GMO

(439 Posts)
nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 15:48:30

Morrisons, Siansburys, Co-Op and M&S have joined Tesco in allowing GMO fed chickens on their shelves.! This is the tip of the ice burg.!
There is an International protest against GMO on 25th May, I urge you all to organise to join in, if you value choice about what you eat, because if GMO is allowed into our food chain, we will have let the genie out of the bottle, forever.!
Cross contamination and patented law suits will be the order of the day, if we allow Monsanto to get a foot hold on our food supply.
Not only is this vile virus a health hazard to humans, but it is destroying our environment too, re bees, etc.
Plus it is attempting to own Mother Nature via its patented seeds, thereby selling us dangerous produce with a corporate stamp.!
We must all wake up to this onslaught against nature and our right to chose. Please get out in force and demand an end to this profit lead evil against nature now.

LadyVoldemort Sat 18-May-13 15:51:13

What's GMO? I agree we need to get out buying and eating battery chickens but I don't know what the answer to it is. I don't know many people that can afford free range organic chicken.

Free range organic chicken. Small. In Tescos today £13.12.

not bloody likely.

EeyoreIsh Sat 18-May-13 15:55:01

and the evidence to back your scaremongering is where?

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 15:55:43

I have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't care.

What's a patented law suit by the way? Do you mean a suit for patent infringement?

You do have a choice, you can go and buy something else.

thebody Sat 18-May-13 15:57:49

£13.20 for a small chicken!! Exactly.

I noticed because it was in the reduced bit. Reduced to £10-something.

Utter madness. It was teeny as well.

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism.
It's not a virus, it's introducing genes not ordinarily present in whatever you're modifying.
It's what evolution has been doing for millions of years but done deliberately.
Usually the law of the countries they are based in means that the companies are obliged to make infertile seeds so that they have to be replanted each year, in an attempt to stop "IT SPREADING!!!!!" which is often another point the antis make when they rant and rave and wail and gnash their teeth about the Poor Farmers in Africa.
Genetically modified rice with extra vitamin A in it can save the eyesight of thousands of people (just one example off the top of my head) of things GM can be used for to do good. The antis tend to be their own worst enemies, a bit like the militant animal rights people and PETA and suchlike groups.
Spoiling for a fight and never letting the facts get in their way.
Oh and just to stir the shit pot a bit more - genetically modified bacteria, incorporating scorpion venom genes is classed as a organic pesticide and can be freely used on organic crops (google Bacillus thuringiensis)

MalcolmTuckersMum Sat 18-May-13 16:00:43

Presumably this stuff will have to be clearly marked as such? I won't touch it with a bargepole and come the day I can't afford non-tampered meat then I'll become fully veggie. Hardly eat any meat as it is, DH veggie and only DS to worry about and he's off to the USA soon anyway where GM is all over the place.

fuzzpig Sat 18-May-13 16:01:07

GM like genetically modified whatsit? [should've paid more attention in biology emoticon]

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:01:11

Also, to be pedantic and annoying, why is it people who scaremonger can never spell or use correct punctuation?

I mean, I'm not perfect, but if I'm writing about my cause (if I had one) I'd certainly spell and grammar check. Doesn't help your argument, really, to be practically unreadable.*

*I'm sure there's a typo here I'm not seeing. Feel free to point it out. Doesn't bother me. grin

fuzzpig Sat 18-May-13 16:01:28

x post! thanks.

LesserEvil Sat 18-May-13 16:03:34

"It doesn't help your argument...."

Your welcome, Tee grin.

OP, YABU. And ill-informed.

LesserEvil Sat 18-May-13 16:03:56

You are welcome.... <<dies>>

grin

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:04:27

Also? OP is SPAMMING the boards. There is at least one other thread on this by them.

You're Lesser.

grin grin

I love that this is turning into a pedantic thread. <bliss>

WorraLiberty Sat 18-May-13 16:07:10

I've never read such a well thought out, completely unbiased, informative opening post grin

Oh wait...I still haven't.

Never mind chickens, where could I get one of those patented law suits? I think I need one <<interested>>

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:09:03

grin worra

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 16:16:01

Im not scaremongering. Please check the facts. GMO is nothing related to or similar to propergation of seeds or breeding of animals.
It is the introduction of chemicals supposedly to help growth, but actually to ensure the ownership of plants and now fish, in order to profit from that ownership., via patents. The chemicals have been proven to be detrimental to our environment and our health.!

Can I suggest you learn grammar. And correct use of punctuation.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:17:27

nononsensemumof2, thanks for the information. I will try to get my chicken elsewhere.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:17:56

'Can I suggest you learn grammar. And correct use of punctuation.'

Can I suggest you learn some manners?

WorraLiberty Sat 18-May-13 16:18:38

Then how about you post the facts OP?

You're asking people to 'get out in force and demand an end' to something that you haven't even bothered to explain.

Dawndonna Sat 18-May-13 16:22:46

Nononsense
May we have some empirical evidence please. Peer reviewed scientific papers, for example.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:22:49

Can I suggest you not be sucked in by SPAMMERS, claig?

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:25:02

Tee, nononsensemumof2 knows what she is talking about and obviously feels strongly enough about it to start a few threads about it. I hadn't heard this news on the BBC, so I am glad that she has made me aware of it.

WorraLiberty Sat 18-May-13 16:26:54

claig can you point to anything the OP has written that suggests she knows what she's talking about?

Until she she backs up what she's saying with evidence or facts, it comes across as nothing but hot air.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:29:30

Worra, she said
"There is an international protest against GMO on 25th May"

Are you saying she is misinformed?

I thought everybody knew about GMOs and the potential risks to health.

WorraLiberty Sat 18-May-13 16:31:56

I'm not talking about when the protest is is going to be confused

I have no idea whether she's been misinformed about the whole subject because she couldn't be arsed to try and link to any info about it.

And no, not everyone does know about GMOs and the potential risks to health

<<sits back waiting for claig to explain everything>> hmm

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:33:12

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 16:33:21

I think what OP is trying to say is that the chickens for sale have been fed with GM (genetically modified) feed.

Here - I found a slightly more coherent news article:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/11/supermarkets-chickens-gm-soya

TheSecondComing Sat 18-May-13 16:34:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

As I understand it, but I'm not a scientific bod and I may be wrong, GM crops are already out there?

And most of those crops are fed to animals.

So the genie is already out of the bottle.

And the OP's poor phrasing and spelling and inarticulate use of grammar does not inspire confidence.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 16:36:13

I think if you are trying to put a point across - and OP does have a point here - it is better to sound as if you are not wearing a tinfoil hat.

WorraLiberty Sat 18-May-13 16:37:35

I'm not fussed about the OP's spelling and grammar

I just find it odd she's asking people to do something without posting any info/facts at all.

We're just expected to take her slightly hysterical sounding word for it.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:39:56

It's not a new thing. It's not even necessarily a bad thing.

What it is, is a thing the OP is spewing with no facts to back her up.

That's the part that's got me going hmm.

roses2 Sat 18-May-13 16:40:04

Haven't KFC been selling this type of chicken for years?

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:41:08

Pacific, just google it. You'll be pleased you did.

Don't you remember the early 90s, I think it was, when the newspapers were in tune with the public and for a whole week they ran stories about frankenfood etc and when it was top of the agenda.

The public don't want it, but the mega corporations do.

I've never marched or been on a protest in my life, but that week I phoned one of the green movements and asked them if they were organising a national march in London to put a stop to it, and they told me they had no national marches planned and I should contact my local area. I knew right then that they weren't serious about stopping it, because the public was united in that week and could have ended it then.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:42:18

'I just find it odd she's asking people to do something without posting any info/facts at all.'

She probably thinks you all know about it already and that she doesn't need to spell it out.

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 16:42:24

What is frightening to me is that mothers out there do not know about this.
We are actually all sleep walking into Mother Nature being OWNED by American Corporations such as Monsanto.
They not only wish to contaminate our natural food but wish to sell it back to us at inflated prices, once ownership via patents on their hazardous chemicals are found in the DNA.!
Its the MOST scandalous crime against humans since Hitler, its Food Fascism, and once the genie is let out of the bag their is no going back.!

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:43:56

Okay, I'm calling Goodwin's Law. Hitler's been mentioned. OP automatically loses the argument.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:44:27

'So the genie is already out of the bottle.'

Freddie, I think you are right. I think they have been allowed to use a small percentage in animal feed already.

TheSecondComing Sat 18-May-13 16:44:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:44:58

I also have on small problem with OP's last post...Monsanto isn't American.

It's British.

Monsanto UK Ltd
PO Box 663
Cambridge
CB1 0LD
01954 717550

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 16:45:28

Nope, you just lost the argument. Godwin's Law.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:45:40

Well, international, I guess.

Look! Facts!

::waits for OP's head to explode::

From wikipedia

"70 million metric tons of soybean meals derived from GM soybean are fed to livestock each year"

And yes. You lost with Godwin's Law.

WestieMamma Sat 18-May-13 16:46:58

The public don't want it, but the mega corporations do.

Sorry, but you can't extrapolate from your opinion to that conclusion. Some members of the public don't want it. Some clearly do (as otherwise there would be no market for the mega corporations). The rest don't care so long as it's cheap and tastes good.

What about fathers who don't know? Don't they count?

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 16:47:12

(I think Monsanto is American - that address is for the UK branch).

Hazardous chemicals? Please explain.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:47:56

Monsanto is not British. It has a UK office, but it is not British.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:48:35

I corrected my self, Endo. International is what they are.

A huge Multinational, true. But don't blame it on them being Americans.

Blame it on people not wanting meat to cost £20 a kilo.

claig, I thank you for patronising me only as much as absolutely necessary hmm.

I was involved in some of the protests in the 90s, I am reasonably well informed on the subject and I don't even disagree on how we are all being held hostage by multi-national cooperations. 'Tis more of a political debate, really, rather than one of health concerns IMO.

And from previous experience, I don't think that your and my political views overlap much, claig.

grin @ Goodwin's Law - what an own goal, OP!

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 16:49:52

Freddie it might be dihydrogen monoxide. You've got to watch out for that in your food.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:51:17

'Sorry, but you can't extrapolate from your opinion to that conclusion. Some members of the public don't want it. Some clearly do (as otherwise there would be no market for the mega corporations). The rest don't care so long as it's cheap and tastes good.'

That is why nononsensemumof2 is informing us, so that we do care. It looks like lots of people on this thread are not as well informed as the OP and haven't got a clue. some even think that Monsanto is British!

'Some clearly do (as otherwise there would be no market for the mega corporations).'

Governments are lobbied to relax the laws against it. The EU kept the percentage that can be used down for years, but of course the lobbies and mega corporations will eventually get their way.

HintofBream Sat 18-May-13 16:51:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

grin @ Dihydrogen Monoxide - v good

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:54:10

Pacific, i amglad you know about it.

'Tis more of a political debate, really, rather than one of health concerns IMO.'

I think you are wrong and nononsensemumof2 is right. Of course it is played out in the public sphere as an issue of politics, where phony movements pretend to oppose it politically. But it is really about health.

On this issue, we are united, even if you think it is about politics, and I think it is about health.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:54:19

Why are we still talking about this? OP lost the debate when she dragged Hitler into it.

Go peddle your scaremongering to people who can't read the internet for themselves and make up their own minds.

Like claig.

WestieMamma Sat 18-May-13 16:55:49

They not only wish to contaminate our natural food but wish to sell it back to us at inflated prices, once ownership via patents on their hazardous chemicals are found in the DNA.!

That's not how patent law works. If their product is found in the DNA of natural food then they don't become the owner of that natural food. They would have to sue Mother Nature for patent infringement and damages.

claig Sat 18-May-13 16:57:10

Tee, browse Monsanto on the internet and you will find that they are not British. Learn from nononsensemumof2 and be grateful that she has alerted you.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:57:45

Wait, Westie, you mean the OP is wrong?! And misinformed?

::faints from shock::

Tee why do you do :: instead of <>

Anyway

::mops Tees brow and provides smelling salts::

WestieMamma Sat 18-May-13 16:59:24

I wonder if the OP knows that patents only last 20 years. After that you get to keep your GM DNA.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 16:59:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:00:10

Freddie << are coding brackets. :: aren't.

It's best practice if you write code. Which I do.

grin

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:02:28

Tee, please stop calling me a sock puppet, it is against MN guidelines. Just because people agree with nononsensemumof2 and disagree with your lack of knowledge on the topic - such as your view that Monsanto is British - does not make them sock puppets.

See, Tee, I did learn something from this fred: I never knew that about << and ::

One solution would be for everybody on this planet to turn vegetarian so everybody could be fed by not GM grains, rather than needing to grow obscene amounts of grains to feed animals for slaughter*

*I am not vegetarian.

People offering simple 'solutions' for complex problems really piss me off.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:04:56

The OP doesn't know a lot about how GM works, either - she thinks it's a chemical. Or a virus. Or something.

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:05:44

Endo, she has some facts wrong. But she is not a scientist.

The introduction of chemicals to help growth, what, like fertilizer hmm

How do you know she's not a scientist, Claig?

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:08:10

OK, but do you not think she'd put her point across better if she didn't have "some facts wrong".

It doesn't inspire confidence.

You don't have to be a scientist to get it right.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:08:28

So report me, claig.

I have already said, twice, that I was wrong about Monsanto being British.

That's because I admit when I am wrong and don't know something. Or I find facts to back it up.

I don't post half truths and scaremongering and then flee, leaving my sock friends to come and defend me.

Also, I don't invoke Hitler. Because I am Jewish and it is incredibly offensive to compare anything to Hitler that is not current and total genocide. This is not what Hitler did. He didn't have to put it into the food. He just put the people right into ovens.

