Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 5:12 PM
350 online now:
Aussie, jar, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 343 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,619 Year: 29,225/21,208 Month: 1,291/1,847 Week: 214/452 Day: 88/126 Hour: 3/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Monsanto - Bad Food, Good Capitalism
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 31 of 46 (816721)
08-09-2017 11:03 PM


Typical these days..
Monsanto at it again. This time they've colluded with an 'independent' investigation and had changes made to the final report.
Much of Europe has banned GMOs, am I to believe this is for no reason? With so much blatant corruption and evidence of Roundups toxicity, is it only the profit motive preventing the US from following suit?

Recently it was announced that western men's sperm counts have drastically decreased over the last 50 years, this correlates with increasing use of roundup ready crops.

It is notable that the steep decline in testosterone levels began just after the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops in 1994 with concomitant increase in glyphosate herbicides use on glyphosate tolerant GM crops. A comprehensive review article has blamed glyphosate for most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet including infertility [4], although the precise mode of action, at least in the case of infertility, remains unclear.

Roundup more damaging than glyphosate

There is already evidence that glyphosate is an endocrine disrupting chemical (see later), but the extent of the problem is far greater than it appears. Different glyphosate formulations vary in toxicity, mainly because some of them contain adjuvants that are either toxic by themselves, or else exert synergistic effects with glyphosate. It has long been known that Monsantos formulation Roundup, the most widely used glyphosate herbicide, is far more damaging than glyphosate itself (reviewed in [5] Ban GMOs Now, I-SIS special report).

Quote from this link.


Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2017 1:14 AM Riggamortis has responded
 Message 34 by caffeine, posted 08-11-2017 8:38 AM Riggamortis has responded
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2017 12:10 PM Riggamortis has responded
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 3:10 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10130
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 32 of 46 (816722)
08-10-2017 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Riggamortis
08-09-2017 11:03 PM


Re: Typical these days..
I think there are three separable issues here: GMOs in general, Monsanto as a company, and Roundup.

The science seems support GMOs being safe. However, the industry has done such bad PR on the subject and I think folks have reason to be suspicious.

I have an extremely negative opinion of Monsanto. I would also note that Roundup might well be a problem even if GMOs are 100 percent safe.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Riggamortis, posted 08-09-2017 11:03 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Riggamortis, posted 08-10-2017 5:09 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 33 of 46 (816730)
08-10-2017 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
08-10-2017 1:14 AM


Re: Typical these days..
Yeah, to clarify, I don't see GMOs as inherently bad. I'm looking forward to lab grown steak too. Engineering crops to withstand more pesticides, however, seems like a terrible idea before you even get to the science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2017 1:14 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1361
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 34 of 46 (816778)
08-11-2017 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Riggamortis
08-09-2017 11:03 PM


Re: Typical these days..
Much of Europe has banned GMOs, am I to believe this is for no reason?

No, that would be a silly thing to believe; and is not something anyone would suggest. But if the reason in question is 'this would be popular with voters' that doesn't tell us much about the scientific merits of the case.

And it's important to clarify what 'much of Europe has banned GMOs' means. The EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) has approved GM crops as safe; however under pushback from some member states they have allowed individual countries to opt out and ban the cultivation of crops that are approved by EU standards. Several have done do - most notably France and Germany. GM crops are grown in large quantities elsewhere in Europe however, such as Spain and Czech Republic.

Note the above only applies to the cultivation of GM crops. People eat food made from GM crops everywhere in Europe. If the real concern of those banning GM crop production is that consuming GM foods is bad for health, then they're idiots, since this is not being prevented.

Recently it was announced that western men's sperm counts have drastically decreased over the last 50 years, this correlates with increasing use of roundup ready crops.

Yes, but it also correlates with a dazzling variety of changes to our diets, lifestyles, healthcare and industrial practices. There is no legitimate reason to single out one specific in the absence of any causal mechanism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Riggamortis, posted 08-09-2017 11:03 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Riggamortis, posted 08-11-2017 8:30 PM caffeine has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 46 (816788)
08-11-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
12-28-2012 10:25 AM


quote:

Is anyone concerned that this company seems to have a monopoly on the US food supply?

The lack of necessary investments in research, via federal funding, is the reason that a private company is making such head way. Just like medical research is badly underfunded.

quote:

Californians seem to not like Monsanto very much.

