GM again

[buckbee]

Sorry to drag this up again, but I discovered that an article I wrote three years ago is available online and it covers many of the concerns us Brits had (and still have)about GM food and crops. It also mentions a pig farmer in Iowa (for Charles Fry) and the attitude of the British Beekeepers Association.

If you can be bothered to read it, you will also discover my real name (!) and a now defunct email address and phone number...

http://www.medialens.org/articles/th...orate_spin.pdf

And if you really want to know what I said at the BBKA Conference on GM in 2002:

http://ngin.tripod.com/240902b.htm

[buckbee]

oops - sorry Charles - I just remembered you're in Ohio, not Iowa... so much for my knowledge of the geography of the USA.

Mind you, I once parked an RV beside a beach in California and got into a conversation with a couple of surfers. One of them asked me where I was from. When I replied "England", he asked, "Did you drive here?"

[Joel]

We (Americans) don't care what the Brits think! Oh that's not right, you guys stood by us when Iraq decided to thumb their nose at the UN resolutions one last time. It's France and Germany we don't like. ( I bet they were selling stuff to Sadaam, we wouldn't have done that, or did we?) And those darn (French) Canadians. They are French after all! And they sold the unapproved GM stuff to England after all. France has always hated Britan. Was it a plot to undermine British Agriculture? They did after all back the revolutionary war. Or does that mean are they on our (USA) side too, I just can't keep track.

Good article though! I guess a few Genetic engineers are fooling themselves. ( and a few others too). There is much conflicting and confusing information on GM. At some point we really do have to reach an educated conclusion. Does the fact it's called GM, British, French or Iraqi mean bad in itself? HMMM.

[power napper]

Hey buckbee-mighty fine article!!

[Michael Bush]

>Ohio, not Iowa

One of those states with no vowels. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[buckbee]

>We (Americans) don't care what the Brits think!

Well, that's why you get yourselves in so much trouble! If you just listened to us...

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

[Joel]

True, although we would still be paying tax on tea, South America would be in Ruin because coffee would have never become popular, the English accent we Americans love to hear would be common place and John Wayne would have rode into battle wearing spandex pants and a very differnt kind or saddle!

[size="1"][ January 07, 2006, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Joel ][/size]

[buckbee]

>True, although we would still be paying tax on tea,

quite right too!

>South America would be in Ruin because coffee would have never become popular,

Actually, coffee has been very popular here since the 16th century or thereabouts. We even knew how to brew it properly once - but of course it took Starbucks to re-educate us.

>the English accent we Americans love to hear would be common place

it's certainly easier on the ear than 'Noo Yoik'

>and John Wayne would have rode into battle wearing spandex pants

I suspect he would have preferred johdpurs, although I think they look best on women... http://www.onthehoof.co.uk/breeches.htm

>and a very differnt kind or saddle!

Yeah, the western saddle is perfect for rounding up those steers. Not really approved of for dressage, though!

http://www.britishdressage.co.uk/

[Joel]

{I suspect he would have preferred johdpurs}

And suddenly after reviewing the provided Data I am a huge fan of English Riding!!

[buckbee]

Yes, there's nothing like a sleek, fit, well-groomed filly... and the horses are pretty good, too!

[buckbee]

I just received this:

8 January 2006
Independent

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle337253.ece
GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed

Mortality rate for new-born rats six times higher when mother was fed on a
diet of modified soya

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Published: 08 January 2006

Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies,startling new research suggests.

The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy ofSciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified
soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.

The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of aclutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and
pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.

And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.

The Russian research threatens to have an xplosive effect on already hostile public opinion. Carried out by Dr Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of ciences, it is believed to be the first to look at the effects of GM food on the unborn.

The scientist added flour from a GM soya bean - produced by Monsanto to be resistant to its pesticide, Roundup - to the food of female rats, starting two weeks before they conceived, continuing through pregnancy, birth and nursing.
Others were given non-GM soyaand a third group was given no soya at all.

She found that 36 per cent of the young of the rats fed the modified soya were severely underweight, compared to 6 per cent of the offspring of the other groups. More alarmingly, a staggering 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers
on the GM diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results very disturbing" said Dr Ermakova. "They point to a risk for mothers and their babies."

Environmentalists say that - while the results are preliminary - they are potentially so serious that they must be followed up. The American Academy of
Environmental Medicine has asked the US National Institute of Health to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up.

The Monsanto soya is widely eaten by Americans. There is little of it, or any GM crop, in British foods though it is imported to feed animals farmed for meat.

Tony Coombes, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, said: "The overwhelming weight of evidence from published, peer-reviewed, independently conducted scientific studies demonstrates that Roundup Ready soy can be safely
consumed by rats, as well as all other animal species studied."

What the experiment found

Russian scientists added flour made from a GM soya to the diet of female rats two weeks before mating them, and continued feeding it to them during
pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were give non-GM soya or none at all. Six times as many of the offspring of those fed the modified soya were severely underweight compared to those born to the rats given normal diets. Within three
weeks, 55.6 per cent of the young of the mothers given the modified soya died, against 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed the conventional soya.

[Charles Fry]

Buckbee, I looked everywhere but could not find the answer you gave the people in California... Did you drive there? LMAO

Ohio and Iowa are about the same really, consonants, vowels, and all! (Thanks MB)

I think we can do without GM anywhere... there are other solutions with lower risks and unknowns!

[Ian]

What is it in the GM soya that is causing this increase of mortality?

[Ian]

And this effect is just showing up now?

[buckbee]

"The scientist added flour from a GM soya bean - produced by Monsanto to be resistant to its pesticide, Roundup -..."

That's what it said - that's all I know. But it's not just soya:

"And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one."

And then there was the potato experiment that Arpad Puztai blew the whistle on...

[buckbee]

Charles,
>Buckbee, I looked everywhere but could not find the answer you gave the people in California... Did you drive there? LMAO

To his credit, the other surfer laughed louder than I did - he obviously paid more attention during geography lessons!

>I think we can do without GM anywhere... there are other solutions with lower risks and unknowns!

Absolutely agree. Nobody has yet shown that we actually 'need' any GMOs at all - any more than we 'need' Coca Cola or MacObesities.

[Ian]

Reminds me of a studdy done, quite a while back that claimed simular results. My memory isnt that great, but it mislead the results by using a certain typeof rat, that get unhealthy and or dies on a soy diet.

That part of the studdy they didnt point out

[buckbee]

Read carefully (quoted from previous post):

"Within three weeks, 55.6 per cent of the young of the mothers given the modified soya died, against 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed the conventional soya."

In other words, more than HALF the babies of the rats fed on GM soya died, compared with LES THAN ONE IN TEN of those fed on conventional soya.

[Kieck]

At the risk of jumping into another big debate about GM, I think I understand what Ian was driving at with his comments about a certain type of rat that got sick or died on a soy diet.
Obviously, then, the genes for such reactions are present in rats. What if the group fed GM soya had the traits that caused them to die from eating a soy diet, but the group fed conventional soya lacked those traits? Wouldn't a flaw like that skew the results pretty badly?

I'm curious about a couple parts of the study that were left out of the article, and I haven't been able to find it published in any refereed journals to which I have access. How many rats were included in each group? And, maybe more importantly, has anyone else been able to replicate this experiment and get similar results?

Don't get the wrong impression, I'm not arguing for the use of GM crops. I simply see some potential flaws in this experiment.

[buckbee]

I hardly think they would use different types of rat (even if such exist, which seems unlikely, given what survivalists rats are) and expect not to be found out.

Mybe they should feed it to politicians instead. I could suggest a few.