Monsanto Wins World Food Prize

A Primal Nut

It should be the other way around. If their seeds cross-pollinate on on other farmers crops, Monsanto (and their customers) should be the ones who have to pay compensation.

Seaneh

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It should be the other way around. If their seeds cross-pollinate on on other farmers crops, Monsanto (and their customers) should be the ones who have to pay compensation.

I agree entirely.

My problem with GM foods isn't safety to the public, it's to do with the ridiculous notion of patenting life and what that means in practice.

If unversities/research centres/whoever developed GM crops with high yeild/low failure/whatever and made them available for people to plant (and save seed etc) that's great, hopefully that happens.

Companies like Monsanto are out to create monopolies and force out family farmers.

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

I agree entirely.

My problem with GM foods isn't safety to the public, it's to do with the ridiculous notion of patenting life and what that means in practice.

If unversities/research centres/whoever developed GM crops with high yeild/low failure/whatever and made them available for people to plant (and save seed etc) that's great, hopefully that happens.

Companies like Monsanto are out to create monopolies and force out family farmers.

But the problem is, how do we encourage research without these hugely profitable patents?

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But the problem is, how do we encourage research without these hugely profitable patents?

The idea that patents encourage research is a massive fallacy.

Open source research is the most productive system on the planet.


Read what Stuart Macdonald has to say about it here.

steddyeddy

GM has prevented blindess and other diseases related to nutritional deficits for years. GM crops will also combat crops problems relayed too human causes such as them decline of the honey bee. Web needs GM crops and if Monsanto enhanced global crops production thats not a bad thing.

Saying that I would be against the total privatisation of crops production despite its benifits.

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

The idea that patents encourage research is a massive fallacy.

Open source research is the most productive system on the planet.


Read what Stuart Macdonald has to say about it here.

I don't have time to read all of that, why is it a fallacy?

FouxDaFaFa

The first time I heard about Monsanto was from watching a documentary, Food Inc.

To say they came across poorly is an understatement. They were crushing small farmers with million dollar lawsuits, knowing that even though the farmers had legitimate cases, they would be bankrupted before it made it to court. There's no humanity to them.

Coupled with the recent "ag-gag" bills, it's all very disturbing.

steddyeddy

By the way guys the Supreme court ruled against the patenting of human genes. Based one that decision it could soon be illegal to patent all genes.

Edit: Genes associated with breast cancer.

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't have time to read all of that, why is it a fallacy?

If you couldn't arse to actually research a topic before making an informed decision I couldn't be arsed trying to argue it with you.

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

If you couldn't arse to actually research a topic before making an informed decision I couldn't be arsed trying to argue it with you.

I've researched it on my own time but this is a discussion forum. Make your case don't post a link.

Slutmonkey57b

steddyeddy wrote: »

GM has prevented blindess and other diseases related to nutritional deficits for years. GM crops will also combat crops problems relayed too human causes such as them decline of the honey bee. Web needs GM crops and if Monsanto enhanced global crops production thats not a bad thing.

Saying that I would be against the total privatisation of crops production despite its benifits.

Modified crops such as dwarf wheat are being linked to all sorts of health problems, notably obesity and gluten intolerance. This is the first I've heard of a foodstuff being linked as a cure for blindness, so a link would be helpful.

Switching the world to an American diet of processed or modified foods is not the same as feeding it, in fact probably the opposite.

Edit: And what is responsible for the decline of the honey bee? Industrialised agriculture and "modern scientific methods" of pest control. Your solution is... *more* industrialisation?

steddyeddy

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Is it your contention that scientific manipulation of genes is the *same process* as natural selection, or natural cross pollination? Because if it is, your defense falls down.

I think your science falls down too be honest. When scientists first synthesised citric acid it was citric acid atom for atom. All scientists are doing here is to tell the cell's molecular machinery to make a protein from a set of altered instructions. It is simply a more precise process of artificial selection that us domestic crops products to begin with.

steddyeddy

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Modified crops such as dwarf wheat are being linked to all sorts of health problems, notably obesity and gluten intolerance. This is the first I've heard of a foodstuff being linked as a cure for blindness, so a link would be helpful.

Switching the world to an American diet of processed or modified foods is not the same as feeding it, in fact probably the opposite.

All wheat gives people who are gluten intolerant problems.

