anti sperm GMO corn intended for human consumption

i dont think people realize that forced sterilization is against the human rights of any country

Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption.“Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.” Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks.

link to the most scary thing i have ever read

second link

i dont know about you but i wounder if this is the real reason GMO labeling has been stopped
is it not the right of all people to have children?
is this really in our food?
has anyone woundered why sperm counts have been dropping?

who decideds who eats GMO because i know monsanto dosnt feed their staff this stuff

this is something i would expect from a mad scientist in a cartoon

xploder feels like an animal that has no right to have children
how do you feel are your rights to be parents part of your constitution?
are we just "stock" to be feed and prevented from life like pests

OR ARE WE HUMAN BEINGS WITH RIGHTS TO LIFE?

xploder

GREEEAT... children of men here we come....

that's all we need now .. i mean think about it they are going to start population control shortly.....

if this does not spell out clearly
there is things "hidden" in your food in the genetics of the food you eat
the average person has no way to check to see what "extra" genes have been added and what they do
this should be the number one issiue for presidential elections
this should be the number one talking point on face book
not who is sleeping with who

but who is the one deciding to put this stuff in food

the real terrorists are the people who feel this is good for us and insert what ever they want in our food

i am not cattle
you are not cattle

are the people who add hidden genes into your food the real threat
do these people care if we all die without kids to replace us?

are the american public happey to know they are being sterilized
and their GMO crap is being shipped world wide?

this makes monsanto and crew WORSE than any genosidal dictator
they want to seralize the world

i bet the people who make this stuff dont eat it
it for us the poor stupid sheeple

WAKE THE F>>>>> UP

xploder

They need to start feeding this to the teens in the Southern US...

I cannot count how many times I have heard of 14 year old girls getting pregnant with their first baby and then having the second by 16 years old.

Nobody seems to give a care and apparently birth-control is unknown down there. The negative result is them being forced to drop out of high school and not getting employed which puts them on government benefits which MY TAX DOLLARS have to go towards to pay for THEIR multiple mistakes.

For cripes sakes, send that stuff down south PLEASE!!! ASAP.

reply to post by pplrnuts


i can only hope your joking
this is perminant not for teenagers
this will end the human population
except for the people deemed "privlidged" enough to have children
and guess what
that means you and me get steralized too


think
xploder

reply to post by pplrnuts


you just made my foes list
and it takes alot of ignorence to make that list
steralization is only what we know of what else is "hidden" in the GMOs
that we dont know about

xploder

Originally posted by pplrnuts
They need to start feeding this to the teens in the Southern US...

I cannot count how many times I have heard of 14 year old girls getting pregnant with their first baby and then having the second by 16 years old.

Nobody seems to give a care and apparently birth-control is unknown down there. The negative result is them being forced to drop out of high school and not getting employed which puts them on government benefits which MY TAX DOLLARS have to go towards to pay for THEIR multiple mistakes.

For cripes sakes, send that stuff down south PLEASE!!! ASAP.

For Pete's sake, get a grip, get a life and then get a map ... at least the Southern folk who may be broke, are not nearly as apathetic as most Northerners seem to be (at least the one who posted previously) ... and, although broke they do not entertain themselves by allowing, observing or simply ignoring the resident rats chewing off their newborn's appendages ... which occurs far too frequently in the Northern communities.

www.nypost.com...
www.foxnews.com...

oh yeah, ever notice how many of the televised "hoarders" are also located in Northern communities? sooooo, is this a common Northern ritual? Collect, destroy, observe?
ps ... silly me, it Must be ... Monsanto originates in the North or are u mistaken again?
St Louis sure isn't South ... at least not yet anyway.

reply to post by XPLodER


I am curious to know a few things:

- I question the reliability of the source. I've watched a number of people lie to my face without so much as a hint of conscience - in that way, an 'inside source' making extraordinary claims with no evidence cannot be considered reliable. What does this guy have other than a tale to tell people at the bar?

