .... in essence, it is TOTAL BS CRAP based upon unfounded effort and supportive scientific characteristics of published work. Man ... you have a long way to go ... before using Newswithviews as a resource for your pseudo scientific crapola.
"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#7. To: buckeroo (#6)
Attaboy Buckie - Spin one for the Gipper. So, other than Argumentum Ad Hominem what facts and findings in the studies do you dispute? Name calling is not evidence. So what factual evidence do you have which disproves the findings of the studies? None? That's what I thought. That is why you immediately launch into personal attacks since you know that data to be true and you have no legitimate grounds upon which to dispute it or counter it. Distorting the language, quoting out of context, and attacking people via name calling is not a sound argument. It is simply more of your patented pissing on people's legs while you tell them it's raining.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#8. To: buckeroo (#6)
No so far as you, Monsanto whore..... For one thing, Buck, you claim GM crops use less water........this is bovine excrement!!! What they claim is less pestisides, if you buy ROUND-UP in bulk and an increased crop yield, which as NEVER been substantiated. What farmers get is LESS yeild while having to buy the herbicide. In fact, the GM crops use just as much, if not more water, with LESS yeild. Hence, 200K Indian farmers committing suicide. YOU have a long way to go.
Man ... you have a long way to go ...
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#9. To: Original_Intent (#7)
None? That's what I thought. That is why you immediately launch into personal attacks since you know that data to be true and you have no legitimate grounds upon which to dispute it or counter it. Distorting the language, quoting out of context, and attacking people via name calling is not a sound argument. It is simply more of your patented pissing on people's legs while you tell them it's raining. Assumptions again, O_I? When do you never stop? Did a chemtrail creep into your left ear .... and while swirling around within that vacuous area you call Original_Intent's personal single-celled, prefrontal lobe .... it all vacated out the right ear within a heart-beat? Damned those chemtrails! They are sneaky..... ROTFL
So what factual evidence do you have which disproves the findings of the studies?
"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#10. To: abraxas (#8)
That is truly complete bullshit. I'm not even going to mince words. GMO crops require MORE not less water. They REQUIRE the use of Monsanto's Round-up and the farmer has to sign a contract stating that he will use Monsanto's product and not some competitors. It is now DOCUMENTED that GMO crops produce a LOWER yield at GREATER expense than non-GMO. Organic production exceeds GMO production from the third year on and builds the fertility of the land not strip mining it of its nutrients thereafter requiring a heavy infusion of petro-chemical fertilizers which toxify the land over time and the run off pollutes aquifers, streams, rivers, and lakes. The only argument for GMOs is Monsatan makes a lot of money off them while everyone else receives the shaft.
For one thing, Buck, you claim GM crops use less water........this is bovine excrement!!! What they claim is less pestisides, if you buy ROUND-UP in bulk and an increased crop yield, which as NEVER been substantiated. What farmers get is LESS yeild while having to buy the herbicide.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#11. To: Original_Intent (#10)
Is Buckie getting a stipend from Monsanto nowadays?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#12. To: abraxas (#8)
As a poster in a chat-channel, I said that .. and stand by the same post you identified. I also want to point out that GMO characteristics lessen the arid farmlands for crop watering while reducing fertilization requirements within a CO2 mixture of gases. So, YOU don't understand with any precision what is occurring to feed a world-wide population base of seven Bn people (and climbing) while these GMO processes are occurring; and even the precise reason WHY. Crop yields are based on many attributes. You limited your discussion to what you read in a chit-chat channel without reference to real world documentation. Not true. The GMO plants are not promising the nutritious value of their harvested GMO crops based on the multi-national firms. That is why you see the lawsuits EVERYWHERE. You see, you can't have BILLIONS of people sucking the natural resources of the world. But before you see the TRUTH... you have to face FACTS ... not bunk.
... you claim GM crops use less water........this is bovine excrement!!!
What they claim is less pestisides [sic], if you buy ROUND-UP in bulk and an increased crop yield, which as NEVER been substantiated. What farmers get is LESS yeild [sic] while having to buy the herbicide.
In fact, the GM crops use just as much [water], if not more water, with LESS yeild [sic]. Hence, 200K Indian farmers committing suicide.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#13. To: Original_Intent (#10)
PROVE IT, palsie-wowsie, because you are quickly becoming a bore on your own thread.