Slutmonkey57b

steddyeddy wrote: »

All wheat gives people who are gluten intolerant problems.

And why have rates of food allergies, intolerance, obesity, diabetes and heart disease all increased dramatically since the war? Industrialised agriculture and processed food use is a coincidence?

Slutmonkey57b

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think your science falls down too be honest. When scientists first synthesised citric acid it was citric acid atom for atom. All scientists are doing here is to tell the cell's molecular machinery to make a protein from a set of altered instructions. It is simply a more precise process of artificial selection that us domestic crops products to begin with.

synthesis of an inert chemical is in no way on the same level of complexity, difficulty or consequence as genetic manipulation of living cells, whose further evolution can't be understood by the scientists who are doing the manipulations.

steddyeddy

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And why have rates of food allergies, intolerance, obesity, diabetes and heart disease all increased dramatically since the war? Industrialised agriculture and processed food use is a coincidence?

Obesity is a result of increased access to food. The same can be said for heart disease and diabetes. Food allergies and intolerance have been around for thousands of years. For example before humans began farming thousands of years ago most of u were intolerant to the sugar lactose.

steddyeddy

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

synthesis of an inert chemical is in no way on the same level of complexity, difficulty or consequence as genetic manipulation of living cells, whose further evolution can't be understood by the scientists who are doing the manipulations.

Are you against insulin? That is a gm product.

steddyeddy

In regards to them bee problem I am against the use of pesticides yes.

ThreeBlindMice

steddyeddy wrote: »

In regards to them bee problem I am against them use yes.

And of course a major pesticides corporation AKA Roundup of which Monsanto has a vested interest in.

GMO = Pestilence manufacture + Seed production
= high resistant to nuisance pests = Higher crop Yield.
= Death to bee population.

Monsanto purchases major honeybee research company.

= Development of bee that will only pollinate certain Monsanto crops.
Bees are highly sensitive sent detection and are very easily to train.
strains can be developed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-the-devastation-of-bee-colonies-blamed-for-bee-collapse-monsanto-buys-leading-bee-research-firm/30445

Engine No.9

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Not the same thing at all, this is propaganda put out by the GM corps and repeated frequently. The hybridisation of naturally compatible plant varieties or animals within the same species cannot be compared to genetic modification. Hybridisation happens naturally in the wild, it doesn't have to be mans hand that encourages it. GM processes create things that would never come about naturally.

I genuinely think that that word has been manufactured to add weight to a vague argument. Cross Breeding and Cross Pollination are both genetic mutations and as such are genetic modifications. The fact that one takes place in a lab versus the other in nature shouldn't matter in this case. I do take issue with human cloning though, but that's off topic.

Wibbs

steddyeddy wrote: »

Obesity is a result of increased access too food. The same can be said for heart disease and diabetes.

Yes and no. The amount of trans fats and sugar(cheap ass fructuse from corn in particular) in our food has increased massively in the past few decades and that's entirely down to the food industry. Indeed they have taken some of the tactics of the tobacco industry on board, particularly in the US. Example? The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating, due to be published on Wednesday. Hell some of the ex tobacco crowd are moving into the food industry.

Food allergies and intolerance have been around for thousands of years.

Not nearly to the degree of today. Given we've adapted(depending on population) to many novel foodstuffs in our evolutionary history and are far more tolerant of such foods than our hunter gatherer ancestors the massive increase in allergies in such a short time is just a tad puzzling.

As for GM in general? yep it's a great tool, but we're not quite as far along the knowledge road as many like to think. Genetics is the go to fashionable science at the mo and it is fantastic, however IMHO our current understanding would be akin to us finding a giant library filled with millions of books and knowledge and power at our fingertips, but at the moment we're haphazardly walking around in the dark with a torch to light our way. We can see all the books, can even read the titles, but the contents aren't as clear as we think. The thing is if humans have a tool they will use it and that's a double edged sword at times like this. We'll use GM cos we can, not always because it's the right solution to a problem. The old story of if all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail.

I read an interesting project in experimental archaeology, where they planted a fallowed field with neolithic strains of wheat(IIRC) and modern strains of same inc a GM crop. Then they left the plot to it's own devices, no fertilisers, weed killers etc. Roll on harvest time and all or nearly all the modern stuff was dead while the neolithic stalks were as high as your mickey(they also had lower percentages of gluten and were more nutrient dense). Yes the yields per stalk were obviously less and harvesting couldn't be mechanised as they were various heights and interspersed with other plants, but interesting for me nonetheless.

