#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


SURPRISE...NOT! Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops
01-22-2013, 11:51 AM #1
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
Quote:How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

The Choices for Regulators

The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.

It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.
Read more: http://independentsciencenews.org/commen...gmo-crops/

Guess what elephant in the room is not going to show up on MSM? coffeetime.gif Awesome display of incompetence on the part of regulators, most of which come from the GMO industry to begin with.
Fox guards hen house, we all pay.
God knows what kind of damage has already been done.

wonder.gif
01-22-2013, 01:20 PM #2
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,993 Threads:1,473 Joined:Feb 2011
Shadow posted this on another thread last night, but I think it needs its own. damned.gif
01-22-2013, 03:25 PM #3
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
I'll let the thread run a few pages, then get my licks in.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
01-22-2013, 03:49 PM #4
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
go through your material
and give the shill pill a chance to take effect.
go through this with you coworkers thoroughly.
a real 'company man', it's that obvious.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
01-22-2013, 03:58 PM #5
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
GE organisms actually become part of the bacteria in our digestive tracts and reproduce continuously inside us.

There are no human clinical trials of genetically engineered foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. Even after we stop eating GE foods, we may still have the GE proteins produced continuously inside us.


http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engin...e-systems/

it's so good for us yay.gif
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
01-22-2013, 04:09 PM #6
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
why the need for a seed bank in Norway?
why are they not filled with monsanto products? rofl.gif

A Study on bee extinction conducted years ago by the USDA has been kept secret and hidden from the public!

The American study ... has demonstrated that the insects’ vulnerability to infection is increased by the presence of imidacloprid, even at the most microscopic doses. Dr. Pettis and his team found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticide were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it.

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-21-...de-harmful

the lead researcher at the USDA’s very own Bee Research Laboratory completed research two years ago suggesting that even extremely low levels of exposure to neonicotinoids makes bees more vulnerable to harm from common pathogens.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...ds-newsxml

Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
01-22-2013, 04:17 PM #7
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
in all fairness here's what the shill is going to say, they have been busy on the net this morning.
To summarize the monsanto shill argument:


The article is dishonest.

the "viral gene" is not new, and is well known.


Quote: Multiple variants of the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P35S) are used to drive the expression of transgenes in genetically modified plants, for both research purposes and commercial applications.

- from the abstract of the paper linked in the article

the purpose of hte paper was to:


Quote:The present paper investigates whether introduction of P35S variants by genetic transformation is likely to result in the expression of functional domains of the P6 protein and in potential impacts in transgenic plants.



Ie does the use of this gene sequence result in an actual functional production of protein, or even might it possibly?

And what did they find??


Quote:No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases.



NOTHING!

Quote:From a literature study it became clear that long variants of the P35S do contain an open reading frame, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes. A flowchart is proposed to evaluate possible unintended effects in plant transformants, based on the DNA sequence actually introduced and on the plant phenotype, taking into account the known effects of ectopically expressed P6 domains in model plants.




make him work for this
01-22-2013, 05:05 PM #8
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
In all fairness, the research paper was looking into possible consequences and risk assessment. So it's nether proven to be a risk, nor is it disproven at this point. I posted this as just another in a series of red flags regarding GM crops, based on facts, not fear mongering.

Based on everything I know; GMO's can have potentially dangerous long term consequences.

The yield we were all promised has yet to be proven.

I recall a US Department of Agriculture report confirmed my statement by saying:

GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease.

But none of that is as bad as Round Up (glyphosate)

Quote:Herbicide Now Detected in Human Urine
Last year, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec made the disturbing discovery that Bt-toxin from genetically engineered Bt corn in fact accumulates in the human body – contrary to industry assurances. The toxin was identified in 93 percent of pregnant women tested; 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies; and 67 percent of non-pregnant women.

The study blew a giant hole in safety claims over genetically engineered Bt crops.

Now, results from a German study shows that people who have no direct contact with agriculture have significant concentrations of glyphosate in their urine. It's becoming quite apparent that genetically engineered crops are a source of multiple toxins, in addition to having been found to contain far lower levels of nutrients. So much for saving the world from starvation.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...urine.aspx

Now, as if that isn't bad enough:

Quote:The heavy use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide appears to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of the genetically modified crops that farmers are cultivating, a US government scientist said on Friday. Repeated use of the chemical glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide, impacts the root structure of plants, and 15 years of research indicates that the chemical could be causing fungal root disease, said Bob Kremer, a microbiologist with the US Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/...oil-damage

What's the point in these crops when there is proven damage to the environment, and humans with these crops and Round up?

Quote:When applied to crops, the glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health as 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut. Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:
Endocrine disruption DNA damage
Developmental toxicity Neurotoxicity
Reproductive toxicity Cancer
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...urine.aspx

It's a dangerous path they are embarking upon, and because of the major money involved and Monsanto agents leaving and getting jobs in the FDA, there is no one to care about food safety for the common man.

wonder.gif
01-23-2013, 02:32 AM #9
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(01-22-2013, 03:58 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  GE organisms actually become part of the bacteria in our digestive tracts and reproduce continuously inside us.

There are no human clinical trials of genetically engineered foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. Even after we stop eating GE foods, we may still have the GE proteins produced continuously inside us.


http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engin...e-systems/

it's so good for us yay.gif


Oh, gee. Let's look at that one study. Oh, it is paywalled, but there is a synopsis:
The inclusion of genetically modified (GM) plants in the human diet has raised concerns about the possible transfer of transgenes from GM plants to intestinal microflora and enterocytes. The persistence in the human gut of DNA from dietary GM plants is unknown. Here we study the survival of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human ileostomists (i.e., individuals in which the terminal ileum is resected and digesta are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag). The amount of transgene that survived passage through the small bowel varied among individuals, with a maximum of 3.7% recovered at the stoma of one individual. The transgene did not survive passage through the intact gastrointestinal tract of human subjects fed GM soya. Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments. As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment.

Now lets parse this and see if the claim that the soy gene is transferred is supported.
1. We find (from other sources) that the gene sequence was Agrobacterium strain CP4 epsps.
2. Agrobacterium strain CP4 is naturally glyphosate-resistant.
3. From Wiki: "Agrobacterium is well known for its ability to transfer DNA between itself and plants"
4. From Wiki: "Agrobacterium can be responsible for opportunistic infections in humans with weakened immune systems..."
5. From above synopsis: "Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments. " So before the experiment three of 7 people (who had had their large intestines removed) showed signs of the bacterium.
6. From above synopsis: "we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment"

Your quote, "The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. " is a lie. The bacterium naturally occurs in food and naturally infests weakened humans. The gene transfer did not occur during the experiment - there were signs of the bacterium before the experiment.

Does that mean GM soy is dangerous? No.
Does that mean GM soy is safe? No.

Using what were probably cancer patients for a GM soya test almost half of which were infected before the test isn't really a useful test.

If GM Soya gene transfer is so easy to prove - why aren't they running the test on healthy volunteers with no signs of agrobacterium and checking stool samples?

Some piece of information is missing.
01-23-2013, 07:32 PM #10
yankees skier
Posts:5,898 Threads:215 Joined:Feb 2011
gaah.gifgaah.gifgaah.gifgaah.gif

Biere.
01-23-2013, 07:39 PM #11
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
yup.gif Is there ever good GMO news? Aside of course from Monsatano's profits?

Feeling better Yankees? cheers.gif

wonder.gif
01-23-2013, 07:42 PM #12
yankees skier
Posts:5,898 Threads:215 Joined:Feb 2011
Slowly getting better, working 1/2 a day today. cheers.gif

Biere.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com