New GMO Studies Give Further Proof They Are Untested and Unsafe

[Kevin]

Here is yet another long term study that finds GMO products are unsafe and untested. This time it is hard for the biotech industry to smear reputations and discredit scientists as this is coming from the Ministry of Health from the Austrian government. check it out at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/GEcrops_AustrianStudy_PR11_13_08...
Another study long term study was released from Russia in 2005 and the scientist was fired and her reputation was destroyed when her findings came out. http://www.biotech-weblog.com/50226711/genetically_modified_soy_in_...
Mandatory labeling of food anyone?
Please comment. Touchy subject that needs lots of dialogue.

[Curt Elmore]

Let me guess Kevin...you're an organic farmer- Other than that third ear i've began to grow, nothing has happened to me from consuming GMO's-

[Nick]

The next "Global Warming" tidal wave..? Maybe one of these days we can sell "BT" credits just like carbon credits? LOL

[Kevin]

Unfortunately all the long term studies I've found suggest we haven't studied things enough and also point to negative health implications. I'm doing my best to look at things objectively. Long term studies are the key to safety. MON810 is one of the strains that were studied and that strain was banned in France earlier last year prior to these studies from their own concerns.
As far as me being an organic farmer, that's besides the point. Its too easy to dismiss something because your conventional or organic. I'm looking for long term safety studies that just simply aren't out there.

[Glen Groth]

"This meticulous study suggests that a popular type of genetically engineered corn may harbor fertility-reducing substances",

The word "suggests" and "may" are powerful words here. The words "demonstrates", "proves", or my favorite "links" are noticibly absent in the text of the article describing the experiment. I also find it interesting that the Austrian's idea of a "long term" experiment is 20 weeks. Nowhere does it actually say by how many fewer litters of babys the mice had, was it 1 less out of 1000? 1 less out of 10? What about standard deviation? Other environmental factors?. I wanted to examine the design of the experiment but the link provided turned out to be a dead end.

My main question for you guys to mull over is what would it take for you to consider biotech safe?

[Jed Olbertson]

I'm not quite sure what to think on this subject. I used to be full bore-plant every new gmo, spray every poison, etc, etc, etc. I felt like I was chasing my tail, letting every company dig in my billfold. As of now, I'm not planning on going organic, but I'm shooting for my own version of "sustainable". Last year my alfalfa was "almost organic", and I had the best yield I've ever had.
I think that some of the GMOs, and many kill-icides, have been approved and released before enough research has been done...


Glen Groth said:

"This meticulous study suggests that a popular type of genetically engineered corn may harbor fertility-reducing substances",

The word "suggests" and "may" are powerful words here. The words "demonstrates", "proves", or my favorite "links" are noticibly absent in the text of the article describing the experiment. I also find it interesting that the Austrian's idea of a "long term" experiment is 20 weeks. Nowhere does it actually say by how many fewer litters of babys the mice had, was it 1 less out of 1000? 1 less out of 10? What about standard deviation? Other environmental factors?. I wanted to examine the design of the experiment but the link provided turned out to be a dead end.

My main question for you guys to mull over is what would it take for you to consider biotech safe?

[Brian Grossman]

Kill-icidies? Spray every poison? I’m sensing a little bit of negativity or maybe a grudge… did this come about because somebody failed to follow a label and it didn’t work but there was no way it was the operators fault…… As for the line the most profitable farmers I have every worked with…. I don’t know, nor do I care where you are from Jim, but as the son to a first generation farmer I can say that our debt is decreasing, our yields are increasing and I follow the actual science behind new chemicals and technologies that are developed. I don’t dig my soil, I have newer equipment and yet my farm is doing just fine. Yes, some GMO’s have not been tested as well as they should be but they are still being tested while you are so quick to point fingers after reading a little bit of research done by a foreign country that seems to leave a lot of information out when it comes to their tests. I agree with Glen, what would it take for you to consider biotech to be safe? Or is that unknown grudge too much for you to swallow?