Other problem with such a crop even if you could increase yields and make it the perfect crop by GM or otherwise is that the food production support industries, the fertlisers/insecticides crowds wouldn't exactly be too happy and such industries along with evil entities like monsanto have deep pockets and many political ears in their pocket.

Wibbs

pajopearl wrote: »

I genuinely think that that word has been manufactured to add weight to a vague argument. Cross Breeding and Cross Pollination are both genetic mutations and as such are genetic modifications. The fact that one takes place in a lab versus the other in nature shouldn't matter in this case.

Because it's not quite as simple as that. When cross breeding in nature or by human hands come about it's a much more complex interaction. It's not take gene A and insert it into genome B. It's far more random in nature. Plus in some cases of GM genes from entirely unrelated species, even between animal and plant and vice versa, are added.

tricky D

A lesson from the Book of Neil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X2GD5C_wHY

ThreeBlindMice

UK environment secretary Mr Paterson and the BBC receives brown envelopes.

GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

Slutmonkey57b

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you against insulin? That is a gm product.

Insulin is not a GM product. Insulin, as first used in the 1920's for the treatment of diabetes, was not and does not need to be produced using GM means.

And industrialised/modified/processed foods are responsible for the rise in diabetes which requires the insulin in the first place.

So a better question is "Why do you want more people to become diabetic?"

Slutmonkey57b

pajopearl wrote: »

I genuinely think that that word has been manufactured to add weight to a vague argument. Cross Breeding and Cross Pollination are both genetic mutations and as such are genetic modifications. The fact that one takes place in a lab versus the other in nature shouldn't matter in this case. I do take issue with human cloning though, but that's off topic.

It's an important distinction. Lab manipulation of specific genes is a blind, assumptive, brute force approach whose results are supposedly scientific but can't actually be predicted. Manual husbandry produces hybrid crops but uses stable natural processes which have thousands of years of use behind them to prove the validity of the technique, and where nature is the element in control, not intellectual assumptions based on incomplete knowledge masquerading as expertise.

miss no stars

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.

I direct you to this:

Mike Funnelly wrote: »

Essentially what happens is that you buy the seed, grow the seed, and sell all the seed to whoever buys it. If you keep some to grow the following year, you are technically infringing on their patent. You are not allowed to keep it and store it for the next growing season.

So each year they get their pound/ton of flesh, selling you new seed.

Which means that this:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The fact of the matter is millions are starving in the world as we speak and GM food can provide enough food to solve these problems.

is nonsense. The GM seed being produced is a)expensive and b) mostly aimed at eliminating the need for pesticides... GM seed won't solve world hunger. First off, it has to be bought fresh every year. That practice of keeping some spuds back to plant the crop next year? Gone. Illegal. A strong wind accidently blows some of the crop's seeds into your neighbour's field next door, they harvest it and unwittingly plant it next year? They're sued by the GM firm for everything they have.

The one thing that GM seed will NOT do is solve food problems in developing nations.

Iwasfrozen

miss no stars wrote: »

I direct you to this:



Which means that this:


is nonsense. The GM seed being produced is a)expensive and b) mostly aimed at eliminating the need for pesticides... GM seed won't solve world hunger. First off, it has to be bought fresh every year. That practice of keeping some spuds back to plant the crop next year? Gone. Illegal. A strong wind accidently blows some of the crop's seeds into your neighbour's field next door, they harvest it and unwittingly plant it next year? They're sued by the GM firm for everything they have.

The one thing that GM seed will NOT do is solve food problems in developing nations.

I support GM food but not the ridiculous patent Mansanto controls.

Hersheys

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I support GM food but not the ridiculous patent Mansanto controls.

While Monsanto are the topic of the thread, agreeing with GM foods/technology does not automatically mean you are agreeing with Monsanto.

GMO technology has seriously increased the amount of medications on the market. One example. Pfizer (previously Wyeth BioPharma) have a patented technology where they genetically modify Chinese hamster ovary cells and when they grow/replicate/metabolise they express a protein which is used successfully in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

There is a lot of trial/error with GM technology but it is tightly regulated. At least in the US/EMEA regions. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for Asia.

experiMental

Judge the award based on who the judges themselves are.

