Whistleblowin' Dr. OZ Confronts MONSANTO: Disease-causing GMO Foods Taking over Food Supply!

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


Good luck with your paper.
Glad I finished doing my degree, shame I discovered things I'd rather not have found out... I was hoping to make the world a better place..........LMAO so many of us went into other careers in disgust.

Once the food is grown and processed somehow to be used in food, it’s the FDA’s problem.
By FDA regulations, agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation, including the evaluation of how eating the product affects people. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA’s recommendations after the consultation. yup that's not overly comforting ...

Given your statement on eating DNA (which we all have to do..I thought you'd be interested in this article, I first read in it my monthly Scientific American.)
Tiny RNAs usually found in plants have been discovered circulating in blood, and animal studies indicate that they are directly manipulating the expression of genes...
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

And yes I agree with you "natural" pesticides used in some organic farming, also need to be looked at with far more scrutiny .. "natural" does not guarentee safety.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment.
www.sciencedaily.com...

The evidence from Ethiopia's Tigray Project demonstrates that organic farming can double yields in arid zones and in most degraded regions. The experts estimate that conversion to organic production in Sub-Saharan Africa (up to 50% of lands) would stimulate growth in food production and reduce food import from other countries. Furthermore, this farming model is the most effective way to slow down the process of desertification on the continent (where the two thirds of the continent are deserted or contain arid lands)which implies preventing land degradation and restoring degraded soils.
www.afriqueavenir.org...

We currently produce more than enough food to feed the world, the amount would be much higher if we all went vegan, the issue with food is a lot of people don't have enough money to buy the food, or the distribution system isn't there. We don't need GMO's to feed us, we need a more equitable system. More reading would be on the Mercantile system.

Be good to hear your answers to my first post when you get time.

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


Given our global employment crisis I think more labor intensive farming practices would be of a benefit to society now. "Conventional / GMO" farming is only cheaper because it is tax payer subsidized.

loads of American farmers are having major issues with resistant weeds, thing is if you up the anti, you only end up selecting for better weeds....all we've done is spead up the "arms race" so to speak.

While Monsanto grandly claims that its GM technologies help the environment by reducing pesticide use, resistant weeds springing up across the world paints a different picture. Glyphosate resistance has developed as the result of large-scale use of their pesticides. Glyphosate is the active ingredient of Monsanto’s world best-selling herbicide, Roundup.
And now, Monsanto aims to combat this serious agronomic, environmental, socio-economic, and health problem with even further increases in pesticide use.
The company is refusing to accept responsibility for rising weed costs, stating that “Roundup agricultural warranties will not cover the failure to control glyphosate resistant weed populations.” Rising costs are burdening farmers across the globe.

This is in contrast to two years ago, when Monsanto denied the scale of the problem and insisted the weeds were “manageable”. By 2009, the spread of resistant weeds was already troubling farmers as they escalated the amounts of glyphosate used, while adding other herbicides to try and control rapidly proliferating weeds (see GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USA, SiS 46). Sixteen glyphosate-resistant species had already developed by this point, many of which could not be killed or even uprooted by combine harvesters due to their size and strength. Resistant weeds are not a new problem, but Monsanto is only now coming to terms with the severity and the subsequent harm it may do to their business.
www.i-sis.org.uk...

reply to post by rickymouse


Bacteria do not have a nervous system and yes, they can survive on glass though cannot digest or otherwise utilize it metabolically.

reply to post by AliceBlackman


The discovery magazine article and miRNA particles, while interesting, are not related to the large genes inserted by GE technology. No genes or large DNA/RNA particles are causing us to produce proteins. If the most that RNA fragments can do is bind to mRNA and stop a single instance of a protein from being completely transcribed, there's no harm done at all. Further, I see no noted health effects until large quantities of purified miRNA were injected into the mice. And to be fair, it doesn't take much to affect gene expression. Gene expression changes constantly as cells interact with their internal and external environments.

The science daily article mentions that the definition of organic used by the study is exceptionally wide and encompasses more than organic. The USDA data suggests that organic produce leads to far less yields, you can see an analysis with links to the original data here www.scribd.com...

Technologically intensive conventional farming methods are not going to work well in developing nations. That's not a flaw of the technology or methodology but simply due to a lack of resources in the third world.

If GE technology to produce more food is not the answer, are GE technology to spray less pesticides or to convert seasonal crops into more "weed-like" permaculture crops which would reduce water usage and soil tillage possible answers? There could also be the creation of more nutrient fortified GE foods, such as is done with golden rice and some soy varieties, to create more foods more nutritious than existing varieties. Is this a possible answer?

reply to post by AliceBlackman


Solving unemployment by embracing inefficiency is not my cup of tea.

