Government Says Biotech Companies Can Be Their Own Safety Testers

Great, another government sponsored middle finger to the masses. The U.S. govt's stupidity increases every year. But they don't care because the citizens of this country don't give a shite, just as long as we keep the episodes of Jersey Shore coming.

RIP humans

Not to sound political but this dumb of a decision is directly a result of the anti-regulation craze sweeping the right. Yeah it will save money because the tests won't really be done as thoroughly as it should be. The bill should also include protections for the employees of the companies that do the studies so that they can't be fired for reporting things the company doesn't want to hear such as that the crop should not be allowed out into the world.

Oh and I am actually all for genetic modification.

Is anyone actually surprised by this news? Monsanto is a giant corporation with very close ties to the government, it's not surprising the government would let them submit their own reports saying their product isn't bad for people, animals or the environment.

Hey worriers, does it occur to you that the government doesn't need to regulate genetically modified seeds? If Monsanto sells seeds that cause a significant problem they will go out of business from all the lawsuits. They know it just as well as every other business in America. That's their incentive and it's a big one. "What!!!?" you scream. "Those greedy capitalists can't be trusted. They only care about money!" Exactly. Their money goes away if they mess up. The free market polices itself just fine without the government. Weird. For more common sense, read Adam Smith.

So do we really need the FDA? Hmmmm....

Regulation is for sissies who don't want paint in their milk or can't stomach Ebola.

Monsanto as nothing to fear from producing harmfull products. They have the power to paye the best lawyers, all the politicians etc. Money rules the world and Monsanto as a lot of it.

After what we have seen in 2008, only blind, or dumb peoples can still beleive in Adam Smith theories. As we have seen those big corporation have nothing to fear. They privatize the profits ans socialize the deficits. No bancrupcy to fear, tax payers are there.

Monsanto.........

our government at work

Even now, Monsanto is requisitioning thousands of rubber stamps that say "SAFE"...

I have a good idea. Let's just let the wolves guard the hen house. Should save us lots of money!!! Their are 2 types of people in the world. Rich or poor (Wolves or Lambs). Your believes will depend on what side you are on. Money buys power and you only have to look no further than 100 years back to see how corporations have mistreated citizens. lets face it, if it wasn't for our constitution we would be slaves to them. The only good thing is that there are fewer wolves than lambs. It's time for a stampede! Make your voice herd.

As noted near the end, this is what the FDA does for drugs and medical devices. Actually, the system works dairly well. ( Would work better if congres would quit undefunding the FDA while complaining about their speed).

One thing that the FDA does is set the framework, so that they can effectively review the data. They also require independant biostatisticians to design parts of the qualification ( paid for by the company.

Oh, and the FDA monitors complaints and writes the recall notices themselves (Notice: Blurgaloc HCL will kill you).

I had some brief exposure to this on the industry side, and it works. Besides, scientests at these companies really don't want to kill people.

Lets take this into a scenario

Monsanto develops genetically modified tomatoes that are modified to produce a slight toxin to pest when they try to eat the leaves, but unfortunately it transfer to the fruit as well. But the toxin is so light that this dismiss this finding saying it will have no immediate effect. they sell the seeds. The fruit is sold. For 2-3 years this happens. Then people start dying from toxin build up. People sue they lose. Monsanto big money. But its in the news. people start buying alternatives. Monsanto starts losing money. Goes out of Business. There is a power vacuum. Many small companies start producing their own seeds but test and double tests and triple test!!! they are safe and guess what cheaper because there is competition. And all is right with the world. Now yes some people may die or get sick. Or the environment may get damaged. But this earth, this species, this economic system is Resilient
is competition. And all is right with the world. Now yes some people may die or get sick. Or the environment may get damaged. But this earth, this species, this economic system is Resilient. And guess what the government didn't lift a finger. Will people continue blindly following what big companies are saying/doing no they will start asking questions and start being informed, because they had to stand up for them selves. Thats what a true federal government is supposed to do. Not nany state us into oblivion. Big buisness is not bad as long as we the people keep them honest not the government.

sorry for the duplication

Genetic modification is far and away safer in general than most methods of getting new varieties of plants. There has never been a problematic plant released from a lab that does genetic modification because of their own testing. The "certified organic" method is to expose seeds to mutagens and see what comes out. These other growers have released a number of poisonous products because they are not required to do any testing whatsoever! Read Mendel in the Kitchen for a better overview of the entire genetic modification debate.

I just read an article in The Telegraph about the top 10 Chinese food scandals. Given that actually executing the heads of companies that screw up doesn't seem to deter companies from trying new shortcuts that endanger public health, I do not have much faith in companies regulating themselves when it comes to spending money to ensure that their products do not negatively impact the population at large.

And I still don't understand the huge potential of GMO, when all the current GMO crops do is allow Monsanto to sell more Roundup and other -cides.

you know, it really wouldn't be any different if the usda or fda decided they were going to "regulate" this stuff themselves. our government and its agencies are USELESS because they are working for big corporations like monsanto, not for WE THE PEOPLE. big corporations buy our politicians during the campaign with campaign "donations" and our politicians pay back the "favor" by legislating and ruling for big business. this has got to stop. stop voting republican and democrat. stop voting for "the lesser of 2 evils." write in the candidate of your choice if he/she is not on the ballot. some may say that is a wasted vote, but isn't it also wasted if you vote on someone you don't want in office because they won't work for us???

