Why EU does not like GM

[TOM4CWB]

r.k.

So the EU bombards seeds and plants with radio active
material... finds 'so called "natural"' mutations... and
breeds them into a plant/etc... and somehow this is
safe plant/food breeding?

We humans have been modifying the genetic material
we use in our food system since the dawn of
civilization. Changing the gene pool and the altering
food products; is reality and a part of civilization as we
know it.

Eat a healthy balanced diet... and learn information the
same way. Balance is key... don't buy/spend your
money what isn't real... and is just a con job!

Cheers!

[ianben]

There is no logic or science related to the fear of
GM here, just got mixed up in the BSE fiasco.

Ten years of government assurance that there
was no risk of eating beef then the bombshell we
were infecting our children with a deadly brain
debilitating illness with know cure.

As you are all well aware the hysteria spread
around the world but only in Europe was the risk
of GM somehow seen as similar to BSE and no
trial or evidence could now be trusted regarding
food safety.

That is still pretty much what the consumers still
thinks.

So there are as usual more politics involved than
real facts and the risks can be magnified or
ignored by the media.

Remember BSE helped change the government
here for 13years.

[rkaiser]

“Existence flows past us like a river. The “what” is in constant flux, the “why” has a thousand variations. Nothing is stable not even what is right here. So it would take an idiot to feel self-importance or distress, or indignation, as if the things that irritate us last.”

Thanks so much TOM. I guess you feel that my mind is in need of some philosophy. LOL

Natural mutation is not man made and it is mans choice to follow mutations, especially those caused by other man made causes.

Monsanto's GE game is a focused effort with nothing but profit as the root of the effort. All of your beliefs about saving mankind and feeding the world are BS and you all know it. The only reason you grow GE crops is for profit. Period.

My point on these threads is definitely causing the stir that I intended.

Guess what, I eat regular food a lot. And add a good natural supplement to my diet mind you.

And I understand that the world is not in a problem situation due to a conspiracy but rather the desire of humans and ultimately companies like Monsanto to own and control.

Do all of you Monsanto lovers like what Nestle is up to these days... Talking about control...

If no one points out the far side to those of you who are on the other far side, how will we progress as a race?

GE, in the Monsanto way, is extreme and as much research as you all believe is done, the jury is still out. Time is the only true measure of how these experiments will play out.

Still smiling Hopper........

[charliep]

Perhaps you are right. I note the conversation (not this thread) started with the discovery of wheat plants that couldn't be killed by glyphosate in a chem fallow field (80 acres) and it launched into the full tirade here. Glyphosate tolerant wheat was never approved for distribution so the an investigation is occurring. Perhaps the lesson is all genetic event should be registered early the development stage with some type of international agreement including Europe. There should be a system to test for these genetic events at the bulk handling system for information purposes to monitor for the presence of these events. Even if there is some presence of RR wheat in the system at trace levels, this is not a human health issue. Knowledge is never a bad thing. There are far bigger issues out there than this one starting with GE alfalfa.

[ColevilleH2S]

Does rkraizer have a job? Does he not expect to profit from the time he invests in that job? How can rkaizer expect to personally profit from his investments, and yet think it is wrong for Monsanto to do so?

I smell hypocrisy.

[grassfarmer]

And new information is being revealed almost daily of
the side effects...

Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GM
feed.

Pigs fed a diet of only genetically modified (GM) grain
showed markedly higher stomach inflammation than
pigs who dined on conventional feed, according to a
new study by a team of Australian scientists and U.S.
researchers.

The study adds to an intensifying public debate over
the impact of genetically modified crops, which are
widely used by U.S. and Latin American farmers and
in many other countries around the world.

The study was published in the June issue of the
peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems by
researchers from Australia who worked with two
veterinarians and a farmer in Iowa to study the U.S.
pigs.

Lead researcher Judy Carman is an epidemiologist
and biochemist and director of the Institute of Health
and Environmental Research in Adelaide, Australia.

The study was conducted over 22.7 weeks using 168
newly weaned pigs in a commercial U.S. piggery.

One group of 84 ate a diet that incorporated GM soy
and corn, and the other group of 84 pigs ate an
equivalent non-GM diet. The corn and soy feed was
obtained from commercial suppliers, the study said,
and the pigs were reared under identical housing and
feeding conditions. The pigs were then slaughtered
roughly five months later and autopsied by
veterinarians who were not informed which pigs were
fed on the GM diet and which were from the control
group.

Researchers said there were no differences seen
between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed
intake, weight gain, mortality and routine blood
biochemistry measurements.

But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate
of severe stomach inflammation -- 32 percent of
GM-fed pigs, compared to 12 per cent of non-GM-
fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed
males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of
4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed
females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had
uteri that were 25 per cent heavier than non-GM fed
pigs, the study said.

The researchers said more long-term animal feeding
studies need to be done.

Biotech seeds are genetically altered to grow into
plants that tolerate treatments of herbicide and resist
pests, making producing crops easier for farmers.
Some critics have argued for years that the DNA
changes made to the transgenic plants engineer novel
proteins that can be causing the digestive problems
in animals and possibly in humans.

The companies that develop these transgenic crops,
using DNA from other bacteria and other species,
assert they are more than proven safe over their use
since 1996.

CropLife International, a global federation
representing the plant science industry, said more
than 150 scientific studies have been done on
animals fed biotech crops and to date, there is not
scientific evidence of any detrimental impact.

-- Carey Gillam reports on agribusiness and ag
commodities for Reuters from St. Louis.

[charliep]

Strange to me that the study was done in Australia - a country that does not grow GE crops and not the US/other parts of the world where these crops are grown. This test occurs everyday in litterly (not pun intended) millions of pig barns. It should be an easy project to see if the incidence of health related issues have increased over time. The best test of any hypothesis is repetition.

[charliep]

To your point ianben. It will be interesting to follow the debate in North America as GE crops move from livestock feed to human food. Vegetable oil (canola and soybean) has been GE for a while but their is minimal (not zero but close) proteins that contain genetic material. Also note the debate here is as much about Globalization/big multi companies as about the safety of the new biotech breeding techniques. Every country is taking a different approach to this research. I find European approach (private sector with rules), Australia and China the countries to follow in terms of their approach. The question is not whether the world uses biotech to meet world food needs - its how they use it. Biotech is a lot more than Monsanto/spinning out another glyphosate tolerant crop.