GMO Foods: Genetically Modified Organism - Page 4 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > General > Fitness and Nutrition > GMO Foods: Genetically Modified Organism

Ruffstuff Axle Simple Swap Kit!ROCK BOTTOM prices on LIFT KITS at Rockridge4wd!! WANT TO Introducing MONSTALINER™ UV Permanent DIY Roll On Bed Line

Reply
Unread 04-13-2013, 11:25 PM   #46
COLOUXJ
Web Wheeler
2010 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 2,010
And just because you got me interested....

Conclusion: GE (Genetically Engineered) Foods do not pose a greater risk than foods produced in traditional methods. (Source: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf)

Conclusion: There are at least 42 publications extractable from the PubMed database that describe research reports of feeding studies of GM feed or food products derived from GM crops. The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species. (Source (says generated from peer reviewed journals but is only a webpage, this was the first link on google): http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-in...ewed-pubs.html)


Here is one that compares Genetically Engineered and Genetically modified, and claims that the later is better as it naturally breeding vs modifying of the genetic code of GE foods. Thats something I did not know. So their conclusion was that GE crops were proven (through sourcing) to cause problems in the animals (in many cases rats) where as GM crops do not have those problems since plants are breed together to get traits of each other, essentially forced evolution. SOURCE: http://earthopensource.org/files/pdf...ruths_1.3a.pdf

So that was just on the first page (of a google search for public journals) and all of these are contradicting the points you are making. You may actually be talking about GE crops, which apparently there are a few studies out there showing that they can cause complications. But most are saying that they are just as safe. I would add more but I get access through school to journal articles that the general public has to pay for.

GO SCIENCE!

__________________
"When i die, bury me with my jeep. Its never been in a hole it can't get out of"
Black Jeep Society
My JEEP helped win a War > Your Honda mows my grass!!
Mechanical Engineers Build weapons Civil Engineers build targets

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberpyrot View Post
is it a plink plink kerrrrdunk? or more of a brrrrrconk doc doc miiiidge pang!!!? or is it a badonk ka donk? if it is the latter its just the normal fat *** of the JK

COLOUXJ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-13-2013, 11:52 PM   #47
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
Ha. Thank you that is interesting. I did not know that. So, basically crop to plant or plant to plant would be GE and safe?


But plant with animal or plant w human genes would not be safe?

Do I get this in the laments term?
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-13-2013, 11:55 PM   #48
88hatchy
Registered User
1997 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Florida, Colorado
Posts: 906
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdf...ruths_1.3a.pdf

There are quite a few inaccuracies and opinions in this particular article.
__________________
1997 TJ - Current project: Simple build --> LCG, 35s
1988 Civic Hatch - Runs 12's, gets 30 mpg
88hatchy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-13-2013, 11:58 PM   #49
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
It is really interesting info


Reading it on my ipad

Thank you
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 12:00 AM   #50
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
Then why if GMO or GE is supposedly so good for you, WHY has it been banned from Europe?
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 12:10 AM   #51
COLOUXJ
Web Wheeler
2010 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88hatchy View Post
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdf...ruths_1.3a.pdf

There are quite a few inaccuracies and opinions in this particular article.
Yes, It is not a truly Peer reviewed article, I posted that one just due to the sources that they listed. This was one I thought about not posting as it is not what I was looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THOR114 View Post
It is really interesting info


Reading it on my ipad

Thank you

Glad to help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THOR114 View Post
Then why if GMO or GE is soo

Good has it been banned from Europe?
I have no idea. My personal opinion is probably some politicians gave very compelling arguments to why these things were bad and should be banned and they were. Its amazing what someone who is good at speaking can do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THOR114 View Post
Ha. Thank you that is interesting. I did not know that. So, basically crop to plant or plant to plant would be GE and safe?


But plant with animal or plant w human genes would not be safe?

Do I get this in the laments term?

Missed this one.