@iphysics
Those GMO crops not only are "Roundup Ready" (resistant to Roundup a herbicide) but they produce higher yields with higher nutrition, drought resitant, flood resistant, pest resistant, all which reduce use of fertilizer and pesticides, which if your looking at everything at the bigger pollutants compared to herbicide. the impact is much higher, but i digress. Not all GMO's are just roundup ready and therefore are self serving. Roundup ready crops though have become hugley important. So instead of spraaying 3 different chemicals to kill three different weeds, they spray one. And since it so highly effective they spray very little. if you haven't used, take a drop and drop it on a normal sized tomato plant. See what happens. Plus Roundup does not leach in to the soil. it needs plant leaves to be effective and if it doesn't it become ineffective after a short spand of time. And no I am not a Monsanto employee just one small time farmer who believes in the mantra "a better world through chemicals"

@Ianredneck & other "Adam Smith" / "Freemarket!" ppl,

"Big buisness[sic] is not bad as long as we the people keep them honest not the government."

I've got a question... without a central government, how are you going to "sue" the big business?

Government makes the laws and regulations, government decides who has broken the laws, and government decides on the punishment for breaking laws.

Without government, all of those things are impossible. Therefore, without government, it's impossible for "the people" to keep anyone honest through threats of lawsuits. Hell, it's practically impossible to do it nowadays--and we even have a government and legal system!

It's kinda like saying the serfs in the dark ages kept their Lords honest... LOL.

Remember kids, "free market / anti-government utopia" only works when all actors in the market are equally powerful. When one (or a few) becomes much more powerful, or so powerful as to control and manipulate the market itself... the utopia turns into slavery.

That's what the gov't is about... trying to keep that balance of power in check between all of the actors in the market.

Look up what a monopoly or oligopoly is for more details on how the "free market" system fails miserably.

Oh, if you wanna know some more info about Monsanto (which is a chemical company, not agriculture, and sells their GMO corn as a pesticide instead of food) check out this movie:

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Wow the U.S government needs to grow a spine...and the U.S citizens need to wake up...for they are asleep.

Monsanto is evil. GMO foods are poison.

GMO foods are poison...they cause sterility / cancer in rats, 3-4 generations in...humans are on the 1st generation...but we will see an impact 50 years down the road.

Look at what Monsanto did to the Soy market / plant.

Is anyone aware enough to notice all of the allergies to foods kids these days are having? Allergic to high protein foods like peanuts...now even allergic to gluten...this is a direct cause of GMO foods.

Monsanto CEO's sit on the boards of the FDA and vice versa...they are scratching each other's back. And the people are forced to eat this garbage because of the bankrupt country and the fact that organic foods costs 3-4 times as much....DISGUSTING.

And for anyone fool enough to think "people can sue, that will keep them honest" Monsanto has it's people in the friggin whitehouse, they are a multi-billion $ company...do you think people dropping dead like flies is going to stop them? They will change their name and logo and stupid sheep will eat up their McMeals.

I guess I must be middle of the road.
A few notes in reply to some commentors. Free market != anti-government, they want a minimal and well regulated government, not an all powerful one that regulates how many fast food restaurants can be zoned for the peoples good. I agree.

The 2008 financial crisis was caused by government regulation, houses for votes kind of thing, require banks to loan to bad risks who were primarily minority. Regulation = votes = financial crash. The banks were required to do it, but cool for them the gov guaranteed to make the losses good to keep minorities and banks and their own power.

I don't trust monsanato, too much power accrued in any hands whether a huge corporation or the government is dangerous to we the people. Can we all agree on that one? Did you see? I just reunited the left and the right back into just Americans. I am awesomeness unbound. Thank you.

@Mycellium,

"The 2008 financial crisis was caused by government regulation, houses for votes kind of thing, require banks to loan to bad risks who were primarily minority."

That is a complete lie.

No bank was "required" to load to high risk individuals. Banks WANTED to loan to risky individuals since they would then bundle the loans into a security and resell the security to foreign investors and other banks to make money.

Kinda like if you bought a salvaged car, fixed the body, and then resold it to someone else as if it was a never-salvaged auto.

They didn't care cause after the sale they weren't the ones holding all of that risk.

Of course the problem was that the banks bought and sold the high-risk securities to each other (basically cheating each other) and all ended up holding bad loans.

No bank was required to make loans to people who couldn't pay for them--they were just ALLOWED to do it since they could make "stated income" loans. Basically, loans where you claim to make X amount of income to get the loan, and the bank doesn't need to verify that what you say is true.

"Regulation = votes = financial crash." == complete lie.

@Aldrons Last Hope

Please link any scientific papers, from any journals please i would like to see those. Otherwise i have to take the word from some one i know nothing about. Also i don't know about the soy plant. As far as i know it has becoem the wonder plant that it is today. Being used as a cash crop by farmers lving on the edge of ruin. It was properties that make in valuable and as far as I know have had no problems in the agriculture field. At least when ever i see it grown in PA. So let me see your proof then i can respond better to your post.
@B.V
I never said no central gov. I believe in one, but only one that supports the constitution. I don't believe i saw anything in there about regulating food, or crops. Point it out to me because its been a while since i read it. Plus the people of a country have always kept gov./buisness honest untill we started taking that ability out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of gov. We are all children of the gov. instead of the herders. keeping it safe and true. You got a problem with Monsato, fine, i have no problem with, buy something else, start a grass roots movement, boycott, this is your god given right! one gaurenteed by the Constitution, use it. (See how i came full circle on that ;) ). By the way Food inc. is biased, i watched it "know thy enemy" and all that.

How quickly you forget Mr./Ms. B.V. we the people did keep the "lords" honest little thing happened around 1775, kinda of a big year for the U.S.

Finnaly, B.V. we are big boys and girls, who mostly have very strong moral views. If we want something to change we can change it. the Gov. does not have to hold our hands. Its time for us to "fly away from the nes" and grow, becoem informed and make decisions. the only reason someone would want a gov. to hold our hand is because we are scared. Are you scared? be brave.

@Ianredneck,

Most people don't want to have a war to keep others honest.

Most people just want to live in peace.

That's why I pay taxes for police, cause I don't want to waste my life worrying about wearing enough body armor and having enough spikes sticking off of my car to prevent burglars...

That's why I pay taxes for a USDA--cause I don't want to waste my life in a court room trying to prove that I almost died from food poisoning due to negligence on a food producers behalf.