When Monsanto starts gathering up groups of people and gassing them? Then you can fucking compare them to fucking Hitler.

Shall we talk about nano particles next?

<<pullsl up chair>>

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:09:53

Freddie - I can tell she's not a scientist.

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 17:10:34

Wow ! This thread is so not full of women, who just care about their kids.
So now we can all agree that GMO is American and profit lead and totally unnatural, can we also agree that information about it is everywhere, and I'm not making it up.! Thanks for that ! What does OP mean?

Oh, I think she's not a scientist. I'm just interested as to how Claig knows she's not a scientist. That's all.

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:11:12

"So report me, claig."

I never report people because I believe in free speech. But you reported the OP.

I care massively about my kids.

How dare you suggest that I don't. That is grossly offensive. As well as your Hitler comment, which Tee has explained is offensive.

Why is it only women who matter? What about men?

Oh and I don't think we all agree at all. I certainly don't agree with you.

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:12:34

'What does OP mean?'

I think it means the Original Poster or Original Post.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:12:57

OP = "original poster" = person who started the thread.

I don't understand why American is a bad thing.

OP = original post/poster

I care about my kids.
I even care about GMO.
I do not care about your scaremongering and use of emotive/offensive language.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:13:46

OP = Original poster, nononsensemumof2. Shorter than your name. I'm lazy. grin

Yes I did, claig, because she's spamming the boards. HQ may disagree that it's SPAM, but there are two threads about this. That usually equals SPAM.

I also believe in free speech. 100%. Which has nothing to do with MN because MN is not a country or a democracy and free speech has nothing to do with the internet.

WestieMamma Sat 18-May-13 17:13:53

For anyone bothered to look at research that isn't just scaremongering and doesn't want to be told they don't care about their kids by OP, this is an interesting post about the guy who started the anti-GMO movement.

Linky

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:14:26

I don't care about my kids. They will be eating chicken DNA this very evening.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:15:32

Oh and if you "believe in free speech" why mention MN rules at all? Since you think they don't matter?

Because based on you quoting the rules, you should report me. Or don't bother reading the rules at all.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:16:05

Mine is eating pizza DNA, endo. grin

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:18:17

'Oh and if you "believe in free speech" why mention MN rules at all? Since you think they don't matter?'

I was only trying to stop you making a fool of yourself by calling me a sock puppet. I won't report you, keep on calling me it.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:19:04

hmm

Okay. Thanks then. hmm

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:21:18

See, I think this is an important issue. There is a debate to be had here. But the OP is not going about it in the right way.

Facts are important.

And if you used some of them to put your point across, rather than all the emotive stuff, I think more people would be prepared to listen.

WestieMamma There's no point posting evidence <le gasp> don't you know scientists are all just shills for the Illuminati. If they're not trying to inject our kids with mercury to give them autism, they're feeding us GMO to get us hooked on aspartame!

<puts on tinfoil hat>

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 17:21:55

<searches cupboards for non-DNA containing foods>

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:23:31

It absolutely is, Endo. It's good to know what's in your food, even if you can't afford ethics. Which I cannot. I need to feed my family. I need food to be cheap.

Come on GMO!

grin

FarBetterNow Sat 18-May-13 17:24:00

nononsense: some of these proGM women will be the same ones who scream about having to breathe in some one's cigarette smoke at the school gates.

I despair with you.

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 17:24:34

Chicken DNA? What?
DNA is the means of testing genetics.! You know like determining whos the father of your child.?
If you test your chickens DNA from Sainsburys, M&S etc in the future you will find that its been contaminated with Monsantos rouge genes.ie. GMO. Meaning its less nutritional, full of weird chemicals that should never be present and contaminating the rest of the natural environment.

Interesting article about Lynas - thanks for linking Craps.

I think we'll be having cheap chicken fajitas tonight...

FarBetterNow Sat 18-May-13 17:26:11

Tee: Food will not be cheaper.
We are being conned.
In the same way that we were told in the 50s that nuclear power would make electricity so cheap it wouldn't be metered.

Monsanto profits will be up though. We can all be happy about that.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:26:23

nononsensemumof2:

First, learn what DNA is. Then come back and tell us what GMO does. Because what you just wrote? Is wrong.

DNA is the means of testing genetics

Are you kidding me? You expect us to believe anything you say when you're so clearly scientifically illiterate?

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:26:53

'I need food to be cheap.'

Are you a fan of horseburger too?

WestieMamma Sat 18-May-13 17:27:27

WestieMamma There's no point posting evidence <le gasp> don't you know scientists are all just shills for the Illuminati. If they're not trying to inject our kids with mercury to give them autism, they're feeding us GMO to get us hooked on aspartame!

My scientist is well dodgy. He works for the EU and disappears every few weeks to attend piss ups secret meetings.

DNA is not only the means of testing genetics.

Unless my 'O'-level biology teacher was wrong.

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 17:27:32

FarBetterNow, there's a large quantity of evidence that breathing in cigarette smoke is harmful to your health. Could you link me to a peer-reviewed showing evidence that consumption of GM foods can cause serious health issues?

nononsence, genes (as in 'GMo') are made up of DNA, yes?

Chemicals in cheap meat are introduced via food supplements/vaccinations/medicines, not GMO.

Less nutritional?? Oh my... I truly don't think you fully understand this, sorry.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:28:06

I have no problem with horseburger.

The problem with the horse issue was not that it was horse. It was that it wasn't labelled horse and no one knew where the horse came from.

Horse meat is quite tasty and eaten in many parts of the world.

Next!

And I am with Tee. I don't buy processed food. I buy whole chickens and whole joints of beef. I even grind my own mince. No horseburgers here. And we eat a lot of veggie meals.

But no way am I paying £13 for a small chicken. Not when an ordinary whole chicken is £3-something.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:29:41

BTW, OP also lost due to the Mumsnet Addendum to Goodwin's Law, which involves mentioning other posters children and the feelings the other poster does or not have towards them.

So double loss, there, really.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:30:00

Chickens contain DNA.

If you eat one, you eat their DNA.

Really.

It gets digested though, it will not turn you into a chicken.

Dawndonna Sat 18-May-13 17:30:45

Still waiting for empirical evidence instead of a lot of shouty 'she knows what she's on about.
hmm

FarBetter, I agree with the point you are making. 'Tis about money and politics. Not directly about health (as in, your GMO fed chicken is not going to kill you, but control of foods and massive profiteering certainly has an effect on public health - mainly in developing countries though...)

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:31:04

BAWK!

::Tee turns into a chicken. And an avocado::

WorraLiberty Sat 18-May-13 17:31:44

It gets digested though, it will not turn you into a chicken.

I was rather hoping it'd make me shit out eggs for breakfast grin

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:32:20

That would be handy Worra! And save on the food bill. grin

Horse meat scandal was about labelling AND whatever vetinary meds mights have been in horse meat, I think.
Also about what else might be in processed food that we don't know...

Horse meat salami - yum grin!

FarBetterNow Sat 18-May-13 17:33:00

Clay: Usually scientific evidence comes 20 years too late.

I'm so bloody pleased to see so many skeptical people on Mumsnet, you have no idea how many people I know in real life who would be planning to protest outside their nearest TESCOs had they read that. hmm

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 17:33:55

I'll take that as a no then.

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 17:35:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

WestieMamma Sat 18-May-13 17:35:51

I like horsemeat. It's widely available round this (forrin) neck of the woods.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:36:30

At least I know what DNA is, OP, even if I am an arsehole.

Which I don't think I am.

Ignoring the onslaught of GMO can turn you into an arse hole though.!

Well gosh, clearly if your abundance of facts and evidence hasn't persuaded us, continuing to insult us will!

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:38:22
TwoFourSixOhOne Sat 18-May-13 17:38:30

I don't understand what you mean about DNA.

confused

Do you think it's like Jeremy Kyle? Seems odd that you would be so worried about something that you have only the faintest grasp of.

gordyslovesheep Sat 18-May-13 17:38:34

WOW op is you knowledge of DNA sourced by the Jeremy Kyle show?

I guess not ingesting GMO makes you belligerent and unable to actually back up any of your claims with facts

<goes back to stuffing chemicals into the kids she doesn't care about while ignoring the lizard people next door>

kim147 Sat 18-May-13 17:39:03

Can someone explain why they think GM food is dangerous?

What is in GM food that makes it dangerous?

It's not that pesky DNA, is it?

gordyslovesheep Sat 18-May-13 17:39:05

<great minds 246>

How does ignoring it turn one into an arsehole then? Do explain. I'm all ears. hmm

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 17:39:27

To be serious though, please everyone, BOYCOTT the supermarkets who are set to peddle this vile stuff and set our own British protest on 25th MAY.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:39:35

Well, I can't sit around here debating non-science with you people. I have pizza DNA to feed my son, who I don't care about.

Oh wait...

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:40:08

No, no nonsense, I won't. Coz, well, I don't agree with you and I don't want to.

And isn't lobbying like this against HQ rules?

TwoFourSixOhOne Sat 18-May-13 17:40:24

I've just fed mine potato dna, chicken dna (with runny yolks) and pig dna.

Yummy.

Oh dear.
Play nice, children.

I really fance a poached egg now <<wanders off>>

fancy ffs

fancyabakeoff Sat 18-May-13 17:41:42

I think that those of you who are shouting the OP down should do some research on Monsanto. I did about a year ago and it ain't pretty!

gordyslovesheep Sat 18-May-13 17:42:41

I had egg DNA on bread for my lunch - with genetically modified full fat American coke to wash it down

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:43:24

[http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/]]

gordyslovesheep Sat 18-May-13 17:43:34

and no one is 'shouting down' the OP - they are requesting facts to back up the scarmongery shite and posts about hating their kids

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:43:36
nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 17:44:26

I'm thinking like Banksy stencil a little SAY NO TO GMO on the pavements outside said supermarkets.! To be done at night, of course.!

Is this one of those "joke" threads I don't get?

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:46:10

Ignoring the onslaught of GMO can turn you into an arse hole though.!

Could you link to a peer-reviewed study on that please?

I'm thinking like Banksy stencil a little SAY NO TO GMO on the pavements outside said supermarkets.! To be done at night, of course.! Loon, I'll be hiding the thread now.

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 17:46:53

Thanks. Hope you can organise something on the 25th to support the International protest and ourselves.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:47:24

I have to say this:

OP: if you are going to use a '!' you do not need a '.' as well.

Like this! Not like this.!

Thank you.

Ourselves? Of whom is this "ourselves" that you speak?

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:48:33

nononsensemumof2, out of interest are any of the major green movements or the Green party taking part in this international protest?

Dawndonna Sat 18-May-13 17:52:22

Claig, if a peer reviewed paper says it's wrong, eg for using the wrong rats the likelihood is, it's wrong.
FFS Empirical evidence. Evidence that cannot be disputed.

OP. Go dance outside a supermarket and stop insulting our intelligence our come up with a coherent argument backed up with a few facts.

Takver Sat 18-May-13 17:52:58

" they are requesting facts to back up the scarmongery shite and posts about hating their kids"

If anyone does genuinely want to read some interesting papers on the potential hazards of GMOs, GM Free Cymru have quite a number of well referenced articles here.

I don't have a scientific background, but DH is a plant scientist by training, and has worked with a number of these technologies. He got out of the industry because of his view that they were potentially hazardous, and would never receive sufficient testing because of the political clout of the big companies backing them.

My view is that the precautionary principle should be very much in evidence here: the onus should be on the companies putting them forward to prove (a) that they are safe, and (b) that there are clear benefits in their adoption (beyond additional profits for said companies).

To date, all the evidence that I have seen is that they haven't achieved (b), so for example herbicide use is higher, not lower, on GM crops, counter to the initial claims.

Dawndonna Sat 18-May-13 17:53:25

Oh, and it's us. Not ourselves.

gordyslovesheep Sat 18-May-13 17:55:52

I will read up on it of course - on reputable website and not internet scare sites obviously

I just think if people post massively 'OMG BE SCARED' style posts and try to edumacate us all they should at least have the decency to back it up with some pesky facts - preferably without resulting to insulting people

Takver Sat 18-May-13 17:56:22

GM watch also have an interesting report on a Danish investigation of the use of GM soya in pig feed here.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 17:56:33

Thank you Takver. That is some sound information.

I actually know someone high up in the FDA. I'll see if she had an opinion, although I'm not sure it's her area.

claig Sat 18-May-13 17:58:48

"Claig, if a peer reviewed paper says it's wrong, eg for using the wrong rats the likelihood is, it's wrong."

As I understand it, the study was a peer-reviewed study which was criticised by some scientists and not others.

"I think these are very important findings," commented Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at Kings College, London, who acted as an adviser to Seralini's team.

"At the very least, what this study highlights is: firstly, the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies; and, secondly, when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient."

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 17:58:51

Yup - I'm not necessarily pro-GM, but I am pro-facts.

I like facts.

FarBetterNow Sat 18-May-13 17:59:53

This is interesting

(www.online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/GMfree5.htm)

Takver Sat 18-May-13 18:00:35

I think it is important to be aware that the big seed companies do have very serious political clout, both in the US and the EU.

Not specifically GMO, but on a related topic, I believe even DEFRA have been moved to complain about the presence of a seconded 'expert' from the French agribusiness lobby who was very closely involved in the recent drafting of the new seed regulations.

WestieMamma Sat 18-May-13 18:01:05

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

You do realise that your 'evidence' includes links to more than a dozen independent scientific rebuttals of that evidence don't you? confused

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 18:02:54

Look up Nick Bernabe.