GMO crops require MORE not less water.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#14. To: abraxas (#11)
He may well. Given the pattern of his posting subjects it is not impossible that Buckie works for a PR Agency on more than one contract. Either that or it is HEAVY drugs.
Is Buckie getting a stipend from Monsanto nowadays?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#15. To: buckeroo (#12)
The GMO plants are not promising the nutritious value of their harvested GMO crops based on the multi-national firms. Tell that to the 200K farmers who killed themselves because the crops left them nothing but debt. Why are you lying Buck? There is NO evidence that GM crops require less water. That isn't even the main selling point. They require less fertilization.......only because the farmer gets LESS yield. What part of that don't you understand? YOU limit your discussion, while I LOOK TO THE FACTS. Chit chat channel.......you are the star of that channel Buck. Your dishonesty is at a point of complete disgust. You cash your checks while screwing the world over.......it's pathetic. Which brings me to your quoted BS line right here. The GMO plants are PROMISING not the same but BETTER yields............only the farmer gets fucked in the end. But what care is that of yours? This is why organic farming in the US has gone from 3.7% in 1997 to 37% in 2010. It's all bullshit and the farmers know it........only you and Monsanto continue to lie about it.
Not true. The GMO plants are not promising the nutritious value of their harvested GMO crops based on the multi-national firms. That is why you see the lawsuits EVERYWHERE.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#16. To: Original_Intent (#14)
So next... BatBoy and Hillary are the reason for chemtrails?
Given the pattern of his posting subjects it is not impossible that Buckie works for a PR Agency on more than one contract.
Oh sure... your own mental projection about your own state of mind works BEST bring CRAP to a political forum?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#17. To: Original_Intent, christine, Critter, abraxas, TwentyTwelve, buckeroo, *ban buckeroo* (#16) (Edited)
lmao
#18. To: abraxas (#15)
In the modern world, a few heart-broken little farmers are not the issue for this thread. It is the HUGE multi-national or international SUBSIDIZED farming-industrial complex that sell their produce to you via the vast distribution outlets while you confidently count your pennies at the check-out stand, thinking you have a GREAT DEAL. As “Telly” Savalas once said.... "we love ya baby....."
Tell that to the 200K farmers who killed themselves because the crops left them nothing but debt.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#19. To: wudidiz (#17)
I have been thinking about the same for awhile since there is rarely a comment based on serious discussion... I subscribed to *ban buckeroo*!
*ban buckeroo*
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#20. To: buckeroo (#18)
The farmers who killed themselves WERE NOT SUBSIDIZED. The smart farmers in Haiti who said "no thank you" to GM crops were NOT SUBSIDIZED. Monsanto has lackies in key EPA positions and YOU to promote their propaganda, but turd world farmers aren't smokin' what you and Monsanto are rollin'. In fact, many US farmers aren't smokin' the BS anymore. I buy organic LOCAL produce, not Monsanto. You eat it, Buck. You are such the environmental BS con artist, Buck. GM crops have proven to ERODE THE SOIL to a far greater extent than organic crops while REQUIRING AS MUCH, IF NOT MORE WATER. It's a ponzi scheme to get farmers to buy herbicides that actually create RESISTENT WEEDS. You are such a fool!!
It is the HUGE multi-national or international SUBSIDIZED farming-industrial complex that sell their produce to you via the vast distribution outlets while you confidently count your pennies at the check-out stand, thinking you have a GREAT DEAL.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#21. To: buckeroo (#19)
You're in.
I subscribed to *ban buckeroo*!
#22. To: christine, buckeroo, All (#21)
Maybe we could have a vote?
I subscribed to *ban buckeroo*!
#23. To: Original_Intent, christine, abraxas, Critter, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, Former Lurker, HOUNDDAWG, Dakmar, noone222, All, *ban buckeroo* (#22)
Hereby inviting y'all to the new "ban buckeroo" ping list and possible online vote. Message your friends. Wouldn't want anyone to miss out....
#24. To: wudidiz, christine (#22)
It won't matter.... I'll come back as KLOWNKING... or some other alias..... I am afraid I am here forever for your viewing pleasure.
Maybe we could have a vote?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#25. To: buckeroo (#24)
#26. To: buckeroo (#24)
Since you're here, less talkey, more finding yukon's real name. You may as well be useful as well as ornamental.
It won't matter.... I'll come back as KLOWNKING... or some other alias..... I am afraid I am here forever for your viewing pleasure.
