Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

reply to post by SloAnPainful


this story deeply disturbs me , simply because : it makes no sense

the synopsis of the tail [ paraphrased by me ] is :

farmer plants wheat crop on feild , wheat crop starts to grow - farmer then sprays the crop with “Roundup Ready” [ what this is i wil address later ] , and is " astonished " that part of the crop is still standing - farmer lauches investigation [ presumably relying on 3rd party analysis ] , and te surviving crop is found to be a monsanto GMO

there - thats the executive summary [ if you wish to contest that summary fine - but if not - lets move on ]

first - what is " round up ready " herbicide ??????????? google search of :" roundup ready " throws up 2 primary results :

1 - " roundup ready seeds " - various monsanto marketed strains of common agricultural crops

2 - `"roundup ready" to use ` a number of roundup based herbiced products aimed at domestic consumers - and sold in

reply to post by Grimpachi

Can someone explain what is so bad about Monsanto or GMOs? I have searched the internet and seen some claims but I haven’t seen the evidence to back them up. Modifying foods to grow disease and drought resistant doesn’t sound like a bad thing to me or being able to grow crops in otherwise unsuitable soil sounds good to me. If they are like poison as some sites say where is the evidence to back it up. This is pretty new topic to me. I have seen several posts throughout ATS in the past berating Monsanto but until today I have never bothered to look into it without any success at finding substance. If someone would be kind enough to post some links to what convinced you on the evils of this new subject matter I would appreciate it.

www.naturalnews.com...

is this enough to convince you?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Thanks for the link but the study on the rats have already been posted and I said that was the best info shown so far but I wasn’t very happy with the test themselves.

I mean what the hell they were expecting by putting strait roundup in their water. Did they think they would grow wings (red Bull) just kidding.

I just need to see some better tests with better control groups.

reply to post by dominicus

I also believe honeybees are being killed by the pollen from frankencrops developed by Monsanto et.al. I used to maintain 100 colonies on my farm 20 years ago, since the introduction of killer genetics in field corn honey bee populations have plummeted and are facing extinction. Today I have six colonies, and lose half of them every year.

I wonder why Monsanto is not suing the farmer where the rogue RR wheat was found? I mean . . . pollen drift from their corn plants have contaminated every corn field in the world, even in the mountains of mexico where only old varieties are being raised.

The Supreme Court is bought and paid for as is our government which sits idle as the muppets in this country are exposed to more and more toxic patented plant material is being pushed on to the market.

As noted much of the problem is with what I call "slob farmers" who have been enabled to farm more and more acres with these toxic plants which kill root worms, corn borer moths and almost any other insect that consumes the plant. If these frankenplants will kill living things, they will also harm humans.

I farm corn and soybeans in Iowa, I have never used an insecticide or crops containing killer genetics. The old varieties of non GMO seeds are almost gone, I recently found a grower in Ohio, who still maintains and grows soybeans without a patent on them.

Our research universities are nothing more than a subsidiary to the likes of Monsanto and Pioneer, where research is given away to these companies after it was discovered using taxpayer funds.

The RR1 patent runs out next your on soybeans and crops containing it, at that time farmers will again be able to hold back seed from their own fields to plant that contain the RR gene, if they want to use them. Adios Amigos. John

reply to post by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Can someone explain what is so bad about Monsanto or GMOs?

The danger with GMO and capitalism, is first that a company is making money/profits on living things.
Now, imagine, as it is a natural thing, that some patented Monsanto (or any other firm) crops' seeds fly together with pollen, wind, etc. and end up in your field.
Monsanto will be able to sue the farmer for using Monsanto crops.

The other danger is that we do not have a clue as to what their GMO crops are doing to our bodies.
From history we know that these companies are just playing around, trying stuff, for profits and not people's good.

Then Monsanto being a very big firm, they have abused this position and there are some scandals linked to them.
Tie this with food, and you understand why people are either scared or extremely unhappy (or even both) at Monsanto.

My 2 cents...

reply to post by SloAnPainful


There is a thought that crosses my mind, that Monsanto purposely contaminates
every crop they wish to introduce, that way one of the reasons to keep it banned
is eliminated out of the gate.

If they have succesfully contaminated Wheat for example, part of the battle is won
by them already.

Seeds of Death indeed!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This is just more DNA, not really different from any other. We don't turn into carrots because we eat carrots, do we?

Really Phage, I expect more than that from you.

Thats not how it works, and you know it. Its the miRNA that survives digestion, and changes
genes. All plants we eat are gene regulators.

.....(turn into a carrot......?)

reply to post by Faust100f

I also believe honeybees are being killed by the pollen from frankencrops developed by Monsanto et.al. I used to maintain 100 colonies on my farm 20 years ago, since the introduction of killer genetics in field corn honey bee populations have plummeted and are facing extinction. Today I have six colonies, and lose half of them every year.

There's a bee keeper in illinois who had a few colonies that he claims grew resistance to Pesticides and colony collapse, and then his colonies were taken and destroyed by USDA (interestingly enough USDA has a handful of Ex-Monsanto cronies in place there). So it's definitely doable to establish really strong colonies. I will be working on this myself next spring once I get the farm. I'm looking at introducing olive leaf extract, possibly playing with trace amounts of nano-silver and I will be contacting the Illinois farmer to get some clues on his colonies.

I farm corn and soybeans in Iowa, I have never used an insecticide or crops containing killer genetics. The old varieties of non GMO seeds are almost gone, I recently found a grower in Ohio, who still maintains and grows soybeans without a patent on them.

How is your farm and the Ohio farm not contaminated yet w/ gmos?

Our research universities are nothing more than a subsidiary to the likes of Monsanto and Pioneer, where research is given away to these companies after it was discovered using taxpayer funds.

That's what I'm saying. Even on this thread, we have Phage doing research using the net and tracking down studies, then quoting them, but it's practically impossible now to take any GMO studies serious if the were done in the U.S. considering the level that Monsanto has it's tentacles in.

FDA Caught Spying on Its Own Scientists For Whistle Blowing

Monsanto make's sure it has control over ALL U.S. GMO Studies, and will threaten law suits if anything bad comes out, which scares scientists because then their funding can be pulled and insurance rates go up.

The RR1 patent runs out next your on soybeans and crops containing it, at that time farmers will again be able to hold back seed from their own fields to plant that contain the RR gene, if they want to use them. Adios Amigos. John

Yeah I don't know about that one. Im sure they're working on a new version with a brand new patent that will forced down everyone's thorats.

1 good thing is that people are talking, There was a HUGE global ANti-Monsanto protest, there is Genuine concern, whistle blowing, corruption is being exposed, people are waking up. I was telling people about vaccines/fluoride/gmo/steriods-antio-biotics shots in the meats/ back in the mid 90's and everyone was asleep to it. Now people who used to laugh at me back then are saying I was always right.

I think another way to fight this is to make Signs pointing at the GMO crops on the sides of the High-ways using a Skull and Cross bones like the poison sign and saying something like "This Field Contains Untested GMO Poisons" with arrows pointing. I got a few country folk locals willing to do that at night to help get the public awareness up.

I dont know much about this aside from a few a few articles, but i suspect neither does an OVERWHELMINGLY large number of the anti GMO people.

Aren't a lot of common pets genetically modified? Both cats and dogs and dont they do very well as far as being normal?

Another thing that i cannot help but wonder is that if these discoveries were made by a "mom and pop" company or just some schmoe in his garage would these things be viewed more\much more positively?

So Monsanto don't know why the GMO survived? Oh don't make me laugh! Even an eight year old could explain that. Try bees, insects and birds for starters. Then you have the wind that carries the pollen and seeds along to new fields etc. It's basic biology!

I have never trusted this company and I never will. My visit to a Monsanto company confirmed it when as a very young teenager I asked these basic questions about planting GM Foods crops. They were not happy to say the least!!

Much more research needs to be done about the long term impact on not just humans but the WHOLE ecosystem before they go messing about in the wild so to speak. Have an underground facility to recreate this for example but not in the open environment.

reply to post by Malcher


The negative consequences of GMO were well known, even before they were allowed
on the shelf. This knowledge of GMO and how insidious they are is not new, its only
hidden by the news machine.

The problem with genetic engineering is that it is not an exact science. Not only are desired genes transplanted, but others may be unintentionally spliced into the host organism. Many unforeseeable consequences can therefore occur from having unknown DNA entered into the equation. Something like antibiotic resistance, for example, may be introduced into a product, thus making certain antibiotics useless in fighting subsequent diseases incurred by those who consume them. Additionally, people allergic to particular foods such as peanuts may have reactions to products that have had peanut DNA inserted into their ingredients. It has also been found that chickens fed genetically-engineered maize had a higher death rate than chickens fed natural maize. www.bcheights.com...

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Can someone explain what is so bad about Monsanto or GMOs? I have searched the internet and seen some claims but I haven’t seen the evidence to back them up. Modifying foods to grow disease and drought resistant doesn’t sound like a bad thing to me or being able to grow crops in otherwise unsuitable soil sounds good to me.

If they are like poison as some sites say where is the evidence to back it up. This is pretty new topic to me. I have seen several posts throughout ATS in the past berating Monsanto but until today I have never bothered to look into it without any success at finding substance.

If someone would be kind enough to post some links to what convinced you on the evils of this new subject matter I would appreciate it.

Just one example with known science behind it. Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds exist so that soil where food crops are grown can be doused with Roundup herbicide. That herbicide is a known human DNA mutagen, and can cause sterility. It is awash in the environment thanks to gmo farm runoff, it absorbs into the food crops right with the water, and enters the human body when the food is consumed.

There are several other effects which are "known" but not fully confirmed by FDA, EPA, and other Monsanto-connected sources, but what is worse is the list of unknown length of things we don't know about GMO crops, either at all, or with certainty, at this point

reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss


They claim they don't know. It's a flat out lie. Play the stupid game and stupid people will believe it. Plain and simple.

-SAP-

reply to post by Phage


Phage, the carriers and detergents in round up make the case. Glyphosate is not soluble in water, so direct ingestion of the active ingredient will produce lesser effects due to the fact it is not readily absorbed.(it can under certain organic processes be absorbed for instance, if the body breaks down a fat or oil in the presence of glysophate that oil can become the carrier.)

Round up, depending on the formulation uses a hydrocarbon(primarily from fossil sources) as a carrier, and a detergent to allow it to be soluble in water. Most often the carrier's cause toxic effects, are the most noticeable, followed by the detergent depending on it's composition.

Glyphosate by itself is reasonably safe because it is not readily absorbed by animals, how ever when mixed with the carrier and detergent it can be absorbed, how ever the Petroleum products are likely to cause Chemical pneumonia if ingested or inhaled. Making round up itself more dangerous than the active ingredient.

The Scary part with the Round up ready corn is the fact the corn picks up that Product, the detergent breaks down the waxy layer on the surface of the plant, the plant recognizes the carbon chain as food and absorbs round up, but it can not break it down.

It's actually really messed up, and I don't know everything about it, but Glyphosate on it's own is pretty dang safe. The acute oral LD50 in rats is greater than 4320 mg/kg. How ever if you give them the formulation, they will almost certainly die, but this could be because of the carrier or detergent alone.

reply to post by Hijinx

Thanks for that. That makes the purpose of the experiment a lot more clear.

Any ideas on the toxicity of the carriers alone? Not that it really matters though, since I take it that glyphosate isn't used without them.

Do you know if there much variation in the carriers used by various manufacturers of glyphosate products? I wonder if some could be considered safer than others.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Malcher

 

The negative consequences of GMO were well known, even before they were allowed
on the shelf. This knowledge of GMO and how insidious they are is not new, its only
hidden by the news machine.

The problem with genetic engineering is that it is not an exact science. Not only are desired genes transplanted, but others may be unintentionally spliced into the host organism. Many unforeseeable consequences can therefore occur from having unknown DNA entered into the equation. Something like antibiotic resistance, for example, may be introduced into a product, thus making certain antibiotics useless in fighting subsequent diseases incurred by those who consume them. Additionally, people allergic to particular foods such as peanuts may have reactions to products that have had peanut DNA inserted into their ingredients. It has also been found that chickens fed genetically-engineered maize had a higher death rate than chickens fed natural maize. www.bcheights.com...

The article or that quote does not claim or show as you stated: "The negative consequences of GMO were well known" and uses the "may" numerous times. The chicken claim does not seem to pan out either:

LINK

Believe me, i am not being argumentative or provocative nor do i have any link to any company nor am I a farmer. It is just that are we throwing away the baby with the bath water here?

reply to post by demongoat

There is no evidence of harm from GMO food but a lot of ignorance of how genetics works.

The last part is correct, there is a lot of ignorance regarding GMOs. Evidence of harm is replete in our media, all you have to do is look. The question of how much damage GMOs are causing has yet to be determined.

How much damage do you think will be caused by the ban of importing Oregon/Washington wheat? This is economic damage that could be hundreds of millions of dollars or worse. I suppose this depends on how long this ban will last.

How much damage to local eco-systems is being caused by the increased use of herbicides?
How much damage of cross pollination onto organic farms? Organic farming is the fastest growing industry here on the west coast.
How much damage has been caused to farmers in India?

There are huge amounts of damage being caused by genetically modified crops that we currently cannot calculate and, perhaps, in ways that we haven’t even thought of yet. The use of GM crops on such a large scale without proper research is foolish.

reply to post by Grimpachi

When you think of "Harm" that may or may not be caused by GMOs don't limit yourself to how it will affect your physical body in the near future. There are many ways in which GM crops are causing harm and the evidence is mounting.

reply to post by Devino


Well we know for sure ecosystems are being affected. Look at the honey bee population, not only that but natural vegetation is being affected. Those animals that eat the natural vegetation then become affected, and so on and so fourth...

-SAP-

reply to post by SloAnPainful

I’m not disagreeing with you but I think one could argue that GMOs have not been positively linked to Colony Collapse Disorder.
The French study that showed tumors growing in rats that ate GM food has been argued as bad science so again we have some disagreement.
What is indisputable is the economic and environmental impact that all of this is creating. I feel that when we concentrate of these points are opinions that GMOs are bad become compelling.