Say NO to GMO Salmon

[bluemoth]

Yep thats right the FDA is ready to make final aproval on another GMO food!! We all can still comment against this at FDA-2011-N-0899-003 till Feb. 25. After the 25 comments will no longer be excepted. You can call the President, US senators and congressmembers. This Aguavantage Salmon will have no advantage at all but have increased allergy producing compuonds and increased amounts of cancer causing IGF-i. Would you be willing to eat this fish and suffer the ailments it would cause? There is also a risk that the captive GMO stock could escape from rearing pens and could mix with wild stock. This is really scary folks. Even though we are all ready ginypigs for our government to experiment with GMO corn, soy beens, peanuts and others lets help put a halt to more GMO foods!! In Africa goats died after a six to nine month diet of GMO cotton plants - the controle group fed on non GMO cotton plants suffered no ill affects. Persons in Africa became very ill when eating mostly GMO corn for three months, some died, then when they ate non GMO corn the illneses went away and no body els died. If that is not proof GMOs are bad There is nothing els I can say. The story about GMOs in Africa was seen on free speach TV. There are lots of things the local news channeles and government do not want us to know about.

[rjb]

I totally support the development of genetically modified critters. With the population of the world continuing to grow out of control, our descendants face massive starvation. We have pretty much done what we could with fertilizer and are faced with finding/creating plants/animals that are more productive. The GM foods are almost certainly safe and that African report is complete garbage. They were eating what we in the US eat daily. You can bet if anyone here got sick they would be suing immediately- and they would lose the lawsuit because that corn is safe.

Don't be a biology-Luddite.
Electricity was a nice invention though the original Luddites tried to stop its implementation. The electronic revolution has been astonishing and has changed the standard of living of the world for the better.

The next revolution is biological and GM foods is the very beginning. There will be problems, but there is no progress without risk. Just my opinion, of course.

[Chris Grinter]

You know... they grow this GMO corn on the spot where they filmed the moon landing, and where they hid the evidence that the government was behind 9/11!

[wollastoni]

Well the main problem of GMO is not the GMO itself. GMO can be a good thing (more resistant, more production...).

But the main problems are :
- some contains pesticid inside (as dangerous as pesticid outside)
- some enable the massive use of herbicid (like RoundUp) which is highly toxic for farmers and consumers.
- they are lethal to biodiversity as all intensive agriculture products.

So the research should continue, GMO can be a good thing, but GMO made by Monsanto will always be a way to consume more pesticids/herbicids that destroy the Earth.

So all entomologists should eat organic food.

[jshuey]

Feb 12, 2013 0:32:07 GMT -8 wollastoni said:

Well the main problem of GMO is not the GMO itself. GMO can be a good thing (more resistant, more production...).

But the main problems are :
- some contains pesticide inside (as dangerous as pesticide outside)
- some enable the massive use of herbicide (like Roundup) which is highly toxic for farmers and consumers.
- they are lethal to biodiversity as all intensive agriculture products.

So the research should continue, GMO can be a good thing, but GMO made by Monsanto will always be a way to consume more pesticides/herbicides that destroy the Earth.

So all entomologists should eat organic food.

I work in conservation - and if there is a lesson I've learned, it is that everything exists as "shades of gray". In other words, nothing is black and white (good versus evil).

GMOs can be scary - no doubt, but unless the world population comes under control, we will have to squeeze all the food we can get out of every acre of land. Otherwise, all habitats will be converted to food production. GMOs offer the opportunity to raise more food on less land - saving forests for the butterflies and other animals

People hate "Round-up ready corn and beans", but the practice enables "conservation tillage" which actually improves water quality by eliminating traditional plowing (the primary source of non-point source pollution to streams and rivers). Conservation tillage is all about "soil health" which increases soil permeability and carbon storage, reducing flash flooding and CO2 in the atmosphere.

People love "organic farming" but it is often much harder on adjacent waterways that big agriculture. Organic relies on animal waste for fertilizer (major run-off problems to streams in the US) and "natural" insecticides like nicotine and sulfur, which are not exactly good for the environment either. Organic farming produces less food per acre than does "big ag".

I'm not saying that everything is great with the above practices, but the alternative could be worse.

FYI - I eat as much local, "small farm" produce as I can - but not organic. I like to fish and all that crap in my local rivers is very distressing to me

"Grey" Shuey

[bluemoth]

So do to doubters of danger of GMOs all ready out there I found two out of numerous reports on live stock dying and people getting ill due to GMOs:

wwwi-sis.sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php

curezone,org/forums/am.asp?i=589316

These were only two websiites of many on the GMO cotton articales I googled. But I am sure other GMOs are just as unsafe. Just google them and find out for your self.

[simosg]

Don't forget, that most plants and animals we are eating just have modified DNA by breeding races and crossing them for thousands of years. If you are against GMO basically, you have to be against this as well.

Hannes

[mygos]

+1

Michel

[simosg]

+ 1 ? What do you mean?

Hannes

[mygos]

Hannes,

This means that I fully agree with you

A+, Michel

[rjb]

Bluemoth has given us links to several web stories that suggest that GM crops have caused sickness and death. We all know the web is full of both useful information and worthless junk. How can I tell the difference? There are several good rules for evaluating stories you read to make a guess whether they are worth anything:
1) find in the report where the information was published. Anecdotal stories, not published in a scientific journal are very often garbage- maybe even invented for political or publicity reasons. If the story doesn't mention publication (like the links Bluemoth gave us), then reject them, and wait for follow-up stories that tell you the data were good and published.
2) For anything medical-related, the study must be double-blind. For consuming GM corn, that would mean the village population gets divided into two groups. One gets GM corn, the other gets normal corn. The subjects must not know which one they got (the first "blind" part). The team evaluating the people's health before and after eating the corn must not know which person ate which corn (the second "Blind"). If the study is not done double-blind, it is very likely a bad study. This effect has been found repeatedly. If people think they are getting a treatment that is good, they "get better". Likewise if someone tells them they have eaten poison then they get sick. Also the scientists doing the study can be easily biased and see the results they expect to see. This is so well known, there is no justification for doing a study without double-blinding.

If I see a report like the village that ate GM-corn and had people get sick and die, I assume it is worthless unless it was published in a peer-reviewed paper and was a controlled study, double-blind. If the village people were told by their leaders that they were being fed poisonous corn from evil countries and they got sick- then the corn isn't to blame ... their leaders are the criminals who made them sick.

I wouldn't spread around that kind of junk report lest I make people sick and thus become part of the problem.

[rjb]

On a related but more bug oriented subject, there is a big controversy about that honey-bee problem with colony-collapse disorder CCD. A study linked the problem to some insecticides, the class of neo-nicotinoids like Imidocloprid. Others said the study was wrong but some governments including France and Canada have banned the use of these chemicals. Now I see the EU is proposing a two-year ban on these compounds.
I've had some Canadian friends ask me to acquire Imidocloprid for them because it is great for ridding ones orchids of scale insects. These chemicals are widely available in the US still.
One "activist" group in Germany (Coalition against Bayer Dangers), that apparently hates Bayer (manufacturer of Imidocloprid and others) wants all of these chemicals banned forever.
Who knows how the science will settle out on this, but it seems that for all the study and immense importance of honey bees, it still isn't resolved whether CCD is more from virus and mites or insecticides or maybe both.

Bluemoth's link above to the sheep deaths in India from eating GM-cotton with BT toxin is a single anecdote from 7 years ago with no study. It is so hard to get answers to a one-off anecdotal event like that when you can't even resolve a major recurring problem like HoneyBee colony collapse.

[wollastoni]

rjb < it has now been proved that honey-bee colony collapse is mainly due to neo-nicotinoids that should be ban everywhere before it is too late... In contact with neo-nicotinoid insecticids, honey bee become very feable, they get lost and are easily victim of virus and mites.

France and Canada are not environmentalists countries (unfortunately)... US should also ban it before it's too late.

[rjb]

Interesting! Science rarely proves anything. It only comes up with evidence and theories. I had read that the studies attributing CCD to the neo-nicotinoids was not widely accepted. I'll have to research it some more.
Thanks,
Rick

[rjb]

Yes I see. A number of more recent studies are showing that those neo-nicotinoids are a big problem for the bees. Also maybe the pesticide companies have sponsored some very questionable studies that have confused the issue.
This is reminiscent of the tobacco industry trying to confuse the issue of tobacco being unsafe to smoke. Maybe these nicotine and neo-nicotinoids have a negative effect on the moral fiber of company executives? I wouldn't know ...
Rick