It's not about fear, it's about figuring out what makes life worth living. For most people, it's spending time with their friends and family, enjoying hobbies, enjoying good health, and otherwise experiencing a 'good' life--not fighting revolutionary wars against monarchies and litigating for compensation after your arm is severed due to an unsafe work environment.

re: constitution

Read Article 1 Section 8, see the "commerce clause". Feds can regulate food as a commodity AND as it relates to inter-state commerce.

In 2005 the supreme court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the feds had the power to regulate things grown, processed, and consumed within only 1 state and on private property.

Maybe you think you understand the constitution better than the supreme court justices... I dunno...

--------

Re: Monsanto and "boycotting" them.

This is a whole huge other debate. Basically the current laws on Intellectual Property make it impossible to boycott patented genes as the courts have ruled even accidental contamination of your crops with patented genes makes you liable for any license fees associated with the GMO genes.

So, if I create a GMO plant and patent it's new gene, all I have to do is plant it next to your field and wait for the bees/wind/whatever to cross-pollinate our plants.

My patented gene "infects" your plants, and now YOU owe me license fees for it... even though you didn't want it.

How are you gonna boycott something like that?

@ianredneck

There are many studies....here are some articles about them...but if you take some time to delve into this..you will see this is the tip of the ice berg. The last link is to a farmers communal blog...they also site very credible medical research

http://www.inhabitots.com/genetically-modified-food-may-cause-long-term-sterility/

http://natural-fertility-info.com/gmo-infertility.html

http://onlinehealthnews.org/2010/02/genetically-modified-foods-toxins-and-reproductive-failures/

About the soy plant B.V hit the nail on the head. Genetically modified soy does not produce seeds...farmers have to buy the seeds from monsanto. Monsanto has the patent for their particular breed. Now it spreads to all the small time farmers crops. Now the farmers crops are destroyed and they have to buy monsanto seed...if not monsanto will sue and ruin the small farmers. That was in food inc.

In related news, employees will now be deciding their own pay. I'm for genetic engineering though.

@Lord Elliot, i'm for genetic engineering as well, as long as it is done safely and ethically, when studies show increase in cancer and sterilization and the patent is passed by a board by 1 or 2 votes that are bought and paid for....that's not always good. Just look at aspartame. This was deemed unsafe by the FDA...but corporations are persistent, and eventually they got it through despite aspartame being poisonous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvFRLIjOLOU

@bv
You don't think gov regulations created any of the crisis?

Yes I know wikipedia but it gives a decent timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline

In all of that you don't see the long term continuously expanding problem of government regulating things for money, power, votes, social concerns/ "progress" that lead to the crisis?

Gov wants minority votes. Gov says get these people some houses they'll like us for it. Gov needs banks to loan high risk. Gov says you have to do it (yes they did) but we don't want to lose your support so we promise to make it good if loans fail. Banks see a huge government regulated pay day with no risks to themselves per government regulations, banks give campaign contributions to politicians, minorities grateful for houses they can't afford vote for pols. Everyones happy. But it collapses as it had to.

There is such a thing as too much government regulation and it can cause the things that could also be caused by no regulation. Lifes a balance, not 100% this 0% that or vice versa. And the argument shouldn't be who do we let dominate every facet, government OR corporations. Like that's the only two options. How about neither. How about we give up as few freedoms as necessary to keep society running and keep the rest for ourselves. What say you to that (in my best jack sparrow voice)?

@Mycellium,

Have you even read the link you posted? This is a direct quote from it...

"2004:
October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms—Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1, buying massive amounts of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments."

^^ That's reduced regulation from the Gov't directly resulting in riskier behavior from the huge banks... Many other examples of regulations decreasing and concerns raised by experts being ignored in that same link you posted.

You say:

"Gov says you have to do it (yes they did) but we don't want to lose your support so we promise to make it good if loans fail."

Cite a specific source for this blatant lie. Find the law/bill/executive order that required private banks to loan to risky individuals and guaranteed backing by tax payers.

@Aldrons Last Hope
Thanks for the articles, but i can't say i would use those to make a point one way or another. The first two are articles from websites, not necessarily peer reviewed Journals, if you got some of those i would be interested. The third one is better but i still have my reservations. Most of the referenced material is highly biased which takes the legitimacy of the article away. If you got others i would be interested in seeing them.

True there is inherent danger with legislation passed giving genetic trademarks to companies. But there are always alternative. Other seed companies can still produce other seeds not tainted to the GMO trademarked genes. Also collective actions help too. I am Repub. but even in some cases this is helpful. Farmers need to get together, if they need to, boycott Monsanto and take there buisness elsewhere. It is possible. never say never.

@B.V.
I only brought up the Revolutionary War because you metioned the lord and the serfs.

I pay taxes to have a strong central gov. that protects my rights, not to regulate my life to oblivion. There is a thing called "scope creep". If you haven't heard of it, you may have seen it. Its what happens when the gov. usually gives power to someone to do something. The USDA lets say, to regulate food and drugs. But instead increases there scope beyond what was first imagined. Then this creep becomes hard fisted, tight grip rule that increases costs else were while slowing down production/distribution of material goods. Yes great things have happened from some regulation. I admit that. But i also see this scope creep becoming a problem. especially else where in the gov., like regulating fast food restauraunts, what i can and cannot eat. If i want to eat like fat disgusting slob contract diabetes and have a heartach, by god thats might right. I choose not too because i have to much self respect. But those are my rights.

"If i want to eat like fat disgusting slob contract diabetes and have a heartach, by god thats might right. I choose not too because i have to much self respect. But those are my rights."

Not really.

Same as you don't have the right to drive 100mph through a school zone, or shoot your gun off randomly in a city park, you don't have the right to live like an irresponsible jerk and then leave the rest of the country with the bill for your behavior.