Pesticides and herbicides are different. Suggesting that Bt corn does not spare the environment from pesticides compared to non-Bt corn because roundup ready soybeans were designed to be resistant to a specific herbicide which is intended to be used after their planting is at best comparing apples to oranges. At worst, it's intellectual laziness or outright disinterest in the facts.

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


I won't say that all of what Monsanto does is bad. In fact their research does have good intent in many cases. Producing GE food has liability attached to it, if someone gets their seeds and they inadvertently mutate because of natural situations in the environment they could become toxic because long term research has not been accomplished as of yet including mutations and cross pollination across many variables. Monsanto doesn't want to get themselves into future legal conflicts with foods they did not sell the seeds for, so they are fighting farmers so mutations will be controlled. They are dealing with a science which is in it's infancy and they are cautious. I understand their concerns but reality is reality and people are people. Monsanto will never be able to change people's perception on these things.

The studies of Monsanto also do not include all the variables that exist. They can't. Feeding their grains to cows that eat in the regular pasture can cause things to happen that they cannot forsee. The weeds have medicinal properties of their own and the cow knows somehow what it can eat and when to eat it. By introducing GE seeds the cows may crave the wrong weeds and get sick or it may cause them to inappropriately take apart the food which changes the chemistry of the meat. This in theory could create problems up the foodchain, which is us. The changes could be good or bad, there is no evidence either way. In a few generations we will be able to tell, maybe fourty years or so from now.

I have the wait and see attitude to see what will happen to people in the future arising from GE foods. Out of all good there is some bad and out of all bad there is some good. Something my father told me.

Has anybody ever looked at the websites suggested by the very well informed woman in the video? One of them is a point by point refutation of Genetic Roulette's claims and author.
academicsreview.org...
academicsreview.org...

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


I took five different types of drugs for my acquired epilepsy from a car accident and was allergic to all of them. I lost all my teeth, which were in good shape before that, from the meds. I almost lost my feet also. The doctor said I may be allergic to all of them but didn't have the knowledge why. I studied the basis of the medicines and found I cannot take many medicines long term. I'll try to explain how this intolerance to the meds occurs.

The allergy is not to the meds themselves but to the presence of one of the organic chemicals used in it's creation. I am not allergic to it, My body creates chemistry to digest the plant responsible for the basis of the medicine. The Asparagaines used in the medicine are present in Asparagus, cabbage, beef, and a variety of things. My own body slowly poisoned me because it recognized it's presence and created enzymes and amino acids to digest the known foods. These chemicals weren't used and my liver and other organs could not detoxify them as fast as they were being created. I wound up with Lymphopathy but I lived. I've spent six years studying food chemistry since then and comparing it to the chemistry used in Pharmaceuticals. I have noticed others that are exhibiting similar types of problems and am presently trying to identify particular traits to help others to figure out what to do. I know a few doctors well and will be calling on them shortly to help them a little.

I understand well how adding a BT gene to something can trigger some people to get sick if they consume it on a regular basis. I cannot yet get too involved in this because I do not have the needed research available to find a suitable companion food or antidote for the chemistry. I do not look just for proof of things. I build an array of possibilities and look for possible chemistry to neutralise the effects that may occur. I am trying to solve the problem, not just complaining about it. If this information of the chemistry of Monsanto's GM foods becomes available I can find the recipe for the neutralization of any side effects. It's probably something simple and cheap. It's easier to deal with foods than medicines to find antidotes. I study everything people eat and the timing. I study how some people can eat what others can't and how they instinctively know to eat something. This is the study of cravings. I love it, dipping into this Paranormal science.

reply to post by rickymouse


I'm sorry, but it appears that you just have no functional understanding of biology and are actively engaging in pseudoscience without regard to the scientific method and proper experimental conditions. Rather than fight against science and technologies that you fear because you do not understand them, under the banner of "Deny Ignorance" no less, should you not fight against the ignorance and gaps in your education by getting a proper educational background in biological science?

How can anybody claim to deny ignorance when fighting so strongly against something they know little or even nothing about? Isn't that just the opposite, embracing ignorance?

