Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Interesting reports on GM pollen and GM soya feeding trials on mammals

  1. #1

    Default Interesting reports on GM pollen and GM soya feeding trials on mammals

    The report from Australia pasted below, relating to GM pollen entering the human food chain, while certainly disturbing from the moral ethical and commercial view point pales into insignificance when related to the recently reported Russian research carried out on hamsters, which coincides with similar work carried out in France and Austria,. The effects found on the fertility of mammals is quite terrifying; H.sapiens springs to mind! Who do we believe – big business, politicians or good science, which has nothing to gain but integrity?
    Follow the link below!
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    Russia says genetically modified foods are harmful
    The Voice of Russia, April 16 2010
    http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html

    Russia has started the annual Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards from the 15th of April to the 5th of June with the announcement of sensational results of an independent work of research.

    Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce. Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans, which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GM organisms. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya, which was found with great difficulty in Serbia because 95 percent of soya in the world is transgenic.

    Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov has this to say. "We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always," says Alexei Surov. "We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behaviour and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs," Dr. Alexei Surov said.

    Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment. It's unclear why this happened. The researchers cannot understand why a programme of destruction is launched when animals take GMO foodstuffs. They say that this can be neutralized only by stopping to eat these foods. Consequently, scientists suggest imposing a ban on the use of GM foods until they are tested for their bio-security.

    The results of Russian scientists coincide with those of their colleagues from France and Austria. For one, when scientist proved that GM maize was harmful for mammals, France banned immediately its production and sale. The scientists who carried out the experiment say that it's too early to make far-reaching conclusions about the health hazards of the GMO. They insist that there is a need to carry out comprehensive research. They suggest implementing the project, "Safety Gene Technology" at the innovation centre, "Skolkovo" which is being set up near Moscow.

    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/up...001-gerk.html_ (http://www.theage.com.au/national/up...1001-gerk.html)

    Uproar as GM canola 'contaminates' beehive in Australia

    ADAM MORTON
    October 2, 2009
    A Greenpeace activist takes samples in a genetically modified canola field near Teesdale, east of Geelong. Photo: Jason Souith
    GENETICALLY modified canola has jumped containment lines and "contaminated" a commercial beehive in western Victoria, prompting claims that people are not being told enough about what they eat.

    Scientific testing on behalf of Greenpeace Australia found Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" canola strain, which is resistant to some herbicides, had contaminated hives near Bannockburn owned by Edmonds Honey.

    Victoria lifted a moratorium on growing GM canola in November 2007 after being advised it could be kept separate from non-GM crops.

    Greenpeace spokeswoman Louise Sales said the contamination meant people were being denied choice: anyone buying honey from the affected hive could be eating GM food without knowing it.

    She said it showed GM canola was "uncontrollable". "We're calling on the Federal Government to keep its election promise — basically not to release GM canola into the environment unless it was produced safe 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We don't believe it stands up to that test," Ms Sales said.

    The health effects of GM canola remains contentious, though it is regarded as safe for consumption by the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the Australian Academy of Science.

    Local farmers and Melbourne restaurateur Dure Dara joined a protest against the spread of GM material into neighbouring crops. The beekeeper affected by the contamination, John Edmonds, was less worried. He was concerned it could affect sales and said labelling should be improved. But he said beekeepers had been using GM cotton for years without negative health impacts.

    A spokeswoman for the Federal Government said the health risks of GM canola had been extensively investigated and found not to differ from non-GM canola. GM labelling standards were being reviewed, with a report due mid-next year.

    The State Government said the potential impact of GM canola on bee-keepers was considered in a review before the state moratorium was lifted.

    Mr Edmonds said he would report the campaigners to police for removing and testing his honey frames.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,121
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    Hi Eric.
    I think there are two main areas of concern over GM crops, imho, but the Frankenfoods line much loved by the tabloids is not one of them.
    They are (a) the possibility of GM genes conferring herbicide resistance getting into weeds such as charlock and (b) the loss of, or restriction of use of, heritage or traditional seeds often planted by sharecroppers in developing countries.
    In Mexico the poorest farmers do not own land but they often enter into a scheme knows as ir a medias which roughly translated means to go 50:50.
    The typical arrangement involves a landowner supplying and preparing the land for the sowing of seed owned by the sharecropper and his family. The sharecropper is responsible for sowing the seed as well as tending and harvesting the crop. Profits are split 50:50.
    I honestly wouldn't worry about the possibility of growing hairs in my mouth, even on a diet of pure GM soya.
    I would like to see that Russian paper rather than read speculative press comment. I am sure at a minimum the abstract is available in English.

    You know what they say - the first sign of madness is hairs growing on the palms of your hands - and the second sign is looking for them!

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi Jon
    Hairy mouthed and happy to be so! That is a first! Not eating the stuff would be a better option - but not such a good option as not growing it in the first instance. We now know what GM food can do to wee mammals - nobody really knows what it can do for big mammals like us guys, in the longer term. Since no scientific feed trials on GM foods has been done since Pusztai blew the proverbial whistle on the dangers of the stuff!
    I note that damage to insects, (bees?) is mentioned in the report below!
    The Precautionary Principle springs to mind!
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;

    THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

    Dear Friends and colleagues,

    RE: Submission from Norway on the Risks of GMOs to Biodiversity and Human Health

    At its fourth meeting in 2008, Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety established an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. The AHTEG is considering, among other things, the framework to identify GMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, including risks to human health. The Precautionary Principle spring to mind!