If your behavior encroaches on the rights of others, it's behavior that can be regulated.

So... sorry, I don't want to pay for your emergency room visits when you start to kick the bucket from eating too many fries.

I don't want to pay for your kids orphanage when you're dead and buried because you were too stupid to realize being morbidly obese is dangerous.

I don't want to pay to have the roads repaved sooner than they would otherwise need to be because your obese body causes extra stress to the pavement while you're driving to the nearest fast food joint.

I don't want to pay the extra money it takes to treat the extra amount of sewage flooding into the treatment plant due to your appetite for extra-large bean burrito's.

Contrary to what most republican politicians want you to believe, no man is an island. We are all connected, and everything we do affects someone else.

Most of the time regulations don't occur because some "crazy liberal politician" just wants to waste your tax dollars and make your life miserable--they happen because there is a problem in society that the politician's constituents want fixed.

Some problems can be very localized... such as a county banning the sale of alcohol... Or a city making it illegal to smoke in public parks... Or a home owners association making it illegal to put pink flamingos in your yard.

Other problems, however, affect more people and therefore require a broader scope of regulation. Things like dumping toxic waste into streams and rivers, discriminating against people of a particular ethnic group or gender, selling dangerous products, harvesting fish from common lakes and rivers, etc.

You say,

"Then this creep becomes hard fisted, tight grip rule that increases costs else were while slowing down production/distribution of material goods."

Cite some sources and give specific examples where this has been the case.

I'm sure there are instances like that--nobody is perfect. However, I think the proper approach is to find the flawed system and then petition your gov't to change it.

If you don't like the regulation of pink flamingos in your home owners association... GREAT, become empowered, become involved, go circulate a petition, run for office, and update the regulation to what most people think is best.

But I don't think it's an accurate statement to say that all regulation is prone to scope creep and ONLY negative externalities... if you are going to make that argument, you better have some solid statistics to back you up.

lanredneck

Not to get too far into the science but what's happening with the overuse of glyphosate is the locking up of many of the positively charged ions in the soil profile. Glyphosate's mode of action is to chelate cations, which it does very effectively. The weeds then have no immunity to any of the everyday soil-borne pathogens. Roundup ready crops have an alternate pathway to make cations available which why they are not affected. Glyphosate doesn't kill the weed, it merely makes it impossible to fend off the most minor environmental threat. When all of the cations are locked up the plant's defenses are turned off. Things like fusarium, verticillium, and other pathogens kill the plant. Glyphosate has no effect on a plant grown in a sterile medium because there is no pathogen present to kill the plant. What we're seeing in the soil profile is a complete locking up of these minerals. It's true that the actual glyphosate molecule breaks down fairly quickly, but it's residual compounds can be easily reactivated in the soil by the application of phosphates in fertilizer. See:

Bott, S., Tesfamariam, T., Kania, A., Eman, B., Aslan, N., Roemheld, V., and Neumann, G. 2011, Phytotoxicity of glyphosate soil residues re-mobilise4d by phosphate fertilization. Plant Soil 315:2-11. DOI 10, 1007/s11104-010-06989-3.

What we are seeing here in the corn belt are fields of corn and soybeans that are succumbing to some very minor diseases which had been well-controlled by breeding. Goss's Wilt in corn and SDS (sudden death of soybeans). Anyway there's more here, but I'll lead you to read some of these. Glyphosate is dangerous, and we will be seeing it's effects for years to come. There is no free lunch and no silver bullet.

AgroNews. 2011. India: Signs of food toxicity in GE eggplant. Scoop.co.nz 2011-1-18. [http://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---3369.htm] Nib, 24 Jnuary 111.

Bellaloui, N., reddy, K.N., Zablotowicz, R.M., Abbas, H.K., and Abel, C.A. 2009. Effects of glyphosate application on seed iron and root ferric (III) reductase in soybean cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57:9569-9574.

Cakmak, I., Yazici, A., Tutus, Y., Ozturk, L. 2009. Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf concentrations of calcium, magnesium, manganese, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant soybean. European J. Agron. 31:114-119.

Datnoff, L.E., elmer, W.H., and Huber, D.M. 2007. Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease. APS Press, St. Paul, Mn. 278. 278 pages.

Eker, S., Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Erenoglu, B., Roemheld, V., and Cakmak, I. 2006. Foliar-applied glyphosate substantially reduced uptake and transport of iron and manganese in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:100019-10025.

Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., and Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian Prairies. European J. Agon. 31:133-143.

Johal, G.R. and Rahe, J.E. 1984. Effect of soilborne paltn-pathogenic fungi on the herbicidal action of glyphosate on bean seedlings. Phytopathology 74:950-955.

Johal, G.R. and Rahe, J.E. 1990. Role of phytoalexins in the suppression of resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris to Colletotrichum lindemuthianum by glyphosate. Canad. J. Plant Pathol. 12:225-235.

Johal, G.R. and Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants. European J. Agron. 31:144-152.

Kremer, R.J. and Means, N.E. 2009. Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms. European J. Agron. 31:153-161.

Larsen, R.L., Hill, A.L., Fenwick, A., Kniss, A.R., Hanson, L.E., and Miller, S.D. 2006. Influence of glyphosate on Rhizoctonia and Fusarium root rot in sugar beet. Pest Manag. Sci. 62:1182-1192.

Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Eker, S., gokmen, O., roemheld, V., and Cakmak, I. 2008. Glyphosate inhibition of ferric reductase activity in iron deficient sunflower roots. New Phytol. 177:899-906.

Schafer, J.R., Westhoven, A.M., Kruger, G.R., Davis, V.M., Hallett, S.G., and Johnson, W.G. 2009. Effect of growth media on common lambsquarter and giant ragweed biotypes response to glyphosate. Proc. Northcentral Weed Sci. Soc. 64:102.

