China says no to Frankencorn

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

You understand that there are numerous independent scientifically based organizations who have examined the data from studies on GMO's, whether supplied by the industry or not... and not one of them that i can find has made a determination that agrees with the headcase individuals and faux-scientific web pages that GMO's are going to kill us all, or vaccinations will reduce our progeny to hand waving autistics, or any of the rest of it.

Why have so many other "first world" nations outlawed GMOs?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Why have so many other "first world" nations outlawed GMOs?

In fact I believe it is just this sort of thing that is holding up the trade talks with the EU.

They also thought that Lipitor was safe until quite recently.

But then since Monsanto nearly killed my wife before I even had the chance to meet her I have a personal vendetta with them

[CarlV]

To protect our health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximum legal residue levels for every pesticide, for dozens of crops. But a new study in the respected journal Toxicology has shown that, at low levels that are currently legal on our food, Roundup weed killer could cause DNA damage, endocrine disruption and cell death. The study, conducted by French researchers, shows glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic to human reproductive cells.

The potential real-life risks from this are infertility, low sperm count, and prostate or testicular cancer. But, “Symptoms could be so subtle, they would be easy to overlook,” says Theo Colborn, president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange. “Timing is of critical importance. If a pregnant woman were to be exposed early in gestation, it looks like these herbicides could have an effect during the sexual differentiation stage. They really lock in on testosterone.” The bottom line is more research is needed before we can fully understand the effects of glyphosate exposure.

A Perfect Poison

The researchers’ most disturbing findings were not only the cytotoxic and hormonal responses to low-dose exposures, but the fact that the “active” ingredient — glyphosate — had much less of a toxic impact alone than the branded chemical mixtures sold to homeowners and farmers nationwide.

Solvents and surfactants, legally considered “inert ingredients,” are mixed with glyphosate in products such as Roundup weed killer to create chemical formulations that increase mobility and more direct access to the cells. “Those same factors that aid penetration into a plant, also aid penetration into the skin,” says Vincent Garry, professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Minnesota. “These chemicals are designed to kill cells.”

Despite being termed “inert,” these added (and usually secret) ingredients are anything but benign, as the manufacturers have claimed for decades. The new French research found the surfactants not only amplify the effects of glyphosate, but glyphosate also amplifies the effects of the surfactants. Basically, one plus one equals something larger than two.

Herbicide manufacturers are subject to fewer rules in the testing of inert ingredients than they are for active ingredients, explains Caroline Cox, research director at the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, Calif. “The tests the EPA requires for inert ingredients cover only a small range of potential health problems,” Cox says. “Testing for birth defects, cancer, and genetic damage are required only on the active ingredients. But we’re exposed to both.”

Glyphosate, mostly in the form of Roundup products manufactured by the Monsanto Co., has been widely used in the United States since the 1970s. Today, we spray more than 100 million pounds on our yards and farms every year, making it the most popular of the Monsanto chemicals. Monsanto continues to assure us its product is safe. “It’s used to protect schools,” a Monsanto spokesperson told Scientific American. Protect schools?! From what, killer weeds?

Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in recent years because of the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn, soy, and cotton varieties that Monsanto developed to be resistant to glyphosate, according to the Center for Food Safety. Although the companies promoted glyphosate-resistant crops as a way to reduce herbicide use, there’s actually been a sharp increase in use on corn, soybeans, and cotton since 2002, thanks to the emergence of resistant weeds. Farmers are battling glyphosate-resistant weeds with more glyphosate and other herbicides.

Most of the food we eat that contains corn or soy was sprayed with glyphosate herbicide, and we’re being exposed to higher and higher levels of residue. In response to petitions from Monsanto, the EPA has approved up to 20-fold increases in the legal residue limits for food crops.

“Our bodies are gigantic spider webs of chemical communications that work in the parts-per-trillion range,” says Warren Porter, professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin. “When you put so-called ‘insignificant’ amounts of toxic chemicals into the mix, you have a molecular bull in a china shop. The possibilities for impact are endless.”
Better Testing Coming

In response to growing public concerns, the EPA is getting ready to launch new tests on 67 potential endocrine disruptors. Critics say the proposed tests will cover only a portion of organs in the endocrine system, but supporters say it is at least a step in the right direction.

Link

75 years ago nobody thought much of smoking cigarettes turning lung cancer from unusual to a rather commonplace occurance in the world of Oncology.

Cigarettes are good for you commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-y_N4u0uRQ

Carl

[Boreas]

Most countries have the eminently sensible policy of approving foods, drugs, pesticides on the strength of proven safety. The US, on the other hand, approves them on a sort of "innocent until proven guilty" basis. They're fine unless you can prove that they aren't.

Meanwhile, there's a growing body of evidence pointing to Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a human carcinogen. How long has Roundup been on the market? How long have we been eating it?

John

[Ike Bana]

Silly me...I thought we were talking about genetically engineered corn, not Roundup. Which has an officially identified half life of 2-3 days. Although my friend the EPA "dirt speci@list" (not her official job title, just what she calls herself), has told us that it's actually only 24 hours, and pehaps even a little less.

But these food and pharmaceutical fables have an ever expanding life of their own, so I guess the topic has now expanded to glyophosphates.

As to the question of why this GMO scare has taken hold in so many 1st world countries, I can only say...beats me.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Silly me...I thought we were talking about genetically engineered corn, not Roundup.

We're talking about approval processes.

And I'm trying to keep the snark out of my posts, Ike. You just can't stand it when people disagree with you, can you? You might work on that a bit.

[bobabode]

I thought that the reason Monsanto modified the genetic structure was to make it resistant to Round Up?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We're talking about approval processes.

And I'm trying to keep the snark out of my posts, Ike. You just can't stand it when people disagree with you, can you? You might work on that a bit.

Look john...my last communication to you suggested we both just leave each other alone and I never received the courtesy of a reply. So go rag at somebody else.

And WTF is this obsession you have with me and the tone of my posts anyway? People are outright flaming each other every day all over the place in this fucking joint and you're pissing and moaning about my "...silly me"? Maybe it would make things better if I just broke down and asked you out on a date.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Look john...my last communication to you suggested we both just leave each other alone and I never received the courtesy of a reply. So go rag at somebody else.

No, you got a reply. I said that you were free to "expect" anything you like.

I feel no obligation to refrain from replying to your posts and, as long as I do so civilly, I see no justifiable reason for you to complain or, for that matter, respond in a rude manner.

Do I care? Not a bit. Respond to me as you like but just don't try to justify it.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Boreas

No, you got a reply. I said that you were free to "expect" anything you like.

I feel no obligation to refrain from replying to your posts and, as long as I do so civilly, I see no justifiable reason for you to complain or, for that matter, respond in a rude manner.

Do I care? Not a bit. Respond to me as you like but just don't try to justify it.

You trying to take some sort of behavioral high ground is the funniest fucking thing I've seen on this forum in a long time.