I personally have never read anyone do anything other than plant to plant splicing. I am no expert on DNA but I do not think that it would work plant-animal or even scarier plant-human (Sounds like a sci-fi movie to me)
__________________
"When i die, bury me with my jeep. Its never been in a hole it can't get out of"
Black Jeep Society
My JEEP helped win a War > Your Honda mows my grass!!
Mechanical Engineers Build weapons Civil Engineers build targets

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberpyrot View Post
is it a plink plink kerrrrdunk? or more of a brrrrrconk doc doc miiiidge pang!!!? or is it a badonk ka donk? if it is the latter its just the normal fat *** of the JK

COLOUXJ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 12:19 AM   #52
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
The whole thing is very scarry to me. And I am trying to find out more about it. The beauty about the forum is that different people have different opinions. And it is important to know what is the best fuel for our bodies.

For the charismatic speakers: they can do lots of damage. Hitler was one. And there are more in our goverment. And i leave it at that.

Thank you for your contribution to the post I am still reading and i have the feel I will read for a while. But it is good info.
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 01:52 AM   #53
toyotaguy
Registered User
1998 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: kamloops, BC
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by COLOUXJ View Post
I stopped reading after this for several reasons:

I stopped reading after a few sentences as well, and then went back and sat through the first paragraph, it's a pile of crap, but it is entertaining.

I thought I'd clarify a few things about the guys stated in the first paragraph. Your body doesn't in any way read the information contained in the DNA of the foods that you eat. It doesn't "recognize" food. It takes stuff in, and then breaks it down into it's constituent parts, and re-uses each item. The DNA/RNA contained in the food is broken down into individual nucleotides (thus destroying any information), which can then be used by your body in normal cellular processes. If I alter the genetic code of a carrot, there's no physical way for that altered DNA to affect your body at all when you eat it. I really wonder where this person got their information from.

At least people who don't know what they're talking about let us know by typing things in all caps
toyotaguy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 01:59 AM   #54
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
Ok here is one of the sources

http://youtu.be/T-IJikX1144

It's from the Health Ranger
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 02:01 AM   #55
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099

I hope this plays. It's on YouTube as well. Look for the thumbnail with the apple with teeth...that's the one documentary
It's an interesting topic
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 05:31 AM   #56
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
Myth:No one has ever been made ill by a GM food
Truth:There is no scientific evidence to support this claim

GM proponents claim that people have been eating GM foods in the United States for
16 years without ill effects. But this is an anecdotal, scientifically untenable assertion, as no epidemiological studies to look at GM food effects on the general population have ever been conducted.
Furthermore, there are signs that all is not well with the US food supply. Reports show that food-related illnesses increased two- to ten-fold in the years between 1994 (just before GM food was commercialized) and 1999.66,67 No one knows if there is a link with GM foods because they are not labelled in the US and consumers are not monitored for health effects.
Under the conditions existing in the US, any health effects from a GM food would have to meet very specific and unusual conditions before they would be noticed. They would have to:
"rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Occur soon after eating a food that was known
to be GM – in spite of its not being labelled –
so that the consumer could establish a causal correlation between consumption and the harmful effect. Increases in diseases like cancer, which has a long latency period, would not be traceable to a GM food.
● Cause symptoms that are different from common diseases. If GM foods caused a rise in common diseases like allergies or cancer, nobody would know what caused the rise.
● Be dramatic and obvious to the naked eye[/COLOR
]
or to the consumer of the GMO. No one examines a person’s body tissues with a microscope for harm after they eat a GM food. But just this type of examination is needed to give early warning of problems such as pre- cancerous changes.
In addition, health effects would have to be recorded and reported by a centralized body that the public knew about and that could collate data as it came in and identify correlations. Currently, there is no such monitoring body in place anywhere.
Moderate or slow-onset health effects of GM
foods could take decades to become apparent through epidemiological studies, just as it took decades for the damaging effects of trans fats (another type of artificial food) to be recognised. Slow-poison effects from trans fats have caused millions of premature deaths across the world.68 To detect important but subtle effects on health, or effects that take time to appear (chronic effects), long-term controlled studies on large populations would be needed.
3.5.1. Two outbreaks of illness linked
to GM foods
Two high-profile cases have emerged in which
a GM food was suspected of causing illness in people. In both cases, industry and regulators denied that genetic engineering was the cause, but an examination of the evidence gives no such reassurance.
L-tryptophan
In 1989 in the US, a food supplement, L-tryptophan, produced using GM bacteria,
was found to be toxic, killing 37 people and permanently disabling over 1500 others.69,70,71 The resulting disease was named eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS). Symptoms included an overproduction of white blood cells called eosinophils, severe myalgia (muscle pain), and in some cases, paralysis.