- I question the entire premise of the alleged dynamics; oral consumption does not necessarily equate to effectiveness: www.jyi.org...

Several issues will still have to be resolved before this intriguing idea can become a reality. Some of the proteins used in experiments may be extraordinarily potent inducers of immune responses. On the other hand, other immunizing proteins may not work as well when taken orally. In fact, they can have the opposite effect, because many proteins in a diet induce tolerance, making the immune system less able to mount a response against them. In addition, some other compounds in plants may compromise the ability of the vaccine protein to induce immunity. The food containing it must be palatable and some foods need to be heated before ingested, which could possibly cause the vaccine protein to denature, reducing or eliminating its ability to elicit immunity.

Oral vaccines, whether living or nonliving, must be protected during passage through the hostile environment of the stomach and intestine to the sites where immune stimulation occurs (Tacket et al. 1999). In recent years, a variety of delivery systems have been developed for presenting nonliving antigens to mucosal surfaces, which will allow these antigens to persist and survive in the hostile gastric and enteric environments. These include polylactide/polyglycolide, microspheres, liposomes, proteosomes, cochleates, virus-like particles, and immune-stimulating complexes.

One of the most promising methods, however, is the production of antigens in the plants themselves, which assemble into ordered structures such as virus-like particles. This gives the hope that they will be more resistant to digestion and more likely to reach the gut-associated lymphoid tissue.

This is just getting past the digestive system and triggering an immune response for vaccinations. It's an entirely different issue to try and get -antibodies- to go through the digestive system, into the blood stream, through the prostate, and into the region where sperm is stored.

Any corn with this gene would only act as a topical spermicide. Whip some cream corn and cool whip together and put it under the hood. Or, more likely, have the process tied in with chlorophyll production and storage so as to keep the antibodies bound to the stalk (a basic understanding of botany goes a long way - a pepper plant infused with a gene to make a chemical can produce peppers, and even leaves devoid of the chemical with the chemical produced and contained within the root system). Following corn harvests, the stalks are also processed to obtain the antibodies and other chemicals they may be producing to be used in spermicides and other applications.

The funny thing is that it's a "green" solution. Rather than using large industrial chemical processing facilities - we can use an open field and some plants to do the same thing.

Reasoning with environmentalists and self-proclaimed health nuts is like herding chickens... not sure why I try.

reply to post by Aim64C


and are you ready to trust the same group who said that BT Toxin cannot "travel through the gut wall"
and now we find BT Toxin the blood stream of many people who didnt even know they were eating it

i am a scientist
i have been very careful to only use the facts
the facts are as follows

nobody acually eating this STUFF can genotype and cross match what changes have been made
that BT Toxin has and is being found in the blood stream (something we were told CAN NOT HAPPEN)
that experiments have been conducted and show the genes from GM crops can and have been manipulated to create a "crop" that "could" be used to seralize anyone who eats it.
glycofosphate is entering water ways and streams and poisening frogs

that experiments in mexico show LESS yeild and higher use of pesticides

that pigs feed GM corn would rather starve to death than eat the stuff

show me scientific proof that you know exactly what genes have been changed and what the outcome is on mammals?

can you say for sure that other genes have not been changed?

xploder

reply to post by Aim64C


i have seen the exact
and i mean exact same information spewed out from other sources
and i have also read the "promises" that this BT Toxin CANNOT ENTER THE BLOOD STREAM
but it is in the blood stream
and it is toxic to humans

so is your information about a year and a half old?

is this the exact same information spewed out from monsanto?

do you have the exact same (word for word) answers i heard a year ago?

do you really want to eat corn designed to steralize

i am sure you are not posting out of concern for the facts

i can answer ANY question you have and i have all day

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

What a shame this is probably a hoax. The world could use something like this.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by XPLodER

 

What a shame this is probably a hoax. The world could use something like this.