RocknRollNerd Sat 18-May-13 18:03:57

Oh FFS! I started copying some quotes from the OP to make some points against but lost the will to live at the preposterous ill-informed toss that is DNA is the means to test genetics. You have absolutely fuck all credibility hysteria whipping about genetics if you think that.

If it's all so evil OP why did they award a Nobel Peace Prize to Borlaug?

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 18:05:34

nononsensemum

This Nick Bernabe?

motocross.transworld.net/tag/nick-bernabe/

gordyslovesheep Sat 18-May-13 18:06:57

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 18:09:26

Is Pigletpower on this thread?

That's not helping the argument, much, is it.

gordyslovesheep Sat 18-May-13 18:10:19

no my mistake - it was another thread - the DNA confused me for a moment - as you where grin

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:13:36

"I like facts."

In that case, can I point you to some Daily Mail articles.

This is about the same peer-reviewed study on rats, I think, and how Russia reacted to it

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208452/Russia-suspends-import-use-American-GM-corn-study-revealed-cancer-risk.html

and this is not on health, but on the tragedy that befell some Indian farmers when they switched to GM seeds

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 18:15:39

From a methodological point of view, it is an important study. But only from the point of using 2yr studies vs 90 day studies and using agricultural formulations. But that's pretty much as far as it goes.

Without even considering the type of rats used, the 200 rats have been divided into so many groups that any statistical analysis is meaningless. Its possible that if the study was repeated with larger numbers there would be no difference between the groups.

Also, I don't think mammary tumours are that uncommon in lab rats. AFAIK its pretty much what female lab rats die of if they're not killed first.

RocknRollNerd Sat 18-May-13 18:18:25

No Endoplasmicreticulum - I think it's the High School Baseball Player

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 18:18:34

No, you can never point me to the DM. They are about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard.

gordy that's not on, no matter the thread!

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:18:43

'You do realise that your 'evidence' includes links to more than a dozen independent scientific rebuttals of that evidence don't you? '

Of course I realise that. Do you think all scientists agree?

Isildur Sat 18-May-13 18:20:53

Poster A : 'I like facts.'

Claig : 'In that case, can I point you to some Daily Mail articles.'

grin

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:20:53

'No, you can never point me to the DM. They are about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard.'

If you had read the Daily Mail, they would have told you that Monsanto is not British.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:21:38

Isildur, grin

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 18:22:24

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:23:28

'Try using a mirror.

And a real news source.'

Do you mean the one that informed you that Monsanto was British?

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 18:25:59

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 18:27:25

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:28:36

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:30:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

TwoFourSixOhOne Sat 18-May-13 18:30:59

<fight fight fight>

Is it really evil of me to be loving this?

<holds Tee's coat>

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:31:31

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 18:36:53

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:38:54

But the thread started less than an hour ago.

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 18:38:55

grin Tee

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 18:41:22

BTW thanks! I haven't had this much fun in ages. I'm beginning to be sorry I reported the thread.

And yes, you lost the argument before you even started it. Because I said so.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:44:38

'I haven't had this much fun in ages.'

So slagging off the OP and now me is what you class as fun? It takes all sorts, I guess.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

nextphase Sat 18-May-13 18:45:49

Can I just point out that the Monsanto patent runs out next year?
So anyone able to generate the modified seed will be able to sell glyphosate resistant seeds?

All the mods do is allow excessive weed killer to be used without damaging the crop plants, and hence closer planting of the crops.

I'm going to have been massively cross posts, and anyway, it was pages ago, but grin at dihydrogen monoxide. personally I'm off the crack open the ethanol.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:46:30

Through, read it before dismissing it out of hand. It is about the peer-reviewed study.

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 18:48:17

Given that you've linked to the peer reviewed study, there's no need to link to a journalist's interpretation of it.

The DM didn't do the research though so find a more respectable source. Most posters on here don't want to click on DM links because it justifies their shitty existence and lines their pockets.

What clay said.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 18:49:23

Yup. It takes smart people, like me, who admit when they are wrong immediately after being wrong and it takes ignorant people like you who think the DM is a real news source.

All sorts to make the world go around.

BTW you just admitted you're a sock. Did you realise that?

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:49:46

Clay, I linked to the DM article because it mentioned what Russia did as a result of the study and what cations they took based on the advice of their experts.

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:51:07

'BTW you just admitted you're a sock. Did you realise that?'

No confused because I am not a sock.

Takver Sat 18-May-13 18:51:21

nextphase, I think that is one particular criticism of the Roundup ready crops: that the advantage is in allowing heavier herbicide use - which clearly benefits the company, in that they market the herbicide & the seeds together as a package.

Forgive me, but I'm not sure why that would lead to closer planting of the crop, on the whole all farmers would aim for a clean crop, whether achieved via herbicides or other means (cultivation, stale seed bed etc).

Groovee Sat 18-May-13 18:52:13

Well I am still none the wiser. But I already have plans for Saturday the 25th and I don't do protests!

claig Sat 18-May-13 18:53:14

"The DM didn't do the research though so find a more respectable source."

I have already linked to the BBC and the research as well as criticisms of it in a scientific journal. Keep up.

The reason the Mail article is interesting is because it shows how important that research was since it influenced Russia to act.

Takver Sat 18-May-13 18:57:14

The main problem I have with the protest is that I'm not clear exactly what they are calling for. (Not drawing my information from this thread, but from publicity elsewhere.)

I don't like Monsanto's business model in any way, but I don't see how a march is going to affect them. I'd see a boycott (admittedly tricky), political pressure to maintain limits on GM (ongoing AFAIK) or publicity encouraging farmers to look elsewhere for their seeds as more useful.

Claig do you write for the DM? irrelevant

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 19:02:12

"I like facts."

In that case, can I point you to some Daily Mail articles.

Oh that has cheered me up no end!

Because the Daily Mail are known for their balanced and informed science reporting.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 19:03:22

Takver is roundup a brand name? As in the same people who make weed killer for home use?

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:04:08

Maybe this is what nononsensemumof2, whose moniker cpuld not have been more apt, was on about

"A virus gene that could be poisonous to humans has been missed when GM food crops have been assessed for safety.

GM crops such as corn and soya, which are being grown around the world for both human and farm animal consumption, include the gene."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 19:04:31

I think the problem is that the people protesting aren't sure what they're protesting for so it's impossible for them to make it clear. Take the OP as an example. If she'd shown she understood what she was talking about and had presented a well reasoned argument about why she believes what she does this thread would probably have gone very differently.

Takver Sat 18-May-13 19:06:00

Yes, Roundup is a brand name for Glyphosate. Apologies, I tend to use the two interchangeably. Roundup Ready soy = glyphosate tolerant.

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:06:36

"Claig do you write for the DM? irrelevant"

Sadly not. Only the best are chosen. The hurdle is high and the honour is higher.

nextphase Sat 18-May-13 19:07:39

Yep, round up is the brand name of Monsantos glyphosate weed killer.
If you don't need to mechanically remove the weeds between the rows, you can plant a denser crop and still be sure your going to have a clean crop, to use your words.

Takver Sat 18-May-13 19:09:44

I think on the whole, they're protesting against, rather than for, if that makes sense, Clay. I think it always makes more sense to be really specific, though.

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 19:10:21

"Claig do you write for the DM? irrelevant"

Sadly not. Only the best are chosen. The hurdle is high and the honour is higher.

<snort>

Takver Sat 18-May-13 19:10:39

I've not seen any evidence of heavier yield from round up ready seed, though (not saying it isn't out there, but not aware of it myself)

Oh so you're a groupie. Noted.

ProphetOfDoom Sat 18-May-13 19:11:25

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

But seedless grapes are genetically modified and we've all been eating them for years. Same with "sweetcorn" - genetically modified to be sweeter and juicier. Both delicious.

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:12:13

'Oh so you're a groupie'

I am a student of the Mail, if that is what you mean.

Eurgh seeded grapes hmm oh and seeded citrus fruit <I'm looking at you satsumas in the fruit bowl>

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 19:13:53

Schmaltzing they make your cheeks a bit pink.

I love "student of the Mail". I'm going to use that one. It's so descriptive.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 19:16:50

Clay I literally snorted at that even before I read your snort. grin

claig you said "So slagging off the OP and now me is what you class as fun?" Only, I haven't actually slagged off the OP, just you. Therefore, by syllogistic logic, you must be the OP and you and a sock.

Sorry, is that too big of a word for you?

Takver Sat 18-May-13 19:18:28

Re. yields, the following is from a briefing on the IAASTD report, which is the most comprehensive that I am aware of:

"The IAASTD observed that the evidence regarding GMO impacts on yield is sparse, highly variable and mostly anecdotal. Yield declines have been consistently recorded in GM soybeans and maize, while yield gains have been reported in some situations and no yield effects at all in others. In many cases, yield benefits observed in GMOs derive from the developer’s use of high-yielding modern varieties developed over time through local and conven- tional breeding, rather than from the genetic engineering technology itself."

The briefing is here and the relevant quotes are on p5. The briefing is from the Pesticides Action Network in America, so not impartial, but the IAASTD report was a committee of experts and initially contained representatives from both Monsanto & Syngenta.

There's a useful commentary on the report here

"The IAASTD draft document is surprising for still another reason. Although supported by the World Bank, it does not offer much support for transgenic crops as the best hope, or even as a particularly useful tool, to alleviate the agricultural ills that beset developing countries, the hungry and the poor.

Most likely, inclusiveness and scarce support for GMOs by the IAASTD are in fact connected. It is probably no coincidence that a document arrived at transparently, using a tolerably democratic process (i.e. it was not written behind closed doors), and using a multidisciplinary approach, should conclude that GM crops have ‘lingering safety concerns’ and may even be harmful to rural development.

These conclusions in general, and the lack of support for GMOs in particular, are immensely unwelcome in some quarters. The publicity machines of Monsanto, Syngenta and others have not spent twenty years carefully positioning transgenics as the solution to every agricultural problem in order for them to be ignored by the largest and most diverse collection of agriculture and development policy experts ever assembled.

Last October, Monsanto and Syngenta resigned altogether from the IAASTD project. Though they gave no public reasons for their resignation, the industry body CropLife International told Nature magazine that an inability to make progress in arguing for GMOs was the fundamental reason (1)."

Takver Sat 18-May-13 19:19:01

My apologies, that was a mammoth post blush

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 19:21:13

Oh look at that, deleted. What a surprise. grin

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 19:21:20

Takver - no need to apologise for being logical, coherent and knowing what you are talking about.

nextphase Sat 18-May-13 19:21:29

OK, I'll retract the improved yields comment, Takver. Thanks for the well referenced quotes

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:22:16

"Therefore, by sylly logic, you must be the OP and you and a sock."

I suppose that makes sense.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 19:23:08

Thank you Takver.

OP - That's how it's done. But why get facts in the way of hysteria?

ClayDavis Sat 18-May-13 19:24:20

A mammoth but informative post, Takver.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 19:24:22

So along with not knowing what DNA is, you don't know what syllogistic logic is.

Pity.

Oh wait, that wasn't you. That was the OP. Who is you.

confused ::head explodes::

Oh why do I always miss a good bunfight? If only I cared for my poor offspring a bit less... .

Facts vx DM... hmmm, let me think - quote of the day for me grin

I have huge reservations what some multinational argricultural companies are up to and what power they hold, but hysteria and scaremongering rarely help.

Takver, thanks for taking the time for that post, v interesting.

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:35:08
JulieMumsnet (MNHQ) Sat 18-May-13 19:36:32

We know that you're all excited about Eurovision being on the TV, but we'd like to remind you all of our marvellous Talk Guidelines

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 19:37:22

Julie did Olivia take the night off and leave you with us? I hope she's left the gin for you.

grin

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:43:30

Article by Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch

Across the Western world, governments and food agencies are proving too supine to challenge the spread of GM technology.

Brave words about protecting the consumer have turned out to be empty. Resistance to those who wish to manipulate what we eat and drink is giving way to collusion.

...

These retailers had initially seemed reluctant to sell us these products, but they are beginning to cave in to pressure from the global food industry.

Asda and Morrisons sell chickens that have been reared on genetically modified feed produced from GM soya made by U.S. company Monsanto, and last week three of the other big chains — Tesco, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op — announced they are going to do the same.

Worse still, they will not even label this meat as ‘GM fed’.

At Sainsbury’s, just one brand of chicken will be free from GM input. Indeed, the only supermarket resisting the slide into this troubling new world is Waitrose.
The move by most retailers towards an embrace of GM foods represents something serious as it undermines consumer choice
The move by most retailers towards an embrace of GM foods represents something serious as it undermines consumer choice. Without proper labelling, shoppers can’t avoid eating GM-fed animals.
It also opens the way to the domination of the food industry by biotech companies. Chicken feed is just the start.

Once that precedent is established, the big firms will move on to all other types of livestock, in the process building a monopoly over feed supplies, as natural feed suppliers are forced out of business.
This will make a mockery of the claim that GM technology will lead to lower prices. Once a monopoly or a cartel is created, there will be no real competition. We will all be at the mercy of the GM stranglehold.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2310267/How-genetically-modified-foods-disturbing-reality-lives.html

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:45:56

It is going to move up the political agenda. We will all be hearing much more about it soon.

nononsensemumof2 is ahead of the curve, but we will all catch up with her soon

"Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: 'Owen Patterson says that people are eating meat from animals fed of GM feed without realising it.
'That is because the British Government has consistently opposed moves to label to give consumers accurate information, and he should put that right by immediately introducing compulsory labelling of meat and milk from animals fed on GM feed.'