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop

So, what are your credentials then? I have gained input of this from doctors that were treating me. My original ideas were right but the reasoning was flawed. Are the credentials of the doctors who actually taught me this worthless also? I have lost all faith in your perceptions.

reply to post by rickymouse


I don't care who your doctors are or where you gained your warped perceptions of reality, the facts of the matter are that you have repeatedly put forth gross errors and pseudoscientific theories to justify either your position or your own competence of knowledge, errors and theories which even an elementary understanding of microbiology, immunology, and biochemistry would never have allowed you to view as credible. You are ignorant of biology in general and, much more understandably, biochemistry in particular. Whoever the doctors are who have taught you what you know, they are either either terrible teachers at best or at worst alternative health care practitioners pretending to have the same level of training and knowledge as medical doctors.

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


The term pesticide has the broader definition, insecticide is the specific term relating to Insects. From what I've read insecticide use has remained steady , but herbicide use has been dramatically increasing, therefore pesticide use has seriously increased.

pesticide (pst-sd)
A chemical used to kill harmful animals or plants. Pesticides are used especially in agriculture and around areas where humans live. Some are harmful to humans, either from direct contact or as residue on food, or are harmful to the environment because of their high toxicity, such as DDT (which is now banned in many countries). Pesticides include fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. See more at fungicideherbicideinsecticide

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

pesticide
any chemical substance used for killing pests, as insects, weeds, etc.
See also: Insects, Killing, Plants
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Research from an alliance of environmental groups has found that the switch to GM crops has led to an extra 318 million pounds of pesticides being used by farmers.
It found that the adoption of GM BT corn and cotton had led to a reduction in insecticide use, compared to what is likely to have been applied to conventional crops, of 64 million pounds between 1996-2008.
But the uptake of other GM crops resistant to herbicides in the same period led to an increase in herbicide use of 382 million pounds. That left an overall figure of 318 pounds of additional pesticides being used.
The rate of increase in pesticide use is rising too. After falling in the early years (1996-1998) by between 1 and 2 per cent, it increased by 20 per cent in 2007 and 27 per cent in 2008. The report puts this down to the emergence of weeds resistant to the pesticides.

www.theecologist.org...

The cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea), resistance to the Bt toxin present in genetically modified cotton plants could be proven to have arisen in nature. Such insects were found in cotton fields in the southeast of the USA. Looks like they will have to up the "refuge" areas to deal with this.
www.gmo-safety.eu...

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


I thought the mRNA piece was really interesting thinking of the potential of future medical treatments, obviously lots more work needs to be done. I was also wondering to get to the kind of levels of mRNA concentration required to affect expression consistently, how much rice would the mice have to eat on a daily basis? What would be the equivalent situation in humans?

Obviously if only one protein isn't transcribed in a cell, that's not a big deal. During fetal development critical development occurs in very small time windows with very small amounts of hormones... it's definitely an area worth lots more research.

In the case of a busy American's diets full of processed food, the diet will be mostly consisting of Corn / Soy & Canola (the main GMO's).. Try finding processed products on the supermarket shelves that don't contain these ingredients!
Would these amounts produce significant amounts of mRNA that affect anything, especially during fetal development ?

Apparently the average American consumes over 4lbs on corn per day.
In order of diminishing corniness, this is how the laboratory measured our meal: soda (100% corn), milk shake (78%), salad dressing (65%), chicken nuggets (56%), cheeseburger (52%) and French fries (23%). What in the eyes of the omnivore looks like a meal of impressive variety turns out, when viewed through the eyes of the mass spectrometer, to be the meal of a far more specialized kind of eater.
fatknowledge.blogspot.com...

Today, an alarming 60% of the food on America's supermarket shelves contains soy derivatives (i.e. soy flour, textured vegetable protein, partially hydrogenated soy bean oil, soy protein isolate). When you look at the ingredients list, and really look at the contents of the "Average American Diet," from snack foods and fast foods to pre-packaged frozen meals, soy plays a major role.
campaignfortruth.com...

Yes agreed that Organic does better in developing countries due to resource issues for the small farmers, but also due to the environmental conditions (availability of water for irrigation, the high diversity in slope and soil types ), especially in parts of Africa where commercial monoculture intensive farming just destroys the soil and has increased costs of agro chemicals. (The Govt's there are far less able to subsidize the way we do). The other thing to say about Organic farming is it requires greater expertise from the Farmer (experienced farmers in organic studies get much better yields, sometimes even in excess of conventional techniques) and to be truly sustainable needs to be mixed with animal husbandry. Also given peak oil production occurred around 2006 we need to wean ourselves aware from petroleum based agriculture.