Schafer, J.R., Hallett, S.G., and jophnson, W.G. 2010. Role of soil-borne fungi in the response of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) biotypes to glyphosate. Proc. Northcentral Weed Sci. Soc. 65:.

Seralini, G-E., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendomois, J.S., Cellier, D. 2011. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environ. Sci. Europe 23:10-20. http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

Tesfamariam, T., Bott, S., Cakmak, I., Roemheld, V., and Neumann, G. 2009. Glyphosate in the rhizosphere – role of waiting times and different glyphosate binding forms in soils for phytoxicity to non-target plants. European J. Agron. 31:126-132.

Yamada, T., Kremer, R.J., Camargo e Castro, P.R., and Wood, B.W. 2009. Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability? European J. Agron. 31:111-113.

Zobiole, L.H.S., Oliveira, R.S.Jr., Huber, D.M., Constantin, J., Castro, C., Oliveira, F.A., Oliveira, A. Jr. 2010. Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Plant Soil 328:57-69.

Zobiole, L.H.S., Oliveira, R.S. Jr., Kremer, R.J., Constantin, J., Yamada, T., Castro, C., Oliveiro, F.A., and Oliveira, A. Jr. 2010. Effect of glyposate on symbiotic N2 fixation and nickel concentration in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Applied Soil Ecol. 44:176-180.

@ vanee
Thank you for doing the leg work, i will have to look at these at home. (interent connection at work sucks)

I may concede (not the i do yet lol)that roundup ready crops are harmful, i don't feel that "one apple should ruin the bunch". GMO's can still in my opinion create a world without hunger. these kind of discussions educate people to make them aware of the world around them. hell i might get educated and be wrong.(see Aldrons Last Hope, nothing wrong with being wrong every now and then).

@B.V.
I have to point out that you stated "I don't want", not "I don't have too", are you going to allow a law that states all bad food (high calorie, high satuarted fat, high cholestrol) is banned or that every american citizen is requried to excersise an hr a day. You can't regualte how people live. Not legaly anyways. Yes society must pay for the sins of the sinners, but thats what keeps us from being a socialists state, or some tyrannical rulling style governemnt. I would love to have very few regulations where all people are informed and able to stand up for themselves. But i understand that won't happen. So i need to settle for a middle ground. Some regulation to protect me but also fighting that creep. Creep will always happen. I live in a world of it. And as to stats, i don't think you can stratify the effect of regulations, maybe on a production scale, or time, but as a whole, I think regulations and creep are unable to be stratified. Regulations equal loss of freedom(my opinion). They also equal (sometimes) safety. No perfect world here. And hell if i could run for office i would have allready lol.

@Ianredneck,

I think what laws/regulations/etc. really do is shift "freedoms" around.

For instance, when society decided to outlaw theft, it took one freedom (the freedom to take the property of another without societal retribution), and converted it to a new freedom: the freedom to feel as though your property will not readily be taken.

I think this is apparent in regulations like smoking bans in restaurants.

Smokers complain that they are losing the freedom to smoke, but anti-smoking activists rejoice that they are gaining the freedom to eat in a smoke-free restaurant.

It's the same with anything else... the "personal mandate" on healthcare takes away the freedom to not have health insurance, but it gives you a different freedom... the freedom to seek new/more fulfilling employment opportunities without fear of losing your health.

As a society we need to figure out what sorts of freedoms we value most. Do we value the freedom to eat cheeseburgers for 3 meals a day? Or the freedom to live a life with a low risk of paying for heart disease?

Do we value the freedom to become as fat as possible? Or the freedom to form volunteer militias because we have enough fit citizens to do so?

Personally, I think individuals should be able to decide on their life as much as possible... but I don't like the idea of letting people be social parasites who offload the negative externalities of their behavior on everyone else while enjoying the positive externalities of living in a society.

If you want to eat/smoke/drink/do drugs to an unhealthy point... fine, you should be able to do so... as long as you pay your extra share of the expenses associated with doing so.

Maybe if we had a national "risky behavior insurance" pool that you have to contribute to so that when you eventually die, we can use that money to cover the expenses of fixing all of the mistakes you made.

I'd be fine with such a compromise. You get to do whatever you want, I don't have to pay for it... everyone gets the kind of "freedom" they crave.

@ B.V.
I agree in some parts, "social parasite" are detrimental and there are regulations that do support it unfortunatly. I don't want to stir another hornets nest, but welfare, and unemployment are often abused, creating social parasite, i don't want to support people, who have children they can't take care of just so they continue to gather there welfare checks, yes these are important to some people, my uncle got laid off, hes a hard worker, just got a bit of bad luck, and he has survived because of unemployment. I think there are ways around this. More public options. I also feel that alot of these things should be handled at the state level. My biggest political driver. If you don't like your states healthcare/medicare/welfare/immigration laws, then move!! A lot of this should not be handled at the federal level. So in California, I lose my "freedom" to drive my SUV/Hummer but clean air, or I got to Texas and drive those cars everywhere. Or any other analogy i could use in its place. I think there is a lot or federal gov. is doing that they shouldn't and should be left to the state level.

When you start talking about sharing responsibilities, everything starts taking on a socialist tinge, not that I am callign you a socialist. But when you talk about it you start to tread a thin line. As things happen we tend to swing to extremes, to the left to the right, democratic, socialist. thats what i am afraid of.

@Ianredneck,

The problem is that in many times (especially concerning environmental regulation), the actions of a U.S. resident in one state can affect the quality of life on a U.S. resident in another.

For example, I used to live in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Western North Carolina. Beautiful place, lot's of wilderness, forests, national parks, etc.

You'd expect the air there to be superb. In fact, in the late 1800's many patients with TB were sent to recovery centers in the mountains because the air quality was so superior it eased in their recovery from lung disease.

Today, however, the air quality is pretty low in the mountains. The local regulations in the state of NC and Asheville/surrounding areas are very strict--the residents want to maintain their high standard of living and have voted to do so.