you call hoax huh

bioweapon

Biological warfare (BW) — also known as germ warfare — is the deliberate use of disease-causing biological agents such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, or >>>>>>>>>(biological toxins)>>>as the use of toxins produced by living organisms is considered under the provisions of both the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

reply to post by XPLodER

and are you ready to trust the same group who said that BT Toxin cannot "travel through the gut wall"
and now we find BT Toxin the blood stream of many people who didnt even know they were eating it

I'm the one who questioned the capability of these antibodies to pass into the blood stream based on my knowledge of chemistry and biology.

i am a scientist

Then start acting like one and apply some critical thinking.

i have been very careful to only use the facts

Haven't we all?

nobody acually eating this STUFF can genotype and cross match what changes have been made

I buy a tomato from the store. God only knows what type of tomato it is. There are a hundred different "beef" tomato 'races' bred to be better suited for sandwiches. Others are bred more for use in salads, while others are better used as sauces or in stews.

that BT Toxin has and is being found in the blood stream (something we were told CAN NOT HAPPEN)

I'm attempting to follow up on it - but it all tracks back to a single -study- done in Canada. As for the -experiments- involved, all data indicates that BT-type toxins break down in the digestive system. Obviously - the two research efforts need to have follow-up research done to reconcile the differences. However: en.wikipedia.org...-22

Bt toxins are considered environmentally friendly by many farmers[who?] and may be a potential alternative to broad spectrum insecticides. The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods. The reason is that Bt works by binding to the appropriate receptor on the surface of midgut epithelial cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate receptors in its gut cannot be affected by Bt.[23][24]

Being a mammal has its advantages.

that experiments have been conducted and show the genes from GM crops can and have been manipulated to create a "crop" that "could" be used to seralize anyone who eats it.

I missed this "fact." I saw the accusation made - but I have yet to see anything that merits it being declared a "fact."

Unless you are talking about this: academicsreview.org...

glycofosphate is entering water ways and streams and poisening frogs

Being an amphibian pretty much sucks. Your skin serves you all the protection of a wet paper bag. Your entire body is pretty much a mucous membrane and is incredibly vulnerable to the slightest change in the environment.

The question isn't "what is getting into the water and affecting frogs" - it's "what is -not- getting into the water and affecting frogs?"

that experiments in mexico show LESS yeild and higher use of pesticides

That's all well and good - except experiments done in a variety of other locations by different groups show the opposite.

that pigs feed GM corn would rather starve to death than eat the stuff

I've found a number of the places that claim this. I've never seen a shred of verification for the claim.

academicsreview.org...

show me scientific proof that you know exactly what genes have been changed and what the outcome is on mammals?

How can you make that demand when you can't even begin to document the chemical reactions that occur within the cell? Let alone the entire life cycle of a plant, digestive and metabolic processes of humans, and factor in genetic diversity across the human species?

It's like asking me to prove that building a pond in my back yard will not cause any adverse weather changes over the next ten thousand years.

can you say for sure that other genes have not been changed?

Genes change all the time. It's part of life. I know people who will damn near die if they eat products that contain wheat gluten. They are a far cry from most of the human population, where a large majority contain genes that have evolved since the adoption of grain-centered diets. These genes place enzymes in our saliva that break a number of starches down into sugars.

In a thousand years, 2-5% of the population may have developed enzymes that break down the animal fats in milk and a wide variety of meats, also present in their saliva, while a strain of wild onion sporting digitoxin (found in all parts of the digitalis family - also known as foxglove) develops a nasty habit of contaminating seed-crops and leading to onions that will put you into cardiac arrest on store shelves.

i have seen the exact
and i mean exact same information spewed out from other sources
and i have also read the "promises" that this BT Toxin CANNOT ENTER THE BLOOD STREAM
but it is in the blood stream
and it is toxic to humans

What is this... a haiku? Pick a logical paragraph structure already.

I'd like to see your reasoning for BT being toxic to humans.... and then figure out why it is -the- pesticide of choice for certified organic farmers.

so is your information about a year and a half old?

