Selfsufficientish.com

http://www.franceinfo.fr/sciences-sante ... 2012-09-19

It's in French, so I shall provide a brief summery:

A French team has been feeding rats on GM maize for the past two years and has discovered that they develop life-ending illnesses at a rate three times higher than those fed on a non-GM diet. In particular they developed tumours. Some of the GM maize had been treated with "Roundup" - the modification is designed stop the maize being killed by the Roundup - so it could be this that is the cause of the increased mortality. The team doing this work is obviously very concerned that a similar effect could repeat in humans.

My French isn't up to scratch, but fortunately I'm fluent in Google.. the article is referring to a Gilles-Eric Séralini who is co-author of a paper published in 2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, and an earlier paper from 2007 New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity.

Interesting stuff.I'm fascinated by irony.Now,if the development of GM crops was to highlight the (long suggested in some quarters) toxicity of a chemical that has become fundamental to the practice of Western arable Agri-Business,how sweet would that be?

Let's force feed the b####ds of Monsanta for the rest of their natural live' s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uls50 ... detailpage

See, thats why organic is allways better!

There has been a lot of criticism of this study, and I have to say that most of it seems extremely solid. The experimental design is terrible, the statistics are shoddy, and the results from the control group seem suspicious for this breed of rat (which is highly prone to developing tumours anyway). The don't present the control results in full though, so it's hard to be sure. Oh, and they can't actually guarantee that the feed for the control group didn't contain GM.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... rat-study/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... han-sense/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/ ... -movement/

Plenty more where those came from...

Let me just state for the record that I think this particular application of GM technology is a lousy idea, with plenty of adverse ecological consequences. However, I'm entirely unconvinced by this particular study.

Have you seen/signed this? Ban Dangerous GM Corn in the European Union!http://www.thepetitionsite.com/869/338/ ... FB_TAF_CIT

I am unconvinced about the case for deploying GMOs. Very little of the stuff that has been commercialised has had much to do - directly, at least - with increased yield. The "benefits" have been concerned for the most part in simplifying husbandry. In which case, it seems to me to be unnecessary to expose the environment (and us) to organisms about which there are lingering suspicions just so that agrochemical companies can sell more glyphosphate.

The Riff-Raff Element wrote:I am unconvinced about the case for deploying GMOs. Very little of the stuff that has been commercialised has had much to do - directly, at least - with increased yield. The "benefits" have been concerned for the most part in simplifying husbandry. In which case, it seems to me to be unnecessary to expose the environment (and us) to organisms about which there are lingering suspicions just so that agrochemical companies can sell more glyphosphate.

some figures i was told about recently on an organic agriculture course, indicated, that although yield per plant, m2 or whatever was usually a fair bit higher, the overall nutritonal value was lower, so technically no gain whatsoever in terms of food supply for the world, just potential financial gains, possibly for the farmer, but mainly for the likes of Monsanto, and that is before looking at the potential harmful effects of gm crops, both for human healtgh and the environment

Just found that my latest bag of layers pellets contain GM stuff - should I be worried?

Thats probably imported US soya in the mix.To be honest,given the current price of feed,if you only keep poultry for yourselves,plus a few eggs\birds to sell,I'd consider buying the Wheat\Barley\Oats\extra proteinetc etc locally,grinding it youself and feeding either wet or dry.Better for your conscience and the enviroment and your pocket,and you can always add anything you've got lying around,lupn seed\field beans\whatever.

I'm with Dunc on this one (see, Dunc - it can happen ).

I know what I THINK - but this study does appear to be based upon pre-emptive ideas and so is probably best regarded as invalid. My objection to the deployment of GM crops has always been that we don't know what the roll-on effects may be. That still stands as my opinion - but the only real way to test my opinion is to deploy GM crops. That's a bit of a bummer. Such a deployment may prove conclusively that GM crops are world-savers (at which point I would clap my hands and jump up and down in glee) or it may prove that GM crops are the worst thing ever to have hit the fields - but too late by then.

I have to bear in mind that we, as a species, have been GMing for a long time - but slowly. What I still haven't made up my mind about is whether slow GMing is intrinsically any better than getting stuff out of a laboratory and so cutting a couple of centuries out of development. It's not the fact that it's GM - it's the repercussions of our being irresponsibly wrong which I worry about.

Oh - it's late, and I've drunk too much plum wine. Interestingly, given another thread here, the strong one - with major plum content - is bitter. Had those been GM plums, I'd be very worried. But they're not.

Mike

Well, I think that in order for any result to be valid, the GM maize would have to be untreated with roundup. Otherwise it simply is impossible to know whether any extra mortality is due to the actual GM mutation or the use of the poison.

Either is bad, but should be researched separately i.m.o.

My problem with GM is not the experimentation with chemicals in food production , or for that matter any experimentation that improves the lot for the human race. My problem is that companies such as Monsanto who were after all the makers and suppliers of Agent Orange; to the US army; which is today still killing and maiming men ,women and children. You may agree or not with these later studies, but the fact of the matter is,that the original study was carried out by Monsanta and their findings were approved by the US government, with out any independent verification as to their findings.
It may well be true that there are questions about the latest studies, but I prefer to believe, that these studios are far more reliable, and until such time the true facts are known, surly it prudent and err on the side of safety.

I also believe, that any company who manufactures, any product that is responsible for any effects, outside for which was designed, for should held responsible for any after effects.

Eddy

[quote="MKG"]I'm with Dunc on this one (see, Dunc - it can happen ).



I have to bear in mind that we, as a species, have been GMing for a long time - but slowly. What I still haven't made up my mind about is whether slow GMing is intrinsically any better than getting stuff out of a laboratory and so cutting a couple of centuries out of development.



I cant always keep up with you people with a science background,but isn't that the essence of the whole GM thing? It seems that nature is capable of adapting to different situations\challenges if they are introduced slowly enough(see average garden full of non native species,nowhere near the ecology of a garden full of native species,but still some natual activity....and that's after 100-150 yrs).Just to chuck it in the mix(and lets be clear,this is profit driven,and nothing to do with feeding the starving millions) is more akin to sticking American Signal crayfish in UK watercourses.