[Jed Olbertson]

Wow, Brian. No grudge here-just stating my experiance. If all the pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides aren't poisons then what are they? They are made to kill, not give life. Man, which petro-chemical company do you work for? Kind of defensive there, don't you think? I didn't attack anybodie's views, and I didn't say that my opinion is gospel. I agree that these short term studies are of little use, but what's long enough? A three year study, even, is not long enough to learn long term effects on soil life and groundwater. I've actually had "good" luck with chemicals-they're supposed to kill things, and that's what they do. DDT and Agent Orange are a couple of good examples of "killi-cides" that did a good job killing, too. I still use chemicals, of all sorts, but I really stop and ask myself if the benefit outweighs the cost and potential risk before I apply them. I don't consider GMO's to be unsafe as a whole-in fact, some GMO's have allowed a decrease in chemical use, but some of the protein manipulation that is being done is not condusive to growing good food. Why is it that 40 years ago corn was 10% protein+, and now much of it tests at 8% or below? We (and I include myself in this statement) are not growing food-we've lowered ourselves to just growing bins and bushels to work the insurance and an ill-concieved Farm Program.
I'll just end with this-anybody here know how many bushels of oats Quaker Oats, an American institution, buys in the U.S.? Anyone? Anyone? NOT ONE BUSHEL!!!! It's not that we have any shortage of oats-we have a complete absence of FOOD oats. This is partially attributable to climate, and partially to the "farming science" that's we've practiced here since WWII. I wish I had all the answers, but I'm glad to see that at least a few farmers are starting to ask the right questions...

Brian Grossman said:

Kill-icidies? Spray every poison? I’m sensing a little bit of negativity or maybe a grudge… did this come about because somebody failed to follow a label and it didn’t work but there was no way it was the operators fault…… As for the line the most profitable farmers I have every worked with…. I don’t know, nor do I care where you are from Jim, but as the son to a first generation farmer I can say that our debt is decreasing, our yields are increasing and I follow the actual science behind new chemicals and technologies that are developed. I don’t dig my soil, I have newer equipment and yet my farm is doing just fine. Yes, some GMO’s have not been tested as well as they should be but they are still being tested while you are so quick to point fingers after reading a little bit of research done by a foreign country that seems to leave a lot of information out when it comes to their tests. I agree with Glen, what would it take for you to consider biotech to be safe? Or is that unknown grudge too much for you to swallow?

[Hinfarm]

Jim, I disagree with you quite often on here and I don't sound like a jerk but how do you figure you are better planting open pollinated corn instead of hybrid corn? That is like using a telegraph over a cell phone? Granted you seed costs are probley just under $20 and acre with the open pollinated corn but I would bet you are losing at least 40 if not 50 bushels per acre. At $4 corn that becomes real money. I don't disagree with you on the manure idea I think that is a great nutrient sorce and I wish I could hit all my ground with some manure of some kind. Cultivate over round up may be a toss up if you have your weeds under control but if you dont and you are getting 75% of the weeds out there and not the ones right next to the rows I would say the extra $10 an acre you would spendover a cultivation pass in a generic roundup and a low rate of preemerge would be well worth the money as well. MAybe I'm all wet, and I am not saying if every body else is doing it you should jump off the bridge too but if 98% of the farmers are I have a hard time beliveing they are wrong.

Jim Snyder said:

Good for you Jed! I can honestly say after being a seed and chemical salesman that much of the hype we hear about all the latest and greatest is just a way to sell more products and keep stock holders making dividends. The most profitable farmers I have ever worked with in my career were those that kept input costs as low as possible, gave up on maximum yields and farmed sustainably. I am not just talking organic. I will be growing open pollenated corn this year that was developed in the 1800's. Price per bag is $78. I will only yield maybe 110 bushels per acre maximum but my input costs by using manure, older equipment and a little tillage are minimal. All will be fed through my cattle and hogs and some left standing for Fall and Winter grazing. I really hate to see farmers spend so much these days and go into so much debt just to make millions for all the seed and chemical companies. Other than saving time, I see no reason for GMOs. One can do a lot of cultivation for the price of Round Up these days and maybe help put the neighbor to work that just got layed off from the local factory.

Jed Olbertson said:

I'm not quite sure what to think on this subject. I used to be full bore-plant every new gmo, spray every poison, etc, etc, etc. I felt like I was chasing my tail, letting every company dig in my billfold. As of now, I'm not planning on going organic, but I'm shooting for my own version of "sustainable". Last year my alfalfa was "almost organic", and I had the best yield I've ever had.
I think that some of the GMOs, and many kill-icides, have been approved and released before enough research has been done...


