This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

If these foods have the enourmous toxicity claimed (50% lethality in 3 weeks) I would think scores of people would be falling dead in the streets.

The article does not claim that GMO foods have 50% lethality in 3 weeks, when consumed by humans in the amounts that many humans now consume them.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

I like your teeter totter, Jay. Thanks.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

The best intentions don't mean diddly.

Intentions matter, to some degree, but they are not conclusive.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

Maybe, but doesn't it also beg a measured dose of skeptism since ...

This depends on where the reader is coming from.

If a reader (such as myself):

• has read Mercola for years and found him to be one of the most reliable reporters on health issues (albeit also a good salesman), and
• has read of GMO and Monsanto issues for years and already agrees with the position taken in this article,

then that reader will reasonably enough view this article in quite a bit different light than someone without this background and these views.

The skepticism that you express is quite reasonable. I have and continue to have much the same skepticism for views on topics in which I have less background, including no doubt views that in the full light of day may turn out to be quite valid.

Nor does my ready agreement to this present article mean it is correct. There are views I have held strongly in the past which I now consider to be embarrassingly bogus (witness the Bush bumper stickers that I leave on my old car, to remind me of the fallibility of the human mind.)

So you skepticism is well deserved. However I would encourage you, if you have the time, to look into this matter further.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

5 or 10 minutes of diligent google searching will reveal a mountain of evidence that Monsanto is not just a regular amount of evil, but epically evil, pathologically evil.

Consequently, this Mercola article is very easy to believe.

I support you and cow on that one.
Funny how often Monsanto is near a chemical or environmental catastrophe.

My local favorite is a contaminated Dept. of Energy site near Dayton called the Mound Facility.
Back in the cold war they made triggers for nuclear bombs there.

Horribly contaminated, chemical and radioactive (including plutonium). Monsanto ran it from 1948 to 1988

[wayiwalk]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

This depends on where the reader is coming from.

If a reader (such as myself):

• has read Mercola for years and found him to be one of the most reliable reporters on health issues (albeit also a good salesman), and
• has read of GMO and Monsanto issues for years and already agrees with the position taken in this article,

then that reader will reasonably enough view this article in quite a bit different light than someone without this background and these views.

The skepticism that you express is quite reasonable. I have and continue to have much the same skepticism for views on topics in which I have less background, including no doubt views that in the full light of day may turn out to be quite valid.

Nor does my ready agreement to this present article mean it is correct. There are views I have held strongly in the past which I now consider to be embarrassingly bogus (witness the Bush bumper stickers that I leave on my old car, to remind me of the fallibility of the human mind.)

So you skepticism is well deserved. However I would encourage you, if you have the time, to look into this matter further.

Thanks for the calm reply, ignore the others! Rants are a waste.

I've started growning my own produce last year, setting up as much of my one acre property to provide as much as possible, and rarely eat a processed morsel.

Having worked in the military industrial complex, and knowing first hand the facts from the fiction, and now working in the environmental-industrial complex (YES!), and again, seeing the facts and able to separate them from the fiction, I'm not jumping on the "that company and everything they do is evil bandwagon"

[chr5648]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

2 things:

1) some things just stick out like a sore thumb, like buckaroobrazil said, there is so much evidence online, just in regards to the processes and action of monsanto and other gmo seed manufacturers that are questionable, thats before questioning the safety of the seeds.

2) in the article he mentions europe banned GMO foods, but europe has a food culture, every single country has a food culture, is proud of it, and defends it religiously. On the other hand the US does not have a food culture like europe, it will be very hard to get citizens behind getting rid of GMO foods.

[don]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

in the article he mentions europe banned GMO foods, but europe has a food culture, every single country has a food culture, is proud of it, and defends it religiously. On the other hand the US does not have a food culture like europe, it will be very hard to get citizens behind getting rid of GMO foods.

You bring up an interesting aspect in this fundamental equation. Excluding the native population, this is a nation of immigrants, each of whom brought their food culture with them. For many, American opportunity allowed them to express that food culture daily, the cost of which was prohibited in the old country. Consequently America has perhaps a richer food culture than most, with cross-pollination of food ideas and food itself becoming commonplace. Since WW2 America has suffered the anvil of corporate fast food, convenience food, process-city, etc. Outwardly it can make the average American look like a food bozo, hardly a diversified gourmand. Just as in most of the USA's history corporations were viewed with hostile suspicion and often tight control, currently they rule the day, with a 24/7 bombardment of pro-corporate propaganda. Will that be enough to gain wide spread acceptance of GMO foods in America? Stay tuned.