I think the judges themselves hated people who lived in poorer countries and they obviously come from Sam Kinison school of thought :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no. The amount of trans fats and sugar(cheap ass fructuse from corn in particular) in our food has increased massively in the past few decades and that's entirely down to the food industry. Indeed they have taken some of the tactics of the tobacco industry on board, particularly in the US. Example? The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating, due to be published on Wednesday. Hell some of the ex tobacco crowd are moving into the food industry.

Well Wibbs Trans fats have nothing to do with GM foods or agriculture really. Trans fats are a result of food processing and the desire to hydrogenate vegetable and animal oils. The trans formation of the fatty acid ensures greater packing than “Cis” configuration fatty acids and as a result a higher melting point.
The addition of simple sugars is also a problem but againneither have anything to do with GM food. We could actually modify a crop to improve LDL to HDL cholesterol in humans.



[/QUOTE]Not nearly to the degree of today. Given we've adapted(depending on population) to many novel foodstuffs in our evolutionary history and are far more tolerant of such foods than our hunter gatherer ancestors the massive increase in allergies in such a short time is just a tad puzzling.

As for GM in general? yep it's a great tool, but we're not quite as far along the knowledge road as many like to think. Genetics is the go to fashionable science at the mo and it is fantastic, however IMHO our current understanding would be akin to us finding a giant library filled with millions of books and knowledge and power at our fingertips, but at the moment we're haphazardly walking around in the dark with a torch to light our way. We can see all the books, can even read the titles, but the contents aren't as clear as we think. The thing is if humans have a tool they will use it and that's a double edged sword at times like this. We'll use GM cos we can, not always because it's the right solution to a problem. The old story of if all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail.

I read an interesting project in experimental archaeology, where they planted a fallowed field with neolithic strains of wheat(IIRC) and modern strains of same inc a GM crop. Then they left the plot to it's own devices, no fertilisers, weed killers etc. Roll on harvest time and all or nearly all the modern stuff was dead while the neolithic stalks were as high as your mickey(they also had lower percentages of gluten and were more nutrient dense). Yes the yields per stalk were obviously less and harvesting couldn't be mechanised as they were various heights and interspersed with other plants, but interesting for me nonetheless.

Other problem with such a crop even if you could increase yields and make it the perfect crop by GM or otherwise is that the food production support industries, the fertlisers/insecticides crowds wouldn't exactly be too happy and such industries along with evil entities like monsanto have deep pockets and many political ears in their pocket.[/QUOTE]





Well GM isn’t about one strain, one modification or one method. It’s about making an organism express whatever trait you want. Sure some aren’t ideal at the moment but the beauty of GM crops is that we can modify that to improve it (the crop) significantly.

steddyeddy

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Insulin is not a GM product. Insulin, as first used in the 1920's for the treatment of diabetes, was not and does not need to be produced using GM means.

And industrialised/modified/processed foods are responsible for the rise in diabetes which requires the insulin in the first place.

So a better question is "Why do you want more people to become diabetic?"

Yes it is. In fact bacteria are genetically modified to produce many life saving proteins.

steddyeddy

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

It's an important distinction. Lab manipulation of specific genes is a blind, assumptive, brute force approach whose results are supposedly scientific but can't actually be predicted. Manual husbandry produces hybrid crops but uses stable natural processes which have thousands of years of use behind them to prove the validity of the technique, and where nature is the element in control, not intellectual assumptions based on incomplete knowledge masquerading as expertise.

Actually human cross breeding of crops which has being going on for thousands of years is the blunt force. Gene manipulation is more akin to surgical precision.

Hersheys

Porcine insulin is not a GM product. It is extracted from the pancreas of pigs and humanised to work effectively in regulating sugar levels in humans. However it is not the method of choice as there are many issues relating to the use of humanised insulin. So using a process similar to the one I mentioned to make enbrel, they produce insulin which is a copy of the human insulin gene.

Jonny7

Weren't potatoes originally poisonous? isn't every corn on the cob genetically identical and sourced from only one plant?

Apparently qlmost all crops we eat have been modified - by ourselves (and in some cases we can't out how on earth they did it)

Except that now, a few people who've seen "Food Inc" think Monsanto are some bastion of pure evilness, and all their evil scientists are Germans with round thin rimmed specs creating long-term poisonous food for their own evil profit making ends.. or something.

