GM foods story in papers

[emordnilap]

Monsanto-funded papers conclude glyphosate not carcinogenic or genotoxic

As stated in the declarations of interest at the foot of each paper, all are funded by Monsanto via the industry consultancy firm Intertek. Many of the authors have links to Monsanto, other chemical companies, and industry consultancy firms.

An accompanying comment piece by the journal’s editor explains that the Monsanto-funded papers are designed to counter the World Health Organisation cancer agency IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen and as genotoxic (damaging to DNA). The IARC’s conclusions were, according to the editor, “a surprise to many scientists who had followed the literature on the potential health hazards of glyphosate over many decades”.

[emordnilap]

EU Commission pushes for first GMO cultivation authorisations in 18 years

The Commission and a few pro-GMO governments appear to hope that the 19 member states that have opted out of growing GMOs will vote in favour of the cultivation approvals, given that these will not apply to their territories.

One government that is certain to vote in favour will be the Westminster government in the UK, though GM crops would only be grown in England initially as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have chosen to opt out.

[woodburner]

Perhaps pro GM government members should be made to drink a glass of glyphosate like the dimwit featured on video refused to do after claiming it was so safe you can drink the stuff.

[woodburner]

EU Commission pushes for first GMO cultivation authorisations in 18 years

The Commission and a few pro-GMO governments appear to hope that the 19 member states that have opted out of growing GMOs will vote in favour of the cultivation approvals, given that these will not apply to their territories.

One government that is certain to vote in favour will be the Westminster government in the UK, though GM crops would only be grown in England initially as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have chosen to opt out.

Of course there is no problem with GMO crops as they will allow increased production from the same land and fertiliser inputs (or some vested interests would have you believe), and with no risk. Unfortunately Dr. William Moar of Monsanto dropped off............

[Little John]

Even if GMO crops did only what they say on the tin - that is to say, significantly increase yields - that is bad enough since the overmining of our soil's resources is why we are in the mess we are in. But, their danger is much more than that since they are setting the stage for an evolutionary arms race between GMOs and the forms of life that feed on them.

The rest of life has forever on its side.

So, guess which side wins.

[woodburner]

Could it be GM's close associate, glyphosate that is the active component? It is interesting the "safety" studies were stopped at 90 days. Too short a time to reveal anything much. There are plenty of questions to answer example.

[vtsnowedin]

EU Commission pushes for first GMO cultivation authorisations in 18 years

The Commission and a few pro-GMO governments appear to hope that the 19 member states that have opted out of growing GMOs will vote in favour of the cultivation approvals, given that these will not apply to their territories.

One government that is certain to vote in favour will be the Westminster government in the UK, though GM crops would only be grown in England initially as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have chosen to opt out.

Of course there is no problem with GMO crops as they will allow increased production from the same land and fertiliser inputs (or some vested interests would have you believe), and with no risk. Unfortunately Dr. William Moar of Monsanto dropped off............

I don't want to champion the GMO crop or the herbicide (roundup) but let us be clear on how these things work. The Gmo crop is resistant to the roundup. The weeds are not. so the GMO crop has access to the sunlight , water and fertilizer that would usually be stolen by the weeds which the roundup has killed and that is why you get increased yields. You could achieve the same results with careful hand weeding but there is nothing magic or nefarious about herbicide weed control. It is just cheaper then a gang of undocumented laborers with hoes.
Anybody that has ever grown a vegetable garden and eaten even a few meals from the results should understand this perfectly. Those that think peas come in a freezer bag or can may have a problem with it.