However, just up the jet stream, the Tennessee Valley Authority runs ancient coal plants from the 1940's that are exempt from federal emissions regulations due to their age. These plants help provide the residents of TN with cheap electricity... and then the natural jet stream blows their emissions to be trapped in the mountains of NC.

So, TN residents get cheap power, NC residents get reduced air quality.

NC residents cannot regulate what TN does, yet they suffer from the effects of TN's actions.

So what's the solution here, aside from a powerful federal government?

Someone who's family has lived in NC since it was first colonized should just move because in 1940 TN decided to build some polluting power plants?

I'd hardly call that an acceptable solution...

@ B.V.
shouldn't that be a discussion between the states then? Maybe there should be a discussion about the trade of water rights on rivers and streams to create dams, or the joint relsolution to create alternative power plants i.e. nuclear power plants. Cost sharing for the loss of the coal plants. Yes sure the fed. come in only to mediate. Like the fed. gov. should do! See no regulations that can become completely unweidly. Or that increase their scope and hinder economy or technology advances. Inter state cooperation and understanding can lead to a wonderful world. Where hey we get our cake and eat it too!!

And I am going to use a modified one of your statements for a rebuttal to regulation.

I am tired of people cutting and hurting themselves, i have to pay for people hitting there heads or cutting them selves with knives. why don't people use scissors or wear helmets. Lets make regulations that people can't have sharp knives in there home, and need to wear helmets....all the time!!! And if you need a sharp knife at work you need to go through 4 clsses, and a special certification to learn to cut away from yourself.

I reference the bin laden article for your hyperbole.

@Ianredneck,

"Lets make regulations that people can't have sharp knives in there home, and need to wear helmets....all the time!!!"

LOL! Man, the sad thing is that I know some liberals who would totally get behind that idea :D

I think we need to consider the scale of the problem when deciding to regulate against it.

For instance, Ray LaHood went on a rampage against texting and driving because "an epidemic" was "sweeping the country". In actuality, the statistics indicate something like 5,000 people are actually killed by "distracted drivers" each year.

Even if all distracted drivers were distracted by texting, I'd hardly call that an epidemic.

And, as expected, I'm against federal regulations on texting&driving (though I certainly think they have the power to regulate how people drive on THEIR federal highway system...I just don't think the cost of doing so is worth it).

When it comes to obesity, where one third of Americans are obese (roughly 100 million people), I'd say that's much closer to epidemic numbers.

So, if we had 100 million Americans gravely injuring themselves with a knife each year, or hitting their heads on cabinets... I might consider the regulation of knifes/helmets as an okay thing to do.

Obviously it's preposterous to do so with the current negligible numbers of knife injuries/head hittings.
------

re: "shouldn't that be a discussion between the states then"

Well, it is exactly that discussion in congress. Each state sends senators and representatives (elected by the people) to discuss the federal regulations and (somewhat) agree/compromise on how and where they will be implemented.

TN and NC both send people to congress, and maybe the NC senators propose a bill to regulate the old coal power plants while the TN senators oppose the bill...they argue and debate about it, other states choose sides, maybe eventually all of the states decide to subsidize TN's transition away from the old coal power plants... and this manifests in the form of a "federal gov't subsidy" to TN.

Congress (a.k.a. the federal government) is exactly the type of "conversation between the states" that you suggest. They aren't some random group of people--they are the manifestation of the different states.

Of course (as has been made apparent recently) such a system has it's own flaws...

Particularly when congress can't agree on something. Effectively this gives the "jerk" states free reign to take a dump on their neighbors (or, at least it would, if we didn't have an executive branch to check that power through EPA appointments).

@bv How about the community reinvestment act and it's many revisions. Possibly change the word "forced" to pressured or coerced. The effects of the reports could affect mergers etc. and was available to community groups, like the ones recently in the news going to bankers houses en masse to protest various things. Intimidating, dangerous, coercive.

But the well organized community organizations that wanted easier to get loans weren't the only ones. The banks and fanny and freddy knew it was great money for them too. If congress guaranteed to protect them. These things you should agree with. I think the only disagreement we have is semantics. You wish to view "deregulation" as the problem, I view regulation, the changing of rules up or down, to satisfy any group from banks, to community groups, to environmentalists to anyone as problematic.

The rules and laws should be made rationally and not politically, or with the magic greed word (used for everything now). They should be the best balance, least damaging. But that will NEVER happen. Politicians of any party you can imagine will act naturally. May be a natural example, politicians are like forest creatures, they need certain things to survive food shelter etc. for the forest creatures, money and votes for the politicians. The ones not able to procure these things die, or go back to the private sector to have to work for real, ughh almost as bad as death, so they fight tooth and nail to procure their needed things. Knowing this you know that they can never act truly honestly or independently, they will always be beholden to special interests of one kind or another none better than another, they need too much. The more of your power and freedom you give them the more they will use what you gave them to take the rest.

The point I'm making is limit them, as a matter of course. There will always be those who argue that everything can arguably affect everyone else, so everything needs to be regulated. I argue that the people have a better chance unfettered to control the bad parts, more or less, and that's good enough. Look at the internet, commenting views ideas are basically self policing, the most egregious things are taken out, most are left to the people to use social pressure to shut down trolls, the vicious etc. Works pretty good, mostly. Mostly is better than what we would get for a centralized control. Think about the idealogy through that set of glasses. Imperfect but human. Better than imperfect and inhuman.

The gov should control only the most egregious, the rest should be left to us, we're the ones truly responsible for our lives. It's our lives not theirs for blind social theory and experimentation, we will do a better job. We always have for the last couple hundred thousand years anyway, mostly, and that's a better track record than them.

@Mycellium,

I think I understand what you mean now. You are saying the "amount of regulation" or the "type of regulation" was the cause of the housing bubble.

I can agree with that.