I personally favor traditional plant / animal husbandry instead of genetic engineering; after all look at the amazing yields of IR8 rice.
Given the rate of population growth has steadily been falling since the 1970's and Human fertility rates are also decreasing steadily I do not think we are going to have a food issue, unless we keep losing diversity in our food crops and their wild relatives. Yes climate change may force us to grow different crops but it's not as if we do not have the knowledge of what grows where.

www.google.com...
ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+fertility+rates

I do think we should keep doing the genetic research to understand the world around us and to only use "commercially" in the larger environment when we truly know what we are doing. I would feel much happier if we could insert gene's or better still alter existing gene's expression with targeted precision... but that's just me.

reply to post by AliceBlackman


So then isn't your environmental complain against GE crops due not to GE as a whole but rather to specific crops? Concluding that GE increases pesticide use despite being perfectly knowledgeable that specific varieties, created for different purposes, have either a limiting, neutral, or increasing effect on pesticides is simply the willful distortion of facts and definitions to justify your own prejudices against genetic engineering.

As for your attempts to discuss miRNA in corn and soy, it seems clear that you don't really understand it and are just wildly speculating. Wild speculation, especially when made out of ignorance of scientific facts and function, is simply not worth discussing.

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


I would love to see your answers my initial questions from my first post, given the number of posts you've made I would have thought this would have been a simple exercise for you.

Good luck with gaining your degree.

Best Regards,
Alice, Bsc. Hons Biochemistry & Genetics.

reply to post by AliceBlackman


And I'd love to hear your response to my suggestion that you view each GE crop more as an individual with its own unique traits and potential harms or benefits, given the uniqueness of their function and the reason for their creation, rather than discussing all GE crops with the same mental prejudice that is usually reserved for discussions of the demerits of certain ethnic groups.

You must also understand that discussions regarding the nervous system of bacteria and the effects of environmental selection on the spread of resistance traits within insect populations tend to be a lot less time consuming than answering twelve very detail-demanding questions provided by someone who doesn't get their biology knowledge from colon hydrotherapists.

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


Current transformation techniques cannot produce uniformity in the transgenic event and insertion for each viable transformed cell that will be used to scale up production. This is a quality control and safety testing nightmare particularly for multi cellular organisms. For me to be happy I want to see a precise targeted transformation technique developed, with the ability to predict and measure the exact other changes we would expect in the transformed organism during it's life cycle and into the next generation.

Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) used with conventional breeding - shows much promise for developing improved crop varieties, without the potentially dangerous side effects of direct genetic modification.

reply to post by AliceBlackman


Before I respond I wanted to ask a point of clarification: you're discussing the problems of insertional mutagenesis due to random insertion of genes into the target genome, the failures of some or all of the genes to be taken up into the target up or to be taken up into a silenced portion of the genome?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I feel sorry for that woman's children. She is so brainwashed and misinformed, so blind to the independent studies that sound the alarms on GMOs. If in fact she purchases regular food, she is putting the health of her family at risk. Most likely, however, she probably buys organic, but would never admit that to the audience. I heard that they only serve organic non GMO food in the cafetarias at Monsanto. I wonder why....

reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop


That is just a front organization for Monsanto and their paid lackeys. First question to be asked in reviewing any research is "Who is funding the research?" Follow the money and you'll discover why certain "results" are obtained. Generally, the company funding the research tends to get results favorable to their product. Coincidence? I hardly think so.

Do take into account that Monsanto openly admits that no long term studies have been done on GMOs. They claim that it's impossible to do long term studies. Really? What kind of scientists are they that they are incapable of designing a long term study? They also admit that no studies are necessary with regards to the safety of their products as genes are taken from "safe" sources, meaning no significant studies have ever been done. Period.

Meanwhile they continue to combine genes from normally incompatible species, creating new life forms and novel proteins never before seen in nature and never before encountered by the human digestive system. Bt from GMO corn is now showing up for the first time ever in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses with unknown health ramifications. Allergies have been skyrocketing since the US began planting GMO crops on a wide scale in the 90's. More and more people are showing intolerances to various types of foods, and diseases such as IBS, IBD, Crohn's Disease and other digestive disorders. The first thing GMO food attacks is the digestive system, destroying the intestinal lining and making it permeable to undigested food particles.

If you want to read up on independent studies on GMO foods, you must look at the studies done in Europe where Monsanto has less of a sphere of influence. Maybe that's why over six European countries have banned these crops, and more countries such as Hungary and recently Poland are joining them in banning them. What do they know that is being kept from the American public?

The very last government and media I would trust is the US government and media.... all corporate shills, bought and paid for by the greedy companies that desire to control the world.