GMO

[nononsensemumof2]

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

I don't fully understand the implications of it.

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

"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

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

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.

" 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.

Can I suggest you change your name, OP?

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

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.!

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.

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.