[Little John]

The problem lies with the deployment of herbicides in conjunction with the deployment of herbicide resistant GMO's

The weeds will end up resistant to glyphosate, in which case, higher doses of glyphosate will be required, in turn requiring the development of even more glyphosate-resistant GMO's, in turn leading to the evolution of even greater resistance to glyphosate amongst the weed populations, partially via natural selection within their own internal gene pools and partially as a result of genetic migration from GMO's to adjacent, closely related wild populations of flora, in turn requiring....

etc

You get the drift

It's called an "arms race" and it can't be won

[emordnilap]

The problem lies with the deployment of herbicides in conjunction with the deployment of herbicide resistant GMO's

The weeds will end up resistant to glyphosate, in which case, higher doses of glyphosate will be required, in turn requiring the development of even more glyphosate-resistant GMO's, in turn leading to the evolution of even greater resistance to glyphosate amongst the weed populations, partially via natural selection within their own internal gene pools and partially as a result of genetic migration from GMO's to adjacent, closely related wild populations of flora, in turn requiring....

etc

You get the drift

It's called an "arms race" and it can't be won

Yes. It happened with DDT and the boll weevil in the 1940s onwards apparently.

There again, money.

[woodburner]

The problem lies with the deployment of herbicides in conjunction with the deployment of herbicide resistant GMO's

The weeds will end up resistant to glyphosate, in which case, higher doses of glyphosate will be required, in turn requiring the development of even more glyphosate-resistant GMO's, in turn leading to the evolution of even greater resistance to glyphosate amongst the weed populations, partially via natural selection within their own internal gene pools and partially as a result of genetic migration from GMO's to adjacent, closely related wild populations of flora, in turn requiring....

etc

You get the drift

It's called an "arms race" and it can't be won

Not only did it happen with DDT, it is happening now with glyphosate. The US and other environmentally unconcerned countries are already using a more toxic weedkiller, which is banned in Europe. Glyphosate is an organo-phosphate (not nice) it was originally a pipe cleaner, then patented as an antibiotic (so is able to cause mutations of bacteria so they become resistant) then used as a weedkiller (where the plants that mutate, survive, and go on to produce resistant offspring). It kills plants, kills bacteria and chelates minerals so plants can't incorporate them. Apart from money, what is the logical justification for it's use?

[woodburner]

Monsanto is at it again this time it's the RNA they're meddling with.

Bill Freese, The Center for Food Safety’s science policy analyst, told the Atlantic he was caught off guard by EPA’s decision to only allow 15 days of public comment, and the fact that it did not post its decision to the Federal Register, as it customary, especially considering how unprecedented the use of a RNAi insecticide in a plant intended for human consumption is. Monsanto anticipates the new corn will be on the market by the end of the decade.

[fuzzy]

RNA is what viruses use for their blueprint. What could possibly go wrong??

[emordnilap]

Thanks for that woodburner.

They're really managing to get this stuff through easily these days, aren't they? Little public consultation, no fanfare or crowing, instant approval, no peer testing or reviewing, Obama and Trump working for them, plus that consistently huge carrot, the megadollar.

Whatever one's views on organic growing, it looks like that it's the only way a little person can deal with it and even then, with no guarantee. As one of the commenters says, you have to ban the kids' cornflakes and coca-cola, no easy task.

[woodburner]

Straight as nine bob notes

A new report by the toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing shows that the EU authorities violated their own rules and disregarded evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic to reach a conclusion that the chemical does not cause cancer

[emordnilap]

From one of the comments in the article

My gawd! Dont believe this bullshit. Ermakova is not a scientist, she is a bureaucrat, the best proof of it is that she bases her views on pseudoscientific study by Seralini, which was thought to "prove" that "GM causes tumours in rats", until it was found that study was made awfully without proper statistics and methods

Conveniently missing out that Seralini used the Monsanto methods, just did it for two years instead of three months.

S�ralini wins again in court against his attackers

On 22 September a judge in the Criminal Court of Paris found Marc Fellous guilty of forgery and the use of forgery in order to defame Prof Gilles-Eric S�ralini and CRIIGEN, a research association which focuses on the risks of genetic engineering and pesticides and the development of alternatives.

Update

For those not familiar with the Seralini study:

The study, led by Prof GE Seralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.

No spoilers there.

What Monbiot amongst others has written several damning exposures about:

The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert� campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.

Use of “third party experts� is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly “independent� experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products.

And:

the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.

But read the whole article, it's fascinating. Unsurprising, but fascinating.