Bad regulation can't make problems better just like a bad doctor can't make your health better. As long as you're not saying "no! down with doctors! it's better with no doctors!" then I think we probably agree.

19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption

By Dr. Mercola | April 27 2011
A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice.

Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.

The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.

According to the Institute for Responsible Technology:

"The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials 'constitute 83 percent of the commercialized GMOs' that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world."

Further, the biotechnology firm Monsanto is only an FDA approval away from its latest monstrosity -- soybeans that have been genetically modified to produce omega-3 fats. That FDA approval is expected this year.

Monsanto plans to include GM soybean oil in every product it can -- baked goods, baking mixes, breakfast cereals, cheeses, frozen dairy desserts, pasta, gravies and sauces, fruit juices, snack foods, candy, soups, and more.

According to Forbes:
"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.' Readers ... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."

Scientists have also introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows in a process that they say will cause the cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. They believe that this could provide an alternative to formula milk for babies.

Critics of GM technology questioned the safety of milk from genetically modified animals, and also its potential effect on the cattle's health.

Sources:
  Environmental Sciences Europe March 1, 2011 
  Institute for Responsible Technology April 7, 2011 
  Forbes April 11, 2011 
  PLoS One March 16, 2011; 6(3):e17593 
 

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
 
In the latest review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) -- an analysis of 19 animal studies -- it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst.

The studies involved animals fed GM soy and corn, which comprise more than 80 percent of all GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and exist in virtually every processed food sold in the United States.

Clearly the danger posed by GM crops is no longer theoretical, yet because GM foods are patented inventions that are protected under copyright and proprietary information laws, the corporations controlling the seeds only allow them to be studied under very limited conditions.

Rarely (if ever) do they permit them to be studied for safety by anyone but the USDA (who hasn't yet seen the need to conduct rigorous long-term studies), and rarely are they studied beyond 30 or 90 days.

The GM Foods You're Eating Have Only Been Studied for 90 Days – at Most!
As Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology states:
"Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research."

In order to obtain the raw data from the 90-day studies, the researchers had to take court actions and make official requests, and the results suggested that the beginnings of chronic disease may have been starting in the animals' liver and kidneys. What would have occurred in six months, a year or five years down the line remains unknown, as the studies have never been done.

The researchers noted:
"The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection."

Further, when the data was reviewed in its entirety, the researchers found serious cause for concern that appeared to be overlooked by regulatory authorities:
"Some of these tests used controversial protocols which are discussed and statistically significant results that were considered as not being biologically meaningful by regulatory authorities, thus raising the question of their interpretations."

Given the obvious organ disruption that occurred in animals fed GM corn and soy for just 30-90 days, it is downright terrifying to think about what might happen to humans who eat these foods for a lifetime. The researchers state outright what the regulatory agencies have failed to acknowledge:

"We can conclude, from the regulatory tests performed today, that it is unacceptable to submit 500 million Europeans and several billions of consumers worldwide to the new pesticide GM-derived foods or feed, this being done without more controls (if any) than the only 3-month-long toxicological tests and using only one mammalian species, especially since there is growing evidence of concern.

This is why we propose to improve the protocol of the 90-day studies to 2-year studies with mature rats."

Why You Need to Think Twice Before Eating GMOs
There's very convincing evidence that genetically modified foods spell nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however, these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.

In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!

There are serious medical implications to this finding.
However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which isengineered to produce an insecticide called BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines.

These kinds of studies are sorely needed, and fast, because as of right now, about 85 percent of the corn grown in the US is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.

What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GMO unless it's certified organic by the USDA.
In this interview, Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:

Rheumatoid arthritis
Inflammatory bowel disease
Osteoporosis
Atherosclerosis
Various types of cancer
Allergies
Lou Gehrig's disease

In addition, Smith has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:
• Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
• Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
• The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
• Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
• Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Beware of New GMO Products: Omega-3 Soybean Oil
GM crops have already invaded our food supply, and more GM –foods are in the pipeline, but you'd never know it because GM foods are unlabeled.
One of the latest creations from GM giant Monsanto is a  genetically modified soybean that produces omega-3 fats. " Stearidonic acid (SDA) soybean oil, as the new product is called,  is only one FDA approval away from becoming a reality, but although omega-3 fats are clearly healthy, omega-3 from GM soybean oil most likely certainly is not.

Not only do you need to get animal-based omega-3 fats in your diet for the most benefits, but also soybean oil is not a food you want to consume, especially if it has been manipulated to contain omega-3 fats. GM soy has been linked to an increase in allergies, as well as has the potential to cause infertility in future generations, It's also one of the polyunsaturated vegetable oils you need to cut down on in your diet if you want better health.

Unfortunately, as Forbes reported;"Monsanto plans to include SDA soybean oil in just about everything: "baked goods and baking mixes, breakfast cereals and grains, cheeses, dairy product analogs, fats and oils, fish products, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, grain products and pastas, gravies and sauces, meat products,
… milk products, nuts and nut products, poultry products, processed fruit juices, processed vegetable products, puddings and fillings, snack foods, soft candy, and soups and soup mixes, at levels that will provide 375 milligrams (mg) of SDA per serving."

It's unclear whether the new SDA soybean oil will be listed on labels, but if you see "stearidonic acid (SDA) soybean oil" on a label, now you'll know what it is so you can avoid it.

The Latest Creation: GM "Breast Milk" From Cows
Researchers are also trying to produce "human" breast milk using genetically modified cows.
Scientists used cloning technology to introduce human genes into dairy cows to produce milk they say has the same properties as human breast milk and could provide an alternative to formula or human breast milk for babies in about 10 years.
Producing GM food for babies is alarming, as the process of moving genes around carries unpredictable risks. One study that looked at the insertion of a single gene into a human cell found that up to 5 percent of the genes had significantly changed their level of output.

This means that hundreds or thousands of genes could change their levels of protein expression when a single gene is inserted -- and even one change can be dangerous. As The Telegraph reported, already there were signs of trouble with the GM "human" cow milk studies:

" … During two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth."