Slutmonkey57b

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes it is. In fact bacteria are genetically modified to produce many life saving proteins.

I get the impression you're not reading before you post.

Insulin is a naturally occurring hormone in the human body.
In the 1920's, a treatment using insulin produced from animals was identified for diabetes.

Neither of these occurrances have anything whatsoever to do with Genetic Modification.

Your statement was that insulin "is a GM product". It isn't. Some companies may use GM processes (described above) to produce it, but it is not necessary to do so. So if all GM medical processes were banned tomorrow, diabetes sufferers would have a fallback position, assuming they were on a GM process to begin with.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually human cross breeding of crops which has being going on for thousands of years is the blunt force. Gene manipulation is more akin to surgical precision.

A woeful analogy. A surgeon knows:

• What they're going to do
• Where they're going to do it
• How they're going to do it
• What the purpose of the affected body part is* (See Disclaimer before you jump in here)
• What the effect of the surgery will be**
• What the success rate of the surgery will be**
• What the side effects are
• What the result will look like

* Neurosurgery, on occasion, does not fit this description but is covered by;
** Except in the cases of experimental techniques.

A geneticist, if we're lucky, understands partially what one or more of the possible functions of an individual gene is. It is not possible for them to understand, at this point in time or likely at any point in the near future, what all of the possible functions and purposes a gene has within the host organism, how that gene acts during reproduction, what the possible effects of modifying that gene are within a host, or what possible effect gene transplantation has within a new host. It is impossible to know, for certain, what the effect will be on the host organism 10, 20, 50 generations from now. This is not a slight on the ability or aptitude of scientists, it is a matter of numbers. Neuroscience is not a fully exact science because the number of connective nodes between neurons is incalculably large. Ditto the interactions between genes in a host organism, descendants of that organism, or cross-pollination/reproduction with other organisms.

The data set is too large to study or understand.

Also, and most importantly, a surgeon's actions can only ever directly affect the body of the person being operated on for the lifetime of that person. If I have an appendectomy today, I cannot cause someone else to also have an appendectomy tomorrow by standing next to them. My surgery today cannot have any effect on someone 5 generations removed from me. My surgery today cannot come into contact with the descendants of someone else's surgery 50 years from now and combine in unexpected ways.

Slutmonkey57b

Jonny7 wrote: »

Weren't potatoes originally poisonous? isn't every corn on the cob genetically identical and sourced from only one plant?

Apparently qlmost all crops we eat have been modified - by ourselves (and in some cases we can't out how on earth they did it)

Except that now, a few people who've seen "Food Inc" think Monsanto are some bastion of pure evilness, and all their evil scientists are Germans with round thin rimmed specs creating long-term poisonous food for their own evil profit making ends.. or something.

Corporations exist to make profits. Nothing else. If at this point in history you don't understand that corporations only ever do what is morally right when forced to do so, then you're naieve beyond belief. From recent history, look at Banks and financial markets.

Take the example of america's dust bowl. Valuable, fertile, stable agricultural pasture was held by smallholders and farmed successfully for decades. Speculative banks looking for profits persuaded smallholders to take out loans. To service those loans, they then demanded that the most profitable crop, cotton, be planted. The massive rise in monoculture cotton destroyed the arable land. When the price of cotton crashed, the banks repossessed the smallholdings. Result? Starvation, poverty, the destruction of millions of acres of arable land, and the mass movement of populations. This is what corporations do.

This is the sort of thing that happens to a society where the interests of profiteering corporations are put before common sense or the interests of the wider world.

Who is telling us that GM is "the future"? People who want to sell us GM products. Who is telling us that GM is a safe form of technology? Scientists who are interested in the intellectual challenge. Neither of these arguments can be trusted when applied to the food chain. The food chain is too important, and it is impossible to properly control. One party has a strong incentive to lie (and will), and the other party is blinded by intellectual arrogance.

Conversely, if a human volunteers for genetic manipulation, that human's further reproduction can absolutely be controlled, ironically. You can lock humans in a box, you can't lock nature in a box.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Corporations exist to make profits. Nothing else. If at this point in history you don't understand that corporations only ever do what is morally right when forced to do so, then you're naieve beyond belief. From recent history, look at Banks and financial markets.