Friends of the Earth's senior food and farming campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: 'GM crops are not the solution to the food challenges we face.
'They are largely being developed to benefit multinational biotech firms that are gaining control of the seed industry, not to feed poor people in developing countries.'


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256511/PR-drive-launched-shake-Frankenstein-food-image-GM-crops.html

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:48:13

"Indeed, the only supermarket resisting the slide into this troubling new world is Waitrose."

That's it. They are going to open a new Waitrose in my area. After this news it will be packed solid, but I will queue up with the rest of the public.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 19:50:28

It won't be packed solid. Most people really won't care.

But thanks for the information.

Oh shit....I didn't realise deoxyribonucleic acid was such a dangerous chemical....we are all doomed.....doomed I tell ya! shock

Anyone no how to get rid of this dangerous chemical which is so detrimental to life on earth grin???

claig Sat 18-May-13 19:52:25

nononsensemumof2 is right. Protests do help becuse the publicity puts pressure on the retail outlets.

Remember how they some of the supermarlets apologised about horsemeat and sent letters to customers etc.

If there is enough publicity. If the Daily Mail makes it a hot topic, then some of them may have to change their policies.

I keep wandering into bloody bizarre threads this week. confused

I don't have a Waitrose near me so I guess I am probably going to have to just eat the drugged meat. smile

MalcolmTuckersMum Sat 18-May-13 19:59:55

I never realised the Daily Mail's core demographic was the well informed organic wholefood crusader. Bugger me. When did that happen?

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:00:38

Schro, don't worry, Waitrose will do really well. In fact, does anyone know if they are quoted on the stock market, because their shares wil rise as the queues in their stores lengthen, and then they will open more new branches.

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:02:26

MalcolmTuckersMum, it's been like that forever.

Back in the early 90s, I was also reading the Mail and they were the ones that galvanised the nation in that week when the public could have ended the rise of GM.

MalcolmTuckersMum Sat 18-May-13 20:02:52

There really are some gaping holes in your general knowledge aren't there claig

grin

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:04:42

We were ready to march. I phoned one of the large green movements and said when is the march in London being held? And their waste of time answer was we aren't holding one, contact your local area, and it all fizzled out.

Claig I think Waitrose already do pretty well and tbh most people wont really care about this.

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:11:57

There was no internet in those days. You had to phone to find anything out. The Daily Mail reader was ready to protest, but it all fizzled out.

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:14:22

I can't remember which government was in power. But can you imagine the effect of millions of Daily Mail readers holding their paper high.

It would have spelt the end of GM in the blink of an eye. But it all fizzled out.

Oh well forget the continued sexism, underlying racism and general tosh if they telling us about GM foods. Fuck me I'm a convert.
Are you in charge of recruitment down at the cult DM claig? Because they seem to have you pretty brainwashed.

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:16:55

And nononsensemumof2 is the new generation and she has been mocked on here. She would not need to protest now had it not all fizzled out over 20 years ago.

If she's indicative of the new generation, good luck with putting forward a reasoned argument.

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 20:19:49

Some great posts at last. Its Neonicotinoids we should all worry about actually.
Monsanto make great claims but in fact they are operating on VERY thin ice, because the reality is that no one wants or needs them. Globally.
So the more we resist the less they can claim.

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:19:51

"Fuck me I'm a convert."

Throughgritted, welcome to the club, you're not the only one!

How do you know that though? She might be an old woman.

The boat's sailed on neonicotinoids as well. Sorry. Too late again.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 20:20:46

Doesn't understand DNA or sarcasm!

Are you allowed out on your own?

Forgetfulmog Sat 18-May-13 20:21:26

Ummm I'm very confused by this thread. Tbh I sort of lost interest after seeing all the DM links.

I'm off to read the thread about biscuit dunking ...

Tee may I just say ....





I think you're a cunt

grin

EeyoreIsh Sat 18-May-13 20:25:19

I asked the OP for some evidence way back ^^, went away to eat some cake dna, only to find I'd missed a bun fight grin

Thanks to those posters who posted links to actual evidence (and claig, that's peer reviewed evidence, not DM articles!)

I think, as with many issues, it's a complex picture.

OP still fails for her overly emotive language, lack of evidence, and invoking Goodwin's law.

Shall we start a bun fight on neonics now then? ::rolls up sleeves::

infamouspoo Sat 18-May-13 20:26:50

The most disturbing Monsanto research I read was 'the Terminator gene'. Sadly nothing to do with Arnie but a gene to make all seeds sterile. This would mean farmers couldnt save seeds to plant the following year but would have to buy seeds year on year from Monsanto. Hardly all about saving the world from hunger. But pretty scary if the gene got into wild plants and other crops. I have no idea if it was ever marketed commercially and this stupid phone makes googling hard.
Given there has been plenty of cross contamination from GM crops into non GM crops anything genetically modified is bound to spread. I'd like to see more testing.
As for the chickens....I eat kosher. Kosher chickens will remain GM free and cost a frigging fortune so we eat one about once a decade! They are also guarnateed horse free wink

MalcolmTuckersMum Sat 18-May-13 20:32:00

grin @ FreddieM

She's a class cunt though, you have to admit that!

EeyoreIsh Sat 18-May-13 20:33:01

so, nononsense, neonics?

you do realise the EU just agreed to ban them, right?

sweetestcup Sat 18-May-13 20:33:04

Its Neonicotinoids we should all worry about actually

Naw, The Octonauts are far more worrying actually...

maddening Sat 18-May-13 20:34:15

Well surely the cost of organic foods will increase rapidly once GM crops become more widespread as it costs a lot to keep the GM crops from cross pollinating with other crops - therefore inflating the cost to produce oragnics and taking the choice of eating non GM crops away from normal folk as it is financially out of their reach - so taking this choice effectively will rapidly remove options of those who wish to remain non GM.

And surely in the face of so much conflicting evidence it is unfair to remove that choice right now? It is hard to reverse if it turns out to be the wrong one.

Also now I'm in the club <proud face> do I get a badge or a t-shirt or something? Also is there an initiation? You don't need to give the game away, just a heads up.
Like, for example, will I have to congratulate Amanda Holden for being a great mum but then in the next breath criticise her for having cellulite or something? grin

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 20:37:11

Carry on getting up to scratch, its about time too.!
Ive been slated for my punctuation but the language used here really beggars belief!
I'm not the enemy, Monsanto is.
You would be far more useful if you vented your anger where its really needed, ie. against Americas Corporations who are trying to gain a foot hold here in Britain. They are the scum of the earth not me, dont shoot the messenger.!

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:39:53

"Like, for example, will I have to congratulate Amanda Holden for being a great mum but then in the next breath criticise her for having cellulite or something?"

There are no rules in the club. We are a community of radical free-thinkers and are not constrained by convention. It's not the Guardian!

claig Sat 18-May-13 20:44:08

"Well surely the cost of organic foods will increase rapidly once GM crops become more widespread"

maddening, you are exactly right. That is what they are hoping for, so that GM becomes the only possible choice for the cash-strapped consumer who is already struggling with rising fuel and water bills and food inflation.

As the Director of GeneWatch said

"This will make a mockery of the claim that GM technology will lead to lower prices. Once a monopoly or a cartel is created, there will be no real competition. We will all be at the mercy of the GM stranglehold."

Didn't someone up thread say that Monsanto's patent was up this year? If so then other companies will be able to use it, so a monopoly is unlikely.

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 20:46:20

Sorry, no time to be cuntish. Watching Doctor Who.

grin

Sorry that was very vague, I'm on my blummin phone and can't get back to it.

nononsensemumof2 Sat 18-May-13 20:47:50

I see there are a few brains at work here, thank God, but rather disappointingly not nearly enough.
I just hope those in operation can focus a little bit longer, before falling over, or giving up to peer pressure completely.
Also hope that this thread is not representative of all those who enter.
Where are you Mums?

What about the dads?

I'm in my living room, where are you?

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 20:51:55

Yes. Dads. And grandads. And Grannies.

Why only mums?

What about non-parents? Can they not help?

EeyoreIsh Sat 18-May-13 20:54:55

Oh, I had better leave this thread as I'm not a mum.

my opinion is clearly not worth anything, as I have yet to have kids shock

Does your keyboard put those exclamation marks in all by itself? Or do you think it makes you sound more intelligent or ... something?

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 21:05:20

She! Must! Use! Them! Freddie!

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 21:06:16

So patents last 20 years.

And whatsitsfaces patent is expiring next year.

So they've already been using this stuff for 19 years?

Bit late to worry now...

Now Tee don't be a cunt. You cunt. grin grin

MalcolmTuckersMum Sat 18-May-13 21:21:02

Surely you mean "you cunt.!" don't you?

grin

Sorry! blush!

Tee!

Don't! Be! A! Cunt!

You! Cunt!

grin!

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 21:23:05

Feddie.! MTM.! Don't.! Be.! Cunts.!

That's really hard to do...

grin

MalcolmTuckersMum Sat 18-May-13 21:24:14

It does actually require some concentration doesn't it.?

grin

grin! It! Does!

Oh.! I.! Forgot.! The.! Full.! Stops.!

" *...building a monopoly over feed supplies, as natural feed suppliers are forced out of business...*"
This worries me more than a bit of GMO.
That, and sterile seeds etc.

Cunts, OTOH, don't worry me at all grin.

Anybody watching Eurovision <<shallow>>

Tee2072 Sat 18-May-13 21:34:05

Totally, PD, come to the Eurovision thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/1759249-Euro-VOICE-ion

LEMisdisappointed Sat 18-May-13 21:35:27

nonsensemumof2 - i think your name is pretty apt!

caroldecker Sat 18-May-13 21:36:54

How do sterile seeds spread into other plants - surely being sterile, they cannot cross fertilize and breed a new generation of sterile plants?

manticlimactic Sat 18-May-13 21:48:34

"If you test your chickens DNA from Sainsburys, M&S etc in the future you will find that its been contaminated with Monsantos rouge genes"

shock They're putting in make up genes in chickens?

caroldecker, no they cannot, but they can force farmers to buy new seed from Monsanto and create a dependency. Rather than just keeping some grain back from this year's harvest for next year.

Takver Sat 18-May-13 21:55:51

As I understand it, caroldecker, the spread would be via the pollen (ie, pollen from transgenic sterile seed plants pollinating other plants).

There's an article (not an anti-GM one) that explains a bit about terminator genes here.

I want a make up gene. That would be quare handy in the morning.

OnTheNingNangNong Sat 18-May-13 22:21:27

Oooh, I am a mum, but if I'm honest, the OP has not converted me to the cause. My 6 year old saw that neonicotinoids are going to be banned, OP, did you miss this? Maybe you need to broaden your horizons a bit more.

This thread is hilarious.! grin

claig Sat 18-May-13 22:23:32
claig Sat 18-May-13 22:29:27

Have tried to decipher it but it is all Greek to me. Not sure if it is GM or not.

claig Sat 18-May-13 22:35:26

I think this is an earlier study by some of the same people that did the 2 year study on rats.

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

caroldecker Sat 18-May-13 22:38:22

Takver - quote from your link:

Oliver points out that any genetically modified plant that also carries the terminator would be unable to beget any progeny—either through its seed or its pollen.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 22:39:07

claig you've lost me, I have no idea why you have posted that study.

EndoplasmicReticulum Sat 18-May-13 22:40:25

The one at 22.23 I mean. I'll have a look at the other one now.

claig Sat 18-May-13 22:43:47

It is the second link in this article on the recently passed Monsanto Protection Act in the US

"The figurative jury is still out on whether or not genetically modified and genetically engineered foods have negative health impacts on humans, but supporters of GMO-labeling point to studies showing a range of potential risks, from kidney and liver damage to reproductive system issues."

www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-20-would-ban-gmo-labeling-laws-state-level-1267629

Takver Sat 18-May-13 22:46:58

caroldecker, I'm not aware that any terminator type genes are actually in use, so I guess its a hypothetical question. But potentially the first generation of the cross pollinated plant could then pollinate further plants, if that makes sense, so I suppose potentially there could be a ripple effect.

claig Sat 18-May-13 22:47:28

Apparently the protest on May 25 that nononsensemumof2 is on about is a worldwide march against Monsanto

pcmworldnews.com/news/2013/05/world-wide-gmo-protest-may-25-2013/

The video mentions the study that I linked to about the rats etc

fancyabakeoff Sat 18-May-13 22:48:53

Interesting documentary from 2008

topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/

A bit biased as most documentaries are but you get the general idea about some of Monsanto's business practices.

claig Sat 18-May-13 22:49:06

What critics have called the Monsanto Protection Act is causing a stir among protestors.

I don't fully understand the implications of it.

caroldecker Sat 18-May-13 22:50:31

claig the first has nothing to do with GM, but says we should not sleep on corn cobs if trying to get pregnant.

The second says the experiments were not well designed or reliable, and the cause of any issues was the pesticide/herbicide, not the GM.

Note they repeat the same error of small sample size in their 2 year experiment which they accuse Monsanto of in the first paper

claig Sat 18-May-13 22:51:52

"Anonymously added to a recent budget bill, the controversial rider would protect U.S. biotech companies from litigation if their GMO seeds turn out to be dangerous."

www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/blogs/what-is-the-monsanto-protection-act

claig Sat 18-May-13 22:53:08

Thanks, caroldecker. Not sure why that article linked to the first one at all if it is not about GMO.

Nope.

Quick glance tells me that is bog standard corncob.

And I hope that when I eat my roast chicken tomorrow I am only eating chicken DNA. Chances are there will be sub harmful levels of bacteria on it so may well ingest a bit of bacteria DNA.