The information is relevant and represents a coherent understanding of molecular biology.

is this the exact same information spewed out from monsanto?

..... what?

It's a paper discussing the history and development of using plants to produce animal proteins, mostly for use in vaccines.

do you have the exact same (word for word) answers i heard a year ago?

.... [again] what?

do you really want to eat corn designed to steralize

All depends upon the specifics. Tomato plants produce a toxic substance. It's associated with chlorophyll in the plant - any part of the plant containing chlorophyll (any part that is green) is toxic. The fruit, when ripe, is devoid of the toxin.

In that respect - if corn is made so that the leaves contain some compound of use to various industries that can be harvested along with the corn... sure - go right ahead. I get my corn - Viagra gets their new "herbal supplement" that all but makes your glans explode (because it can't contain that much awesome) - since that is in the leaves and not the fruit - I can eat my corn without experiencing 'enhanced masculinity.'

Or being sterilized - depending upon what that particular crop is being used for.

i am sure you are not posting out of concern for the facts

A person of my intellectual prowess, unfortunately, rarely has the opportunity to speak to people on equal terms. My conversations almost always boil down to successfully demonstrating to people that they are wrong or not adequately informed.

i can answer ANY question you have and i have all day

That's the part that concerns me. As a scientist, you should understand the inherent problems that can come of believing you have all the answers.

reply to post by Aim64C


There's always someone present to trump you on the basis of your argument: You don't know what you don't know. This still holds true for the scientific experiment of a proposed pond in your backyard ten thousands years from now.

What we do know is the toxicity level of the population has increased dramatically. From newborn babies on up. In broad terms the lower rung of society, those not able to purchase thousands of acres in NZ for their personal organic farms, have become test subjects/ guinea pigs.

End of debate. I tend to cut to the chase instead of dragging things out and touting egos.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by XPLodER

 

and are you ready to trust the same group who said that BT Toxin cannot "travel through the gut wall"
and now we find BT Toxin the blood stream of many people who didnt even know they were eating it

I'm the one who questioned the capability of these antibodies to pass into the blood stream based on my knowledge of chemistry and biology.

so as a biologist can bt toxin enter the blood stream through the gut wall?
i agree that antibodies would have a hard time surviving through the gut wall on a healthy adult but what about people with gut problems, childern and pregnant woman? what about leaky gut syndrome? celiacs desiese?
how many people know how to take care of gut health?

i am a scientist

Then start acting like one and apply some critical thinking.

ok so the human genome is a very complex chemical and mecanical blue print for cell devision and for life in general, at the moment a great portion of the chain is still described as junk DNA
how can we asume that the changes we are making are not altering genes "down the chain" as we dont even know what they are for or what they do? you talk of complex systems and completly overlook the fact we dont even know what we are playing with or the down stream effect of making changes?
how could we even know if the manipulation is effecting ther "expressions" of the code
as we still call it "junk"?

i have been very careful to only use the facts

Haven't we all?

well i will give you credit for not presenting old out dated data this time around

nobody acually eating this STUFF can genotype and cross match what changes have been made

I buy a tomato from the store. God only knows what type of tomato it is. There are a hundred different "beef" tomato 'races' bred to be better suited for sandwiches. Others are bred more for use in salads, while others are better used as sauces or in stews.

are you really compairing selective natural breeding to selitivly inserting genes into plants
i would be shocked if you tryed to blur the lines here as a tomato "breed" or grown in certain conditions
is completly different from gene splicing in a lab without knowing the "acual" effect of genes being added
selective breeding should not (or cannot be accidentally) confused with GMO
so are you trying to muddy the waters with the above statement?

that BT Toxin has and is being found in the blood stream (something we were told CAN NOT HAPPEN)