Take the example of america's dust bowl. Valuable, fertile, stable agricultural pasture was held by smallholders and farmed successfully for decades. Speculative banks looking for profits persuaded smallholders to take out loans. To service those loans, they then demanded that the most profitable crop, cotton, be planted. The massive rise in monoculture cotton destroyed the arable land. When the price of cotton crashed, the banks repossessed the smallholdings. Result? Starvation, poverty, the destruction of millions of acres of arable land, and the mass movement of populations. This is what corporations do.

This is the sort of thing that happens to a society where the interests of profiteering corporations are put before common sense or the interests of the wider world.

Who is telling us that GM is "the future"? People who want to sell us GM products. Who is telling us that GM is a safe form of technology? Scientists who are interested in the intellectual challenge. Neither of these arguments can be trusted when applied to the food chain. The food chain is too important, and it is impossible to properly control. One party has a strong incentive to lie (and will), and the other party is blinded by intellectual arrogance.

Conversely, if a human volunteers for genetic manipulation, that human's further reproduction can absolutely be controlled, ironically. You can lock humans in a box, you can't lock nature in a box.

Like it or not, GM IS the future. Not nescessarily in the food industry but GM is allowing huge medical advances.

You argue against GM insulin, what about the drug I mentioned previously, of which there is no animal source?

And I never disputed that animal insulin products exist, I mentioned them, however humanisation of the insulin needs to occur as porcine insulin has one amino acid more which essentially inactivates it in humans.

IM0

nmop_apisdn wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote:

certainly. "What we have is enough" is not an option. It's fine for now but what happens when the world population is 20 billion?

Never gonna happen. Nature or a few corporations will make sure of that.

9.6B by 2050 current estimate.

what do you mean never gonna happen lol not in our life time but in a few hundred years or more the population will be 20 billion or so

also with our GM food [which is all of it unless its labelled as organic btw] lots of things now taste like cucumber and other crap flavours in general too. food is like feckin soylent green now, its produced for volume and yields :mad:

give me back taste you ****ers :mad:

ThreeBlindMice

New Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

If Monsanto can purchase their way out of the rat tumor saga surely they will do the same with this one. They more than likely have their counter researchers working on overtime.

"Glyphosate is a major component of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate was manufactured by Monsanto and is one of the most widely used herbicides around the world. A number of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate have shed light on its effects within the human body. It’s responsible for triggering health problems like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease".

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/10/new-study-links-monsantos-roundup-to-autism-parkinsons-and-alzheimers/

steddyeddy

Genetic modification food and Monsanto don't go hand in hand. You can be in favor of GM foods and not in favor of Monsanto's policies. In short don't blame the scientists blame the lawyers and decision makers within Monsanto.

Cookie_Monster

All this talk of wheat and bees, boring

This thread needs more SPIDER GOATS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357

Hersheys

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

New Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

If Monsanto can purchase their way out of the rat tumor saga surely they will do the same with this one. They more than likely have their counter researchers working on overtime.

"Glyphosate is a major component of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate was manufactured by Monsanto and is one of the most widely used herbicides around the world. A number of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate have shed light on its effects within the human body. It’s responsible for triggering health problems like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease".

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/10/new-study-links-monsantos-roundup-to-autism-parkinsons-and-alzheimers/

Oh my god that webpage is a hoot.

If you've a proper scientific reference from a reputable, peer reviewed journal, I will read it. But forgive me if I find it hard to accept the words of a computer scientist who can't proof read websites

Doing a quick lit review on glyphosate does show toxicity. But under the right conditions water is toxic. It's all about how the data is presented. Looking at the ic50 values for glyphosate you're looking at a very high amount needed to directly enter the blood stream on a continuous basis for about 5 years. The levels needed to induce toxicity would not be absorbed by the body as its present in trace quantities. For toxicity you're looking at GRAMS of the stuff to be ingested per kilo of body weight per day. You would want to be drinking the stuff. Even then there are only a handful of reported suicides linked to glyphosate consumption. The stuff just isn't toxic in the levels available.

I can't like/copy articles as they're behind the pay wall.

It's sensationalist crap like that website that gets science a bad name.

NuckingFacker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Obesity is a result of increased access to food. The same can be said for heart disease and diabetes. Food allergies and intolerance have been around for thousands of years. For example before humans began farming thousands of years ago most of u were intolerant to the sugar lactose.