I wouldn't expect to find any DNA relating to what it has eaten because...guess what the DNA from the corn or whatever doesn't jump into the chicken when no-ones looking. It should either be broken down into it's constituent organic components and absorbed as phosphate, sugars and free bases - at which point it isn't DNA its just sugars phosphates and free bases.

Or it will pass through the digestive tract and be crapped out the other end. During the processing of the chicken I would not expect the flesh to be contaminated with the contents of the gut.

So...scientists make genetically modified plants. These have the potential to enhance crop yeilds suitable for human consumption around the world. GREAT.

Commercial companies patent genes they think could be useful. Not quite so good. But gene patents (at least in human disease...not quite so familiar with agricultural applications) are I believe on extraordinarily shaky ground. Don't think a gene patent has ever been challenged but (at least in the pharmaceutical field) they are not expected to be upheld.

Farmers grow an enhanced crop. Perhaps where the crop can resist a pest. The crop has longevity. Or the farmers can increase yeilds. Less likely to lose an entire harvest. ..surely this is good for tge farmers...maybe the crop has increased nutritional value. . Surely good for the consumers...

Chicken eats enhanced crop. Guess what. Don't think the chicken dven notices that the corn didn't die when the farmer sprayed it with weedkiller.

I eat chicken...this is so far removed from tge bloody genetic manipulation that took place in a lab thirty years ago that I couldn't give a toss.

Genetic modification...so what???
The ethics behind some of the commercialisation of GM crops perhaps needs challenging and monitoring.

At the end of the day...supply and demand. Customers want cheap chickens. Tesco will give them. Arguably customers want a choice...I suspect they will get a choice. The cost of that choice will reflect the cost to Tesco...which reflect the cost to the chickrn farmer...which will reflect the cost to the grain farmer....

Just give me a bloody tasty chicken that doesn't cost a fortune. ..

Xposts. I was referring to the first article

AvrilPoisson Sat 18-May-13 23:01:28

The difficulties I have with GMO are:
once it's in the food chain, it is impossible to remove (so if anything turns out to have adverse effects, it will be too late to eradicate it)
monsanto's despicable practices- buying up all seed stocks, forcing farmers to buy their products, and pay their prices, and forcing them to fork out every time they wish to have a crop. Pure evil- all to turn a profit, for which people are going to die.

Patenting staples (e.g. rice) is abominable behaviour.

Takver Sun 19-May-13 09:06:23

" Or the farmers can increase yeilds. Less likely to lose an entire harvest. ..surely this is good for tge farmers...maybe the crop has increased nutritional value. . Surely good for the consumers..."

Sadly, the evidence so far (have a look at the IAATA study) is that there is no systematic increase in yields, nor (in the crops available to date) any increased nutritional value.

Overall, the only clear beneficiary of the crops is - unsurprisingly - Monsanto & Syngenta. They are approaching duopoly control of the food chain (lots of vertical integration as well as horizontal) which in the long term is likely to lead to worse and worse conditions for farmers, and worse outcomes for consumers.

On the risks, all I can say is that I know plenty of people with genetics training (as I say, DH is from this field) who consider it to be substantial.

My gut feeling is that it is actually like the post WW2 increased use of pesticides/herbicides. So no immediate direct effect, but then over time a ripple out situation where large numbers of other species are reduced in number and weakened. Obviously the difference with herbicides/pesticides is that although they do work their way into the food chain, they don't self reproduce, so when we ban a substance we stop putting any more into the ecosystem.

ShellyBoobs Sun 19-May-13 09:38:19

Can I suggest you change your name, OP?

Perhaps just remove the "no" from the start of it?

caroldecker Sun 19-May-13 10:40:23

takvar - how do Monsanto force farmers to buy their products - at gunpoint? blackmail?

Takver Sun 19-May-13 10:52:07

caroldecker - its a complex process, as with development of monopoly in all areas, and its difficult to summarise here in a short post. I can mention a few of the factors that have put them in such a powerful position, but I'd need to write an essay to explain it properly grin

Firstly, seed legislation means that all varieties (at least within the EU) have to go through an expensive process of testing and registration before they can be legally sold. That immediately puts a barrier in the way of AN Other small seed company marketing to farmers.

Secondly, Monsanto / Syngenta have systematically bought up other seed companies, and dropped varieties that they were previously offering. So farmers will find that variety X that they have grown for years is no longer available.

A non-GMO example which is a parallel, I think. We sell seed for tall peas. Every so often gardening magazines get wildly excited by this, talk about it as something really different and fab, and you'd be amazed how many gardeners don't even realise that tall peas are an option. Obviously in the past they were the norm, but because most farmers want short peas so they don't need supports / can be harvested mechanically, that is what is sold since the home garden trade is generally a spin-off of the farm seed trade. Hence gardeners have little option but to buy this type of pea, even if it is less appropriate for a small space (lower yield per square foot).

Thirdly, I believe (but it is a long time since I read up on this aspect, so I'm open to correction) that since the big seed players own the main buying companies too the farmers have to grow the varieties that these companies want, or otherwise find small / local markets for their crops, which is tricky. Its a bit like farmers pretty much having to grow to supermarket specifications, however difficult / inappropriate these are. Then the supermarket buyers because of their monopoly position can beat down prices to almost unachievable levels (hence gangmaster practices etc to get wage costs down way below min wage).

Takver Sun 19-May-13 10:54:43

Actually, to summarise:

Big seed companies = monopoly power at the top

Lots of famers, no power

Big supermarkets = monopoly power at the bottom

Farmers squeezed both ways unless they are big enough to play the subsidy system.

Takver Sun 19-May-13 10:56:13

Oh, and add to that both the big seed companies and the supermarkets spending inconceivable sums on lobbying to make sure that the seed legislation, subsidy systems etc are run in the way that is most favourable to them.

MrsJacksonBrodie Sun 19-May-13 11:48:47

Takver speaks sense.
GMO is a distraction wrt to how powerful and potentially dangerous monopolies of companies involved in food production are. Not 'just' for us, but world-wide and potentially lethal in poorer countries. We are more at risk of more expensive food costs, not so much of starving.

infamouspoo Sun 19-May-13 13:22:55

Interesting reading about the excessive use of Roundup on tne crops genetically modified to be more resistant to the herbicide. Oh, and that resistance has already spread to weeds so more of the herbicide is needed. Health effects are widely reported in workers and farmers.
here

nononsensemumof2 Mon 20-May-13 19:53:37

Studies have proven that GMO fed to rats causes tumours, also proven is that Neonicotoids are responsible for the bee decline. They have also been proven to be deficient in nutrients, as compared to natural sources.
What we have to remember is that these chemicals are not being SPRAYED on, bad enough, they are being introduced GENETICALLY into the plants DNA.!
Obviously if chickens are now going to be sold in our supermarkets, fed with this stuff the consequences are going to manifest, eventually, inevitably in us.
This is not to even mention the far reaching effects on our environment, our lack of choice due to cross contamination of these plants seeds and essentially the ultimate takeover of our natural food supply.
Thank God some posts here show an understanding of what we are faced with, the others really need to do the research and start getting on board.! Write to these supermarkets and lodge your complaints, ie. withdraw your pounds. That is sure to make them think twice if they continue along this path, even if the science and the morals dont.!

EndoplasmicReticulum Mon 20-May-13 20:43:49

Nononsensemum I'm still not sure you've got the basics here.

GMO = genetically modified organism.

The "chemicals" being introduced into the plant's DNA is - more DNA, but from a different organism.

E.g fish genes into a plant to protect it from frost. Jellyfish gene into a mouse to make it glow in the dark. I don't think glow in the dark mice will be available in supermarkets.

anneatkins Mon 20-May-13 20:44:32

Jeezcripes. You know what I care about? Feeding my kids. No, we don't have meat every day (hah! talk about a fantasy) but if I feel like burning some chicken on the grill, then it'll be chicken we can afford and I am sorry if this offends anyone's sensibilities- but I think food animals are FOOD and that's it. No I do not want animal cruelty, but ffs, £13.50 for a teensy chicken? This is why we hardly ever have chicken anymore.

I also understand farmers get the sh!t end of the stick, but ffs - I didn't force them to be (for example) chicken farmers.

At work I get to hear everyone's worst side - but that's my choice - not going to sit around and moan about it now. Silly

Also, I am over internet activism do something REAL or just get off that high (virtual) horse.

Thanks.

Those pesky chemicals get everywhere.

I'm aiming to be chemical free this year.

anneatkins Mon 20-May-13 20:48:20

Also: What takver said.

Thank God some posts here show an understanding of what we are faced with, the others really need to do the research and start getting on board.

Well seeing I am one of those which doesn't support your views I assume I need to do more research.

I'll tell that to the people that gave me the authority to oversee the production of all GMOs where I worked. Ok. I we didn't work with plant GMOs but I think I have a thorough understanding of what a GMO is. How it is generated. The way it can be propagated. The chance of it transferring to other organisms and the mechanisms by which that is prevented.

Fair enough I might need to research plant biotech politics and ethics. But I am happy with my understanding of GMOs. I am happy to eat GM fed chickens (from a health pespective). But thanks for the advice.

Takver Mon 20-May-13 21:03:04

anneatkins I totally sympathise with wanting affordable food. Sadly, I don't see any likelihood of GM crops / seed supply monopolies helping with that.

I'm also slightly bemused by this £13.50 chicken, I buy free range local chicken from the butcher, admittedly not whole chicken (usually thighs) but it isn't that expensive at all. It would be even cheaper if I could get to the thursday market as my parents do & buy direct from the farmer.

Frankly, whenever I go in Tescos I think they are taking the piss with prices, basically they know they can charge silly money for decent food because some people will pay it, then sell crap 'value' food to everyone else. Obviously I'm lucky in that we live in the country so we have the veg van, fish van, people selling direct on the market, and local shops that don't make a fortune for some fancy supermarket directors.

anneatkins Mon 20-May-13 21:25:58

@Takver: yes and I agree with this too. I have farmers in my family and we have an allotment (not a lottie, lol, you know the difference) and we grow a lot of our veg, and we frankly just do without meat or get it from certain people. However, that said, there sometimes comes a day when some chicken breast marinated nicely and grilled is a real treat and I want enough for everyone to partake. ;-)

nononsensemumof2 Mon 20-May-13 21:33:45

Endo: Fish genes do not belong in PLANTS, they belong in fish.!
Bees don't eat fish! Is it any wonder they are dying.?

MrsGeologist Mon 20-May-13 21:36:20

Dunno what your talking about endo, I know for a fact that they are goungto put BLEACH CHEMICALS into the DNA of plants, so we'll have half plants, half BLEACH.

<puts on tinfoil hat>

nononsensemumof2 Mon 20-May-13 21:39:36

Lets just hope we can stop that van being the Monsanto van, selling chicken, veg and fish which is indistinguishable from each other apart from the DNA patents.

GoofyIsACow Mon 20-May-13 23:35:13

I came to laugh at rouge genes but i see someone beat me to it... As you were...

<pinches cheeks>

tinpotted Tue 21-May-13 00:19:06

OP may have introduced this badly but she has a point. Monsanto is a huge corporation in USA which develops GMO's. They sell seed to farmers in USA and poor countries but under contract to destroy the resulting seed so the farmers always have to buy the seed every season.

They also produce hormones to get cows to produce more milk, and have sued more organic milk farmers who label their milk "produced by cows who have not been given hormones". Their reasoning is because it will make consumers think the hormone milk is therefore bad.

They own so many patents on crops such as corn, soy beans etc in USA, and their products are in about 70% of processed food in USA. In USA the govt seem to be encouraging bad health as they are considering not allowing labels such as 'organic' and 'non-gmo' as they don't want to discriminate against Monsanto products. One of their ex-CEOs has been put in charge of the food and drug department, so of course their interests are being seen to first as they prop up the government of their choice with millions every year.

I thought UK and Europe were brilliant because they weren't allowing GMO stuff and were resisting the huge pull of Monsanto, but as the OP says, it's the thin edge of wedge - first it's chickens, and then it'll be human food that you won't even know about because some of you say you don't care.

Before you fact check, all of the above is broadly what I remember from memory from a few weeks ago (I recently moved to USA from UK) of research, so I've tried not to be too specific as don't want to be accused of lying and haven't got time to do a google search now for more reliable links. However, just google 'Monsanto, health' and you will get more info.

It is important that people are aware of this stuff or you won't even know the shit you are eating soon. We are having to spend a fortune on food here to avoid the rubbish.

tinpotted Tue 21-May-13 00:54:55

Just back and saw my post was on page 14!!? Sorry, I thought I was posting on the first page so probably duplicated other posts.

caroldecker Tue 21-May-13 01:07:13

But they are making money from people buying their food. I am not aware of any cases of adverse reactions in humans or any of the problems people mention as possible actually occurring.
Therefore are you scaremongering without evidence?

claig Tue 21-May-13 07:14:24

An interesting article that may be of interest to nononsensemumof 2 and those of whom she says

"some posts here show an understanding of what we are faced with"

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/

EndoplasmicReticulum Tue 21-May-13 07:27:27

caroldecker - It's not that she's scaremongering without evidence, there is evidence, as posted by Taskver and others. It's that she's scaremongering without much idea of what she's talking about.