I'm attempting to follow up on it - but it all tracks back to a single -study- done in Canada. As for the -experiments- involved, all data indicates that BT-type toxins break down in the digestive system. Obviously - the two research efforts need to have follow-up research done to reconcile the differences. However: en.wikipedia.org...-22

this is not a study i have personally reviewed but can say from the litrature i have read in the same area that the potential has always been there for transfer through the gut and the issiue was specifically addressed by the manufacturer prior to release so the posability has always been know.
i have read about the study and the amount of people with BT in blood drawn was surprisingly high
if you find it please post it here

Bt toxins are considered environmentally friendly by many farmers[who?] and may be a potential alternative to broad spectrum insecticides. The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods. The reason is that Bt works by binding to the appropriate receptor on the surface of midgut epithelial cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate receptors in its gut cannot be affected by Bt.[23][24]

Being a mammal has its advantages.

so a forign toxin is only dangerous if you have a receptor for the toxins?
what does the liver and kidneys do with this toxin our bodies are not designed to handle?
what are the safe levels for BT Toxin in the blood?
in the liver?
kidneys?

that experiments have been conducted and show the genes from GM crops can and have been manipulated to create a "crop" that "could" be used to seralize anyone who eats it.

I missed this "fact." I saw the accusation made - but I have yet to see anything that merits it being declared a "fact."

please read carefully and note the quote marks "that could be used"
why design a crop and then not use it?
is it fun to create crops with no comercial value?
why would a company create a crop like this? just for lulz?

glycofosphate is entering water ways and streams and poisening frogs

Being an amphibian pretty much sucks. Your skin serves you all the protection of a wet paper bag. Your entire body is pretty much a mucous membrane and is incredibly vulnerable to the slightest change in the environment.

just like some peoples guts, there are more gut conditions than i care to list here that weeken the gut linning making our gut like the frog a wet paper bag ready for toxins and anti bodies to enter

The question isn't "what is getting into the water and affecting frogs" - it's "what is -not- getting into the water and affecting frogs?"

ok so its tough luck being a frog they dont get to choose
we do

that experiments in mexico show LESS yeild and higher use of pesticides

That's all well and good - except experiments done in a variety of other locations by different groups show the opposite.

except in the case of mexico doing the trials in an open and non bias way
who conducted the trials you refer to? monsanto?

that pigs feed GM corn would rather starve to death than eat the stuff

I've found a number of the places that claim this. I've never seen a shred of verification for the claim.

simple answer go watch food inc
go on i am going off memory here but i am sure i saw it on that doco

i can find it for you if you would like

academicsreview.org...

show me scientific proof that you know exactly what genes have been changed and what the outcome is on mammals?

How can you make that demand when you can't even begin to document the chemical reactions that occur within the cell? Let alone the entire life cycle of a plant, digestive and metabolic processes of humans, and factor in genetic diversity across the human species?

so you by this statement accept that this technology cant be called safe or tested to high standards because of the complexity of the systems involved accross different speicies and by this one statement you are really saying its imposable to know exactly how this genetic modification is effecting humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like asking me to prove that building a pond in my back yard will not cause any adverse weather changes over the next ten thousand years.

acually it was a lead in for you to explain how complex the problem is
and prove the point that the interactions are so complex that there is no real way of knowing how this is effecting humans

can you say for sure that other genes have not been changed?

Genes change all the time. It's part of life. I know people who will damn near die if they eat products that contain wheat gluten. They are a far cry from most of the human population, where a large majority contain genes that have evolved since the adoption of grain-centered diets. These genes place enzymes in our saliva that break a number of starches down into sugars.

this answer totally missed the quoted post and you know it
let me put it as simple as i can

how can we manipulate just 1 gene and not "accidentally" change the expression of other genes?
considering we cannot figaur out what some of the genes are for how can we know what we are changing "down stream" UNINTENDED changes to unknown gene expresions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

In a thousand years, 2-5% of the population may have developed enzymes that break down the animal fats in milk and a wide variety of meats, also present in their saliva, while a strain of wild onion sporting digitoxin (found in all parts of the digitalis family - also known as foxglove) develops a nasty habit of contaminating seed-crops and leading to onions that will put you into cardiac arrest on store shelves

yes and in twelve months someone gentically modifyes something that took thousands of years to develop
without knowing that they could create the cardiac onion you mention.

i have seen the exact
and i mean exact same information spewed out from other sources
and i have also read the "promises" that this BT Toxin CANNOT ENTER THE BLOOD STREAM
but it is in the blood stream
and it is toxic to humans

What is this... a haiku? Pick a logical paragraph structure already.