Do You Know … You're Probably Eating GMOs?
I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States (over 90 percent of all corn is GM corn and over 95 percent all soy is GM soy) EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components.

So you're eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.

As was recently stated in the NY Times:
"A majority of our foods already contain GMOs and there's little reason to think more isn't on the way. It seems our "regulators" are using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter whatsoever."

Are You Ready to Avoid GMOs?
If you don't already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.

You can find the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure at the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends.

When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.

Genetically modified foods are one of the most significant threats that we have against the very sustainability of the human race, so everything you can do to avoid them is a step in the right direction for humankind.

GMOs Test UnSafe—Here's Why You Never Hear About It

October 04, 2010

By Jeffrey Smith

Arpad Pusztai 

Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field.
But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.
In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years.
The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.
Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.
With permission from his director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his institute -- for two days.
Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO prime minister’s office to the institute’s director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.
Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans.
Irina Ermakova
Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.
Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”
Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour.
In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55 percent.
It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.
Andrés Carrasco
Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.
Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.
Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.
According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”
Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.
Judy Carman
Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function” and are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health.
Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GM scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.
Carman was awarded a grant by the Western Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should therefore cancel the grant.
 As his evidence, however, he presented a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies -- an infinitesimal amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.
A closer investigation, however, revealed that most of the 60 were not safety studies at all. They were production studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9 contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects in animals that ate GM feed!
Furthermore, there were several other studies with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation. Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health.”
When the Western Government refused to withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s relationship with the university where she was to do the research.
Terje Traavik
Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:
1. Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
2. Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
3. Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.
The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? -- he presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.
Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”
Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops
When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes.
After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples.
Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American,
“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers ... Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”
A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.
Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies.
Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk -- so she faxed it out.
GMO Contamination: Don’t Ask and Definitely Don’t Tell

In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of contamination by GM varieties. According to the Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was complete, she was reassigned to another department and access to her lab was denied.
The unexpected transfer may have saved this Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had she discovered and reported contamination.
Ask Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC Berkeley. In 2001, he discovered that the indigenous corn varieties in Mexico -- the source of the world’s genetic diversity for corn—had become contaminated through cross pollination with GM varieties.
The government had a ban against GM corn to prevent just this possibility, but apparently US corn imported for food had been planted nonetheless.
Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed the Mexican government about the pending publication. He was called in to meet with a furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety and GMOs. Chapela’s confirmation of contamination would hinder introduction of GM corn. Therefore the government’s top biotech man demanded that he withdraw his article. According to Chapela, the official intimidated and threatened him, even implying, “We know where your children go to school.”
When a traumatized Chapela still did not back down, the Underminister for Agriculture later sent him a fax claiming that because of his scientific paper, Chapela would be held personally responsible for all damages caused to agriculture and to the economy in general.
The day Chapela’s paper was published, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting messages to a biotechnology listserve called AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 scientists. They falsely claimed that Chapela was biased, that his paper had not been peer-reviewed, that Chapela was “first and foremost an activist,” and his research was published in collusion with environmentalists. Soon, hundreds of other messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the accusations. The listserve launched a petition and besieged Nature with a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.
UC Berkeley also received letters from all over the world trying to convince them not to grant Chapela tenure. He had overwhelming support by his college and department, but the international biotech lobby was too much. Chapela’s tenure was denied. After he filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.
When investigators later analyzed the email characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to be the average citizens they claimed. According to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used by a public relations firm that worked for Monsanto. Some of Smetacek’s emails also had the internet protocol address of gatekeeper2.monsanto.com -- the server owned by Monsanto.
Science and Debate is Silenced
The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists “asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says, “It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.” He told Nature that young people “are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”
New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place ... and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly ... or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”
University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”
To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.
To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

At this site there are 14 videos listed on right side of page.
http://wn.com/Monsanto
[above link is must read/view]

Governor Rick Scott needs to stop [if he can] Monsanto seed in FL agriculture.
Milk cows contaminating milk and making cows sick w/disease. Pig herds are becoming infertile and dying.

Monsanto sues farmers - and in many cases farmers either give up [Monsanto too wealthy to fight] or Monsanto ends up OWNING the farmer's land.

Obama had promised to end Monsanto spreading into farmers fields - another promise broken. Too many lobbyists DONATING to congressmen???

Now Florida Organic and non-organic farmers joining the lawsuits against Monsanto [total now 83 - you can google it].
Need Florida citizens to march on super markets in FL insisting LABELS be on cans/packaging and produce that use Monsanto genetically modified organisms [GMO] .... and what country the food originally comes from- which is not on much food now. Food says it is from USA but is ONLY packaged here after arriving from other countries where GMO is how grown w/Monsanto Seeds and dairy products - you have to read the labels CAREFULLY and ask questions of MANAGER OF STORE [not just the produce man - he does not know or can't say b/c he is afraid of losing job].
THIs IS BIG BUSINESS W/MONSANTO.

Commercial pilots don't drink sodas with Aspartame - can cause blindness - article in pilots magazine.

Shouldn't citizens be contacting their Governors? and demanding answers?
calling them on phone? contacting all congressmen and finding out if they are accepting donations from the lobbyists of Monsanto? and finding out what their governors/congressmen are doing about the Monsanto GM seed in their state's farmlands? and if they are writing bills to stop Monsanto?
Citizens should picket their food markets against Monsanto...... Monsanto is in every state....... WholeFoods will not use products [i wrote wholefoods] on their shelves - including their meat products.

I stand corrected - just read this article - about Whole Foods. Apparently it came out AFTER I contacted them about Monsanto.

Whole Foods Market Caves to Monsanto

Submitted by Anne Landman on January 28, 2011 - 4:09pm

[because it has WWW preceding "link" i can't link it due to "rules".] But you can "search" for it right here on POPSCI.COM

This is a great site.