It's not. It's a result of the ingredients used in food. Fructose and glucose, trans-fats and modified starches, Corn syrup and all the other non-food foods that are quietly jammed into the "food" our children consume.

The human body can't cope with these, but they are cheap, plentiful and readily available. Best of all, they = profit. Visit a modern food factory, there's not a single ingredient you would willingly consume - you would be sick at the though. Bound together with emulsifiers, binding agents, flavourings and artificial, toxic sweeteners, they become Mmmmm.

We are poisoning our kids, simple as. How f**king stupid is it to allow our own kids be poisoned? Especially as it is just a way of increasing profits for a company. Dumb. But then we have a good history of dumb, as a species.

Hersheys

NuckingFacker wrote: »

It's not. It's a result of the ingredients used in food. Fructose and glucose, trans-fats and modified starches, Corn syrup and all the other non-food foods that are quietly jammed into the "food" our children consume.

The human body can't cope with these, but they are cheap, plentiful and readily available. Best of all, they = profit. Visit a modern food factory, there's not a single ingredient you would willingly consume - you would be sick at the though. Bound together with emulsifiers, binding agents, flavourings and artificial, toxic sweeteners, they become Mmmmm.

We are poisoning our kids, simple as. How f**king stupid is it to allow our own kids be poisoned? Especially as it is just a way of increasing profits for a company. Dumb. But then we have a good history of dumb, as a species.

Fructose and glucose = sucrose = sugar = natural substance in many foods

Glucose + glucose = starch = flour

Glucose + glucose = cellulose = sugar = in every single vegetable and most fruits

Trans-fats = naturally occurring in meat products, dairy products, oil...

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

clairefontaine

Hersheys wrote: »

Fructose and glucose = sucrose = sugar = natural substance in many foods

Glucose + glucose = starch = flour

Glucose + glucose = cellulose = sugar = in every single vegetable and most fruits

Trans-fats = naturally occurring in meat products, dairy products, oil...

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

Yes but the way they process and label corn based fructose is another kettle of fish. For example I have anaphylactic responses to corn syrup, but none to sugar or to corn itself. They are also dicking around with the labelling.

Read The Carnivore's Dillemna for more on the history of corn and corn sugars. And yes Monsanto is behind it.

NuckingFacker

Hersheys wrote: »

Fructose and glucose = sucrose = sugar = natural substance in many foods

Glucose + glucose = starch = flour

Glucose + glucose = cellulose = sugar = in every single vegetable and most fruits

Trans-fats = naturally occurring in meat products, dairy products, oil...

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

Utterly disengenuous post. It is proven that the human liver cannot cope with fructose - it converts it straight into fat. Blow smoke somwhere else. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense posted above. You must be trolling, right?

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

It's not. It's a result of the ingredients used in food. Fructose and glucose, trans-fats and modified starches, Corn syrup and all the other non-food foods that are quietly jammed into the "food" our children consume.

The human body can't cope with these, but they are cheap, plentiful and readily available. Best of all, they = profit. Visit a modern food factory, there's not a single ingredient you would willingly consume - you would be sick at the though. Bound together with emulsifiers, binding agents, flavourings and artificial, toxic sweeteners, they become Mmmmm.

We are poisoning our kids, simple as. How f**king stupid is it to allow our own kids be poisoned? Especially as it is just a way of increasing profits for a company. Dumb. But then we have a good history of dumb, as a species.

Well obesity is also a result of increased food but I agree with you on the processed food front. It has very little to do with gm crops however. In fact GM crops would likely but a lot healthier than the above ingredients.

Hersheys

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Utterly disengenuous post. It is proven that the human liver cannot cope with fructose - it converts it straight into fat. Blow smoke somwhere else. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense posted above. You must be trolling, right?

Where did I say fructose is good? Alls I said was that its natural. So is snake venom, nobody jumping to eat that.

What part is nonsense? Just for future reference so I don't "blow smoke" or "troll" with perfectly good facts? What part are you disputing?

Hersheys

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes but the way they process and label corn based fructose is another kettle of fish. For example I have anaphylactic responses to corn syrup, but none to sugar or to corn itself. They are also dicking around with the labelling.

Read The Carnivore's Dillemna for more on the history of corn and corn sugars. And yes Monsanto is behind it.

And for the record if you haven't seen my previous posts. I cannot ****ing stand Monsanto and do not agree with their products, ethos or "business".