Therefore not coming across well.

claig Tue 21-May-13 07:41:03

"Eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome was first recognized after the doctors of 3 American women with mysterious symptoms talked together in 1989. However, many people became ill as long as 2–3 years before the illness was reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in November 1989"

"Some epidemiologist studies[5][6][7] traced the cause to consumption of L-tryptophan from a single Japanese manufacturer, Showa Denko.[8] The company supplied the majority of L-tryptophan to the United States under various brand names. There was evidence that new batches of L-tryptophan may have been improperly prepared. First, the specific bacterial culture used to synthesise this tryptophan had recently been genetically engineered to greatly increase tryptophan production. The increased concentrations of tryptophan in the fermentor may in turn have led to increased production of trace impurities."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilia%E2%80%93myalgia_syndrome

www.nytimes.com/1989/11/17/us/officials-investigating-drug-s-role-in-illness.html

www.nytimes.com/1991/06/25/science/aftermath-of-l-tryptophan.html

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/11/06/who-is-trying-to-hide-the-causes-of-a-deadly-epidemic-from-you-and-why.aspx

claig Tue 21-May-13 07:52:33

Some people question the research down by nononsensemumof2

Here are the comments of one of the founders of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and by the Labour MP, Michael Meacher, a former Environment Minister according to the source of the quote, and a President of Friends of the Earth on a book called "Seeds of Destruction" on GM

"Outrageous! That's what you'll say over and over again when you read how the biotechnology companies have manipulated the government, our food, and the media, and put an entire generation at risk. Notions of independence and integrity in the nation's food regulatory agencies are shattered in this well-documented, captivating book."

—Ben Cohen, Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry's

"This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry... What is so exciting about this book is that it is no dry text of scientific exegesis—it positively fizzes with the human drama of the cabals and conspiracies behind the scenes... It is meticulously documented and powerfully written, somewhere between a documentary and a thriller."

—From the UK edition foreword by Michael Meacher, former UK environment minister

"Seeds of Deception is a very important book for two major reasons: first, it clearly exposes many threats the genetically engineered food industry poses to people, animals, and nature; and second, it is a powerful alert to all academic institutions about the way in which scientists of great integrity are being ruthlessly attacked and intimidated by multi-billion-dollar special interests. People all over the world who are concerned about their food supply should read this book."

—Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth


seedsofdeception.com/seeds-of-deception/seeds-praise/

claig Tue 21-May-13 07:55:03

Just because nononsensemumof2 is not as famous as those people and just because she prefers a liberal use of the full stop and exclamation mark compared to the more conventional use of punctuation, does not mean that what she says has no merit.

claig Tue 21-May-13 07:59:54

'it positively fizzes with the human drama of the cabals and conspiracies behind the scenes'

—From the UK edition foreword by Michael Meacher, former UK environment minister

Remember, how we nearly stopped it in the early nineties in that historic week.

It is probably too late to stop it now, but what nonsensemumof2 says is no nonsense.

Tee2072 Tue 21-May-13 08:00:53

That's not why what she says has no merit.

What she says has no merit because she hasn't actually given any actual evidence of anything except that she has no idea what DNA actually is.

Others have, sure. But Whateverhernameis2 hasn't bothered to actually state any facts except OMG MONSANDOTOALLDAND IS TAKING OVER THE WORLD RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

::waits for claig to point out that I said Monsadanolalldn is not actually a US company, because that seems to be her main argument::

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:03:37

"This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops"

—From the UK edition foreword by Michael Meacher, former UK environment minister

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:04:58

'::waits for claig to point out that I said Monsadanolalldn is not actually a US company, because that seems to be her main argument::'

I wasn't aware that you had said that. But that just goes to prove my point!

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:10:36

Sorry, my mistake, the book is called "Seeds of Deception", not Destruction

Tee2072 Tue 21-May-13 08:12:41

Are you drunk this early in the morning? Because otherwise I worry about your memory and perhaps you should go see your GP immediately.

In any case, you're beating a dead horse. Whathersface2 has already started a new thread that shows what a loon she actually is. Perhaps you should find that one before you side with her on anything.

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:12:47

"the way in which scientists of great integrity are being ruthlessly attacked and intimidated by multi-billion-dollar special interests"

—Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth

But don't think it is just about money and billions of dollars.

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:14:17

Tee, can you link to it please?
as I have been impressed with her knowledge on this subject

I'm sorry but the tryptophan example is completely and utterly irrelevant.

That is an example of a GMO being used to produce a therapeutic product. Nothing to do with the food chain. In no way comparable.

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:16:52

L-trytophan is a dietary supplement.

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:22:29

The US has now reversed its 20 year ban on the over the counter sale of the supplement

[http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/HealthNotes-Search?search=%2Fassets%2Ffeature%2Fl-tryptophan-is-back_11489_4%2F~default]]

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:22:57

Fair point. But it's produced in the same way as a therapeutic would be.

It is a Completely different and non comparable example.

And if you weren't so selective in your cut and paste from wikipedia you would have given a more balanced rationale which included a desctiption of how the manufacturers cut corrners with the purification which ime is likely to be a more realistic explaination of how the tryptophan was less pure. It also talks about how the body could respond to an 'over use' of tryptophan and make its own toxic products in response.

Just trying to add some balance...

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:26:28

Edwinia, that is why I linked to the complete article so that people could read it all. I am only highlighting some significant aspects.

And I'm highlighting the other significant aspects so that the debate on mn remains balanced smile

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:29:33

Some people believe that GM is just about politics and billions of dollars etc.

Many of us, however, believe it is about health. I am not just worried about the food chain or billions of dollars.

I am worried about all aspects of health - whether that be the food we eat or the medicine, supplemens or therapeutics we may take which may have been in part genetically engineered.

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:31:12

Edwinia, you are right smile

This has been a balanced debate on all sides, thanks to nononsensemumof2's thread.

scarletforya Tue 21-May-13 08:31:54

Thread is hilarious. The definition of DNA, the phantom 'male' interlocutors, Evil GM overlords, Godwin and all.

claig, I remember nothing of the historic week in the nineties and the Daily Mail is not a respected scientific journal like the National Enquirer. Now that's a paper for serious fact lovers.

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:40:30

'I remember nothing of the historic week in the nineties'

It was legendary. I was there, I saw it unfold. I have never marched or protested against anything in my life, but even I phoned up a major green organisation and said "when are we going to start to end it?" and all they could say was "contact your local area".

As a great man once wrote about that historic week in the early nineties

"There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries"

and all the green organisation could say was "contact your local area".

Shakespeare himself could not have penned such a tragedy.

claig Tue 21-May-13 08:44:28

We came, we saw, we lost

infamouspoo Tue 21-May-13 08:49:58

I'm with Claig on this. Seeds of Deception is a very good book. And just because nonsensemum came across, umm, not very well, this thread turned farciacal about what is actually a serious subject. The genetical modification of our crops by a few biotech companies with enormous power with the US Govt.
If the internet had been a big thing when the BSE in meat crisis broke you lot would have called the first whistle blowers 'swivel eyed loons' as well.
Its not just the saftey aspect but the fact these companies have the power to force farmers to grow their seeds and leave little choice in the matter. Do we really want our food supplies in the hands of a food huge corporations? Genetically altered for profit, to withstand even more toxic chemicals?
Not me. And if they are out there, I want them labelled. Something that Monsanto have been resisting.

scarletforya Tue 21-May-13 09:35:07

Back to 4chan with ya! That was some funny shit though.

sparechange Tue 21-May-13 11:03:46

Can I just point out something whatshername2 tried to slip through earlier:
"Studies have proven that GMO fed to rats causes tumours"
NO, this is NOT true

Not even the most hairbrained Daily Mail links that claig posted earlier would claim such utter nonsense

I'm going back to my brew and biscuit now. Sorry for shouting.

GrendelsMum Tue 21-May-13 12:56:08

It's worth remembering that GM is not a thing, but a technique. People often conflate concerns about the goals people using the technique, concerns about the resulting crops bred using the technique and concerns about the technique itself.

For example, a lot of people say that they don't like genetically modified crops because they're created by Monsanto.

Here's an example of a UK research institute, funded by the UK government, running a trial of wheat which has been genetically modified to produce the same insect-repelling smell that other plants can produce already. The idea is that you could cut down on putting pesticides on your crop, because the crop would be using its own anti-pest techniques. Do people have the same concerns about this particular breed of wheat, and if so, what are they?

claig Tue 21-May-13 13:16:17

"Do people have the same concerns about this particular breed of wheat, and if so, what are they?"

Yes, I have concerns about this type of wheat. I believe the public has the right to have this type of food labelled and there should be labels on all food that uses any of it. Just as the chemicals that make up toothpaste or shampoo are listed on the back of the product, so food containing GM crops should also be labelled.

That way, the public can make its choice.

The biotech bigwigs might want to eat it, but I would prefer to have a choice.

GrendelsMum Tue 21-May-13 13:20:34

So would you be happy if the bread made from the wheat was available in the shops, but had the wheat variety listed in the ingredients?

claig Tue 21-May-13 13:22:58

I wonder whose food the public would buy then. Organic food made by small independent farmers who have been in decline for yers, but may then see a resurgence, or food containing GMOs supplied by large multi-billion dollar conglomerates.

From this thread, it is pretty clear what nononsensemumof2 would choose and why.

GrendelsMum Tue 21-May-13 13:26:14

I expect that people would probably make a range of choices, much as they do now. Some people buy on farming practice, some buy local or seasonal, some buy on convenience, some buy on price, some buy on quality.

claig Tue 21-May-13 13:28:33

'So would you be happy if the bread made from the wheat was available in the shops, but had the wheat variety listed in the ingredients?'

Yes, because I am a realist. I know that ordinary people can't stop these lobbies and corporations, so we have to have the best compromise we can find, and that is for strict labelling which allows us the chance to choose.

I wouldn't buy it. I realise that some people wouldn't care and would just want cheap food. Even though I think that that is misguided, I realise that nothing will change the influence of the lobbies.

That historic week in the early nineties has gone. We had our chance then and all we got in response was "contact your local area".

claig Tue 21-May-13 13:31:43

'I expect that people would probably make a range of choices'

So why do the billion dollar lobbies often seek to deny us the right to choose by not supporting strict labelling? What are they scared of? They told us it is safe. Do they think we don't believe them?

Do their beliefs and profits override ours?

claig Tue 21-May-13 13:34:45

If they want to make a silk purse out of sow's ear, at least let them label it as such, so that the public is aware of what they are buying.

sparechange Tue 21-May-13 13:52:56

Claig, I can't work out if you are a troll, mad, a tinfoilhelmet nutter or all of the above.
Firstly, your blind adherence to whatever the OP says is frankly freaking me out. As is your belief that if someone, anyone, pops up on MN and gives us there merest hint of there being a protest, we should be on bended knee thanking her, rather than asking for any facts.
If someone came to your door collecting for a charity and told you nothing other than 'you should support this', would you give them money?

Secondly, you seem so incredibly obsessed with this cause that you have admitted you know very little about that you are spamming us with any old links you can find on the internet, while telling us you worship at the alter of the Daily Mail (which is why I can't help but wonder if you really are just a troll). And trotting out some smashing cliches, which are befitting of that 'Daily Mail headline generator' website of old.

Thirdly, and this is what I'm finding really odd, is that you don't know why GM is/could be 'bad', what is 'bad' about it, or why any of us should think it is 'bad'.
You've trotted out a load of easily debunked myths - organic farmers are in decline. Not true.
Monsanto are making billions from this. Not true.

All you are missing now is telling us there is a government conspiracy. If you could tell us a backstory about ministers/senators/kings being friends/cousins/non-exec directors of Monsanto, it would tick my last bullshit bingo square. Go on, make my day...

claig Tue 21-May-13 14:01:40

"Claig, I can't work out if you are a troll, mad, a tinfoilhelmet nutter or all of the above."

You missed one option out. None of the above, but rather an informed thinker somewhat in the vein of nononsensemumof2.

'If someone came to your door collecting for a charity and told you nothing other than 'you should support this', would you give them money?'

Certainly not, and it is the same if someone knocks on my door and asks me to support New Labour.

'Secondly, you seem so incredibly obsessed with this cause that you have admitted you know very little about that you are spamming us with any old links you can find on the internet'

I am not obsessed with it. I just have a different belief to your credulous one. I am not spamming links. I am finding links to show that there are concerns about it, even if you are so credulous as to believe that there are none.

'Thirdly, and this is what I'm finding really odd, is that you don't know why GM is/could be 'bad', what is 'bad' about it, or why any of us should think it is 'bad'.'

Of course I know why.

I share the concerns of Labour MP Michael Meacher rather than your credulous naievete.

"This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry... What is so exciting about this book is that it is no dry text of scientific exegesis—it positively fizzes with the human drama of the cabals and conspiracies behind the scenes... It is meticulously documented and powerfully written, somewhere between a documentary and a thriller."

—From the UK edition foreword by Michael Meacher, former UK environment minister

claig Tue 21-May-13 14:06:04

sparechange, if you have any spare change, you couldn't do worse than buying the book 'Seeds of Deception' which had such a good endorsement from Labour MP who had a role concerning the environment in the Blair government, as far as I know.

Stop worrying about playing bingo, and start learning some scientific lingo. And the Daily Mail online website would be a good start!

sparechange Tue 21-May-13 14:14:14

Is this the same Michael Meacher who believed 9/11 was an inside job?

Claig, you are clearly a dangerous tinfoil helmet conspiracy theorist, who thinks that sprinkling in the odd long word hides your total lack of credibility and coherence. I am 99% certain most of these posts are trolling, but if you genuinely blindly believe every flimsy article which supports your view, while disregarding everything that opposes it, you are a very troubled individual.

claig Tue 21-May-13 14:19:49

I don't know if Michael Meacher believes that or not.

If you think I am a troll, why don't you report me to MNHQ.

