Genetically modified food

[JasonSJackson]

thanks for keeping the thread alive homie.......im actually considering calling on this one

 

[newworldafro]

Post half of article

Engineered Apples Near Approval | April 8, 2013 Issue - Vol. 91 Issue 14 | Chemical & Engineering News

Volume 91 Issue 14 | pp. 31-33
Issue Date: April 8, 2013


Engineered Apples Near Approval

Fruit with nonbrowning genes may get green light in U.S.

Any parent will tell you, it’s hard to get a kid to eat an apple that’s turned brown. So one Canadian firm is using genetic engineering to turn the browning reaction off in Granny Smith and Golden Delicious apples, and the resulting fruit is close to clearing the last regulatory hurdles before it can be sold in U.S. grocery stores.


Okanagan Specialty Fruits of British Columbia is using well-known laboratory methods to insert genes designed to prevent the chemical reaction responsible for browning into their Arctic apples. The modified apples are moving through a complex and time-consuming regulatory process, which must be completed before the apples can be sold alongside conventionally bred varieties.


The genetically engineered (GE) traits most commonly inserted into commercial crops are tolerance to herbicides such as Monsanto’s glyphosate weed killer, Roundup, and pest resistance, often via internal production of pesticides. These traits, harvested from bacteria, are controversial. And a tenacious community of opponents of GE crops, who prefer the phrase “genetically modified organism” or GMO, has emerged. Nonetheless, in the U.S., 88% of corn, 93% of soybeans, and 94% of cotton is genetically engineered, according to 2012 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


No evidence that Arctic apples are unsafe has come to light nor has any reasonable mechanism by which they could be. Okanagan triggers a selective gene-silencing pathway and inserts a selection gene that is broadly recognized as harmless to humans. Even skeptical experts usually don’t assert that any of the GE foods currently on the market are dangerous.


The real concern is that existing regulations wouldn’t be able to catch a truly dangerous product, or one that could contaminate other plants through cross-pollination.


Three federal agencies have some form of oversight on GE crops. USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluates whether GE crops are significantly weaker against plant pests and could therefore endanger other nearby crops. The Food & Drug Administration looks at the GE crops to see whether they could create or spread a food-borne illness among people. And the Environmental Protection Agency analyzes any plant engineered to produce its own pesticides; Arctic apples don’t, so EPA isn’t involved in their approval.

Some GE crop producers say the regulatory process is too burdensome. Critics, on the other hand, say it lacks scientific rigor and adequate enforcement authority. “We have a very broken regulatory process,” says Michael K. Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports.

The main browning reaction in apples starts when a dicopper enzyme known as polyphenol oxidase, or PPO, oxidizes certain phenols to quinones. Subsequent reactions polymerize the quinones to form melanins and other dark-colored polyphenols. In intact apples, PPO is kept away from its phenolic substrates, but damage to the cells from cutting or bruising brings them together, which results in browning at the site of the wound.

PPO’s substrate phenols are antioxidants, so keeping them from converting to quinones actually improves the nutritional profile of the apple, Okanagan notes.

The evolutionary advantage offered by PPO to plants is under debate. One theory holds that it protects the plant from insects by reducing the available nutrition at the damaged surface, another that insects get trapped in the brown melanin polymer. But studies of plants with naturally or artificially low levels of PPO do not show consistent correlations with changes to pest resistance, so the advantage offered to a plant by the enzyme remains unclear.

Pest resistance, however, is an important parameter because APHIS’s authority over biotech crops is currently derived from the Plant Protection Act (PPA), a law passed in 2000 that consolidates regulation related to plant pests and noxious weeds. A plant pest is defined as any living thing that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product.

“APHIS’s regulatory determinations are based on the best available science,” an APHIS spokesman says. “If an organism does not meet the definition of a plant pest as defined in PPA, APHIS has no authority to regulate that organism.”

Petitioners such as Okanagan, who want to have a GE food approved for market, submit materials to APHIS that they hope show their engineered crop is not a plant pest risk. The goal is to have their crop earn a “deregulated” status. This status allows the GE crop to be sold as if the inserted traits were achieved through conventional breeding. Okanagan began the APHIS process for its two apple varieties in May of 2010.

The Arctic Granny Smith showed an increased incidence of tentiform leafminer, a leaf-eating bug found in the Northwest. But in all other cases the two Arctic varieties performed the same as or better than their conventional counterparts against the 13 pests or diseases studied in Okanagan’s field trials. On the basis of those results, the apples are likely to qualify for deregulation by APHIS, observers note.

The trials, however, were done under standard orchard conditions, says Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. He raises the concern that those conditions might mask any increased vulnerability because they include heavy use of fungicides and pesticides.

To gather the input of laypeople as well as experts such as Gurian-Sherman, the regulatory process includes public comment periods. APHIS combines information from trials with feedback from the public to make its decision.

The first 60-day public comment period on the deregulation of Arctic apples ended on Sept. 11, 2012. Nearly 2,000 comments, mostly opposed, were submitted by the closing day. Many of these comments expressed a philosophical opposition to GE crops but had sparse scientific objections specific to Arctic apples.

 

[The Message]

Similac baby formula pressured to remove genetically modified organisms | wtsp.com

Similac baby formula pressured to remove genetically modified organisms

11:09 PM, Apr 25, 2013

Consumer advocacy groups say if your baby formula contains, soy, corn or dairy, there is a good chance it also contains genetically modified ingredients.

Unlike 60 other countries, the United States does not require formula or food companies to let you know they are using genetically modified ingredients on the label. A bill to require GMO labeling of foods in Florida was defeated.

One of the country's leading baby formula companies will consider eliminating GMOs, however, its Board of Directors does not support the move.

Shareholders of Abbott Laboratories will vote whether Similac, the leading brand of infant formula, should no longer contain genetically modified ingredients during its annual meeting Friday, April 26.

A spokesperson for Abbott Labs tells 10 News, its Board of Directors does not support the removal of GMO from its infant formula because:


•All of our products are made with ingredients that are safe, effective and approved for use by regulatory bodies around the world, and we ensure that they have undergone extensive scientific evaluation.
•Agencies such as the U.S. FDA, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations have concluded that GMO ingredients are identical in composition, nutritional value and quality as non-biotechnology derived ingredients.
•Countries around the world have different requirements around the use and labeling of GM ingredients. Abbott fully complies with all local, regional and national standards related to the use and labeling of ingredients.

10 News talked to board certified pediatrician, Dr. David Berger, and he said parents should be concerned about GMO ingredients in their baby formula and infant food.

According to Dr. Berger, no long term studies prove GMO's are safe. Breast milk is best for babies but if you need to supplement with formula, Dr. Berger recommends organic formula brands because genetically modified ingredients are banned from organic formula.

The Cornucopia Institute, a farm and food policy research group has launched a social media campaign on facebook, twitter and a petition drive to encourage parents to pressure baby formula companies to remove GMO's.

Click here to join petition drive

According to Cornucopia Institute, the vast majority of corn and soy-based ingredients in processed foods in the United States, including infant formula, come from genetically engineered crops developed by Monsanto and other biotechnology companies. Dairy ingredients may come from dairy cows that were treated with genetically engineered bovine growth hormones.

Mark Kastel with CI goes on to say, "Nobody should be eating GMO foods, especially babies. But until infant formula makers stop using GMO ingredients, hundreds of thousands of newborns and infants will be unwitting participants in this huge, uncontrolled experiment with the health of the next generation."

Some of the GMO-free baby formulas include:


•Earth's Best
•Baby's Only
•Plum Organics
•Oh Baby
•Organic Baby
•Little Duck Organics

 

[Captain Crunch]

 

[Captain Crunch]

New law allows Monsanto to plant and sell GMO seeds, even if they are found toxic.

The passing of this bill into law means that Monsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people (or the environment).

Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

 

[newworldafro]

GM Cabbage with Scorpion Poison Coming Soon | The Daily Sheeple

GM Cabbage with Scorpion Poison Coming Soon

Heidi Stevenson
Gaia Health
June 27th, 2013


Agribusiness is in a mad rush to take over the earth, and seems willing to stop at nothing. Coming soon is cabbage with scorpion poison engineered in every cell. Of course, they claim it’s safe and will result in less pesticide use, but history and logic say otherwise. Who will wake from the insane mating between Agribiz and GMOs?

Get ready for genetically engineered cabbages that come complete with their own scorpion poison, just for you to eat. It’s touted as requiring less pesticide use and being, of course, completely safe. Close investigation, though, indicates that neither claim is likely true.

A pesticide made with scorpion poison genetically engineered into a virus was first tested back in 1994. Interestingly, the scientists who sprayed the test field wore full body suits to protect them from this “harmless” poison. One must wonder at just how safe it could be when the developers themselves don’t trust it more than that! Of course, the head of the trial, Professor David Bishop, insisted that the trial was safe—though he himself opted to take a vacation, rather than be there for it.

In the newer incarnation of scorpion poison genetic engineering, genes from the scorpion, Androctonus australus hector, for production of poison are being genetically engineered into cabbages. The goal is to produce them for public consumption. With the FDA’s history of rubberstamp approvals for genetically modified crops, it seems unlikely that anything will interfere with their production and entry into a supermarket near you.

Let’s examine the justifications given for this never-to-be-found-in-nature cabbage-scorpion chimera:

1. It will result in the use of less pesticide.

At first blush, this seems to make sense. But it’s specious reasoning. The reality is that, instead of spraying pesticides onto the plants, the plants will contain them in every single cell. The result is that the pesticide will end up in the bodies of people who eat the cabbage. Thus, human beings will become the unofficial pesticide sinks, instead of the environment. I suppose there’s a plus in that, but I do not personally intend to be one of those pesticide sinks. Do you?

2. It’s completely safe.

Where have we heard that before? In this instance it stems from two things:
•The scorpion venom has been modified so that it won’t hurt humans: This isn’t quite true. What they’ve done is select a section of the genome that codes for a toxin, called AAiT, which is known to be poisonous to insects.
•A study that purports to show that it does no harm to humans[2]: Well … not exactly. The human testing was not performed on live people, nor was it performed on normal healthy cells. It was tested on MCF-7 breast cancer cells—not exactly normal human cells. Do you find that comforting? I certainly don’t.

Will Frankencabbages Be Effective At Stopping Pests?

This is, of course, the real issue, because it’s why farmers Agribusiness would want it. That could prove to be a problem. According to the study on AAiT’s toxicity against insect cells, the toxicity is greatly limited by ingestion. The authors wrote:

[L]ow toxicity with an LC50 of 18.4 μM was recorded in artificial diet incorporation assay in which the toxin was consumed by the testing insect through feeding. We suggested that this might be a result of toxin degradation by digestion.[2]

The LD50—the point at which 50% of the insects die—was recorded at only 0.13 μM when AAiT was applied directly. They found a difference of “2 orders of magnitude” when the toxin was directly applied instead of ingested. That’s a huge difference—and would tend to suggest that the scorpion toxin won’t be all that effective in the plants, since it must be ingested by insects. So, in all likelihood, sprays will still be used.

Will this matter to the buyers of Frankencabbage seeds? It’s hard to say, but the history of these products would tend to indicate a remarkable gullibility. Consider that production has never been much better in genetically engineered seeds, and when it has, it’s tended to deteriorate over time.[3] The legacy of Roundup Ready, glyphosate-resistant, crops has been superweeds that not only are resistant to glyphosate, but grow much bigger and faster than the original weeds.

Keep in mind, also, that the use of genetically modified seeds tends to come with codicils that lock the buyer, and even subsequent users of the land, into buying nothing else.

Perhaps, ultimately, it will be the Frankenseeds themselves that destroy Agribusiness! They’re locked into a system that is proving not to work. The real question, then, is whether they’ll destroy the earth—and us—before they’ve destroyed themselves.

The concern posited by the image at the top of the page is serious: Once Agribusiness got into bed with recombinant DNA produce, they made a bargain with the devil. Ultimately, it seems unlikely that even Agribusiness will wake up from their attempt to take over the earth.

 

[He Who Posts Well]

wow:

 

[newworldafro]

Since the beginning of this year, 2013, 431 GMO crops have been approved for farming and human consumption ..... the approval process is really stringent and difficult [See Video Below].

It goes like this. Company A does a test on some frankencrop. It finishes research and testing. Gives information to the FDA. The FDA says Company A has done the test. Approves it. That is all.



Activist Post: USDA Was Storing Monsanto’s Unapproved GM Wheat in Seed Vault

 

[The Message]

Good drop. Gonna check this later.

 

[newworldafro]

................................................ and it just gets better ......................

European Patent Office grants Monsanto patent on natural broccoli seeds, florets

European Patent Office grants Monsanto patent on natural broccoli seeds, florets

Monday, July 01, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

NaturalNews) Monsanto's efforts to usher genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) into the European Union (EU) have been largely stagnant in recent years, so the multinational corporation and others in the industry are taking a new and more evil approach to gain more market control. According to a recent announcement put forth by the human rights advocacy group No Patents on Seeds!, the European Patent Office (EPO) is now granting biotechnology companies patents on all-natural crops such as broccoli, which was recently handed over as private property to Monsanto.

Exploiting an egregious loophole in European patent law, Monsanto and others have been feverishly filing for patents on all sorts of natural crops, presumably in response to widespread resistance by members of the European public to its GMO offerings. Most recently, EPO granted Monsanto a patent on conventionally-bred broccoli, which includes not only broccoli seeds but also the "severed broccoli head" and the "plurality of broccoli plants ... grown in a field of broccoli" - in other words, broccoli in all of its natural forms.

Though vehemently opposed by the European Parliament, EPO's decision to legitimize private ownership of nature - in this case broccoli - is apparently becoming the norm throughout Europe. Since the biotechnology industry has failed at replacing nature with its own "Frankencrops" throughout Europe, it has set its sights on seizing ownership of nature itself by claiming patents on it. And unless the people step up to forcibly stop this, using whatever means necessary, then these crimes against humanity will only continue.

"We are calling for broad support of our opposition against the patent on 'severed broccoli'," said Christoph Then from the group No Patents on Seeds! recently. No Patents on Seeds! has formed a petition in opposition to patents on natural crops that recently topped two million signatures, and the group is joined by a cohort of other environmental advocacy and health freedom groups throughout Europe in its efforts. "We intend to send a clear signal that we will not let our food be monopolized."

You can access this petition here:
Home | no patents on seeds


Monsanto also pushing for ownership of life in America as well
No Patents on Seeds! is joined by Bionext (Netherlands), The Berne Declaration (Switzerland), GeneWatch (UK), Greenpeace (Germany), Misereor (Germany), Development Fund (Norway), No Patents on Life (Germany), Rete Semi Rurali (Italy), Reseau Semences Paysannes (France), and Swissaid (Switzerland) in calling on European politicians to assume control over EPO for the purpose of amending the patent loophole.

"All the organizations involved are also making demands on European politicians," explains No Patents on Seeds!. "They are urging them to take over control of the EPO in order to change the interpretation of the current patent law through the Administrative Council of the EPO, which is the assembly of the Member States."

The group Avaaz.org has also created its own petition to stop Monsanto from patenting natural organisms in Europe, which you can sign here:
Avaaz - Monsanto vs. Mother Earth

Back in the U.S., Monsanto is busy pushing for similar patents on the elements of life. As reported by the Los Angeles Times (LAT), Monsanto will soon try to convince the Supreme Court to allow it to patent future generations of seeds that naturally reproduce from GM strains. If the company gets its way, a new precedent will be set in the U.S. for corporations to assume patent control over natural life forms.

"The case is a remarkable reflection on recent fundamental changes in farming. In the 200-plus years since the founding of this country, and for millenniums before that, seeds have been part of the public domain - available for farmers to exchange, save, modify through plant breeding and replant," explains the NYT. "But today this history of seeds is seemingly forgotten in light of a patent system that, since the mid-1980s, has allowed corporations to own products of life."

 

[newworldafro]

Original article: "USDA will not take action in case of GMO alfalfa contamination" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/usa-alfalfa-gmo-idUSL2N0HD1SQ20130917

An analysis below:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/usda-now-considers-gmo-contamination-normal.html

USDA Now Considers GMO Contamination ‘Normal’

Anthony Gucciardi
Prison Planet.com
September 23, 2013
In a telling response to the highly concerning discovery that Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa ended up contaminating a ‘GMO-free’ crop harvest, the USDA went on record in declaring that the genetic contamination was perfectly normal and not any of their concern.

In fact, the USDA went on to say that there are measures in place to ‘minimize’ the widespread contamination of Monsanto’s genetically modified crop, and that’s all that’s required. What the organization is saying here is that it doesn’t matter if GMOs are contaminating ‘GMO-free’ crops, and it doesn’t even seem to matter that the very integrity of the international food supply is being mixed with genetically modified crop varieties. The agency tasked with keeping our food supply functioning safely even says that it’s really a ‘marketplace’ issue.

In the response reported by Reuters:

“USDA said the detection of Monsanto Co’s patented Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant trait in the Washington farmer’s non-GMO alfalfa crop should be addressed by the marketplace and not the government.”

A marketplace issue? The agency tasked with handling specifically this subject in its entirety is telling us that it’s our problem and we need to just deal with it ourselves. That’s highly irresponsible of the USDA at the very least, but of course in reality it has much more to do with the fact that the USDA is under the deep influence of biotech juggernaut Monsanto. Why do you think that, as I told you back in February, the USDA is giving special ‘speedy approval’ to Monsanto on its new GMO crop varieties?

Why would the agency offer an even ‘speedier’ approval process than the already abysmal safety process that has been blasted by scientists and consumer organizations?

And as Monsanto receives an extra helping hand of corruption, farmers around the United States attempting to grow GMO-free crops are being thrown out of export deals due to GMO contamination. GMO contamination that will ultimately suffocate the entire industry if something isn’t done. It looks like the agency in charge of agriculture and its preservation is perfectly fine with that.

This post originally appeared at Natural Society

 

[the artist known az]

^^^That's a damn shame.

 

[WhatsGoodTy]

Don't care, i'm eating,living, and my body not doing weird shyt

 

[IronFist]

up i got something for this.

 

[XII]

We can't eat anything nowadays