#27. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, abraxas, wudidiz, James Deffenbach (#13) (Edited)
I already posted a footnoted article on it a couple of days ago. As well as posting about a dozen links to you when you made one of your earlier dishonest assertions on toxic GMOs citing the adverse affects of and bad results from GM crops. You are simply a lying sack of shit that lies by habit and by rote. You have no interest in the truth and like all trolls you ignore and disregard anything not fitting your sick agenda. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "GM crops have higher yields, improved performances, and greatly reduce the use of agrochemicals. Farmers like them because they increase income." Lim Li Ching and Jonathan Matthews debunk these myths, documenting failures of GM crops around the world. Lower yields Thousands of controlled trials have shown significantly decreased yields with GM crops. A study based on 8,200 trials of soya varieties in US universities in 1998 [1] reports yield drags between top RR varieties and top conventional varieties averaging 6.7%. In some areas, best conventional varieties produced yields on average 10% higher than RR varieties sold by the same seed companies. In May 2000, results of a two-year study by Nebraska University’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources showed RR soya yielded 6% less than their closest non-GM relatives and 11% less than high-yielding non-GM varieties [2]. The yield penalty was attributed to the gene insertion process. Similar yield drags have been reported since 1997 * In 1997, the University of Purdue found that transgenic soya varieties yielded on average 12-20% less than unmodified varieties grown at the same locations [3]. In summary, yield losses, not yield gains, are more commonly associated with transgenic crops compared to best available conventionally-bred cultivars and hybrids [8]. Yield drag in soya is associated with problems in root development, nodulation and nitrogen fixation, particularly in drought or infertile conditions, as the bacterial symbiont responsible for nitrogen fixation is sensitive to both Roundup and drought [9]. Furthermore, there is a metabolic cost to expressing herbicide-resistance or the Bt-endotoxin. For example, levels of proteins responsible for plant defence responses are depressed following Roundup application. Although these are eventually restored to normal, pathogens quickly infect the plants in sub-optimal growing conditions. This forces a diversion of energy to repair damage, resulting in an essentially irreversible tax on yields. University of Minnesota economist Vernon W. Ruttan sums up: "Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the yield potential of crops" [10]. Yet, an indication of distorted perceptions was shown through an opinion poll of 800 farmers, most of whom (53%) chose RR varieties because of perceived higher yields than non-GM varieties. When actual data from their farms were analysed, exactly the opposite was found [5]. "It is interesting to note... that increasing crop yields was cited by over half the farmers as the reason for planting GM soya, yet yields were actually lower". Bt resistance and more pesticides The other big claim for GM crops is reductions in pesticide use. In reality, herbicide tolerant and Bt-transgenic varieties of GM crops are trapping farmers into more reliance on pesticides. Recently, hundreds of hectares of GM cotton fields in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, were destroyed by pests [11]. Officials said that there was "nothing to worry about", and a spokesperson from Monsanto (the GM Bollgard cotton seed supplier) asserted that "they are just larva which eat the leaves, but will not disrupt cotton production". But local farmers complained, pointing out that the supplier had claimed the cotton variety was resistant to all kinds of pests. What happens when GM crops fail to deliver on their promise of pest resistance? Farmers in Australia are now being advised to spray additional insecticide on Monsanto’s GM Bt cotton, INGARD, "under conditions of reduced INGARD plant efficacy" [12]. The latest official guidance [13] makes it clear that Bt cotton is in some circumstances failing to control the principal target pest it was introduced for, Helicoverpa armigera. Even when GM crops express pest resistance, there is little evidence of reduced pesticide use. This is borne out by data on transgenic cotton - although to date one fourth of American cotton is produced with genetically engineered Bt varieties, no significant reductions in the overall use of insecticides were achieved [14]. In fact, those insecticides that could be replaced by Bt cotton make up a minor proportion of the insecticides used. Similarly, with Bt corn, there is no independent evidence of a reduction in overall pesticide applications despite industry claims. Nor is there economic advantage in using Bt corn except in areas with very high pest infestation. Insecticide use on US Bt corn has in fact slightly increased, with insecticide targeting European corn borer rising from about 4% of acres treated in 1995 to about 5% in 2000 [15]. Herbicide use shows a similar picture. Although the cultivation areas of herbicide-tolerant cotton in the US have doubled annually over the past few years, herbicide use has shown little reduction. More revealingly, the sales of total herbicides that can be used with GM cotton have risen drastically since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant cotton [14]. While the Roundup Ready soybean system simplifies weed management, it entails 2-5 times more herbicide use than other weed management systems [1]. Tolerance to Roundup is emerging in several key weed species, contributing to