Glen Groth said:

"This meticulous study suggests that a popular type of genetically engineered corn may harbor fertility-reducing substances",

The word "suggests" and "may" are powerful words here. The words "demonstrates", "proves", or my favorite "links" are noticibly absent in the text of the article describing the experiment. I also find it interesting that the Austrian's idea of a "long term" experiment is 20 weeks. Nowhere does it actually say by how many fewer litters of babys the mice had, was it 1 less out of 1000? 1 less out of 10? What about standard deviation? Other environmental factors?. I wanted to examine the design of the experiment but the link provided turned out to be a dead end.

My main question for you guys to mull over is what would it take for you to consider biotech safe?

[Kevin]

This post was created to discuss long term safety studies or lack there of. Are there any long term safety studies out there that look at multiple generations of exposure and/or consumption to GMO foods? I can't seem to find any that are favourable and I know that Monsanto was found guilty of purposely hiding evidence in abnormailties in the weights of internal organs of cows that were using RBGH. They have a long list of questionable dealings.

Arpad Pusztai is another scientist that was smeared after a 35 year career at the Rowatt Institute. A $3 million study found precancerous growths in the digestive tract, retarded development in the form of smaller brains, lungs and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver and weakened immune systems in the rats he tested over 110 days. He was studying potatoes. There are no more gm potatoes on the market now.

What will it take for me to think there safe? Anyone have any long term safety studies they can post or suggest. I have a pile of studies that prove they are not. Please forward studies instead of attacking one other on the conventional vs organic debate.

[Hinfarm]

I am assumeing that he isn't selling it on the organic market and he might be, then I could see his logic. Although you can get organic seed corn that is hybrid the open pollinated baffels me in 2009. I don't want to sound like I am slaming him either but I am just trying to figure out his logic.

Dominiquer60 said:

Hinfarm, I am no commodity wiz, I am accutally not interested at all really. However just doing some simple math, if Jim gets 110bu/A the conventional value would be $440 at $4/bu, if he used some chem and increased his yield to 160bu/A the crop value would now be $640/A. So by using his methods over something that you are more familiar with he could decrease the crop value by $200/A. That is what I got out of your post above and it seems to make sense accept for one thing.

If I were Jim practicing organic methods with a lower yielding seed I would certainly value that corn even for my own use at an organic price, which from my limited knowledge is usually twice the conventional price. So 110bu/A at the $8/bu organic price would yield a $880 crop value. That is $240 more than what the hypothetical higher yielding chem
method would have produced. Maybe I am way off, please kindly let me know, and I don't know how the cost of cultivating vs. spraying effects this attempt at math. If Jim can grow the crop, it seems that his method will hold value to him on his farm and help get a premium price for his beef and milk, and if he can make a living at it, without subsidies or chems, I am sure that is something that he can be proud of, I'd be.

On a personal note, since I was younger, if everyone was doing it, I was finding something else to do, I always have and always will.

[Hinfarm]

IF these trials were 100% true I have a real hard time believing that our government even as corupt as they are would let this happen. We have the cheapest AND the safest food in the world in the US so the FDA must be doing something right.

Kevin said:

This post was created to discuss long term safety studies or lack there of. Are there any long term safety studies out there that look at multiple generations of exposure and/or consumption to GMO foods? I can't seem to find any that are favourable and I know that Monsanto was found guilty of purposely hiding evidence in abnormailties in the weights of internal organs of cows that were using RBGH. They have a long list of questionable dealings.

Arpad Pusztai is another scientist that was smeared after a 35 year career at the Rowatt Institute. A $3 million study found precancerous growths in the digestive tract, retarded development in the form of smaller brains, lungs and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver and weakened immune systems in the rats he tested over 110 days. He was studying potatoes. There are no more gm potatoes on the market now.

What will it take for me to think there safe? Anyone have any long term safety studies they can post or suggest. I have a pile of studies that prove they are not. Please forward studies instead of attacking one other on the conventional vs organic debate.

[Shannon Dorman]

I lived in South Korea for a while and I will tell you from experience that we absolutely do not have the safest nor the cheapest food. I bought all my produce in Korea from the farmer who sold it at our local outdoor market. The food was delicious, and quite cheap! And, they didn't have one recall of spinach, nuts, corn or any other food product while I was living there, where as here in America, there is a new recall for some food at the grocery store almost every time I go!
For a statement such as "as corupt as they are" it is clear you are unaware how far the rabbit hole goes...as are we all!