The L-tryptophan that affected people
was traced back to a single source, a Japanese company called Showa Denko. In July 1990, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association mentioned that Showa Denko had introduced a new genetically engineered bacterium, called Strain V, in December 1988, a few months before the main epidemic hit.71
There is an ongoing debate about whether the toxin’s presence in the L-tryptophan was due to genetic engineering or to Showa Denko’s sloppy manufacturing processes. The company had made changes to its carbon filtration purification process before the toxic contaminant was discovered.
GMO Myths and Truths page 48
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 05:37 AM   #57
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
3. HEALTH HAZARDS OF GM FOODS
Section at a glance
u Peer-reviewed studies have found harmful effects on the health of laboratory and livestock animals fed GMOs. Effects include toxic and allergenic effects and altered nutritional value.
u Most animal feeding studies on GMOs have only been short-term or medium-term in length. What is needed are long-term and multi-generational studies on GMOs to see if the worrying changes commonly reported in short- and medium-term studies develop into serious disease. Such studies are not required by government regulators.
u Industry and regulators dismiss findings of harm in animal feeding trials on GMOs by claiming they are “not biologically significant” or “not biologically relevant” – scientifically meaningless terms that have not been properly defined.
u No GM nutritionally enhanced (biofortified) foods are available on the market. In contrast, conventional plant breeding has successfully and safely produced many biofortified foods.
u The most-hyped GM nutritionally enhanced food, Golden Rice, aimed at combating vitamin A deficiency, has wasted millions in development funds – yet has not been proven safe to eat and is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, proven and inexpensive solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available and only need proper funding to be more widely applied.

3.1
Myth: GM foods are safe to eat
Truth: Studies show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic

“Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter haematological [blood], biochemical, and immunologic parameters, the significance of which remains to be solved with chronic toxicity studies.”
– Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009; 49: 164–1751
There are three possible sources of adverse health effects from GM foods:
● The GM gene product – for example, the Bt
toxin in GM insecticidal crops – may be toxic or
allergenic
● The GM transformation process may produce
mutagenic effects, gene regulatory effects, or effects at other levels of biological structure and function that result in new toxins or allergens and/or disturbed nutritional value
● Changes in farming practices linked to the use of a GMO may result in toxic residues – for example, higher levels of crop contamination with the herbicide Roundup are an inevitable result of using GM Roundup Ready® crops (see Sections 4, 5).
Evidence presented below and in Sections 4 and 5 suggests that problems are arising from all three sources – throwing into question GM proponents’ claims that GM foods are as safe as their non-GM counterparts.
3.1.1. Feeding studies on laboratory
and farm animals
Feeding studies on laboratory and farm animals show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic:
● Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (sores or ulcers).2,3 This tomato, Calgene’s Flavr Savr, was the first commercialized GM food.
● Mice fed GM peas (not subsequently commercialized) engineered with an insecticidal
GMO Myths and Truths page 37
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 05:40 AM   #58
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
3.6 Myth: GM Bt insecticidal crops only harm insects and are harmless to animals and people
Truth: GM Bt insecticidal crops pose hazards to people and animals that eat them