New Yorkers are worse. And it isn't just the anti-Semitic crowd that hates Monsanto(though they sure have swallowed the propaganda and love to mouth off against GMOs), but in fact lots of people of all stripes.

They want labels for GMOs but don't ever care about the proliferation of foods spiked with artificial sweeteners (Sucralose causes DEADLY insulin resistance as an Israeli study showed). I guess the propaganda masters are trying to distract people from real issues. I sure would like to know what is in the food I eat. What foods have products that have been shown (in studies) to cause health problems.

We know that meat (especially red meat) causes TMAO proteins to proliferate in blood and it causes blood clots and strokes. Why do we care about outdated concerns about saturated fat when we now know that the blame it got for health problems was simply a case of often being at the scene of the crime (with meat itself being the actual criminal) though otherwise it isn't any different for your health from most other standard fats?

Why aren't products labeled when deadly meat ingredients are involved in the (hidden)contents.

Why aren't meat products labeled as a risk for lowering your L-carnitine bio-availability?

(nevermind the fact that the majority of the world's people claim to follow a religion that requires vegetarianism such as the 1st century Jesus religion and the Hindu religion)

This GMO obsession has to be some sort of mass psy-op experiment. That is my theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 12-28-2012 10:25 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11859
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 36 of 46 (816795)
08-11-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Riggamortis
08-09-2017 11:03 PM


Re: Typical these days..
evidence of Roundups toxicity

Where's the best evidence? I'm having trouble sifting through all the bullshit...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Riggamortis, posted 08-09-2017 11:03 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Riggamortis, posted 08-11-2017 8:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 37 of 46 (816814)
08-11-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Riggamortis
08-09-2017 11:03 PM


Re: Typical these days..
Riggamortis writes:

Much of Europe has banned GMOs, am I to believe this is for no reason?

It is for the same reason that some parents don't want their kids vaccinated.

With so much blatant corruption and evidence of Roundups toxicity, is it only the profit motive preventing the US from following suit?

Yeah, Roundup is almost as toxic as those childhood vaccinations.

Recently it was announced that western men's sperm counts have drastically decreased over the last 50 years, this correlates with increasing use of roundup ready crops.

Same thing was said about autism and vaccinations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Riggamortis, posted 08-09-2017 11:03 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2017 3:15 PM Taq has responded
 Message 43 by Riggamortis, posted 08-11-2017 10:02 PM Taq has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11859
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 38 of 46 (816816)
08-11-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taq
08-11-2017 3:10 PM


Re: Typical these days..
Yeah, Roundup is almost as toxic as those childhood vaccinations.

Am I misremebering? I though glyphosate was GRAS?

I tried googling it but came up short.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 3:10 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 3:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 39 of 46 (816818)
08-11-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
08-11-2017 3:15 PM


Re: Typical these days..
New Cat's Eye writes:

Am I misremebering? I though glyphosate was GRAS?

Same classification as vaccinations. There was a heavy dose of sarcasm in my last post that may not have made it over the interwebs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2017 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2017 3:44 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11859
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 40 of 46 (816821)
08-11-2017 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
08-11-2017 3:25 PM


Re: Typical these days..
New Cat's Eye writes:

Am I misremebering? I though glyphosate was GRAS?

Same classification as vaccinations. There was a heavy dose of sarcasm in my last post that may not have made it over the interwebs.

I didn't miss the sarcasm, I was just asking of glyphosate was GRAS or not...

I found the FDA's list of GRAS notifications and it doesn't appear to be on there, so I guess not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 3:25 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 41 of 46 (816834)
08-11-2017 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by caffeine
08-11-2017 8:38 AM


Re: Typical these days..
I clarified in my response to NN that my concern primarily regards roundup resistance as opposed to GM in general. That out of the way.

But if the reason in question is 'this would be popular with voters' that doesn't tell us much about the scientific merits of the case.

Ahh the old dumb voter dismissal, good one. Pretty hollow since you didn't actually tell me much about the scientific merits of the case either. A quick look at some of the literature does raise concerns, This paper takes a look at the benefits and risks of GMOs.

Unknown effects on human health: A recent articlepublished in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats [23, 24]. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flowerlectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals.

Why GM a known toxic substance into potatoes?

Caffeine writes:

Note the above only applies to the cultivation of GM crops. People eat food made from GM crops everywhere in Europe. If the real concern of those banning GM crop production is that consuming GM foods is bad for health, then they're idiots, since this is not being prevented.