    Governments and relevant organizations were invited to submit scientifically sound information on the types of GMOs or traits that may have adverse effects on biological diversity and human health that would be compiled and included in a synthesis report for consideration by the AHTEG and Parties.

    In its submission, Norway highlighted information from scientific studies which raise "early warning" signs on the effects of GMOs on biological environments and on human health.

    It noted that GMOs harbouring Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry endotoxins may cause unintended direct adverse effects on biological diversity including but not limited to insects, aquatic life, soil microbes, and their food web dynamics, as well as on the sustainable use of biological diversity related to crop plants and their progenitors important for sustainable agricultural production and food security. Similar caution was expressed towards GMOs with genes that confer herbicide tolerance as well as GM plants with tolerance to abiotic stresses such as tolerance to drought and cold and GMOs with stacked events.

    In addition, Norway recommended caution with regard to GM fish with traits such as cold tolerance, increased growth rate or high tolerance to environmental pollutants. It also noted that GM trees with long life-spans would be a challenge for risk assessment. Norway also expressed caution with regard to GM viruses with altered traits and host specificity and was concerned about GM pharmplants entering the food chain.

    Given the broad uncertainties surrounding the current scientific knowledge on the impacts of novel organisms into complex environments, Norway called for the adoption of the precautionary approach as well as for further studies, especially long term studies, to be conducted.
    Last edited by Eric McArthur; 19-04-2010 at 08:05 PM. Reason: spelling

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,121
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    Should this thread not be in the Beekeeping and the environment section - Habitat loss, agrochemicals, GM crops, climate change?
    Although you have to admit a post cannot possibly be misplaced in a section called 'Everything and Anything'
    I was thinking of posting my holiday snaps..
    Last edited by Jon; 19-04-2010 at 09:25 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    If keeping bees is considered holistically- beekeeping requires beekeepers - beekeepers like everyone else require to eat to live - to keep bees! If our food supply is compromised for whatever reason - the result will be a debilitated human population, possibly with very low energy levels and poor health - this situation will encompass beekeepers, who due to poor nutrition and low energy levels could be incapable of working with bees. Bearing in mind that beekeeping is one of the most labour intensive forms of animal husbandry bar none. Considering that GM food is presently being heavily promoted by the British Government and many scientists in food related disciplines and simultaneously being heavily criticised by independent scientific bodies world wide, there are grounds for a balanced debate on whether GM pollen in honey is acceptable and more - is the presence of unlabelled products in the human food chain ethical?
    Next to the importance of the sun for life on th planet - food is the only thing that keeps us alive!
    There are folk out there tampering with our sustenance of life. For what? - for profit! See below! Is the subject worthy of comment/debate?

    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    Quote: "Bayer was not only negligent in its handling of Liberty Link
    rice, but acted with malicious intent by not announcing the
    contamination of the commercial rice-seed pool as soon as the company
    learned of it...."

    ===========================
    JURY TELLS BAYER TO PAY ARK. RICE FARMERS $48m
    Previous judgements -- $4.5 million
    ==================================

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...kNMfQD9F3RJBG2

    16.04.2010

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — German conglomerate Bayer CropScience should pay a
    dozen Arkansas farmers nearly $50 million for allowing a genetically
    altered strain of rice to escape into the commercial market, damaging
    rice prices in 2006, a jury ruled Thursday.

    An attorney for the farmers, Scott Powell, said the jury decided on
    the judgment after less than two hours of deliberations Thursday
    afternoon in Lonoke County.

    The farmers claimed an experimental rice strain developed by Bayer
    called Liberty Link was allowed to make its way into the stream of
    commercially marketed rice. Liberty Link was developed to withstand a
    popular herbicide that kills weeds in the fields.

    The suit claimed that rice prices fell after the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture announced in August 2006 that trace amounts of Liberty
    Link rice were found in U.S. long-grain rice stocks.

    Bayer argued that any damages farmers may have suffered were minimal,
    and didn’t last long.

    The case was the fourth to go to trial among dozens filed by rice-belt
    farmers against Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the German chemical
    giant that makes aspirin. Bayer faced judgments of $4.5 million so far
    in the three cases it had lost before Thursday.

    The amount awarded Thursday far exceeds a $1 million judgment returned
    against Bayer by a Woodruff County jury in March.

    Powell said he had asked jurors for $55.9 million. The jury’s award
    for compensatory damages matched the $5.9 million the legal team had
    sought, Powell said. Jurors decided on $42 million in punitive
    damages, rather than the $50 million Powell’s team had asked for.

    “Considering the overwhelming evidence of recklessness and negligence,
    it was a fair and just verdict,” Powell said.

    The lead lawyer for Bayer, Dick Ellis, could not be reached for
    comment Thursday evening after business hours.