Many GM crops are engineered to produce Bt toxin, a type of insecticide. Bt toxin in its natural, non-GM form is derived from a common soil bacterium and is used as an insecticidal spray in chemically-based and organic farming.
Regulators have approved GM Bt crops on the assumption that the GM Bt toxin is the same
as the natural Bt toxin, which they say has a history of safe use. They conclude that GM crops engineered to contain Bt insecticidal protein must also be harmless.
But this is false, for the following reasons:
● Natural Bt toxin is not necessarily the same as
the Bt toxin expressed by GM Bt plants. The Bt toxin protein in GM plants may be truncated
or otherwise modified. For example, there is
at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialised in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.11 Such changes can mean that they have very different effects on people or animals that eat them. Prions (the folded proteins found in BSE- infected cows), venoms, and hormones, are all proteins, but are far from harmless.83
has ill effects on mammals, producing a potent immune response and enhancing the immune response to other substances.85,86,87
● Safety tests for regulatory purposes are generally not carried out on the Bt toxin protein as expressed in the GM plant. [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]The Bt toxin protein that is tested is usually derived from genetically engineered
E. coli bacteria
, as GM companies find it too difficult and expensive to extract enough Bt toxin from the GM crop itself[/COLOR]. As we have seen, the GM process gives rise to unexpected changes in the desired protein, so it cannot be assumed that the Bt toxin protein derived from E. coli bacteria is the same as the protein derived from the GM plant that people and animals will eat. Indeed, the US Environmental Protection Agency, in its review of the commercialised Monsanto GM maize MON810, said it produces a “truncated” version of the protein – in other words, a protein that is not the same as the natural form.60
Such changes can make a protein more toxic or allergenic.
3.6.1. Bt toxin does not only affect
insect pests
GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM Bt crops only affects the target pests
and is harmless to mammals, including people
or animals that eat the crops.88 Based on this assumption, regulators do not require human toxicity studies on GM Bt crops.
But the assumption is incorrect. In a 2012 test-tube (in vitro) study, genetically engineered Bt toxins were found to be toxic to human cells. One type of Bt toxin killed human cells at the dose of 100 parts per million. The findings showed that GM Bt toxin does affect humans, contrary to claims from the GM lobby and regulators.83
The GM lobby responded by saying that in vitro studies do not accurately reflect what happens in a living human or animal that eats GM Bt crops. But
● The natural Bt toxin used in insecticidal sprays behaves differently in the environment from the Bt toxin produced in GM plants. Natural Bt breaks down rapidly in daylight and only becomes active (and toxic) in the gut of the insect that eats it. It does not persist in the environment and so is unlikely to find its way into animals or people that eat the crop. With GM Bt crops, however, the plant is engineered to express the Bt toxin protein in active form in every cell. In other words, the plant itself becomes a pesticide, and people and animals that eat the plant are eating a pesticide.
● Even natural Bt toxin has been found to have negative health effects. In farm workers, exposure to Bt sprays was found to lead to allergic skin sensitisation and immune responses.84 And laboratory studies found that natural Bt toxin
GMO Myths and Truths page 51
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 05:43 AM   #59
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
3.8 Myth: GM animal feed poses no risks to animal or human health
Truth: GM feed affects the health of animals and may affect the humans who eat their products

