GMO Hysteria

[Jas]

So I'm arguing with this guy again (he a raw-foodist and thinks there's something supernatural about the pyramids or something), after he emailed me an article about how GM crops were banned in a county of California. I asked him to send me some evidence that GMO's were as bad as people made them out to be, and this was his response...

Sorry, sister - you're on your own!_ Ever since you said that non-organic produce was as healthy for an individual as organic produce (or, at least, wasn't 'proven' one way or another), I've_had the distinct feeling that we were never going to share the same page._ But by all means, enjoy your WWII-produced poison gas treats, all crafted by 1930s Nazi technicians!
I certainly don't miss them, and neither does my body, in terms of improved health, wellness, skin/hair/nail condition, fitness levels, etc... again, it all comes down to personal results/observations which are gleaned from actual experiences with both sides of a health_'issue'.__
_
PT1 - On Earth Day of this year, 'Go Further' the movie will finally be open to the general public in Canada (a late summer release is planned in the States) - I can only hope that it will help to raise the level of 'everyday' awareness about the danger to the security of our common food supplies!_
* 'The Corporation' is a great, great flick, BTW, and has some really interesting info on the history of Monsanto, that defender of third world hunger interests!_ *rolls eyes*
_
PT2 - Splitting atoms and combining animal and plant species "overnight" (fish DNA into tomato DNA being a prime example) is 'slightly' different than using 'soil based'-and- grafting techniques to create new hybrid species over decades/centuries/millenia (BTW, some of the harshest 'natural' foods - the ones that are helping to create our obesity epidemic - are the hybridized, starchy 'creations' of the past several thousand years: potatoes, corn, carrots, beets, turnips_.... too much is plenty, folks! Go easy on them root veggies!)
... this is to say nothing of the 'terminator' gene they're putting in seeds to ensure that farmers have to buy new stock from them every year - how could they possibly not grasp the potential ecological knock-on effects of such a money-grubbing move?
_
Can you show me studies (conducted by universities without ties to PharmaCorps) that conclusively prove this agricultural methodology_is safe? Cuz I think that's where the ONUS OF RESPONSIBILITY should lie, your contrarian views aside.
In the meantime, I will say 'right f*ckin' ON!' every time I see individuals banding together to help stem the tide of societal indifference and industry falsehoods. Cheers!

The only reason that he's asking for studies is because before I would ask him for studies (or any valid evidence) that some of his claims regarding raw-food and such were valid.

From what I can tell, given his response, he knows absolutely nothing about recombinant DNA, or biology period.

To get to the point of this (rather long) post, does anyone have any links to studies regarding the safety of GMO's (I told him that the WHO and FDA have no problems with GMO's, but seeing as their government affiliated...blah blah blah).

Thanks in advance.

 

[Checkmite]

But by all means, enjoy your WWII-produced poison gas treats, all crafted by 1930s Nazi technicians!

Of course, any scientific or industrial product of Nazi Germany is evil, and we can't use it!

Did you know the Nazis actually produced a firearm whose projectiles curved in flight? They were designed for urban combat, and only a few of them were made. Nevertheless, we would never make such weapons today...not because they are ultimately impractical, but because the Nazis made them first, so they're EVIL!!!

 

[apoger]

>So I'm arguing with this guy again (he a raw-foodist and thinks there's something supernatural about the pyramids or something

You will not get far with this person...


>Sorry, sister - you're on your own!_ Ever since you said that non-organic produce was as healthy for an individual as organic produce (or, at least, wasn't 'proven' one way or another), I've_had the distinct feeling that we were never going to share the same page._


Clue #1 - The gentleman tells you outright that he thinks this agrument is pointless as he will "never" share the same page with you.



>But by all means, enjoy your WWII-produced poison gas treats, all crafted by 1930s Nazi technicians!


Clue #2 - Your opponent is not interested arguing using logic, and has taken the low road by invoking 'Nazi's'.



>again, it all comes down to personal results/observations which are gleaned from actual experiences


Clue #3 - Your opponent considers personal anecdotes to be the final word on evidence.



>'Go Further' the movie
>* 'The Corporation' is a great, great flick, BTW,


Clue #4 - Does not accept any evidence from anything perceived to be associated with "Pharmacorps", but does suggest that you watch films associated with his views.


Honestly, this is going nowhere fast. You two will just end up frustrating each other. No matter what evidence you provide, he's not going to accept it. It will just prove that you are in league with the Pharmacorps and the Nazi's.

You have already presented skeptical ideas to him. That's all you can do. If it creates a crack in the foundation of his belief then it may grow. That's the best you can hope for. If you keep hammering him, he will just tune you out. I suggest that you treat him with all civility, but drop this topic.

That's my best advice.

 

[The Don]

You are doomed....

Any evidence you manage to present which portrays GMOs in anything other than a very dim light will be dismissed on the grounds that the evidence, or the researchers have been "got at" by "the powers that be"

On PT2 he is incorrect, atoms are't split gene sequences are inserted (without the need to split the atom).

The "terminator gene" which creates sterile seeds should please him on the grounds that it prevents the modified genetic material "escaping" into the wild.

The British Goverment has been conducting long-term field trials but I expect he will dismiss the results on the grounds that HMG is just part of the powers that be

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2001/010928b.htm

 

[Quasi]

There was a recent official announcement by the Vatican, in which the Pope is expected to give the official recognition to GMO crops as a good thing. Also, on Prince Charle´s own web site, he openly admits there is no evidence that GMO crops are in any way dangerous, this from a GMO opponent. So here are two non-industry sources. No matter, this guy will simply not buy any argument, probably. Also, concerning raw food, you only require a small quantity of the nutrients which break down in the food during cooking. Cooking is actually far more beneficial as it also deystroys bacteria and viruses, many of which are directly linked to stomach cancer which has a very low cure rate. People like T.C. Fry come to mind, organic, vegan, raw food pioneer. I heard Demi Moore is also into it. Hey, life competes on this planet, we are not all one happy family. Cooking was one of the greatest public health breakthroughs for a long time, especially in terms of childrens health. It is not only health, but financial. Chances are raw foodies also believe in CAM, so the cost is staggering. I know one couple, with a child who do not pay to heat their home in winter in order to pay for "alternative medicine" and "organic" food. Ironically, they are not terribly healthy.... Hmmm, alternative stuff does not appear to be as advertised.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

The UK has traditionally taken a much more critical stance against GM foods, and I have to say I am currently very anti the whole idea.

I don't have trouble reconciling my skepticism of the paranormal with a lack of faith in the scientific rigour of the biotech industry. Many mistakes have been made in the past where people have tampered with the normal balance of an ecosystem (google for the Cactoblastus Beetle, introduced to control the prickly pear in Australia, and the subsequent introduction of the Cane Toad to control the beetle) under the impression that they understood the scientific consequences.

Since it has been shown that the pollen produced from these new crops DOES integrate with surrounding flora, how can any scientist be sure that their new species will not have any impact on the indigenous life? It strikes me as slightly arrogant to assume that all bases are covered.

Now, of course I am willing to have my opinion changed by evidence that all this has been considered and the risk totally assessed to be negligible, but such evidence has not been supplied to the British public even though an in-depth governmental review has recently been produced.

Call me a woo if you like, but maybe I'm just too skeptical!

 

[TheBoyPaj]

There was a recent official announcement by the Vatican, in which the Pope is expected to give the official recognition to GMO crops as a good thing.

Since when did the Pope's viewpoint mean much on this board?

Also, on Prince Charles´s own web site, he openly admits there is no evidence that GMO crops are in any way dangerous, this from a GMO opponent.

Again, Charlie's not held in much high regard in these parts, but I would suggest that one should not hold the default position of an engineered crop being safe unless proven otherwise. That seems a risky approach to take concerning our ecosystem.

 

[mummymonkey]

Since it has been shown that the pollen produced from these new crops DOES integrate with surrounding flora, how can any scientist be sure that their new species will not have any impact on the indigenous life? It strikes me as slightly arrogant to assume that all bases are covered.

In what way is this risk different from a 'normally' produced new strain of maize or whatever. And what do you mean by integrate?

 

[mummymonkey]

one should not hold the default position of an engineered crop being safe unless proven otherwise.

Who is it that holds that position?

 

[The Don]

I don't understand the threat posed by GMOs. People I work with are concerned that the altered genes could somehow "jump" species into humans.

By eating a tomato which has jellyfish genes in it, I could become genetically altered.

How realistic is this view ?

Is the REAL risk that the GMOs will prevent others of the same species co-existing, therefore forcing everyone to buy Monsanto seed ?

 

[Quasi]

Since when did the Pope's viewpoint mean much on this board?

Again, Charlie's not held in much high regard in these parts, but I would suggest that one should not hold the default position of an engineered crop being safe unless proven otherwise. That seems a risky approach to take concerning our ecosystem.

Frankly, GMO potato crops have caused genetic drift even as high as the South American Andes, so yes, GM crops do effect the surrounding environment. I agree here. I am also glad to hear that the Prince is not highly regarded, as I do not agree with much of what he says.
My point was that the Pope has performed an independant investigation of GM, and has not been tainted by the "evil" industry. The Prince was used because he is opposed to GM and admits there is no evidence of bad effects, that is why I chose those figures.
I suppose the argument is that a) The testing protocols of GM crops in controlled patches did not show drift in plants probable to be exposed, and b) The plants do not cause ill effects when consumed. So we are discussing the protocols I suppose.
So far, even traditional hybridization methods have also caused these negative effects, and have had to be abandoned. Yes, there have been mistakes in the past, there will be so in the future. From a humanist point of view, how likely are GM crops to cause problems, how bad will they be, and what benefit will humanity get from them? I think this is also what you are saying. I am also somewhat on the fence, however the evidence indicates it will be highly beneficial. The other prolem is that you cannot prove a negative. Even a kitchen sink can be deadly if you drop it on someone, it does not mean we should ban kitchen sinks.

 

[Jon_in_london]

"PT2 - Splitting atoms and combining animal and plant species "overnight" (fish DNA into tomato DNA being a prime example) is 'slightly' different than using 'soil based'-and- grafting techniques to create new hybrid species over decades/centuries/millenia (BTW, some of the harshest 'natural' foods - the ones that are helping to create our obesity epidemic - are the hybridized, starchy 'creations' of the past several thousand years: potatoes, corn, carrots, beets, turnips_.... too much is plenty, folks! Go easy on them root veggies!)
... this is to say nothing of the 'terminator' gene they're putting in seeds to ensure that farmers have to buy new stock from them every year - how could they possibly not grasp the potential ecological knock-on effects of such a money-grubbing move?
_
Can you show me studies (conducted by universities without ties to PharmaCorps) that conclusively prove this agricultural methodology_is safe? Cuz I think that's where the ONUS OF RESPONSIBILITY should lie, your contrarian views aside.
In the meantime, I will say 'right f*ckin' ON!' every time I see individuals banding together to help stem the tide of societal indifference and industry falsehoods. Cheers!
"

PT2- no atoms are split and no crops on the market currently utilise a 'terminator' gene, the only perpose of which, btw, is prevent horizontal gene transfer.

The other bit- Ask the person what 'conclusively proven to be safe' means? How safe? nothing is absolutely safe.

 

[bug_girl]

nearly all of the major pesticides developed in germany early in the century (not by the Reich) are banned in the USA.
There has been a lot of hoopla about the crops that express the Bt protein that kills moths and butterflies, and off target effects. There has been no clear evidence that it's "killing the monarch butterfly!" either way. insect resistance to the protein occured within one year of the new plant's release. that failure was predicted before the crop was ever released, but the company was comitted to the market. the seed continues to sell.

BoyPaj, everything that humans do at this point to agriculture will screw something else up. it's just not a natural system. Whether the action is genetic manipulation or not, it will have an effect. Personally, i don't like to see manipulation to create herbicide resistance--i think this is a Very Bad Idea. As long as the goal is good (work by the rice institite on hardy crops for developing world; colored cotton so we don't have to use dyes) i don't have a problem with it.
herbicide resistance is something that exists mostly as a marketing ploy, and moves us closer to total dependence on herbicides. as for introduced species--the cane toad fiasco was from a while back--in general, ag science has gotten better at evaluating consequences since then.
i will now go happily eat my GMO Cheerios for breakfast

edited to make it clear which monarch i meant--not the prince

 

[Jon_in_london]

"(BTW, some of the harshest 'natural' foods - the ones that are helping to create our obesity epidemic - are the hybridized, starchy 'creations' of the past several thousand years: potatoes, corn, carrots, beets, turnips_.... too much is plenty, folks! Go easy on them root veggies!)"


What on earth is this person on about!

I really dont see how you can argue with this 'logic!'

 

[Jon_in_london]

I would suggest that one should not hold the default position of an engineered crop being safe unless proven otherwise.

As opposed to the anti-GMO position that GMOs should be held to be more dangerous than atomic godzilla until they are proven to be so?

Surely until GMOs are proven to be dangerous we should be able to hold the position that they are not?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Frankly, GMO potato crops have caused genetic drift even as high as the South American Andes,

Please provide a reference.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Now, of course I am willing to have my opinion changed by evidence that all this has been considered and the risk totally assessed to be negligible, but such evidence has not been supplied to the British public even though an in-depth governmental review has recently been produced.

Call me a woo if you like, but maybe I'm just too skeptical!

WOO!

The evidence is out there. Its published in various well respected peer reviewed scientific journals. Its just that the British public are too lazy, apathetic, ignorant and scientifically illiterate to actually inform themselves of the opinions they hold and would rather have their opinions formed for them and spoon-fed to them by the tabloid press.

edit- here is a list of just a few of the relevant publications for your edification:

Aulrich, K., R. Daenicke, I. Halle and G. Flachowsky. 1999. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Einstatz von herk`mmlichem und Bt-Mais in der Geflhgel- und Wiederk@uerern@hrung. (VDLUFA) Kongre8band 1999 111. VDLUFA-Kongre8. 13.-17.09.1999. Halle/Saale, 285-288.

Aventis. 2000. Livestock Studies. http://www.us.cropscience.aventis.com/AventisUS/Cropscience/stage/html/livestockstudies.htm

Betz, F.S., B.G. Hammond and R.L. Fuchs (2000) Safety and Advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-Protected Plants to Control Insect Pests. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 32:156-173

Cieslak, D. 2000. Implications of GMO's For Animal Nutrition and the Feed Industry. 61th Minnesota Nutrition Conference & Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council Technical Symposium, September 19-20, 2000, Bloomington, MN. Conference Proceedings p 72-77.

Flachowsky, G. and K. Aulrich. 1999. Tierern@hrung und Gentechnisch ver@nderte Organismen, Landbauforschung V`lkenrode, H.1, 13-20.

Flachowsky, G., K. Aulrich R. Daenicke, H. B`hme. 1999. Gentechnisch ver@nderte Produkte (GVO) in der Tierern@hrung. LAF Information Lectures from the conferences. Vol.7 (1999) No. 2 (ISSN 0944-5358) p 96-115.

Hartnell, G.F. 2000. Benefits of Biotech Crops For Livestock Feed. Proceedings 2000 Cornell Nutrition Conference For Feed Manufacturers. October 24-26, 2000, Rochester Marriott Thruway Hotel, Rochester, NY. P 46-56.

The Institute of Food Technologists (2000) IFT Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods: Human Food Safety Evaluation of rDNA Biotechnology-Derived Foods. Food Technology 54 (9):53-61

Owens, F and S. Soderlund. 2000. Speciality Grains for Ruminants. 61th Minnesota Nutrition Conference & Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council Technical Symposium, September 19-20, 2000, Bloomington, MN. Conference Proceedings p 98-113.

Sauber, T. 2000. Performance of Soybean Meals Produced From Genetically Enhanced Soybeans. 61th Minnesota Nutrition Conference & Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council Technical Symposium, September 19-20, 2000, Bloomington, MN. Conference Proceedings p 44-51.

Stilborn, H.L. 1999. The Future of Designer Grains For Nonruminants. 60th Minnesota Nutrition Conference & ZinPro Technical Symposium, September 20-22, 1999, Bloomington, MN. Conference Proceedings p 144.

Soybeans

Ash, J.A., S.E. Scheideler and C.L. Novak. 2000. The Fate of Genetically Modified Protein from Roundup ReadyÒ Soybeans in the Laying Hen. J. Poultry Sci. 79 (Suppl. 1):26. Abstract 111.

Burks AW, Fuchs RL (1995) Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate tolerant and commercial soybean varieties. J Allergy Clin Immunol 96:1008-1010

Carpenter J (2001) Case Studies in Benefits and Risks of Agricultural Biotechnology: Roundup Ready Soybeans and Bt Field Corn. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. http://www.ncfap.org/pup/biotech/benefitsandrisks.pdf

Carpenter J (2001) Comparing Roundup Ready and Conventional Soybean Yields 1999. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. http://www.ncfap.org

Fuchs RL, Re DB, Rogers SG, et al. (1996) Safety evaluation of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans. In: Food safety evaluation. OECD Documents, Paris, pp 61-70

Hammond, B., J. Vicini, G. Hartnell, M.W. Naylor, C.D. Knight, E. Robinson, R. L. Fuchs, and S.R. Padgetteet al. 1996. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126: 717-727.

Harrison LA, Bailey MR, Naylor M et al. (1996) The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerance soybean, 5-enolpryruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacteriuin sp. Strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. J Nutr 126:728-740

List et al. (1999) Characterization of phospholipids from Glyphosate-tolerant Soybeans. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc 76(1):57-60

Padgette SR, Kolacz CH, Delannay, X (1995) Development, Identification and Characterization of a Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Line. Crop Science 35 (5):1451-1461

Padgette SR, Re DB, Barry GF et al. (1996) New weed control opportunities: development of soybeans with a Roundup ReadyÔ gene. In: Duke SO (ed) Herbicide-resistant crops: agricultural, environmental, economic, regulatory and technical aspects. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 53-84

Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL et al. (1996) The composition of Glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to conventional soybeans. J Nutr 126:702-716

Taylor NB, Fuchs RL, MacDonald J et al. (1999) Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem 47:4469-4473

Teshima R, Akiyama H, Okunuki H et al (2000) Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice. J Food Hygienic Society of Japan 41:188-193

Potatoes

Anon.(1999) Health risks of genetically modified foods. (Editorial) Lancet 353:1811

Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus Nivalis Lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1355

Horton R (1999) Genetically modified foods: "absurd" concern or welcome dialogue? (Commentary) Lancet 354:1314-1315

Kuiper HA, Noteborn HP, Peijenburg AA (1999) Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. [Commentary] Lancet 354:1315-1316

Lavrik PB, Bartnicki DE, Feldman J et al. (1995) Safety assessment of potatoes resistant to Colorado potato beetle. In: Engel KH, Takeoka GR, Teranishi R (eds) Genetically modified foods, safety issues. ACS, Washington DC, pp 148-158

Love S (2000) When Does Similar Mean the Same: A Case for Relaxing Standards of Substantial Equivalence in Genetically Modified Crops. HortScience 35:803-806

Rogan GJ, Bookout JT, Duncan DR et al. (2000) Compositional Analysis of Tubers from Insect and Virus Resistant Potato Plants. J Agric Food Chem 48: 5936- 5945

Tomatoes

Finn RF, Leimgruber RM, Boyle DM et al. (1996) Purification and biochemical comparison of 1- amino cyclopropane -1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase proteins expressed in delayed ripening tomato and E. coli: studies for a food safety assessment. J Agric Food Chem 44:381-387

Redenbaugh K, Hiatt W, Martineau B et al. (1992) Safety assessment of genetically engineered fruits and vegetables: a case study of the Flavr SavrÔ tomato. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton

Redenbaugh K, Hiatt W, Martineau B et al. (1994) Amino glycoside 3'-phosphotransferase II (APH(3')II): review of its safety and use in the production of genetically engineered plants. Food Biotechnol 8:137-165

Reed AJ, Magin KM, Anderson JS et al. (1995) Delayed ripening tomato plants expressing the enzyme 1-amino cyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase: I. Molecular characteristics, enzyme expression and fruit ripening traits. J Agric Food Chem 43:1954-1962

Reed AJ, Kretzmer AJ, Naylor MW et al. (1996) A safety assessment of 1-ainocyclopropane-l-carboxylic acid deaminase (ACCd) protein expressed in delayed ripening tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem 44:388-394

Corn

Aulrich, K., I. Halle and G. Flachowsky. 1998. Inhaltsstoffe und Verdaulichkeit von Maiskörnen der Sorte Cesar und der gentechnisch veränderten Bt-hybride bei Legenhennen. Proc Einfluss von Erzeugung und Verarbeitung auf die Qualität laudwirtschaftlicher Produkte (VDLUFA) Kongre8band 1998 110. VDLUFA-Kongre8. 14.-18.09.1998. Gie8en, 465-468.

B`hme, H. and K. Aulrich. 1999. Inhaltsstoffe und Verdaulichkeit von transgenen Zuckerrben bzw. Krnermais im Vergleich zu den isogenen Sorten beim Schwein. (Ingredients and digestibility of transgenic sugar beets and corn in comparision to the isogenic varieties in the case of pigs). VDLUFA Conference Proceedings 1999, 111th VDLUFA Conference, 13-17 September 1999, Halle/Saale.

Brake, J. and D. Vlachos. 1998. Evaluation of event 176 "Bt" corn in broiler chickens. J. Poultry Sci. 77:648-653.

Carpenter J (2001) Case Studies in Benefits and Risks of Agricultural Biotechnology: Roundup Ready Soybeans and Bt Field Corn. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. http://www.ncfap.org/pup/biotech/benefitsandrisks.pdf

Daenicke, R., D. Gädeken and K. Aulrich. 1999. Einsatz von Silomais herkömmlicher Sorten und der gentechnisch veränderten Bt Hybriden in der Rinderfhtterung - Mastrinder - Tagungsband des. 12, Maiskolloquiums am 27./28.03.1999 in Wittenberg . 40-42.

Daenicke, R., K. Aulrich and G. Flachowsky. 1999. GMO in animal feedstuffs: Nutritional properties of Bt-maize unaffected. Mais, September 1999, pp. 135-137.

Donkin, S.S., J.C. Velez, E.P. Stanisiewski and G.F. Hartnell. 2000. Effect of feeding Roundup Ready corn silage and grain on feed intake, milk production and milk composition in lactating dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83 (Suppl 1):273 Abstract 1144.

Folmer, J.D. G.E. Erickson, C.T. Milton, T.J. Klopfenstein and J.F. Beck. 2000b. Utilization of Bt corn residue and corn silage for growing beef steers. J. Animal Sci. 78 (Suppl. 2):85 Abstract 271.

Halle, I., K. Aulrich and G. Flachowsky. 1998. Einsatz von Maiskörnen der Sorte Cesar und des gentechnisch veränderten Bt-Hybriden in der Broiler mast. Proc. 5. Tagung, Schweine- und Geflhgelernährung, 01,-03.12.1998, Wittenberg p 265-267.

Hammond, B., J. Vicini, G. Hartnell, M.W. Naylor, C.D. Knight, E. Robinson, R. L. Fuchs, and S.R. Padgetteet al. 1996. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126: 717-727.

Hendrix, K.S., A.T. Petty, and D.L. Lofgren. 2000. Feeding value of whole plant silage and crop residues from Bt or normal corns. J. Anim. Sci. 78(Suppl.1):273 Abstract 1146.

Leeson, S. 1998. The effect of corn hybrid CBH351 on the growth of male broiler chickens. Http://www.epa.gov/oppbppdl/biopesticides/cry9c/der-44734306a.htm.

Masoero F, Moschini M, Rossi F et al. (1999) Nutritive Value, mycotoxin contamination & in vitro rumen fermentation of normal & genetically modified corn (CRY1A(b)) grown in Italy. Maydica 44:205-209

Mireles, Jr., A., S. Kim, R. Thompson and B. Amundsen. 2000. GMO (Bt) Corn is Similar in Composition and Nutrient Availability to Broilers as Non-GMO Corn. J. Poultry Sci. 79 (Suppl. 1): 65-66. Abstract 285.

Munkvold GP, Hellmich RL, Showers WB (1997) Reduced fusarium ear rot and symptomless infection in kernals of maize genetically engineered for European corn borer resistance. Phytopathology 87:1071-1077

Munkvold GP, Desjardins AE (1997) Fumonisins in maize: can we reduce their occurrence? Plant Dis 81:556-565

Munkvold GP, Hellmich RL, Rice LG (1999) Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in kernals of transgenic Bt maize hybrids and nontransgenic hybrids. Plant Dis 83:130-138

Munkvold GP, Hellmich RL (1999) Genetically modified, insect resistant corn: Implication for disease management. APSnet Feature, October 15-November 30, 1999 - http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/top.asp

Pimentel DS, Raven PH (2000) Bt Corn Pollen impacts on nontarget Lepidoptera: Assessment of Effects in Nature. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences 97:8198-8199 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/15/8198.pdf

Pollak LM, White PJ. Corn as a food source in the United States: Part I. Historical and current perspectives. Cereal Food World 40:749-762

Russell, J. and T. Peterson. 1999. Bt corn and non-Bt corn crop residues equal in grazing value. Extension News, June 30, 1999. Iowa State University Extension, Ames.

Russell, J.R., M.J. Hersom, A. Pugh, K. Barrett and D. Farnham. 2000. Effects of grazingcrop residues from bt-corn hybrids on the performance of gestating beef cows. Abstract244 presented at the Midwestern Section ASAS and Midwest Branch ADSA 2000 Meeting, Des Moines, IA.

Russell, J.R., D. Farnham, R.K. Berryman, M.J. Hersom, A. Pugh and K. Barrett. 2000. Nutritive value of the crop residues from bt-corn hybrids and their effects on performance of grazing beef cows. 2000 Beef Research Report -Iowa State University. p 56-61.

Sanders PR, Lee TC, Groth ME et al. (1998) Safety assessment of the insect-protected corn. Thomas JA (ed) In: Biotechnology and safety assessment, 2nd edition. Taylor and Francis pp 241-256

Sidhu RS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL et al. (2000) Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn: The Composition and Feeding Value of Grain from Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn is Equivalent to that of Conventional Corn (Zea mays L.) J Agric Food Chem 48:2305-2312

Cotton

Berberich SA, Ream JE, Jackson TL et al. (1996) Safety assessment of insect-protected cotton: the composition of the cottonseed is equivalent to conventional cottonseed. J Agric Food Chem 41:365-371

Fuchs RL, Berberich SA, Serdy FS (1992) Regulatory considerations for pesticidal plants: insect resistant cotton as a case study. In: Kim L (ed) Advanced engineered pesticides. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, Chapt 23 pp 393-407

Jing-Yaun X, Jie CJ, Li-hua M, et al. (1999) The Role of Transgenic Bt Cotton in Integrated Insect Pest Management. Acta Gossypii Sinica 11 (2):57- 64

Nida DL, Patzer S, Harvey P et al. (1996) Glyphosate-tolerant cotton: the composition of the cottonseed is equivalent to conventional cottonseed. J Agric Food Chem 44:1967-1974

Nida KL, Kolacz KH, Buehler RE et al. (1996) Glyphosate-tolerant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J Agric Food Chem 44:1960-1966

Sims SR, Berberich SA, Nida DL et al. (1996) Analysis of expressed proteins in fiber fractions from insect-protected and glyphosate-tolerant cotton varieties. Crop Sci 36:1212-1216

Sugar Beets

B`hme, H. and K. Aulrich. 1999. Inhaltsstoffe und Verdaulichkeit von transgenen Zuckerrben bzw. Krnermais im Vergleich zu den isogenen Sorten beim Schwein. (Ingredients and digestibility of transgenic sugar beets and corn in comparision to the isogenic varieties in the case of pigs). VDLUFA Conference Proceedings 1999, 111th VDLUFA Conference, 13-17 September 1999, Halle/Saale.

 

[geni]

Frankly, GMO potato crops have caused genetic drift even as high as the South American Andes, so yes, GM crops do effect the surrounding environment.

You are aware that the study behind this has been demolished?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Who is it that holds that position?

Quasi appeared to use Prince Charles' statement that GM crops have not been proven to be dangerous to imply that they are safe.

As opposed to the anti-GMO position that GMOs should be held to be more dangerous than atomic godzilla until they are proven to be so?

Who is it that holds that position?


Look, I am not standing up and denouncing all GM use. Those studies which have been quoted may well be very convincing, or they may be seed-company-endorsed pieces of publicity. Without reading them all I cannot say either way.

But, I am a very media-aware British person. I don't read tabloids. I listen to quality news, science documentaries make up a large part of my TV watching and I take an active interest in this debate. None of the evidence to which you refer is ever mentioned. That may be a failing of the media, but it certainly will not benefit the tech companies. At the moment, at least one supermarket chain has a no-GM policy and we have yet to be convinced of the technology's benefits. If no one buys it, it's a failure.

 

[geni]

I want to say that anyone who uses thew term fish gene or tomarto gene was clearly aslepp during the gentics classes at school.