In the EU, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or contains ingredients produced from GMOs, this must be indicated on the label.

From food.gov.uk. So all GMOs to a certain extent require labelling in the EU. A member state who bans local production of GMOs ensures access to local non-GMO products, further, due to labelling laws everyone has the ability to make the choice. You're basically calling them idiots for not being authoritarian enough, ironically if you ask me.

Caff writes:

There is no legitimate reason to single out one specific in the absence of any causal mechanism.

Correct, in case you hadn't noticed we're examining a potential causal mechanism right now. Forgive me if I am mistaken but aren't you in biochemistry or something? Perhaps you could use your knowledge to inform an ignorant pleb as to why exactly he shouldn't have any concern. I'm not quoting conspiracy websites here but genuine science as best I can tell, I'll need more than your word to counter the concerns raised by other scientists mate.

In America, there has been a substantial age-independent decline in testosterone that does not appear attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors including health status and lifestyle characteristics such as smoking and obesity. The estimated declines were larger than the cross sectional declines typically associated with age, as shown in Figure 1.

Science in Society Archive

There are studies which directly link Roundup to lower testosterone levels in other mammals. There are studies showing the direct impact of Roundup on human cells including reproductive cells. I concede that it is narrow minded to blame one thing entirely. It is dishonest to deny the real concern for causality in this case, however. Diets and lifestyles vary greatly among the population at any given time, Roundup use on staple crops impacts pretty much everyone regardless of their individual choices. It is therefore a more viable causal candidate for a trend which spans many lifestyle factors and age groups.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by caffeine, posted 08-11-2017 8:38 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by caffeine, posted 08-14-2017 12:56 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 42 of 46 (816836)
08-11-2017 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
08-11-2017 12:10 PM


Re: Typical these days..
This study is a more comprehensive replication of the "safety assurance study"

Here's is an image of the organs for visual comparison.

A picture is worth a thousand words and that picture is pretty damning if you ask me.

quote:

Ultrastructure of hepatocytes in male rats from groups presenting thegreatest degree of liver pathology. (1) Typical control rat hepatocyte(bar 2 μm except in 4). (2) Effects with Roundup at the lowestdose. Glycogen (G) is dispersed in the cytoplasm. L, lipid droplet; N, nucleus;R, rough endoplasmic reticulum. (3) Details of treatment effects with22% dietary GMO (bar 1 μm). a, cluster of residual bodies (asterisks); b,mitochondria show many enlarged cristae (arrows). (4) Hepatocytes ofanimal fed GM maize (GMO) at 22% of total diet. Large lakes of glycogen occurin the cytoplasm. M, mitochondria.


The WHO has declared glyphosate a 'probable human carcinogen' and here's a quote on deformed piglets.

Human epidemiological [23, 2931] and domesticated animal studies [32, 33] suggest associations between exposures to GBHs and adverse health outcomes. For example, congenital malformations have been reported in young pigs fed GBH residues-contaminated soybeans [32]. This suggests that GBHs may be at least a contributing factor to similar birth defects observed in human populations living in and near farming regions with substantial land area planted to GBH-tolerant GE crop cultivars [23, 34].

And one from the actual piglet study.

In spring of last year a Danish pig farmer brought 38 live borne but malformed one-day-old piglets into our laboratory because of extraordinary high percentages of malformations in piglets. It was reported an assumption about the possible causes of this incident. It was noticed that the rate of malformations increased to one out of 260 born piglets if sow feeds contain 0.87-1.13 ppm glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine) in the first 40 days of pregnancy. In case of 0.25 ppm glyphosate in sow feeds one of 1432 piglets was malformed.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2017 12:10 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-14-2017 1:45 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 43 of 46 (816840)
08-11-2017 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taq
08-11-2017 3:10 PM


Re: Typical these days..
So in short, because some authority in the home of crony capitalism has classified an extremely lucrative product as safe, anyone who questions it is the equivalent of an anti-vaxxer? Pathetic.

Here is a direct example of creationist 101 methods being used in the search to prove GMOs safe.

While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.

The analogy fits like a glove. To paraphrase "While we currently cannot really vouch for their safety due to the lack of standardised methods, we already know that they are safe and more effort is required to prove it."