POOR FORM challenge WHAT i say not HOW i say it how many languages do you type or speek?
this type of attack even in humour does not endeer you to me and shows your stratagy to ridacule not discuss
poor form

I'd like to see your reasoning for BT being toxic to humans.... and then figure out why it is -the- pesticide of choice for certified organic farmers.

humans have not had the thousand years or so to develop tolerence to BT Toxin
therefore it is "unrecognised" by the body, this means it is treated as a toxin and enters the liver and possably the kidneys, whenever you increase the work load of the liver you will have problems
not to start on the people who have liver and kidney problems

so is your information about a year and a half old?

The information is relevant and represents a coherent understanding of molecular biology.

i wont challenge you on your expertise as that would be rude
but the information is older than twelve months
and i disagree with some of it for reasons that are out of scope with this thread

is this the exact same information spewed out from monsanto?

..... what?

It's a paper discussing the history and development of using plants to produce animal proteins, mostly for use in vaccines.

for reasons of staying on topic i will apologise for my out burst on that 1 point

do you have the exact same (word for word) answers i heard a year ago?

.... [again] what?

do you really want to eat corn designed to steralize

All depends upon the specifics. Tomato plants produce a toxic substance. It's associated with chlorophyll in the plant - any part of the plant containing chlorophyll (any part that is green) is toxic. The fruit, when ripe, is devoid of the toxin.

skillfully avoided answering the question so i will ask in caps (shouting)
WOULD YOU WILLINGLY EAT CORN DESIGNED TO SETRALIZE ? clue answer is yes or no and THEN why

In that respect - if corn is made so that the leaves contain some compound of use to various industries that can be harvested along with the corn... sure - go right ahead. I get my corn - Viagra gets their new "herbal supplement" that all but makes your glans explode (because it can't contain that much awesome) - since that is in the leaves and not the fruit - I can eat my corn without experiencing 'enhanced masculinity.'

Or being sterilized - depending upon what that particular crop is being used for.

i am sure you are not posting out of concern for the facts

A person of my intellectual prowess, unfortunately, rarely has the opportunity to speak to people on equal terms. My conversations almost always boil down to successfully demonstrating to people that they are wrong or not adequately informed.

well i am sure you will relish the opertunity to change my mind with facts and reasoning
as i am a reasonable person with ALOT of time on my hands

an a very real interest in demonstrating that i can and do resurch what i say

i can answer ANY question you have and i have all day

That's the part that concerns me. As a scientist, you should understand the inherent problems that can come of believing you have all the answers.

i never said i have all the answers
i said

i can answer ANY question you have and i have all day

lol quoting myself is a bit creapy

i can answer any question you have (in the terms of what i have written in this thread) and that i can back up what i have written with links, common sence and science (in that order)

i look forward to your responce

xploder

edit on 31-5-2011 by XPLodER because: fix brackets

reply to post by XPLodER


It wouldn't surprise me if Bill Gates is throwing money into this technology.
I imagine he would love to see this planted all over the world,especially in third world/developing nations.
Very scary IMO.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I'd like to see your reasoning for BT being toxic to humans.... and then figure out why it is -the- pesticide of choice for certified organic farmers.

The information is relevant and represents a coherent understanding of molecular biology.

well now, this sure resembles the rant of a wannabe ... to those who actually practice plant consumption for nutritional purposes, you make us laugh, heartily ... thank you.

it was an interesting read all the way up to your BS about tomatoes, your misconceptions about BT and your incessant rambling regarding the 'possibilities' of what is ... GMO is not about what could be, it is what is and has been for most of the years of my life.