[Chris Coles]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

Mercola has just put up another page about GM food. I will not post the entire page but here is the link. I must add, it has ample references.

Don’t Eat These Beans If You’re Thinking of Having Children

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-children.aspx

[touchring]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

A lot of processed foods use ingredients (such as dried strawberries in Cornflakes) from China. Even if the wheat in the cornflakes are not GM, the strawberries, you won't know if they are pesticide laden or washed using free waters piped in from one of these rivers.

[chr5648]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

You bring up an interesting aspect in this fundamental equation. Excluding the native population, this is a nation of immigrants, each of whom brought their food culture with them. For many, American opportunity allowed them to express that food culture daily, the cost of which was prohibited in the old country. Consequently America has perhaps a richer food culture than most, with cross-pollination of food ideas and food itself becoming commonplace. Since WW2 America has suffered the anvil of corporate fast food, convenience food, process-city, etc. Outwardly it can make the average American look like a food bozo, hardly a diversified gourmand. Just as in most of the USA's history corporations were viewed with hostile suspicion and often tight control, currently they rule the day, with a 24/7 bombardment of pro-corporate propaganda. Will that be enough to gain wide spread acceptance of GMO foods in America? Stay tuned.

You sort of got to my point, alot of the foods that are fast food/junk/processed frozen dinners rely on the GMO corn, soybeans, etc. These are promoted by huge corporations. I just don't see an intimate connection between americans and the food they eat. On the other hand when I meet spaniards, portugese, greeks, italians, polaks, french(rarely) they almost always talk about their food with extreme pride. I never see americans proud of stuff crust pizzas or triple hamburgers like the europeans are.

[ST]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

googled the first guy - Arpad Pusztai - BBC Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/474911.stm

[ASH]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

My take is that the bundle of articles collected by Mercola, which Chris posted, vary widely in terms of plausibility and rigor.

Genetic modification is engineering -- not magic -- so I tend to be skeptical of broad claims of toxicity, such as the headline-grabbing bit about the baby rats. What I mean by this is that with genetic modification, you are coding for something very specific: expression of a gene that the organism in question doesn't normally have, resulting in production of a compound (generally a protein) that the organism doesn't normally make. There are subtleties, but in general, the possibility that genetic modification will directly render a food poisonous is restricted to the possibility that the materials coded for by the genes introduced into the organism (and, of course, whatever those materials might be metabolized into) are themselves poisonous. To the extent that genetic modification is specific, in every case of a GMO food, there would be a limited number of candidate toxins, and a limited number of things to test. In most cases, the genetic modification would induce a food organism to produce more or less of something that it already makes (like raising the protein content of a grain), or to produce something that another organism makes -- and is known to be non-toxic. I find highly suspect small studies that broadly allege toxicity without any discussion of the underlying changes to the organism that might have rendered it toxic. The more acute the toxicity that is alleged for existing products that are widely consumed, the less I believe the study, as the widespread consumption of the product in question makes it less likely that the toxicity would have gone unnoticed.

On the other hand, I think concern about business interests quashing proper scientific investigation of problems is totally valid. Obviously, companies have a basic interest in the safety of their products, because if a widely distributed product is later demonstrated to be unsafe, the company will lose the value of its R&D investment and future sales, as well as exposing itself to fines and lawsuits. However, if a company believes that its product is "safe enough", it has every interest in discouraging research that might prove otherwise, or uncover a subtle deficiency.

I also think that the social issue of food becoming corporate IP is serious. But that doesn't relate so much to the basic safety of GMO as to how society wants to manage the technology.

The issue of GMO co-mingling with "natural" strains is a more serious technical issue. So is the question of what GMO enables. I think the argument about herbicide-resistant GMO food plants encouraging greater use of herbicides is one of the stronger objections to GMO crops. (But again, this isn't a question of whether GMO food is wholesome, per se.)

That said, the loudest anti-GMO voices don't strike me as differentiating between strong and weak arguments for their case.

[Chris Coles]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

My take is that the bundle of articles collected by Mercola, which Chris posted, vary widely in terms of plausibility and rigor.