Most GM crops go into animal feed. The GM industry and government regulators claim that meat, eggs, and dairy products from GM-fed animals do not need to carry a GM label because GM molecules – DNA and protein – are broken down in the animals’ digestive tracts and is not detectable in the final food product.
But this assumption is false.
Studies have found:
GM DNA present in animal feed has been detected in milk sold on the Italian market, though the authors of the study said it was unclear whether the source of the GM DNA was ingestion by the animal or external contamination.112
●GM DNA in feed was taken up by the animal’s organs and detected in the meat and fish that
people eat
[/SIZE][/COLOR].113,114,115,116
GM feed was found to affect the health of animals that eat it. GM DNA from soy was detected in the blood, organs, and milk of goats. An enzyme, lactic dehydrogenase, was found at significantly raised levels in the heart, muscle, and kidneys of young goats fed GM soy.117 This enzyme leaks from damaged cells during immune reactions or injury, so high levels may indicate such problems.
Bt toxin protein was found circulating in the blood of pregnant women and the blood supply to their foetuses, as well as in the blood of non- pregnant women.65
MicroRNAs (molecules that affect gene expression) of plants have been found in the blood of mammals that have eaten them and were biologically active in those mammals, affecting gene expression and the functioning of important processes in the body. While this study was not carried out on GM plants, it showed that plants that are eaten, including GM plants, could exercise a direct physiological effect on human and animal consumers.118 The study suggested that the saying, “You are what you eat”, may have some scientific credibility.
Given the growing evidence that a diet containing GM crops can damage the health of animals, there could be risks associated with the consumption of products derived from GM-fed animals. We conclude that the argument that meat and dairy products from GM-fed animals do not need to carry a GM label cannot be scientifically justified.
GMO Myths and Truths page 56
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 04-14-2013, 05:47 AM   #60
THOR114
Web Wheeler
 
THOR114's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: , CA
Posts: 2,099
4. HEALTH HAZARDS OF ROUNDUP & GLYPHOSATE
Section at a glance
u Roundup, the herbicide that most GM crops are engineered to tolerate, based on the chemical glyphosate, is marketed as a “safe” herbicide, based on outdated and largely unpublished studies by manufacturers.
u But laboratory and epidemiological studies confirm that [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Roundup poses serious health hazards[/COLOR], including endocrine (hormone) disruption, DNA damage, cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders.
u Some of these effects are found at low, realistic doses that could be found as residues in food and feed crops and in contaminated water. People who eat foods made from
GM crops could be ingesting potentially dangerous levels of Roundup residues.
u Roundup and glyphosate have been detected in air, rain, groundwater, in people’s urine, and even circulating in women’s blood. Glyphosate can cross the placental barrier and the unborn foetus could thus be exposed.
u The “safe” dose for Roundup exposure set by regulators is not based on up-to-date objective evidence; thus current regulations do not protect the public.
Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides. Roundup Ready (RR) soy is the most widely grown GM crop, making up 52% of all GM crops.1 RR soy is engineered to tolerate Roundup herbicide, the main ingredient of which is glyphosate. The RR gene enables farmers to spray the field liberally with herbicide. All plant life is killed except the crop.
The widespread adoption of GM RR soy in North and South America has led to massive increases in the use of Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides.2
In South America, a public health crisis has emerged around the spraying of Roundup on GM soy, which is often carried out from the air. The problem made headlines on the [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]publication of a 2010 study by Argentine researchers showing that glyphosate and Roundup caused malformations (birth defects) in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.[/COLOR] The malformations seen in the experimental embryos were similar to human birth defects reported in GM soy-growing areas of South America.
The researchers said the results were relevant
to humans because humans have the same developmental mechanisms as frogs and chickens. The study identified the pathway through which glyphosate and Roundup affect embryonic development, the retinoic acid signalling pathway.3
A report by physicians in Argentina based on clinical data reported the following health effects in people exposed to spraying of agrochemicals (mostly glyphosate) on GM Roundup Ready soy: increased incidence of birth defects, miscarriages, infertility, cancers, DNA damage (which can
lead to cancer and birth defects), neurological developmental problems in children, kidney failure, respiratory problems, and allergies.
4
A report commissioned by the provincial government of Chaco, Argentina, found that the rate of birth defects increased fourfold and rates of childhood cancers tripled in only a decade in areas where rice and GM soy crops are heavily sprayed. The report noted that problems centred on “transgenic crops, which require aerial and ground spraying with agrochemicals”; glyphosate
was named as a chemical of concern.5
These issues are relevant not only to people
living in regions where GM RR crops are grown, but for consumers who eat products made from crops sprayed with glyphosate. GM RR crops do not break down glyphosate, but absorb it. Some
is broken down (metabolised) into a substance called aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). Both glyphosate and AMPA remain in the plant and are eaten by people and animals. Both are toxic.
Scientific evidence suggests that Roundup and other commercial formulations are more toxic than glyphosate alone – yet it was glyphosate alone that was tested by industry prior to market authorization and approved by regulators. The herbicide formulations as they are sold and used have not been properly tested and assessed for safety.
GMO Myths and Truths page 64