I share the concerns of Brent Blackwelder who is or was the President of Friends of the Earth

"Seeds of Deception is a very important book for two major reasons: first, it clearly exposes many threats the genetically engineered food industry poses to people, animals, and nature; and second, it is a powerful alert to all academic institutions about the way in which scientists of great integrity are being ruthlessly attacked and intimidated by multi-billion-dollar special interests. People all over the world who are concerned about their food supply should read this book."

—Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth

You seem to be posting links to articles which show genetic modification in a negative light without any comprehension that the specific examples you are choosing/finding have no relevance in the GM crop debate.

You say you understand the dangers. You back this up by saying you agree with Michael meacher and give us a quote. Great. But even the quote doesn't say what the dangers are.

The problem is that the scientific arguments agains GM crops are weak. The issues are difficult to understand by the lay person. They are even more difficult to paraphrase and present to more lay people. That has been the downfall of this thread. Your (and takn and nononsense if you are all different people) attempts to do this have been pulled to pieces and dare I say ridiculed because there are lots of academic holes and mis understandings in your scientific understanding of the issues and arguments.

I think there is a stronger political and ethical debate to be had around the monopolisation of the market, selling practices etc. As I understand it this is what the March is actually about. I would suggest that the thread would have been much better recieved if the focus was around these issues, which I believe are easier to present, easier for people to undersrand and therefore easier for you to help people to form opinions on.

Sadly the glaring holes in the science have lead to a huge loss of credibility in you. Making it harder to gain support on this thread of any of the issues.

LEMisdisappointed Tue 21-May-13 14:35:04

Ha! sounds pretty coherant to me there Edwina!!! wink Now, is it going to be roast or biryani??

Pmsl lem

GrendelsMum Tue 21-May-13 14:46:09

The surprising thing is that Mumsnetters as a whole don't seem very interested in this thread - is this an indication that people are no longer very interested in the topic, or do they just think this particular thread is a bit barmy?

claig Tue 21-May-13 14:46:15

'You seem to be posting links to articles which show genetic modification in a negative light without any comprehension that the specific examples you are choosing/finding have no relevance in the GM crop debate.'

The links I have found show concerns about GM, such as the article which showed that Russia stopped its import of some GM crops based on the scientific study done on rats. I expectthat the Russian experts who recommended that have more scientific qualifications that anyone on this thread.

'But even the quote doesn't say what the dangers are.'

Here is an article that I posted earlier which shows what some of the dangers may be. Nobody identified any "academic holes" in it.

"EU watchdog reveals approval for GM foods fails to identify poisonous gene
54 of the 86 GM plants approved contain the dangerous gene
Gene found in food for farm animals producing meat, milk and eggs"

A virus gene that could be poisonous to humans has been missed when GM food crops have been assessed for safety.

GM crops such as corn and soya, which are being grown around the world for both human and farm animal consumption, include the gene.

A new study by the EU's official food watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), has revealed that the international approval process for GM crops failed to identify the gene.

The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics.

It was led by Nancy Podevin, who was employed by EFSA, and Patrick du Jardin, of the Plant Biology Unit at the University of Liege in Belgium.

They discovered that 54 of the 86 GM plants approved for commercial growing and food in the US, including corn and soya, contain the viral gene, which is known as 'Gene VI'.

Significantly, the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI 'might result in unintended phenotypic changes'.

Such changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans. They could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more vulnerable to pests.

It has been assumed that virus genes are not present in the plant once it is grown in the field and reaches consumers, however it is now clear that this is not the case.

A review of the EFSA research in Independent Science News said the presence of the viral gene appears to have been missed by biotech companies, universities and government regulators.

'This situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure,' it said. 'There are clear indications that this viral gene might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

'A reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.'

Critics say the revelations make clear that the GM approvals process, which has been in place for 20 years, is fatally flawed.

They argue the only correct response is to recall all of the crops and food products involved. Director of the campaigning group, GM Freeze, Pete Riley, said the discovery of the gene, 'totally undermines claims that GM technology is safe, precise and predictable'.

He said: 'This is a clear warning the GM is not sufficiently understood to be considered safe. 'Authorisation for these crops must be suspended immediately, and they should be withdrawn from sale, until a full and extended review of their safety has been carried out.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html

LegArmpits Tue 21-May-13 14:47:49

The OP writes EXACTLY like Adrian Mole, which to be frank is fucking hilarious. grin

claig Tue 21-May-13 14:48:57

"I think there is a stronger political and ethical debate to be had around the monopolisation of the market, selling practices etc."

Yes, that is what you think. But nononsensemumof2 thinks that a greater concern is the one for health and I agree with her. For me selling practices are secondary to health.

I didn't start the thread, nononsense did, and I think it is a bit presumptuous to tell her what she should be concerned about.

claig Tue 21-May-13 14:52:25

This is the quote by the researchers who carried out the European Food Safety Authority study

'This situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure ,' it said. 'There are clear indications that this viral gene might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

'A reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.'

In the same way that it is a bit presumptuous of nononsense to tell us we should all be worried about it. Get cross at us when we disagree with her. She presumes we are all men with no regard for our mothers and daughters....

There are some credible references on this thread but the fact that there are a lot which do not stand up to scrutiny (ie they are not peer reviewed) or are irrelevant to the crop debate suggests that those posting the links have limited knowledge of what they are talking about...which damages their credibility on the subject.

I am well aware that nononsense is concerned about health issues. But what I am saying is that she does not have any credibility in the scientific debate, and you are also struggling on this front. I'm suggesting that it would have been much easier to gain anti-GM support using the political and ethical arguments which are much easiet for a lay person to present coherently.

I am just suggesting that it is wise to stick within your area of expertise and knowledge if you want to stand your corner in a debate. You and nononsense are clearly out of your depth on the science aspects.

Now I really must go to tesco to get some cheap food for tea

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:03:11

I don't think Prince Charles wears a tinfoil hat, and he has some concerns about GM.

www.progress.org/gene07.htm

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:07:16

'But what I am saying is that she does not have any credibility in the scientific debate, and you are also struggling on this front. I'm suggesting that it would have been much easier to gain anti-GM support using the political and ethical arguments which are much easiet for a lay person to present coherently.'

We do not claim to be scientists. I have linked to the work of scientists in agencies such as the European Food Research Authority and to quotes from campaigners in respected environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, as well as a former Labour Environment Minister and Prince Charles himself, to say nothing of numerous Daily Mail articles.

I am not here to "gain anti-GM support". I am writing what I believe. If you want to eat it that is fine by me, I just want it labelled so that I can avoid it.

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:13:06

GrendelsMum says

"The surprising thing is that Mumsnetters as a whole don't seem very interested in this thread - is this an indication that people are no longer very interested in the topic, or do they just think this particular thread is a bit barmy?"

The reality is that people are worried about it and do not find it barmy. nononsensemumof2 is not the only one who has concerns about the health aspects. Here is an article that shows that consumers want it labelled. They don't want it labelled to counter selling practices or monopolisation they want it labelled for health reasons

Two in three shoppers demand GM product labels in embarrassing consumer backlash for government against 'Frankenstein foods'


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259506/Two-shoppers-demand-GM-product-labels-embarrassing-consumer-backlash-government-Frankenstein-foods.html

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:17:29

"The new food and farming secretary, Owen Paterson, is in the middle of a major public relations exercise designed to convince families to support GM farming and food.

He recently dismissed consumer concerns as humbug and complete nonsense while boasting that much of the nation’s meat comes from animals fed on genetically modified grain imported from overseas.

The minister suggested the public were perfectly happy to accept this and that the UK should now open the door to a wider take up of GM farming and food.

However, the new official research carried out by the Government’s own agency makes clear that most consumers had no idea that British farm animals are being reared on a GM diet.

After they were told, the vast majority – 67per cent - said packs of meat, milk and eggs should be labelled to spell this out on the label.

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:20:49

I'm in favour of referenda.

Let's have a referendum on it and I think you will be surprised how concerned the public really are about it, even though their concerns are sometimes dismissed as humbug and complete nonsense

DreamingofSummer Tue 21-May-13 15:30:26

Claig

Is that the Prince Charles who's a fan of homeopathy?

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:33:34

"GM advocates insist that opponents are in some way anti-science and ignorant. It is argued that if they are educated about GM techniques that any objections will fall away.

In fact, past studies funded by the Government have revealed that the more consumers learn about the technology the more sceptical they become ."

Usual bullshit. If you don't go along with it, you are a nutter who believes in complete nonsense and humbug

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:35:53

'Is that the Prince Charles who's a fan of homeopathy?'

But the NHS fiunds homeopathy in some areas. Public taxpayer money is spent on it.

claig Tue 21-May-13 15:37:13

'If you don't go along with it, you are a nutter who believes in complete nonsense and humbug'

And of course, the reality is that the majority don't go along with it, which is a bit inconvenient for GM advocates.

infamouspoo Tue 21-May-13 15:51:42

why dont the biotech companies want it labelled?
Actually, 15 years ago or so, it was labelled in the UK. What happenend with that?

ICBINEG Tue 21-May-13 17:01:10

ohhh the hazardous chemicals in DNA pwhaoooaf

Oh and now homeopathy too?

Just magnificent.

ICBINEG Tue 21-May-13 17:02:16

I am the public. I am massively in favour of GM. I am disappointed that the hysterical scientifically illiterate have kept it off the shelves for so long.

ICBINEG Tue 21-May-13 17:05:21

claig btw if you believe that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect then you are indeed a nutter. HTH

claig Tue 21-May-13 17:11:04

I don't know enough about homeopathy. I have never looked into it, so I can't say whether it works or not.

'I am the public. I am massively in favour of GM.'

That doesn't sound very representative of the public as a whole.

claig Tue 21-May-13 17:15:56

According to a spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, the public aren't that keen on GM food

"One in ten foods on sale in high street stores contains GM ingredients without declaring details on the label, an investigation has revealed.
Everyday products such as bread, cakes, burgers, ready meals, soya products and crisps were involved, sold at a wide range of outlets and including household names.

The major supermarkets claim to have removed GM ingredients from their own-brand products in response to customer concerns. But the discovery of the deception - which is a criminal offence - makes it clear manufacturers and retailers are failing to carry out proper checks.

EU rules allow foods to contain up to 1 per cent GM ingredients without declaring the fact on the label. Trading standards officers found, however, that a tenth of the foods they examined were above this limit.

More than 5 per cent of the soya present in one product was genetically modified. Friends of the Earth said the survey was 'very worrying'. ' People have made it very clear that they don't want to eat GM food and now the labelling regulations are failing them,' spokesman Carol Kearney added yesterday.

'More rigorous enforcement is needed. If people want to avoid GM food, the safest bet is to buy organic food."

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-66183/Food-giants-accused-GM-cover-up.html

DreamingofSummer Tue 21-May-13 17:21:31

This member of "people" hasn't "made it very clear they don't want to eat GM food"

I have no objection at all. All the food we eat has been genetically modified over centuries. We are just now doing it a bit more quickly and with less waste.

DreamingofSummer Tue 21-May-13 17:24:22

..... and by the way organic food has NO health benefits. It's an overpriced marketing scam

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249848.php

claig Tue 21-May-13 17:26:58

This was in 2002. The EU have listened to European cinsumers' concerns and implemented the toughest labelling restrictions in the world. However, as far as i understand it, there is no GM labelling for animals that have been fed with GM feed.

"US efforts to break down European resistance to genetically modified food products suffered a setback yesterday after the European parliament voted to introduce the toughest GM labelling and traceability rules in the world

In a vote that attracted massive lobbying from US biotechnology companies and consumer groups, the assembly - which has real power to determine the shape of future legislation - took heed of consumer concerns and decided that all derivatives of GM food and animal feed products sold in the EU should be subject to labelling.

It also tightened up the present 1% threshold for genetically modified organisms in foods, reducing it to 0.5%.

Effectively, this means tens of thousands of products like crisps, soft drinks, breads, cakes, chocolate and sweets could now be labelled GM. Consumer groups estimate that at least 30,000 food products contain derivatives of GM maize or soya.

However, the parliament stopped short by three votes of demanding GM labelling on products of animals reared on GM foods. Eggs, milk and meat will not be labelled even if the animals have been reared on GM foods

The vote is an embarrassment for the UK government and the food standards agency, both of which said the European commission's proposals would be unworkable."

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/04/foodanddrink.eu

infamouspoo Tue 21-May-13 18:09:43

There's a slight difference between breeding for desired traits like drought resistance or pest resistance which we have done for thousands of years and insertion of foreign genes like the aforementioned fish genes into strawberries. Unless you think that could happen naturally...
I'm not actually anti GMO, my sister works in the industry but I dont think the safety testing has been rigorous enough given that once its in the wild there's no control. The herbicide resistant genes have already crossed into weeds requiring even more roundup (great for Monsanto of course) to be sprayed onto crops (not so great for farm workers) and I want it labelled. Something the biotech industry is doing its best to resist.

And yes, I'm naturally suspicious because it seems like everytime we do mess with food in the name of profit, we fuck up. Antibiotics fed to farm animals to increase growth led to more resistant bacteria and poorer conditions for those animals. BSE crisis because it was cheaper to feed ground up carcasses to cows. Horse meat in just about everything, pork found in chicken and beef. All for profit and cheapness, not about 'feeding the hungry'.

claig Tue 21-May-13 18:20:39

Good points, infamouspoo

I am in favour of strong regulation of the biotech industry, I don't want another 'light touch regulation' type thing that we saw with the financial industry, and I want tough rules on labelling, including on meat, milk and eggs that have come from animals given GM feed.

If it is safe, what's teh problem with labelling it and letting everyone know that it is in the food product, so that we can all partake of the goodness of the GM food.

It seems that some consumers might even seek out GM food as they believe it is more beneficial than rganic food. Why deny them that choice if they is what they want?