The question is if you are going to volunteer yourself, your family and your future as willing participants in an ongoing 'study' or are you going to do what is best for yourself, your family and your future?

Avoid all GMOs and join in the dissolution of Monsanto and any affiliate that's cropped up over the years.
Now, to answer some of your misconceptions ... i'm guessing this lawsuit wasn't on your learning agenda ...

A major concern is the toxic trespass or drift of GE Bt
traits to non-genetically engineered plants - even organic
plants. Wisconsin organic food producer, Terra Prima, Inc.
was shocked recently when seven European countries said they
could not accept its organic tortilla chips. Despite using
strictly organic seeds, European regulatory authorities
found that Terra Prima’s organic corn in the chips had
tested positive as genetically-engineered corn. A victim of
cross pollination of GE Bt, the company lost over $100,000
and had to pull its product from European stores.

An additional environmental risk is the buildup of GE Bt
toxins in the soil, damaging the
food soil web and beneficial soil micro-organisms. In
addition, scientists warn that beneficial insects such as
ladybugs can be harmed by eating caterpillars that have
ingested GE Bt toxins.

In response to the danger GE Bt crops pose to organic
farmers, the Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit against
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in February. Other
petitioners included organic farmers in 21 states, the
International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements,
and numerous environmental groups, including Greenpeace.

The lawsuit charges that EPA violated the law and agency
regulations in approving
genetically altered Bt plants. The lawsuit demands that the
EPA: 1) Cancel the registration of all GE Bt plants; 2)
Cease the approval process for any new registrations; 3)
Immediately perform a programmatic environmental impact
assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act; 4)
And, should the registrations be upheld by the court, all Bt
corn, potatoes, and cottonseed oil should be labeled as a
pesticide.

source: www.purefood.org...

All depends upon the specifics. Tomato plants produce a toxic substance. It's associated with chlorophyll in the plant - any part of the plant containing chlorophyll (any part that is green) is toxic. The fruit, when ripe, is devoid of the toxin.

Really?? gotta wonder who fed you that nonsense ... perhaps you are confusing chlorophyll with alkaloids?
oh and btw, the alkaloid composition does NOT reduce upon ripening.
source: waynesword.palomar.edu... or www.ansci.cornell.edu... or www.ars.usda.gov...
from the last link ... USDA ...

Interpretive Summary: In a collaborative study with colleagues at Korean universities, we found that tomatine-rich green tomato extracts and pure tomatine inhibited the growth of cancer cells. These findings extend related observations on the anti-carcinogenic potential and other beneficial effects of the tomato glycoalkaloid tomatine and suggest that consumers may benefit by not only eating high-lycopene red tomatoes, but also high-tomatine green tomatoes. Our results also suggest the need to create high-tomatine red tomatoes as well as tomatine-containing potatoes.

As for studies on glyphosate (Round Up), perhaps you should reference actual science studies rather Wiki ...

While pure Glyphosate has a low acute toxicity (the amount needed to cause death), when it is sold as a commercial herbicide it is combined with surfactants and other ingredients to make it more effective at killing plants. Studies show that the commercial products, such as Round Up, can be three times more toxic than pure glyphosate.

Japanese researchers analysing suicides have found that drinking 3/4 of a cup (200 millilitres) of commercial glyphosate products is fatal.

Survivors (those who consumed less than 3/4 of a cup) suffered a range of severe health problems. These problems included intestinal pain, vomiting, erosion of the gastrointestinal tract, excess fluid in the lungs, pneumonia, lung dysfunction, clouding of consciousness, destruction of red blood cells, abnormal electrocardiograms, low blood pressure, kidney damage and damage to the larynx. It is important to note that damage to the kidneys and the lungs is usually permanent. These body tissues do not repair themselves, instead forming scar tissue that does not function to help filter toxins from the blood or breathe oxygen.