4.1 Myth: Roundup is a safe herbicide with low toxicity
Truth: Roundup poses major health hazards

Roundup is marketed as a “safe” herbicide, based on outdated and largely unpublished studies by manufacturers.6 But independent toxicological and epidemiological studies confirm that Roundup and glyphosate pose serious health hazards, as detailed below.
4.1.2. People who eat Roundup Ready
crops may be eating toxic residues
The effects on animals and humans of eating increased amounts of glyphosate herbicide residues on such crops have not been properly investigated. On the contrary, regulators have ignored risks and changed safety rules to allow higher levels of glyphosate residues into the food and feed chain.
For example, after the 1996 commercialisation of GM RR soy, EU regulators raised the allowed maximum residue limit (MRL) for glyphosate in imported soy 200-fold, from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/ kg.7 The UK government claimed that the move was necessary to accommodate the new farm practice of using glyphosate as a desiccant to “burn down” crops before harvest, making grains or beans easier to gather.8 But it also conveniently coincided with the introduction of RR soy.
Indeed, a 1994 report of the Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) indirectly admitted that GM soy was a factor in the need
for the higher limit. This JMPR meeting appears
to have been the source of the recommendation
for the new higher residue limit. In its report, the JMPR recommended the higher limit of 20 mg/
kg for soybeans. The JMPR said the change was needed because of a combination of two factors: glyphosate’s use as a desiccant before harvest; and to accommodate “sequential application of glyphosate in the crop”9 – a practice that is only possible with GM RR soy, as it would kill non-GM soy.
In a 1999 press interview, Malcolm Kane, the then recently-retired head of food safety at UK supermarket chain Sainsbury’s, confirmed that the European regulators raised the residue limit to “satisfy the GM companies” and smooth the path
for GM soy to enter the food and feed market. Kane added, “One does not need to be an activist or overtly anti-GM to point out that herbicide- resistant crops come at the price of containing significant chemical residues of the active chemical in the commercial weedkiller.”8
This high residue limit is potentially unsafe, based on data from independent studies that EU regulators ignored in setting their claimed safe daily dose.10,11,12 [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Glyphosate, AMPA, and especially the commercial formulation Roundup have been found to be toxic, in some cases at extremely low levels.13,14,15 Roundup damages and kills human cells at levels below those
used in agriculture16 and at residual levels to
be expected in food and feed derived from Roundup-treated crops.13 Roundup is a potent endocrine disruptor (disturbs hormone function)[/COLOR] at concentrations up to 800 times lower than the highest permitted levels in food and feed.17 So people who eat food products from GM RR crops are eating amounts of these substances that may have toxic effects.
4.1.3. Studies show toxic effects of
glyphosate and Roundup
Independent studies on human cells and experimental animals have shown that glyphosate and Roundup have serious toxic effects, in many cases at low levels that could be found in the environment or as residues in food or feed.13,14,15 The added ingredients (adjuvants) in Roundup
are themselves toxic and increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling it to penetrate human and animal cells more easily.13,18,19 Findings include:
● Glyphosate and Roundup caused malformations
in frog and chicken embryos.3
● Roundup caused skeletal malformations in rat
foetuses.20
● Industry’s own studies conducted for
regulatory purposes as long ago as the 1980s show that glyphosate caused birth defects in rats and rabbits. These effects were seen not only at high, maternally toxic doses, but also
GMO Myths and Truths page 65
THOR114 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools






Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.