Genetic modification is engineering -- not magic -- so I tend to be skeptical of broad claims of toxicity, such as the headline-grabbing bit about the baby rats. What I mean by this is that with genetic modification, you are coding for something very specific: expression of a gene that the organism in question doesn't normally have, resulting in production of a compound (generally a protein) that the organism doesn't normally make. There are subtleties, but in general, the possibility that genetic modification will directly render a food poisonous is restricted to the possibility that the materials coded for by the genes introduced into the organism (and, of course, whatever those materials might be metabolized into) are themselves poisonous. To the extent that genetic modification is specific, in every case of a GMO food, there would be a limited number of candidate toxins, and a limited number of things to test. In most cases, the genetic modification would induce a food organism to produce more or less of something that it already makes (like raising the protein content of a grain), or to produce something that another organism makes -- and is known to be non-toxic. I find highly suspect small studies that broadly allege toxicity without any discussion of the underlying changes to the organism that might have rendered it toxic. The more acute the toxicity that is alleged for existing products that are widely consumed, the less I believe the study, as the widespread consumption of the product in question makes it less likely that the toxicity would have gone unnoticed.

On the other hand, I think concern about business interests quashing proper scientific investigation of problems is totally valid. Obviously, companies have a basic interest in the safety of their products, because if a widely distributed product is later demonstrated to be unsafe, the company will lose the value of its R&D investment and future sales, as well as exposing itself to fines and lawsuits. However, if a company believes that its product is "safe enough", it has every interest in discouraging research that might prove otherwise, or uncover a subtle deficiency.

I also think that the social issue of food becoming corporate IP is serious. But that doesn't relate so much to the basic safety of GMO as to how society wants to manage the technology.

The issue of GMO co-mingling with "natural" specifies is a more serious technical issue. So is the question of what GMO enables. I think the argument about herbicide-resistant GMO food plants encouraging greater use of herbicides is one of the stronger objections to GMO crops. (But again, this isn't a question of whether GMO food is wholesome, per se.)

That said, the loudest anti-GMO voices don't strike me as differentiating between strong and weak arguments for their case.

The point you make has been covered by the follow up article that I had also posted above as a link.

Don’t Eat These Beans If You’re Thinking of Having Children
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-children.aspx

"The variable that Dr. Ewen wants looked at the most is the weed killer used on GM soybeans, as he mentioned over and over that it is a probable cause of the disruption.
Is Roundup Herbicide Causing us Reproductive Problems?

Genetically modified soybeans are called Roundup Ready. They are inserted with a bacterial gene, which allows the plants to survive a normally deadly dose of Roundup herbicide. Although the spray doesn’t kill the plant, its active ingredient called glyphosate does accumulate in the beans themselves, which are consumed by rats, livestock, and humans.

There is so much glyphosate in GM soybeans, when they were introduced Europe had to increase their allowable residue levels by 200 fold.

Although there is only a handful of studies on the safety of GM soybeans, there is considerable evidence that glyphosate—especially in conjunction with the other ingredients in Roundup—wreaks havoc with the endocrine and reproductive systems.

“I think the concentration of glyphosate in the soybeans is the likely cause of the problem,” says Ewen.

Glyphosate throws off the delicate hormonal balance that governs the whole reproductive cycle. “It’s an endocrine buster,” says Ewen, “that interferes with aromatase, which produces estrogen.” Aromatase is required by luteal cells to produce hormones for the normal menstrual cycle, but it’s those luteal cells that have shown considerable alterations in the rats fed GM soybeans.

Glyphosate is also toxic to the placenta, the organ that connects the mother to the fetus, providing nutrients and oxygen, and emptying waste products."

Again, I have read elsewhere that the genetic modification of the Corn to protect it from insects, inserts a gene that produces the insecticide against the pest. But, that the gene has now been discovered to transfer to the microbes that inhabit our gut; that in turn mean, from then onwards, we produce the insecticide inside us...... permanently.

Both of these scenarios are very easy to understand and do remember that the early publicity about herbicides was all about the fact that anyone accidentally drinking them.... died!

[ASH]

Re: This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

The point you make has been covered by the follow up article that I had also posted above as a link.

Yep. Using more herbicide because you've engineered a plant that will tolerate it isn't a good thing.

I'd be very concerned about coding for insecticides in GMO food if the insecticides in question were of the nerve poison variety, with general toxicity. However, I gather from a web search that the insecticide coded for in GMO corn is likely a protein normally produced by the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. There should be no health problem for humans, even if gut bacteria started producing the Bt protein, because this particular insecticide is highly selective and only attacks insects with alkaline digestive tracts. Apparently, the protein interferes with digestion for this type of organism. On the other hand, however harmless to humans, the transfer to gut bacteria would be more generally troubling, because the long-term implications of passing these genes around in nature would be difficult to control or predict. Something producing the Bt protein might eventually become ubiquitous, and although it is claimed that Bt proteins are very insect-specific, I suspect there'd be some danger of mutation and eventually killing insects in the environment that we'd rather not.