    Liberty Link rice was developed so farmers could apply Liberty
    herbicide without fear that it would damage their crops.

    No nation has approved genetically modified rice for the marketplace.
    Rice futures plummeted by $150 million immediately after the
    contamination announcement. European nations quit accepting shipments
    of rice from the U.S. that hadn’t been extensively tested to show they
    weren’t contaminated. Japan banned all American rice.

    Growers in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and
    Texas filed lawsuits against Bayer.

    The Lonoke County farmers argued that Bayer was not only negligent in
    its handling of Liberty Link rice, but acted with malicious intent by
    not announcing the contamination of the commercial rice-seed pool as
    soon as the company learned of it.

    The suit claimed Bayer knew of the contamination as early as January
    2006, before that year’s crops were sowed. Powell said farmers didn’t
    learn of the contamination until the USDA’s announcement, when it was
    almost time to harvest crops.

    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;

    SmartStax Corn: Corporate War on Bees

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SmartStaxCor...eWarOnBees.php

    Extract ....

    Smartstax is a genetically modified (GM) corn that has eight GM traits combined or ‘stacked’ together, six for insect resistance (Bt) and two for herbicide tolerance

    These contain a combination of fungicides including ipconazole, metalaxyl and trifloxystrobin for protection against primary seed-borne and soil-borne diseases, along with clothianidin, an insecticide, to reduce damage caused by secondary pests [2]. Clothianidin is a systemic insecticide that may be carried to all parts of the corn plant including the pollen-producing tassel and pollen visited by bees

  6. #6
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,417
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Guys

    I hope that you don't mind but the idea of this area of the forum was that it is specifically for these sometimes high-volume posts on contentious issues in the broad area of the environment. Not everyone wants to read a lot of cut-and-paste stuff of this type, so I think that it is fair that we do use this area.

    So this has been moved from the area at the top of the main Forum page to somewhere more appropriate. All posts welcome here - you might even tempt me to add something!

    all the best

    Gavin
    Last edited by gavin; 20-04-2010 at 09:57 PM. Reason: additions

  7. #7

    Default

    Hi Gavin
    Current thread is more like a needle in a haystack - for a rank beginner like myself trying to finding this thread after your "Tidying Up"seems more like " Sweeping under the Carpet"!


    The latest Bayer admissiom pasted below is a hum dinger!

    Bayer admits GMO contamination out of control
    -------------------------------------

    Damage from LL rice contamination could be over $1 billion


    Thursday, April 15, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
    http://www.naturalnews.com/028585_GMOs_Bayer.html

    (NaturalNews) Drug and chemical giant Bayer AG has admitted that there
    is no way to stop the uncontrolled spread of its genetically modified
    crops.

    "Even the best practices can't guarantee perfection," said Mark
    Ferguson, the company's defense lawyer in a recent trial.

    Two Missouri farmers sued Bayer for contaminating their crop with
    modified genes from an experimental strain of rice engineered to be
    resistant to the company's Liberty-brand herbicide. The contamination
    occurred in 2006, during an open field test of the new rice, which was
    not approved for human consumption. According to the plaintiffs'
    lawyer, Don Downing, genetic material from the unapproved rice
    contaminated more than 30 percent of all rice cropland in the United
    States.

    "Bayer was supposed to be careful," Downing said. "Bayer was not
    careful and that rice did escape into our commercial rice supplies."

    The plaintiffs alleged that in addition to contaminating their fields,
    Bayer further harmed them financially by undermining their export
    market. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the
    widespread rice contamination, important export markets were closed to
    U.S. producers. A report from Greenpeace International estimates the
    financial damage of the contamination at between $741 million and $1.3
    billion.

    Bayer claimed that there was no possible way it could have prevented
    the contamination, insisting that it followed not only the law but
    also the best industry practices. The jury disagreed, finding Bayer
    guilty of carelessness in handling the genetically modified crops. The
    company was ordered to pay farmers Kenneth Bell and Johnny Hunter $2
    million.

    "This is a huge victory, not only for Kenny and me, but for every
    farmer in America who was harmed by Bayer's LibertyLink rice
    contamination," Hunter said.

    According to Hunter, the company got "the wake-up call they deserved."

    Bayer is still being sued by more than 1,000 other farmers from
    Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

    Sources for this story include: www.organicconsumers.org ; www.bloomberg.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Isle of Mull
    Posts
    799
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Hi, Eric! You'll soon find your way around! Just takes a bit of practice (is this why I spend far too much time in here?) This is now under the right heading - GM, environment, etc - so it'll be easier for others to find, too.

  9. #9

    Default

    Hi Trog

    Many thanks for your assistance - Right on the button! An index for items in a particular thread would be ideal - but that is outside my meagre ken!!

    Eric

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Isle of Mull
    Posts
    799
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    At the top of the page, in the blue bit marked 'home', 'blogs', etc, there's a white rectangle with a magnifying glass to the right of it. I'm reliably informed this is for searching the forum, though I haven't tried it myself. If you type in a keyword (such as varroa) it should take you to relevant threads like an index would. If you've more time than I have just now, you could try playing with it!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •