Evidence of GMO Harm in Pig Study

reply to post by fluff007

Are you for/against or indifferent.

Pretty much indifferent I guess. My view is that I see no reason to think that there is anything inherently harmful about GMO crops from a health standpoint and I have seen no convincing evidence to the contrary. I don't think eating GMO crops which are approved for consumption is any different from eating any other crops.

What I do not understand is why the have released GM into the main food supply when they really do not truly understand it.

What makes you think that?

And if GM really is safe why is it banned or restricted in import, distribution, sale, utilization, field trials and commercial planting in 169 regions world wide..

Political pressure would be my guess. The science doesn't really call for it. People have their opinions. That doesn't mean their opinions are educated or accurate.

Time will tell if GMO food is harmful if at all..... saying that cigarettes were seen safe to smoke once upon a time...

First it's comical to warn of images when it's pig flesh, the same stuff on display at grocery stores.

I see the obvious results and then I think of Masaru Emoto and his intention experiments on water. Did the results happen through intent?

Then there is the idea that you see uterus size comparisons, but maybe the gene expression in the soy was the culprit. What would it look like if they had a no-soy group of pig?

Big Argo is sneaky. They might take the angle of pro/con GMO but you miss that soy is on both sides. So people see the options and choose noGMO soy, when maybe the right choice turns out to be no soy.

The engineered corn used, I saw an article about it in an ooold 1999 encyclopedia CDROM, where it stimulates appetite in pigs so they eat more. So maybe the no corn pig is even better. How about a just soy and just corn group for more comparison? This might explain why they couldn't look inside intestines due to the amount of food in them.

I also see vague words in an experiment briefing like "some". It is a press release and not the study. How can I opine without the study?

We did however find a marginally significant change on a measure of liver health in the blood of GM-fed pigs.

Source

That is the spin that will be sold on another side that GM corn is good for the liver. Now what Im getting cognitive dissonance.

There is a reason the three big religions ban pig consumption. Yes, all three major ones do.

I am not saying to become a rabbi, preist or imam tomorrow. Just note that this is what is said in the teachings of Christ, Moses and Mohammed. All three spoke God words.

Very interesting find thank you for sharing!

From the Monsanto Detailed Testing Abstract Genuity® SmartStax® MON 89034 Corn Product Safety Summary

MON 89034 Safety Summary, January 2009 Page 2 The data and information generated through multi - year tests and trials demonstrate that MON 89034 is safe as conventional corn as food and feed and safe to the environment. This conclusion is based on multiple lines of evidence. The first is the detailed molecular characterization of the inserted DNA. Results confirm the insertion of a single functional copy of cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2 expression cassette s at a single locus within the corn genome. The second is a detailed biochemical characterization of t he Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 protein s produced in MON 89 034 . In addition, the d ata demonstrate that the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins produced in MON 89 034 are equivalent to the respective Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins produced by recombinant strains of Esc herichia coli , which were used in the various safety assessment studies. The third line of evidence is an assessment of the toxicity and allergenicity potential of the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 protein s based on extensive information collected and studies per formed on the two protein s . The r esults demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins are unlikely to be allergens or toxins. The fourth line of evidence is the compositional and nutritional assessment which confirms that MON 89 034 grain and forage are compositionally equivalent to and as safe as those of conventional corn . The fifth line of evidence is the extensive evaluation of the MON 89 034 phenotypic and agronomic characteristics and ecological interactions , which dem onstrates that MON 89 034 is not likely to have an increase d plant pest potential compared to the conventional corn .

GMO Corn is safe because:

1. The gene insertion is above confidence constrained to its target locus. Which is good because even a couple displaced codons indicate volatile expression, especially if conserved in a substitution role over AT or TA sequences.
2. Expressed protein assays essentially match control corn for the primary 17 corn aminos
3. Tests confirm that human toxicity and allergenicity are likely to be low
4. The compositional nutrition is essentially the same as conventional corn
5. MON 89034 has a low likelihood of becoming a plant pest (petitioned to be cleared as not a Plant Pest similar to the recent Monsanto Company petition to clear Soybeans as NOT being a Plant Pest - APHIS (APHIS number 09-082-01p) for a determination that genetically engineered (GE) soybean (Glycine max) event MON 87701 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should no longer be regulated

Since food is guilty until proven innocent, as a matter of public safety, I would say the above PROVES that GMO corn is safe.

Especially with regard to those toxicity and allergenicity tests or tests to prove non-conservation of errant codon expressions. Those take decades to assess, and I am sure they put in the decades of testing with humans to prove this out. I am certain of it. Otherwise it would not constitute science.

And, of course, they are receiving approval on several GMBO to be cleared as not being Plant Pests, which is moot really, since recently, we all were told by very informed and authoritative people that corn and soybeans could never be defined as Plant Pests in the first place.

What say all ye?

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

I say there is no reason to think that GMOs are inherently dangerous.
I also say there is no valid experimental evidence (including this, um , "study") which shows they are.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

I say there is no reason to think that GMOs are inherently dangerous.
I also say there is no valid experimental evidence (including this, um , "study") which shows they are.

edit on 6/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ahhh, you are referring to the OP's study.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

You are AGREEING with Monsanto's Study above? or you are DISAGREEING with Monsanto's study above? The 'um-study' is actually THE Monsanto Study.

Sorry for the confusion. I am talking about the "study" which is the subject of this thread.

The Monsanto study indicates that there is no reason to think that MON 89034 is inherently unsafe.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

You are AGREEING with Monsanto's Study above? or you are DISAGREEING with Monsanto's study above? The 'um-study' is actually THE Monsanto Study.

Sorry for the confusion. I am talking about the "study" which is the subject of this thread.

The Monsanto study indicates that there is no reason to think that MON 89034 is inherently unsafe.

Whoops, did an edit interleaving. Understood.

reply to post by Phage

Doesn't seem a very rigorous experiment. Let's feed pigs diets from different sources and see what happens. Maybe we can find something. Animals fed different diets showed different characteristics. Not too surprising really. Were the differences due to the GMO component? No way to tell from the way the experiment was conducted. Apparently there was no actual analysis of the diets. Just an assumption on the part of the experimenters:

Both food types where defined as pig feed. In so far the food would have been analysed to give pigs a suitable range of nutrients needed for the growth of a pig. You are correct you cannot tell from the experiment if the differences where caused by GM food or not. However it is not correct to dismiss the experiment. It raises more questions than answers and certainly raises a warning flag requiring more research.

But right after that it says funding came from Verity Farms. Verity Farms is quite openly anti-GMO. The conspiracy theorist in me says, maybe Verity played with the feed.

Two further points of note..

This kind of research is not likely to be done by companies that use or create GM food sources...

A a scientist a I am surprised to see you resorting to slur tactics.. Guessing that Verity may have been playing with the food means nothing.. That is the equivalent to a personal attack of a poster on ATS. It is best to keep to the topic and information in hand without making personal remarks about the poster.. In the case the poster being a peer reviewed scientific paper..

reply to post by purplemer

However it is not correct to dismiss the experiment. It raises more questions than answers and certainly raises a warning flag requiring more research.

Which means it was a very poor experiment. No clear hypothesis. A lack of controls. I don't see any indication that natural statistical variation was taken into account in the analysis. Sort of surprising that such an article would survive peer review.

This kind of research is not likely to be done by companies that use or create GM food sources...

Why do you say that?

Guessing that Verity may have been playing with the food means nothing..

I know. It was actually meant as tongue in cheek comment, a jab at those who seem to think that only the proponents of GMOs can be subject to conducting questionable experiments.

But it seems a bit ironic for you to complain about it considering your statement above. You claim bias on one side but imply it is unlikely on the other? Do find it odd that the author felt it necessary to include a non-conflict of interest statement in the article. Do you see that often? I don't.

Can anyone point me the way to full-spectrum ecological studies on the effects of transgenic GMO crops in the environment that are long term, say 15+ years?

Does anyone have links to the monsanto studies of their products?

Do scientists who use monsanto products for their testing have to sign any contracts with monsanto to use their intellectual property?

reply to post by Philippines

Can anyone point me the way to full-spectrum ecological studies on the effects of transgenic GMO crops in the environment that are long term, say 15+ years?

Can you point me to the full-spectrum ecological studies on the effects of non-GMO crops in the environment that are long term, say 15+ years?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

Can anyone point me the way to full-spectrum ecological studies on the effects of transgenic GMO crops in the environment that are long term, say 15+ years?

Can you point me to the full-spectrum ecological studies on the effects of non-GMO crops in the environment that are long term, say 15+ years?

Seems we have the same question. My answer is no, wish I could point you to something. The most recent semi long term study is linked below, but nothing to a full-spectrum study with "God"-like knowledge. I think we're on agreement on the use of chemicals and monocropping anyways [EnvEurope - Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years]

reply to post by Philippines

That data used in that study shows that per acre application of pesticides has shown a reduction since the advent of GMO crops. Strange that the author doesn't point that out in the text.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

That data used in that study shows that per acre application of pesticides has shown a reduction since the advent of GMO crops. Strange that the author doesn't point that out in the text.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 6/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Hmm, good point. I wonder if there is a study that analyzes the various pests that affect the plants and their populations, and effects of their ecological environments with the use of transgenic gmo's and chemicals on their environment and long term effects for humans on this? (and ecology)

How about the adaptation of super weeds and other unknown side effects of these genetic technologies and science derived chemical products intended to kill life, but which life adapts to still live (a nature of life)? What are the long term effects on humans? (and the environment's organisms)

Again, (imo of course) this whole situation seems like a failed experiment meddling with life itself to create a product for man made money to create a regulated control system of man (food) who must respect your intellectual property rights, or pay the consequences.

Could science and money be in collusion?

reply to post by Philippines

Again, (imo of course) this whole situation seems like a failed experiment meddling with life itself to create a product for man made money to create a regulated control system of man (food) who must respect your intellectual property rights, or pay the consequences.

The "experiment" has actually been working quite well. Increased production and reduced pesticide use.

Farmers have a choice on what they choose to plant. Farmers buy the seeds (hybrid and/or GMO) for a reason. They lead to higher production and quality at lower cost. Or now are you going to fault farmers for trying to make a profit?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

The "experiment" has actually been working quite well. Increased production and reduced pesticide use.

Farmers have a choice on what they choose to plant. Farmers buy the seeds (hybrid and/or GMO) for a reason. They lead to higher production and quality at lower cost. Or now are you going to fault farmers for trying to make a profit?

edit on 6/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I agree, it allows for monocropping to be much more efficient, with reduced pesticide use, but what about herbicide use? Is that increasing?

Agreed on farmers having a choice, and I can't blame them. In today's world most everyone needs money, and transgenic technology makes more money more easily imo. If there comes a day when people refuse to eat the stuff, then I imagine the farmer would try to change their methods and seed. So I fault people in general on this issue, but no one seems to really care what they eat anyways

reply to post by Ghost375

Same mortality rate between the two groups...

Like the same mortality rate between the two groups of people infected with HIV and those that are not...well, it's the same mortality for about 10 - 20 years, then the disease that has been in their tissues becomes AIDS..and the mortality rate is VERY different.

Because we're not seeing massive cases of cancer, or spontaneous death or other injury becoming apparent after eating a single GMO corn on the cob, in much the same way HIV presents itself, although the damage is done initially by becoming infected with HIV, or regularly eating GMOs, the deadly affects are not shown until many years later.

These studies are showing damage caused to livestock animals, over short periods of time..yes the mortality rates are virtually the same between the control and the GMO fed animals, but is significant as it's short duration damage.

Scale that up for humans eating GMO fed animals or crops, over a 5 - 10 year period...that's when we'll see the damage ramp up exponentially in humans....just like HIV and AIDS.

Not all good things take time.

reply to post by Sandalphon


Well the only reason I made a warning was because I have posted similar pictures before and then I was hounded for not making a warning first.. So it is just to cover myself from getting bashed..!

I just wonder if the uterus being heavier has anything to do with the farmer who a period of time after he started feeding his pigs on GM found his pigs had become sterile. Maybe there is a correlation there I am not sure.

But the study could have been done better..