increased chemical use. Unbiased field-level comparisons, drawing on official USDA data, show that RR soybeans require more herbicides than conventional soybeans, despite claims to the contrary [9, 15]. In 1998, total herbicide use on RR soybeans was 30% greater on average than on conventional varieties in six US states [9]. Analysis thus shows that RR soybean systems are ‘…not likely to reduce herbicide use or reliance. Claims otherwise are based on incomplete information or analytically flawed comparisons that do not tell the whole story’ [1]. And as for RR corn, USDA data suggest that in 2000, the average RR corn acre was treated with about 30% more herbicide than the average non-GM corn acre [15]. Worryingly, research from the University of Alberta has revealed the rapid creation of multiple herbicide resistant canola plants in Canada as a result of pollen flow over significant distances [16]. Cross-hybridizations occurred between a glyphosate-resistant variety and either glufosinate- or imidazolinone-resistant varieties. The evidence pointed to resistant gene movement via pollen flow from one field to another. Unusually, this occurred rapidly and multiple times, such that, through random crossing, certain plants showed triple resistance [17]. One of the triple-resistant plants was found over 550 m from the pollen sources, greatly exceeding the 100-m buffer mandated for seed producers. Reduced profits The greater expense of GM seeds and increased herbicide costs can already hit farmers’ pockets. Add to these the costs of yield drag and technology fees, and it is bad news for profitability. For example, the added costs for soya producers can be more than 12% of gross income per acre [1]. The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, interviewed 800 Iowa farmers in 1998 to determine if growing GM crops was more profitable [5]. Random surveys of 62 continuous cornfields, 315 rotated cornfields, and 365 soya fields concluded that the difference in profitability was non-significant for both crops. Thus, the farmers who raised GM crops did not gain any competitive edge. The first farm-level economic analysis of Bt corn, in demonstrating less net profit, lower corn prices, and lost corn exports, questions whether planting GM corn is worth the cost [18]. From 1996-2001, American farmers paid at least $659 million in price premiums to plant Bt corn, while boosting their harvest by only 276 million bushels - worth $567 million in economic gain. The bottom line for farmers is a net loss of $92 million - about $1.31 per acre. Furthermore, the US has foregone about 350 million bushels of corn export sales to the European Union since 1996/97 because the EU doesn't want GMOs. This is thus part of a triple negative for farmers - lost corn exports, lower corn prices and less net profit from Bt corn. Furthermore, while transgenic cotton varieties may make pest control easier, they are not always worth the added expense when it comes to yield and fibre quality. Research by the University of Arkansas shows that many conventionals are the highest yielding varieties [19]. Comparing the economics of a Bollgard/Roundup Ready variety with a conventional variety, "in a year when insect pressure was low… the farmer spent about $10 an acre less for insect control with the conventional variety than he did with the more expensive stacked gene variety". And can we put a price tag on the environment? Research points to the popularity of GM crops with many North American farmers because of their "convenience". A University of Nebraska report shows that farmers are using the technology to needlessly destroy weeds to get a "weed-free" field [2]. The study demonstrates not only reduced profits, but also destruction of biodiversity. Lessons from the South We would do well to draw on the experiences of farmers in the South. The viability of non-GM alternatives has been demonstrated in a review of 208 projects/initiatives from 52 countries, adopted by 8.98 million farmers on 29 million hectares of land in Asia, Africa, and Latin America [20]. Using a range of sustainable agriculture technologies - none of which involved GM – farmers have achieved yield increases of 50-100% for rainfed agriculture, and 5-10% for irrigated crops. Low-tech innovations by Southern farmers have boosted production [21]. For example, in East Africa, corn faces two major pests – stem borer and Striga, a parasitic plant. By planting a local weed (napier grass) that the stem borer prefers, pests are lured away from the corn into a honey trap – the grass produces a sticky substance that kills stem borer larvae. By planting another weed, Desmodium, between rows of corn, Striga won’t grow, as it is adverse to Desmodium. Pesticides are replaced by natural predators, and fertilisers by natural dung, crop wastes and plants that fix nitrogen from the air. Further, going organic, entailing a restriction in the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides while excluding GM technology, could be more beneficial for the economies of developing countries. The FAO has recently urged poor nations to boost exports of organic produce to take advantage of booming markets in developed countries [22]. Sustainable agriculture and organic farming are not a panacea. They however offer alternative approaches to GM technology that have been demonstrated to provide increased yields and more income, while remaining environmentally friendly. No myths about this. 1. Benbrook, C.M. (1999) ‘Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998’, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf
* Research published in 1998 by the University of Arkansas and Cyanamid revealed reduced profit levels and lower yields for GM soya and cotton compared with unmodified varieties [3].
* The University of Wisconsin found GM soya yields from the 1998 harvest lower than non-modified varieties in over 80% of cases in trials across nine US states [4].
* In Iowa, a 1999 survey of reported an average RR-soybean yield reduction of 4% in over 365 fields [5].
* A review of 40 trials of soya varieties in the north central region of the US by in 1999 found a mean 4% yield drag in RR soya [6].
* In the UK, reports of crop trials from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany show yields from GM winter oilseed rape and sugar beet 5-8% less than high-yielding conventional varieties [7].
2. University of Nebraska (2000) ‘Research shows Roundup Ready soybeans yield less’, IANR News Service,www.biotech-info.net/Roundup_soybeans_yield_less.html
3. See Griffiths, M. (1999) ‘The emperor’s transgenic clothes’, Are GMO lemmings in the US leading all of us over the biotechnology cliff? www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmlemmings.htm
4. See www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/wisconsinRRsoyatrials98.htm
5. Duffy, M. (1999) ‘1998 crop survey shows equal returns for GMO, non-GMO crops’, www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/9-22-99gmorel.html
6. Oplinger, E.S., M.J. Martinka, and K.A. Schmitz (1999) ‘Performance of transgenetic soybeans - Northern US’, presented to the ASTA Meetings, Chicago, cited in [8].
7. Reported in Farmers Weekly (UK), 4th December 1998.
8. Clark, E.A. (1999) ‘10 reasons why farmers should think twice before growing GE crops’, www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/10reasons.htm
9. Benbrook, C.M. (2001) ‘Troubled times amid commercial success for Roundup Ready soybeans: glyphosate efficacy is slipping and unstable transgene expression erodes plant defenses and yields’, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 4, www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html
10. 'Economist: Biotech has not made impact yet', Farm Progress, 21 November 2000.
11. See the Jakarta Post.com, ‘Pests attack genetically modified cotton’, 29 June 2001, www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20010629.A06
12. See www.biotech-info.net/Aussie_bt_cotton_problems.html
13. ‘Resistance management plan for INGARD® Cotton 2001-2002’, Transgenic and Insect Management Strategy (TIMS) Committee of the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association, www.cotton.pi.csiro.au/Publicat/Pest/IRMS/irms0102.htm
14. See Thalmann, P. & V. Kung (2000) ‘No reduction of pesticides use with genetically engineered cotton’, for WWF International, www.biotech-info.net/WWF_inter_update.pdf; and Thalmann, P. & V. Kung (2000) ‘Transgenic cotton: Are there benefits for conservation? A case study of GMOs in agriculture, with special emphasis on freshwater’, www.panda.org/resources/publications/water/cotton/transgenic.html
15. Benbrook, C.M. (2001) ‘Do GM crops mean less pesticide use?’ Pesticide Outlook, October 2001.
16. Hall, L.M., J. Huffman, and K. Topinka (2000), ‘Pollen flow between herbicide tolerant canola (Brassica napus), Weed Science Society of America Abstracts 40: 48, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Multiple-Resistant-Volunteers.htm
17. Westwood, J. (2001) ‘Cross-pollination leads to triple herbicide resistance’, ISB News Report [extract only] March 2001, covering Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Developments, www.biotech-info.net/cross_pollination2.html
18. See Benbrook, C.M. (2001) 'When does it pay to plant Bt corn: farm-level economic impacts of Bt corn, 1996-2001', www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/When_Does_It_Pay_To_Plant_Bt_Corn.pdf or http://www.biotech-info.net/Bt_corn_FF_final.pdf; press release from the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Benbrook_Bt_Press_Release.doc
19. See ‘Conventional vs. transgenic cotton’, edited by AgWeb.com Editors, 12/3/2001, www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?articleID=81926&newscat=GN
20. Pretty, J. and R. Hine (2001) ‘Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: a summary of new evidence’, Occasional Paper 2001-2, Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/CESOccasionalPapers/SAFErepSUBHEADS.htm
21. Pearce, F. (2001) ‘An ordinary miracle’, New Scientist, Vol. 169, Issue 2276, p. 16, 3 February 2001.
22. Brough, D. (2001) ‘FAO urges poor nations to boost organic food sales’, Reuters, 4 December 2001, www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13562/story.htm
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#28. To: wudidiz (#23)
Message your friends. Wouldn't want anyone to miss out.... LOL! I already banned that troll by putting him on my clown filter. It works very well too. And if people would just take my advice and ignore him and folks like aggravator to death they would go somewhere where their wisdumb would be appreciated. Or not but they wouldn't likely be here.
Hereby inviting y'all to the new "ban buckeroo" ping list and possible online vote.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#29. To: James Deffenbach, wudidiz (#28)
At this point Buckie serves the function of the old "town drunk".
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#30. To: Original_Intent (#27)
You need some basics before posting data that YOU don't know anything about. Here let me guide you onto some FACTS.... The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. What are genetically-modified foods?
As always, you post stuff you don't know about. YOU just think you do.
For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well.
Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) www.biotechknowledge.mons...biotech/bbasics.nsf/index or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/techniques .
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#31. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, Nostradumbass, abraxas, Critter, James Deffenbach, FormerLurker, wudidiz, IRTorqued, christine, farmfriend, all (#30)
For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) www.biotechknowledge.mons...biotech/bbasics.nsf/index or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/techniques . Hmmmmmmm? "Sniff, sniff, hmmmmmmmm?" Smells like? Looks like? Yes! It is! A steaming pile of whitewash. Ideally the results would be 100% predictable. However, the real world doesn't always work out as theory predicts. Genetically modified plants that produce their own pesticide to kill insects also pass that pesticide on to people and animals that consume the toxic produce. That is why the Bt producing potato was withdrawn - it made people sick. Other laboratory science by researchers independent of MONSANTO (the worlds largest producer of genetically modified seeds and hardly a disinterested party) have observed and reported results indicating adverse reactions as highlighted in the article I posted above on this thread which documents under controlled laboratory conditions those very same adverse reactions which skeptics of the technology have predicted. In fact, because there have been NO long term field trials and tests we do not know yet what OTHER adverse side effects may arise. And in the real world plants are not being "modified" to produce greater drought tolerance, but to make them herbicide tolerant and/or to produce pharmaceuticals within their flesh. And of course our old friend "Murphy" is present and accounted for as the changes made to change one gene, given the current state of the technology, affect other genes with unpredictable consequences. So, you can post all the industry PR you wish but it does not change a mutated sow's ear into Ludefisk, and as for your link it has changed and it now gives this message: Geeeeeeeeee Mr. Peepers I wonder if the largest producer of genetically modified Round Up Ready seeds might post bullshit to support their product line? As usual Buckmonster Fullofit you can produce nothing credible to support your shilling for the establishment interests who are making money off of human misery. Thankfully not everyone is as unimaginative, ill informed, misinformed, and slobberingly credulous as you are. The sales of Organically produced fruits and vegetables is in a steep upward climb. Unlike you other people are capable of looking objectively at the available data and drawing an intelligent conclusion.
The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#32. To: Original_Intent (#31)
LOL
The sales of Organically produced fruits and vegetables is in a steep upward climb.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#33. To: Original_Intent (#31)
I think some of your personal shenanigans are AWESOME. You are worth so many belly laffs I just can't thank you enough.
Hmmmmmmm? "Sniff, sniff, hmmmmmmmm?" Smells like? Looks like? Yes! It is! A steaming pile of whitewash.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#34. To: Critter (#2)
i like her a lot, she's one of my favorite radio hosts & liberty advocate. i used to listen to her show every day on wtprn. i also recently read spychips. those up on the rfid issue might not go to the trouble of reading it, but i highly recommend doing so. Did you ever hear her account of meeting ed brown during the standoff? in a nutshell, she was not impressed.
Katherine Albrecht
"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#35. To: Artisan (#34)
Nor was I. I went early on, drove right up to the house, walked in the garage and knocked on the door that leads into the house. I knew then that he was full of bull. :)
in a nutshell, she was not impressed.
Waiting too late to oppose tyranny has always led to bloodshed.
Hair Extensions Five Towns Merrick Manhasset Roslyn Massapequa Amityville Wantagh Farmingdale East Meadow Long Island, NY
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest