Seeds Of Death

The program opens with some hyped but not very credible diatribes against genetic engineering. This field needs careful oversight, but not outright bans. Monsanto's legal shenanigans are plenty evil, though. If the backlash kills them, I won't mourn the loss.

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2342350115/ "Seeds of Death" video on Colorado 12

Monsanto has plenty of money to buy all the politicians it needs to shove this unethical license to kill through Congress.

This is very different from that discussion. Do you want to be sterile? Do you want your gut bacteria to be giving you allergies? If not, then watch the whole video.

If those are the symptoms, I've already been affected.

I don't want kids of my own but I do like let a good hearty fart out when I sneeze now and then?

What's the down side?

GMO technology inserts a new bit of DNA into the animal or plant. We eat DNA every day in our food, so the DNA itself doesn't pose a problem health-wise. Digestive enzymes chop it into nucleosides like all the other DNA we eat. Doesn't matter if from plant or animal, it's all the same.

DNA is made up of basic materials that are just arranged in different combinations...it's the order of the combinations that gives instructions to the cell.....once eaten and digested it becomes just genetic material....like the 1's and 0's in computer programming....Your cells replicate your own DNA with the basic materials, 1's and 0's that were disassembled from the material you have eaten....That is why you don't become the plant or animal you have eaten, nor do you acquire any of the properties of that organism...

"The sugar and phosphate are joined in a chain to form what is known as a sugar-phosphate backbone. Attached to the sugar is a base. There are four different bases in DNA and are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). Two strands of DNA wrap around one another is a double-helix. The bases pair up in a specific way. A always links to T and C always links to G. It is this pairing of bases which enables DNA to make exact copies of itself during cell division.

When a cell divides copies of DNA are made. The two strands of DNA separate. Each strand acts as a template for individual nucleotides (a sugar, phosphate group and a base) to bind to. An enzyme known as a ligase stitches the nucleotides into a complete strand. When the process is complete, each original strand of DNA has acted as a template to create two new strands."

https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/230/Properties+of+Macromolecules+II-Nucleic+Acids%2C+Polysaccharides+and+Lipids

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0261219492900549

IMHO:

In addition to the unknown long term effects of some gene modified food, there is the very blatant and obvious power of Monsanto to influence court decisions in it's favor.

For example:

If Monsanto plants a genetically modified forest near your forest, and your trees are pollinated by the Monsanto trees,the trees then become the property of Monsanto!

Likewise with corn,soybeans, and any other crop.

Is this ridiculous, or not?

The courts have ruled in Monsanto's favor in these cases.

This flies in the face of logic!

So all they have to do is plant their corn upwind from yours, and WALLAH! your corn becomes theirs!

Now Monsanto is working on, and may have already developed, a seed that is sterile,and will not reproduce if planted.This goes against every basic instinct of nature: to be fruitful and multiply.

It is not too far of a stretch to foresee a future where they do that to animals, and even humans.

It would not surprise me to see Monsanto develop a bee that is immune to the Hive Collapse Disorder that is killing all of our bees all over the world,then they will really have us by the short hairs. (And who knows what is REALLY causing the bees to die off?) (No one is beyond suspicion in my mind.)

Worst case scenario,and purely imaginary, of course, is that big business is behind the collapse,so that they can become the hero when they solve the problem with a new patented,proprietary,genetically modified,sterile bee type that will require frequent replacement.Imagine the profit in that scenario!

The government used to be influenced by big industry..now IT IS THE GOVERNMENT!

An excerpt from Basic Big Business 101:

Rule #1: JUDGES: A good judge is a judge that stays bought.

Rule#2:POLITICIANS: See rule #1

Now Monsanto is working on, and may have already developed, a seed that is sterile,and will not reproduce if planted.This goes against every basic instinct of nature: to be fruitful and multiply.

It is not too far of a stretch to foresee a future where they do that to animals, and even humans.

If you watched the video you would see it's already happening. Also here in this link. Now the government doesn't need nuclear war, they've got Monsanto.

Actually, this approach is more decent than the former, irresponsible attitude of those companies, that of releasing new, reproducible organisms in the biosphere, without having a clue about long-term effect of that action, on bio-environment. Of course they don't do it out of their soft loving heart. They dream about gaining some kind of monopoly on seed market, plus they try to somehow limit future lawsuits for results already caused by their former behaviour. Any way it's not the companies I'm ranting about most. It's the disgrace of a political and law producing part of our society that allowed ANY DNA related patents, while us people were sleepwalking. S.M.

Foster Gambel created a video which documents Monsanto's and other shenanigans of coruption of our government @ 'thrivemovement.com' . Big business banks and oil are screwing us everyday, the result of his pointing this out years ago was to be labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' and to be taken off wikipedia and google...an example of how much big money can control. If you're a farmer, you need to be paying attention, if their 'patented' seed contaminates your field, as of a couple of months ago, your crops will belong to them and they may also sue for damages and there by own your property...this has recently ben tested in court. The courts are being stacked by money, democracy at work. There's a reason europe's banning GMO's. Our lab's arent the only ones capable of analysis. Our lab's are being bought and paid for. Yea, I know, conspiracy theory. BEND OVER!!!!

Where does the government get the money to fund the JPL,etc?

Taxes.

Where do taxes come from?

If everyone was a government employee, where would taxes come from?

Could they tax only government employees?

Like the cave cricket that eats his own legs to sustain itself, it will eventually collapse.

It is impossible to reason a person out of an opinion that they have not reasoned themselves into in the first place.

"Diapers and politicians should be changed regularly,and for the same reason."

...Mark Twin(I think)

If they have injected genetic stuff in your pure stuff then sue them for the damage done and ask them to clean up the air water soil and everything around. Genetic materials are keys and they can open and close locks of the doors that were not open or closed for millions of years. Some Ghost or Devil may come out or you may lose some vival protection mechnism or nothing serious may happen. However, it may worth putting a case against polluters.

It IS the Government that cuts back on funding first and would like to see the END of Public Media stations all together. BBC, NPR, TBS, PBS and the likes. And obviously for good reason. At least my donations are still tax deductable .............for now.

So what's wrong with SOCIALISM?

Can you be social if you're sterile?

"The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of of other people's money."

---Margaret Thatcher

Remember, the government does not produce anything.It can only take money from one person(s) and give it to another.Which means, by default, you have to have more givers than takers.When you give away more than you have, you are in trouble.As are we in the present time.

You like socialism? Russia will welcome you!Look how great their economy is! Bon Voyage! (I will pay half of your fare there on an ocean liner,(you will have to swim the rest of the way)

The preceding opinion is strictly that of a deranged individual,who is living in the past,and is haunted by a delusional recollection of a true democracy and free enterprise system,where a government by,for, and of the people truly existed, and does not reflect the views of any other individual or entity.

No animals were damaged,maimed,injured, inconvenienced or killed expressing this opinion, but a few semi-sentient mammalian toes may have been stepped on, and for that I humbly apologize with all the sincerity that I can muster in such cases.

Politics/Religion: This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

I respect your opinion, knowing that it is one of 7 billion on this planet,and has as much value as anyone else's.

Some people have the courage stand up and to speak out, and others do not,and prefer to shout their opinion from behind the shelter of anonymity.That is also ok by me,some have nads, some don't.Not their fault,they were born that way.I harbor no ill will for these type of people.It is the bell curve in action.

Anything taken to it's extreme is bad.There is no perfect form of government, unless you look to the world of social insects.They have stood the test of time for millions of years,however, I would not like to live like a bee or an ant,but there are some that would find comfort in the repetitive and routine nature of that society.

I contend that the government,per se does not produce anything.It is still the people that produce.The government relies on taxes from the people to run the government owned programs.How could it survive otherwise,unless it had indentured labor?

You seem to overlook the true source of productivity, and I could agree with you except then, we would both be wrong.

So what's wrong with SOCIALISM?

I'll bite. What?

A segment of the video that caught my eye was how this GMO rush began..It was an observant individual that noticed some bacteria/soyabean combinations didn't succumb to an intense spraying of their very own round up(glycophosphate based i believe) and the rush to make other crops resistant to their herbicide began...Note that it was the bacteria/soyabean symbiosis that began the whole exercise as the individual excited reported the observation to his immediate supervisor who reported it to his manager who reported it to his director who reported it to his next level of management etc..till it got to the corner office and the person there said bingo..lottsa of money potential..everyone get cracking...and boy did they ever without the checks and balance of an ethical approach just seeing the money and what they could do with it...new car...extra condo in aruba etc..so the money carrot carried them along and pushing population needs for the future of humanity as it grows and grows..From this video i suspect that the population may in fact begin to slow and slow so there will be no need for gmo but it is too late..Another pandoras box has been opened with filthy lucre being the guiding principal..

An appreciation of the interconnectedness of all life,not just the corner offices of large organizations be they capitalist,government,religous etc must be woven into everyone of our fabrics for the human race to succeed..It hasn't been but it is slowly getting there in large part due to the interconnectedness of the internet..Hope the governments of the worlds attempts to stiffle free flow of the net doesn't succeed..

Ps:Glycoprotein metabolic pathways tend to be disturbed by continuous glycophosphate ingestion..Wonder if cataract levels are rising dramatically in North America...??

Glycoprotein metabolic pathways tend to be disturbed by continuous glycophosphate ingestion..Wonder if cataract levels are rising dramatically in North America...??

I don't know, but this is part of this cataract link:

Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company. Farmers who buy Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year.

This is very scary direction the 1980 Supreme Court allowed companies for the first time to patent seeds, setting the stage for large corporate control of our food supply.

GMO Wheat Found In Oregon Field

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/30/187103955/gmo-wheat-found-in-oregon-field-howd-it-get-there?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20130530

This should mean Mosanto has lost control of there seeds.

This should have a big name attorney suing Monsanto for polluting the US crops, for every GMO seed found anywhere on US soil.

This should have a big name attorney suing Monsanto for polluting the US crops, for every GMO seed found anywhere on US soil.

You are right, but it won't work with the government on Monsanto's side.

but I did see that the Supreme court ruled in their favor 9-0

That is because the supreme court is in Monsanto's pocket. That's what needs to change.

All 9 Justices are in Monsanto's pocket???? That would be a little disturbing to be thinking that way.. We might as well move to Venezuela--There is no hope left...

Moving to Venezuela would improve the situation.

Yes--Moving to Venezuela would help those who favor a Government solution for everything in their lives, and allows NO counterpoints to be made. :Sean Penn would be proud, but I have not seen him investing or putting his wallet where his "Heart " is. Venezuela will say and do anything to garner sympathy from the LEFT of the World, all the while they subjugate their citizenry to a locked down press, and no toilet paper. Think i am kidding--Smuggling toilet paper there is now a Capital offense ..No , really..Look it up.... They can't produce enough toilet paper, GMO modified, or not...

Wow libeling the heads of the highest court in the land! You better hope they don't want to make an example out of you!! Which would be their legal right!!!

Criticism of the government is protected by freedom of speech. People at the beach in Florida may not know that. The goverment wants GMO at all costs. Do you have another explanation of this policy?

This is taken from your link.... There is a big difference in criticism and lying about...

"Making false statements in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government is also a crime."

This film was produced by Gary Null a well known quack that has gone off the deep end....Do some real research before posting this crap....

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Null

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/?p=11333#.UaltKUD2aSo

Despite your links, Gary Null is not a quack. He has some very good books on healing and nutrition. I own some of them. Your links show that the lawsuits against him were caused by one of his contractors which he sued. Had you bothered to read your own links you would have found that link #3 supports this thread. Thank you for that.

Evidently you're unable to comprehend what you read.....This could be the root of the problem here....even though I have explained in detail why this statement that genetically modified foods are harmful is ridiculous, you still don't get it....You may have a learning disability, or you may have been exposed to lead as a child, in any case I don't hold you responsible, you have my sympathy....

You obviously didn't watch the video or failed to comprehend the study of the three sets of rats. The pesticides were not the problem; it was some unforseen gene change in the GMO that caused the tumors and death. Please don't criticize what you have not witnessed. And don't give me that crap about no peer review - They tried.

Really? I guess you missed this little tidbit...

"After two years, 86% of male and 72% of female rats had developed tumors of the sort described by Séralini et al. Note that the time period of this 1979 study was the same as that of Séralini et al, two years. In other words, the "treated" rats developed as many tumors as expected for this particular strain of rats allowed to live to their natural lifespan and in fact the control groups arguably had an unusually low incidence of tumors."

This would suggest that the rats fed GMO food developed less tumors....

I certianly missed it because that text was not in the video"! Nor were those words spoken in it. You are trying to manipulate the truth as they are here. It has become clear that you can't accept the truth, or more likely, you own a GMO company or GMO stock. I suggest that you sell it before the truth becomes wide spread.

There is a preponderance of evidence against your "view":

http://rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/

• Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
• Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
• Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
• Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
• The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
• Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.
• (from: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/)

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer

" European Society of Toxicologic Pathology and the French Society of Toxicologic Pathology, reviewed Seralini's study, they found it essentially to be meretricious rubbish. Six French academies of science issued a statement declaring that the journal should never have published such a low-quality study and excoriating Seralini for orchestrating a media campaign in advance of publication. The European Food Safety Agency's review of the Seralini study "found [it] to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported.""

"Every independent scientific body that has ever evaluated the safety of biotech crops has found them to be safe for humans to eat.

A 2004 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that "no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." In 2003 the International Council for Science, representing 111 national academies of science and 29 scientific unions, found "no evidence of any ill effects from the consumption of foods containing genetically modified ingredients." The World Health Organization flatly states, "No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."

In 2010, a European Commission review of 50 studies on the safety of biotech crops found "no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms." At its annual meeting in June, the American Medical Association endorsed a report on the labeling of bioengineered foods from its Council on Science and Public Health. The report concluded that "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.""

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/22/the-top-five-lies-about-biotech-crops

"Every independent scientific body that has ever evaluated the safety of biotech crops has found them to be safe for humans to eat.

Really? Are you forgetting the French study that you criticized? I see that the first of my last 3 links has been "bought up" or "put down" by Monsanto or the govenment or somebody, as have been several others that I was going to prove you wrong with (such as this one). It goes to show what big money and the government can do especially when they are on the same side. There are numerous articles about bad studies, but they are not the studies themselves, and even the articles are being put down. Now if you could actually post the 50 studies, we could decide for ourselves. As it is, we can only take the word of a commision which may have an agenda or may have been bought, and that seems likely.

"Now if you could actually post the 50 studies, "...

No problem, here they are....

"In order to help inform debate on genetically modified organisms, the European Commission is publishing today a compendium entitled "A decade of EU-funded GMO research". The book summarizes the results of 50 research projects addressing primarily the safety of GMOs for the environment and for animal and human health. Launched between 2001 and 2010, these projects received funding of €200 million from the EU and form part of a 25-year long research effort on GMOs.

European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said "The aim of this book is to contribute to a fully transparent debate on GMOs, based on balanced, science-based information. According to the findings of these projects GMOs potentially provide opportunities to reduce malnutrition, especially in lesser developed countries, as well as to increase yields and assist towards the adaptation of agriculture to climate change. But we clearly need strong safeguards to control any potential risks. "

A publication for scientists, policy-makers and other stakeholders

This new publication aims to contribute to the debate on GMOs by disseminating the outcomes of research projects to scientists, regulatory bodies and to the public. It follows up previous publications on EU-funded research on GMO safety. Over the last 25 years, more than 500 independent research groups have been involved in such research.

According to the projects' results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms."

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo/

Thanks. It will take some time to digest all your links. However, in skimming I found this:

Although the micro-organisms used in the majority of biotechnological processes are unlikely to be pathogenic in themselves, the molecules they produce or express may in some cases present a health risk if the micro-organism is able to colonise the body following inhalation.

Emphasis is mine in all cases. Not sure what to make of this:

We obtained data which strongly supports the transgenic antisense expression system as a safe and effective means of inducing sterility in genetically modified fish, a necessary stage in the control of released genetically modified organisms.

Anyone want to comment on this?:

The first interspecific hybrids between wheat and one of its wild relatives have also been produced. Wild relatives of wheat, and conditions leading to increased risks in fields, have been identified...It will determine the likelihood of the spread of resistance genes into a weed population, the biosafety implications of such movements, and the extent (if any) of negative impact on farming activity and on the environment. It aims to propose guidelines about actual gene flow and its management, providing more information on the risk/benefit balance, and minimising the risks as far as is possible.

And this?

Related elements were present in isolates from soils throughout Europe and in different genera, providing circumstantial evidence that transfer occurs in the field, although quantitative data obtained over the relatively short time periods studied was mostly negative.

Gene therapy has for years tried to find a way to alter genetic material in the human body, as a cure for disease....It's not easily done....but is a fascinating subject that I think holds great promise for the future....this differs from our discussion here in that the genetic material is not ingested but introduced directly into the body by different methods.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

...And don't forget the study they did on the dangers of wearing searsucker suits where they made little suits out of the material and dressed rats in them.

My complaint is not about the health effects of Bio Engineered crops, but in the wide sweeping implications of uncontrolled spread of these crops,and as a result, the ownership thereof.

As I stated before, if Monsanto plants an engineered forest near your forest land, and your trees become pollinated by theirs, the courts have decided that the trees (your trees) belong to Monsanto.Likewise with any of their engineered crops.So, it is to the benefit of Monsanto to let their pollen run wild, and spread as far as possible.

BT Corn has already shown up in Mexico.Legally,at least by US law,that corn is theirs.

Imagine if monsanto bought a parcel of land in prime corn country, and planted it in GM corn:

Corn is wind pollinated, so virtually all corn surrounding their plot would belong to them.And since it has already spread as far as Mexico,there is no way to stop or control it.This has been proven.So, what is wrong with this picture?

Imagine,if you will, this horrible scenario:

A large bio tech company engineers a method to destroy all European bees.Not overnight, but slowly and surely.A subtle change in the feedstock of the bees while they overwinter.Perhaps a syrup from a sugar beet or sugar cane,or other source, that carries the slow acting agent.Perhaps it affects the memory of the bees, or the honey they make from the pollen of bio engineered plants.

Eventually,before mankind starves to death, this same company announces a new hybrid super bee that is immune to the colony hive collapse disorder.Just in time!

Of course, you have to rent or lease the bees from them, and if any wild bees cross breed with their super bee, it becomes their property.They will not sell the bees, only rent or lease them.

Now they have complete control of the food supplies of the masses.They control the wind pollinated and insect pollinated food stocks.

I realize this is a far fetched horror story that belongs to the realm of sci fi, but anything is possible when human greed and power are involved.

The preceding is entirely imaginary,and any resemblance to any person,place,thing, or company is entirely accidental.

"Everything you can imagine is real." -- Pablo Picasso

I realize this is a far fetched horror story that belongs to the realm of sci fi, but anything is possible when human greed and power are involved.

Not at all far fetched!

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/schmeiser.cfm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/supreme-court-monsanto_n_2720057.html

These biological patents are only good for 20 years, and the courts can release a patent to the public when they deem it beneficial in some compelling way....But if you are composing a work of fiction, then I guess you can ignore this reality as well....

Another point of view re GMO (Biotech crops) outlining the authors firm belief that there is disinformation spreading re GMO crops...The author,Ronald Bailey a staff writer for reason.com published this piece"The Top 5 lies About Biotech Crops" in a forum /blog site entitled reason.com on Feb 22,2013 at 4:30 pm..The best i can do to share yet anothers points of view...

Makes me a fence sitter yet again although i am convinced that interfering with the glycophosphate process is likely full of negative implications for our and other life forms basic biochemical continuity...

Make sense vs cents was always Buckminster Fullers modus operendii...appears i have been reduced to the same level of being...

Sorry for a late post in a dormant thread. I'm having a much harder time catching up than usual. I had jury duty yesterday... and was picked as a juror.

The book can't be closed on unintended effects of GMOs yet. From an epigenetic perspective, which is still in its infancy, what knowledge we do have about the mechanism, is being taken into consideration by some genetic engineers (1, 2; these articles are linked from the GMO Safety web site -- a German-based organization. The articles are both from 2007, but I think still relevant. We haven't unraveled epigenetics fully in the intervening period. The current topics indicate the debate will persist for a long time.) That, too, is a slow process. Starting with a mechanism we don't fully understand, means applying it, or using it to predict effects can't be fully described. The grade, by definition, is "Incomplete."

A key interchange from the first article/interview is:

GMO Safety: Have genetic engineering methods been refined on the basis of the new findings?

Jens Freitag: They certainly have. Many of the newly discovered processes, such as DNA methylation and siRNAs can now be verified and used. Some phenomena from the early days of plant genetic engineering can now be explained in molecular biological terms. For instance, we now know that gene silencing takes place at transcript rather than DNA level. This is why the oft-cited risk scenario involving the position effect is no longer justified. It says that untargeted integration of the transgenes into the plant genome could unintentionally switch some of the plant's own genes on or off.

Epigentics is happening all the time, due to both natural and man-made changes to life. If we fully understood it in all its subtleties, we could bring it more under our control, via, warnings, etc. such as "doing this" will cause "that." Even then it wouldn't guarantee compliance, any more than knowing cigarette smoking causes cancer has eliminated smoking. In the case of food supply, choice may dwindle or become non-existent.

There may be both good and bad consequences to GMO. If only we had waited for a better, fuller scientific understanding before releasing it into the wild. Academic now.

No need for an apology. Thanks for the links.

New study finds GMO unsafe for pigs (which have similar digestive system to humans).
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Here is an article with 136 references. This is part of the the conclusion:

"GM crop technologies do not offer significant benefits. On the contrary, they present risks to human and animal health, the environment, farmers, food security, and export markets..."

And thank you for this link. The article provides fodder for further discussion; not that there isn't enough already.

I would add as an observation, that, what has muddied the waters a lot, is that epigenetic effects, which may lead to "new" proteins, not original to our biology may never be realized as such, since GMOs have been used and consumed on a large scale now.