I wonder how much money is spent worldwide on lobbying and developing GM technology as opposed to how much is spent on regulation of the industry.

Takver Tue 21-May-13 19:22:05

dreamingofsummer "..... and by the way organic food has NO health benefits. "

That depends how you word the question. What the study you cite showed was that organic food doesn't contain a different quantity of vitamins and minerals.

If you assume that there are no health risks associated with pesticide traces, then of course there are no benefits to organic. Personally, I don't believe that most people buy organic because they expect their cabbage to be in some way a super-cabbage, I think they buy organic because they want to avoid the risks associated with pesticide/herbicide traces.

I've pasted in below a quote from Hansard regarding government advice on peeling carrots, the full page is here. Frankly, I'd rather have organic carrots and use my veg peeler, rather than have to take off x mm with a knife.

"Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware of the disadvantages of organophosphates. That is why we have introduced a number of measures limiting their use. We continue to recommend using a knife to peel carrots, for example, and not to depend simply on washing.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm what he has just said? I was going to ask whether the official advice from two or three years ago still stands; that not only should we peel carrots, but in the case of young children it is advisable to peel fruit as well.

Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords, that is still our advice."

caroldecker Tue 21-May-13 19:36:50

!st -GM foods have been around for many years, eaten across the globe by animals and humans and no scientific evidence of problems have been found despite the work of many who want it stopped - the lobbying against GM is just as powerful as for except they need no evidence and just say 'may be harmful' to get things removed.

2nd - organic does not mean chemical free here and here

Takver Tue 21-May-13 19:43:12

caroldecker, I'm afraid I don't know much about American organic standards, so I can't comment on your link. Pesticide use in UK/EU organic standards is very severely restricted. Even using, for example, soft soap to counter aphids (fatty acid based soap which kills aphids by contact, essentially it suffocates them) would be something that organic registered farmers could only do in extremely limited circumstances.

Its similar to antibiotics - organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics to treat a sick animal. However, milk/meat withdrawal periods are much longer, and they aren't allowed (as is the norm in non-organic production) to routinely treat healthy animals with antibiotics to increase weight gain.

Takver Tue 21-May-13 19:44:21

caroldecker, its also worth noting that there have been dutch studies highlighting health problems in pigs fed GM soy. I'm pretty sure I linked to the study higher up this thread.

claig Tue 21-May-13 19:45:25

'the lobbying against GM is just as powerful'

Yes, good point. I never realised that, but thinking about it, there is a lot of lobbying from respected green organisations such as Friends of the Earth, the soil Association, Greenpeace and probably a whole lot more. So there is a lot of publicity and a lot of pressure groups who lobby against it.

caroldecker Wed 22-May-13 00:32:01

takvar

here

also allowed chemicals here search for pesticides.

one allowed pesticide is copper sulphate. Health risks here

Basically organic is farming as happened in victorian times, not necessarily better for you or the environment.

Takver Wed 22-May-13 08:05:23

Caroldecker, using copper sulphate (ie bordeaux mixture) has long since been severely restricted, to the point of being pretty much unusable.

As I pointed out above, it is like antibiotics, use is allowed very occasionally in extremely restricted circumstances. As it happens, I would be happy to use copper sulphate on my crops as a very occasional thing, and (were I organic registered, which I'm not) could make a good case for so doing, BECAUSE my land is very low in copper, so vegetables grown there will be much lower in content of that mineral compared to those grown on a more typical soil.

Actually, the fact that I don't want to have to justify every single decision of that type to an inspector BEFORE taking action to get a derogation, and record it meticulously is one reason that I'm not organic registered.

From the link you quote, which by the way is a minimum standard for the whole of the EU, I would note:

"The use of pesticides, which may have detrimental effects on the environment or result in the presence of residues in agricultural products, should be significantly restricted. Preference should be given to the application of preventive measures in pest, disease and weed control. In addition, conditions for the use of certain plant protection products should be laid down."

It is also worth noting (won't copy here, because it is a huge list), that the allowed pesticides are noted in the document. They are things like soft soap, sulphur in minimal quantities - so yes, some chemicals that have been used since victorian times - but having taken out those which have been identified as harmful to human health.

There are also many, many techniques which would have astounded the victorians, I'm thinking of introducing predatory insects, just for example.

Takver Wed 22-May-13 08:06:09

I should note, use of copper sulphate is restricted by the Soil association, it is from that document linked allowable in small quantities in the minimum EU standards

Takver Wed 22-May-13 09:21:50

caroldecker - I'm impressed you found the EU docs, though, finding stuff on their website is usually a nightmare. What's your background - I'm guessing you work in the trade?

I'm a seed grower, hence why I spend too much time dealing with this stuff. We're not registered organic because the benefits vs costs don't really stack up for us, and also I have an ingrained objection to people telling me what I can and can't do on my own land grin (And we have enough of it already with the seed regs without adding more!)

Takver Wed 22-May-13 11:18:59

OK, I found the Soil Association factsheet for growers on "Materials for pest and disease control in organic crops"

Basically all the 'permitted' options are biological controls (things like predatory mites, parasitic wasps, hoverfly pupae).

All the other options are then either 'with approval' ie, with approval given in advance by the certifying body (so they'd be looking for things like my land being low in copper, and therefore some use of copper sulphate being acceptable), or 'with permission' where this would be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

An example of that would be a one off use of ferrous sulphate slug pellets last season, when brassica transplants were literally being wiped out overnight by the slug pressure.

There aren't any systemic pesticides allowed - so no organophosphates, for example.

nononsensemumof2 Wed 22-May-13 14:56:35

First let me say claig, I love you.
Second its rather irrelevant which disastrous GM effect is worse than the other, be it economic or health, the point surely is that either and both are not beneficial.!
Europe has resisted this onslaught, perhaps the only good thing to come out of it for Britain, ( but thats another issue,) yet we are now caving in, despite all the nonsense about referendums, etc.!
The world does not need this, it will not 'solve' world hunger, there are far better ways to address this question than allowing Mother Nature to be served up on a plate to these American Multi-Nationals, for their profit and our loss, not only of choice about what we eat but also the many risks to the health of future generations.

caroldecker Wed 22-May-13 19:24:58

I am not an expert in this, but interested. I agree organic is probably less harmful to the environment than non-organic, but I think it cannot be more than a niche. My point was organic does not necessarily mean pesticide free and those who want GM labeling should also accept similar warnings on organic.
I personally ignore organic fruit and veg but buy organic meat for the animal welfare issue rather than any supposed health benefits.

nononsense we have yet to see any actual evidence of any disastrous GM effect - just comments that we are all doomed and will nobody think of the children.

GrendelsMum Wed 22-May-13 19:39:39

There's a really interesting (and highly persuasive) argument than on a global scale, organic is more harmful to the environment than a more high-intensity model of farming, as more space is needed to produce the same crop, which means that more biodiverse land is ploughed up for farming. It's one of these arguments where most people's immediate reaction is against it (mine certainly was) but the speaker I've heard argue this is very thought-provoking and convincing. The interesting thing is that he himself is a conservation scientist.

Head....meet brick wall.....ouch that hurt...

I would love to be able to buy glow in the dark mice in Sainsbury's <wistful>

nononsensemumof2 Wed 22-May-13 21:43:01

Organic is more harmful? You have got to be joking me.!
Oh yes of course, because plants injected with erroneous chemicals are bound to be more safe than Mother Natures own.!?

I would love to see evidence of plants (intended for any consumption) being injected with any chemicals.

Tbf if you take a scientific definition DNA is a chemical....in the same way as water...oxygen....all highly hazardous...

caroldecker Wed 22-May-13 22:09:59

Organic farming is fine for a world population of about 1 billion - so we'll just starve 80% of the world because you've read a pamphlet you don't understand

Uppatreecuppatea Wed 22-May-13 22:18:05

Montsano is evil. Watch the documentary: Food Inc. You'll get a lot of gen from that film.

GrendelsMum Wed 22-May-13 22:21:31

There are differences between a widely-used technology, such as genetic modification, and a company that uses that technology, such as Monsanto. Disapproving of the company doesn't mean that you need to disapprove of one of the technologies they use. Monsanto will also use a wide variety of traditional plant breeding technologies.

Takver Wed 22-May-13 22:22:18

Grendelsmum - if its a topic you're interested in, you might find some of Simon Fairlie's writing worth looking at, especially his article "Can Britain Feed Itself?" which I think is findable on the web.

Its a much more complex thing than 'organic takes more space', because in practice at the moment there are so many inefficiencies in conventional farming. In fact, small scale agriculture is typically much more productive in terms of physical output per hectare (rather than profit per hectare).

Just one good example is the separation of the dairy and beef industries - its possible to make more profit from just dairy, or just beef, but very inefficient in terms of land use.

It is true to say that probably the best theoretical way to produce the maximum amount of food from the available surface of the world is conventional farming producing only vegan food (no animals) and dependent on chemical inputs for fertility. However, even that doesn't allow for the cost in fossil fuels and long term effects on soils.

Takver Wed 22-May-13 22:24:09

Its also worth noting that there is currently no shortage of food on a world wide scale, even given the use of grain to feed animals. The problem lies in the distribution; malnutrition is a result of poverty, not an overall shortage of calories available.

GrendelsMum Wed 22-May-13 22:30:42

Takver - that's where I'm afraid I let down (what I found to be an excellent) argument by my lack of knowledge, as I knew I would when I raised it! The particular speaker I'm thinking of looks at agriculture and the environment on a world scale, and yes, does address long term effect on soils, etc. I think to some extent he's wanting to get people thinking about what they really value, and to what extent we want farmland for it's amenity value.

But yes, as I understand it, I agree with the issue that the problem is distribution of food and poverty leading to people being unable to afford food which is there. But what on earth do we do about poverty across the world? I was wondering about that as I mooched around the supermarket at lunch time today (as you do). How on earth do you enable people in rural India, for example, to buy food?

IneedAyoniNickname Wed 22-May-13 22:38:56

Have you looked at the Christian Aid IF.campaign? It's looking at world poverty. "if there is enough food in the world for everybody, why do 1 in 8 go to bed hungry?" I'll admit I don't know much about it, but it might he worth a google.

GrendelsMum Wed 22-May-13 22:54:38

thanks, Yoni Nickname! Yes, I have taken a look at it, and that's what's worrying me. I'm not seeing how their aims match up with what I'm hearing about food security across the world, and I'm concerned that their policies and work may simply be wasted.

IneedAyoniNickname Wed 22-May-13 22:59:58

Oh ok, I've not really looked into it tbh. People at my church are always talking about it,.but I've not done a lot of research myself.

GrendelsMum Wed 22-May-13 23:29:40

Well, I don't know. Because of my area of specialism I hear a lot from one point of view, and I can quite believe that these experts don't think about / know about other points of view and possibilities for action.
But if governments of developing countries have greater tax revenue , will it really result in their people earning high enough wages to afford food when shortages arise due to droughts, etc?

I guess the argument might be that with the tax revenue the governments can improve education, improve infrastructure, improve productivity, and hence raise people's incomes, but it seems a long way off.

caroldecker Thu 23-May-13 01:04:21

the real answer is not tax - but lack of tax. The eu charges high tariffs on imported agricultural goods here here and here
for example raw coffee beans have a low tariff but roasted beans have a high tax, therefore poor countries are not allowed to add value and earn money to keep European businesses subsidized by the higher price you pay in the shops.
Global free trade is the answer to getting the world's poor better and saving us money.

Takver Thu 23-May-13 07:46:25

Well, if I knew the answer to that I might not have given up economics for farming grin

I'm just about to read two books on pretty much this topic which come very well recommended: Bad Samaritans by Ha Joon Chang (you might not like him, Carol, as he's definitely a Cambridge lefty economist type!), and Stiglitz's book on globalization which I can't recall the name of right now. But whether they have any suggested answers, I don't know.

claig Thu 23-May-13 08:19:02

'Global free trade is the answer to getting the world's poor better and saving us money.'

caroldecker is right. Free trade without trade barriers will help poor countries to export their produce to us. We often have trade barriers against some poor countries and use aid to try to help them, and this does not lift them out of poverty, but instead keeps them in a state of dependency.

claig Thu 23-May-13 08:32:30

And if you really care about the poor farmers in other other countries, then read the article that I posted way up above.

You will hear things like they want to "save the planet" for you and they want to "feed the world" with GM crops.

"(A Monsanto spokesman later insisted their seed is 'only double' the price of 'official' non-GM seed - but admitted that the difference can be vast if cheaper traditional seeds are sold by 'unscrupulous' merchants, who often also sell 'fake' GM seeds which are prone to disease.)

With rumours of imminent government compensation to stem the wave of deaths, many farmers said they were desperate for any form of assistance. 'We just want to escape from our problems,' one said. 'We just want help to stop any more of us dying.'

Prince Charles is so distressed by the plight of the suicide farmers that he is setting up a charity, the Bhumi Vardaan Foundation, to help those affected and promote organic Indian crops instead of GM.

India's farmers are also starting to fight back. As well as taking GM seed distributors hostage and staging mass protests, one state government is taking legal action against Monsanto for the exorbitant costs of GM seeds.

This came too late for Shankara Mandauker, who was 80,000 rupees (about £1,000) in debt when he took his own life. 'I told him that we can survive,' his widow said, her children still by her side as darkness fell. 'I told him we could find a way out. He just said it was better to die.'

But the debt does not die with her husband: unless she can find a way of paying it off, she will not be able to afford the children's schooling. They will lose their land, joining the hordes seen begging in their thousands by the roadside throughout this vast, chaotic country.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now