In California, where there is a mandatory system of reporting pesticide poisoning, Glyphosate is the third most common cause of pesticide illness in farm workers. It is the most common form of reported pesticide poisoning in landscape gardeners.

Two separate studies in Sweden have linked exposure to Glyphosate to Hairy Cell Leukemia and Non Hodgkins Lymphoma. These types of cancers were extremely rare, however non-Hodgkins lymphoma is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the Western world. It has risen by 73% in the USA since 1973. Another study has found a higher incidence of Parkinson disease amongst farmers who used herbicides, including glyphosate.

Other studies show that Glyphosate and commercial herbicides containing Glyphosate cause a range of cell mutations and damage to cell DNA. These types of changes are usually regarded as precursors to cancer and birth defects.

source: www.organicconsumers.org...

Also, chlorophyll (as in tomato greens) is hardly toxic ... quite the contrary, it is very vital to good health. Plant chlorophyll (like other plant pigments) contain significant amounts of antioxidants and other cancer fighting properties. In fact, the chlorophyll molecule / plant-based (not water-soluble chlorophyll / produced by pharma) is very similar to the heme portion of the hemoglobin molecule of our red blood cells. It also contains other components of the chloroplast complex (including beta-carotene and vitamin K1) which are similarly absorbed well by the body and possess significant health benefits.

Greens such as parsley, spinach, kale and beet tops are rich in chlorophyll and should be consumed regularly.
As for tomatoes, i'm guessing you've never enjoyed a plate of 'fried green tomatoes', but i can assure you that no death has been recorded from such an activity.

Question: if amphibians are at risk because

Being an amphibian pretty much sucks. Your skin serves you all the protection of a wet paper bag. Your entire body is pretty much a mucous membrane and is incredibly vulnerable to the slightest change in the environment.

... then, as a scientist, please explain how the mucous membrane surrounding the human skeleton is 'different' or any greater protection as you imply.

while you're at it, could you also expand on your thought ...

A person of my intellectual prowess, unfortunately, rarely has the opportunity to speak to people on equal terms. My conversations almost always boil down to successfully demonstrating to people that they are wrong or not adequately informed.

as i would never claim to be a 'scientist', i will most certainly claim that your intellectual prowess isn't what You think it is ... do try again.

edit to add: perhaps you are not familiar with the 'yield' problems of GMOs ... they are not producing as anticipated ...

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds… significantly increase crop yields…” The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.

source: ucsusa.org...

reply to post by XPLodER

you call hoax huh? you call hoax huh? do you cross type and profile the corn in the food you eat? so you dont huh? does that mean anything could be in the genes of the crop you eat? you call hoax huh

You seem a little excited, XPLodER.

Yes, this is a hoax. A panic deliberately created out of nothing by people who hate science.

Nobody is growing contraceptive corn. Here is the original article that set all the Chicken Littles a-flap. Allow me to quote from it:

‘We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies,’ said Epicyte president Mitch Hein. ‘We have also created corn plants that make antibodies against the herpes virus, so we should be able to make a plant-based jelly that not only prevents pregnancy but also blocks the spread of sexual disease.’

That wasn’t too hard to understand, was it? The plants manufacture spermicides to be used in a contraceptive gel. You can’t become infertile by eating the corn itself; did you think the stuff is going to make women who eat it manufacture spermicide in their vaginas? I mean, really.

I found the original article by tracking back from your link. You could, and frankly I think you should, have done the same before creating an alarmist thread about a nonexistent threat. Surely that would have been the responsible thing to do? Though less fun, I suppose.

reply to post by XPLodER


Well...if this is true...then I applaud the GMO corn manufacturers. I am usually against GMO, but if their intention is to sterilize a good portion of the human population...I can't help, but support them in their efforts.

reply to post by Astyanax
excuse you but your 'article' is from 2001 ... just a wee bit outdated wouldn't ya say?
perhaps when you get current with your information, then maybe you could actually contribute to the conversation.