You are welcome to ignore monsantos interference in the science and reporting on GMOs and all the other evidence against Roundup if you wish. You are further free to look down your nose at me for asking questions. Please do try to form an actual argument though, criticising the shallow arguments of arrogant pricks is too easy.

We also have the chief editor of the lancet making statements like this;

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, poor methods get results. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices.

I'll be damned if I'll stop questioning things and I definitely won't allow naive, hollow, condescending points of view to go unchallenged.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 3:10 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 3:32 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1361
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 44 of 46 (816990)
08-14-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Riggamortis
08-11-2017 8:30 PM


Re: Typical these days..
Ahh the old dumb voter dismissal, good one. Pretty hollow since you didn't actually tell me much about the scientific merits of the case either.

You were the one raising bans in France and Germany as evidence for the dangers of GMOs - my only point was that they are irrelevant to the argument. Governments do many things for bad reasons.

Unknown effects on human health: A recent articlepublished in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats [23, 24]. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flowerlectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals.

Well this is odd for many reasons. Firstly - the quoted sentence is a bit sloppily worded for a technical paper. This made me a bit suspicious about what it is you're quoting; and a bit of digging reveals that the Open Nutroceuticals Journal was edited by Ram B Singh; and published a large number of his papers as well. Ram B Singh is strongly suspected of fraud; and the journal prided itself on rapid peer review while charging authors to publish their work.

This seems like a roundabout way of saying they will publish any old shit if someone pays for it. The fact that another journal from the same publisher (Bentham) with the same publishing model accepted a completely nonsensical paper written by a computer program and attributed to a non-existent author tends to confirm this suspicion.

But the quality of the paper aside - that doesn't answer your question about why a potato would be altered to produce a chemical toxic to mammals. Thankfully, Wikipedia can answer that - it's because the lectin in question is toxic to some agricultural pests.

What is not clear to me (from the brief internet search I just did) is whether the lectin is known to be toxic to mammals. That's what the cited paper from the Lancet was looking into (that study is attributed to the wrong author's in the article you linked to, by the way). There's a second study in the same issue of the Lancet looking into the effects on human white blood cells. I can't find access anywhere, but the abstract simply recommends more study before incorporating this into the food supply. This doesn't sound like something *known* to be toxic.

Important to take away from all of this - the potato in question has never been sold commercially, though I don't know whether that's because of fears over it's health impacts or not. Either way, it's not relevant to Roundup.

From food.gov.uk. So all GMOs to a certain extent require labelling in the EU. A member state who bans local production of GMOs ensures access to local non-GMO products, further, due to labelling laws everyone has the ability to make the choice. You're basically calling them idiots for not being authoritarian enough, ironically if you ask me.

Embarrassingly enough, I didn't even know we had GM labelling requirements; and can't find it on any packets in my kitchen. Either there's less GM wheat in the food supply than I thought, or the rules are not followed consistently.

Correct, in case you hadn't noticed we're examining a potential causal mechanism right now. Forgive me if I am mistaken but aren't you in biochemistry or something? Perhaps you could use your knowledge to inform an ignorant pleb as to why exactly he shouldn't have any concern. I'm not quoting conspiracy websites here but genuine science as best I can tell, I'll need more than your word to counter the concerns raised by other scientists mate.

You are mistaken - you must be confusing me with another poster. I can make you a pretty analysis of price trends in the wheat market if you like, but that's the closest my professional expertise gets to biochemistry.

There are studies which directly link Roundup to lower testosterone levels in other mammals. There are studies showing the direct impact of Roundup on human cells including reproductive cells. I concede that it is narrow minded to blame one thing entirely. It is dishonest to deny the real concern for causality in this case, however. Diets and lifestyles vary greatly among the population at any given time, Roundup use on staple crops impacts pretty much everyone regardless of their individual choices. It is therefore a more viable causal candidate for a trend which spans many lifestyle factors and age groups.

I will try and find time to read that later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Riggamortis, posted 08-11-2017 8:30 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11859
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 45 of 46 (816998)
08-14-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Riggamortis
08-11-2017 8:57 PM


Re: Typical these days..
Thanks for the links. I'll read into it, but I immediately have a question, from the abstract of your first link:

quote:
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize(from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundupalone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) indrinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats

Is that supposed to be "Roundup alone in drinking water"? Like, were they giving the rats water with Roundup in it to drink?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Riggamortis, posted 08-11-2017 8:57 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017