Genetically Modified Products Present Problems

Crops engineered in China to withstand one pest are now beset by another.

The widespread planting of a genetically engineered crop designed to withstand a menacing pest has had the unanticipated consequence of transforming benign bugs into agricultural predators, according to a new study.

In findings that drive home the difficulty of trying to stay one step ahead of nature, scientists explain how farmers of bioengineered cotton in northern China were able to drastically reduce their insecticide use for more than a decade, only to find themselves spraying a crop that wasn't supposed to need such measures.

The genetically engineered plants were designed to withstand attacks from the cotton bollworm by growing their own pesticide--a deadly toxin that was originally discovered in a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Splicing the Bt genes into the cotton plants' DNA has kept the bollworm at bay.

Opponents of genetically engineered crops had warned that insects like the bollworm would breed resistance to the Bt toxin. So far, that hasn't happened. Instead, the crops effectively created a new category of pests called mirid bugs.

Researchers from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Center in Beijing documented that as use of Bt cotton rose--and pesticide use declined--mirid bugs did more damage to cotton crops. What's more, the growing population of hungry critters also devoured crops of Chinese dates, grapes, apples, peaches and pears.

In essence, the introduction of genetically engineered cotton transformed the fields into a habitat that enabled mirid bugs to thrive and spread, the researchers reported in the May 13, 2010 issue of the journal Science.

Researchers from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., noticed the problem in 2004, when they surveyed 481 farmers in 5 Chinese provinces. They suspected something was amiss when they found that Bt cotton farmers were using more pesticides than farmers planting conventional cotton. "That made no sense to us," said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, a professor of food, nutrition and public policy at Cornell who oversaw the survey. Then they realized that mirid bugs had emerged as secondary pests.

(Continued in next posting),
Suzanne

Genetically Modified Products Present Problems, (con't)

"They had had a field day because farmers were using very little pesticide, since they didn't have to spray for the bollworm," said Pinstrup-Andersen, who published his findings with colleagues. "Over time, the farmers had to go in and use pesticide again."

Mirid bugs were considered minor pests in China. Insecticides sprayed on conventional cotton took care of the butgs, and the need for additional measures arose "only sporadically," according to the study team.

That began to change in 1997, when genetically modified cotton was approved for use in China. The plants use genes from the Bt bacterium to make a toxin that lodges in the cell walls of an insect's digestive tract. That causes cells to swell and break apart, with lethal results. The toxin is not harmful to higher animals, including humans.

By killing off insect larvae, Bt cotton also benefits corn, peanut, soybean and vegetable crops, the researchers found in a previous study. Today, 95% of the cotton grown in China is genetically engineered.

Cotton farmers in Arizona faced the same dilemma after they began planting Bt cotton in 1996 and the absence of pesticides made fields safe for lygus bugs, a type of mirid bug. They dealt with the problem by using targeted pesticides that spared insects like ladybugs that feed on lygus bugs, according to University of Arizona entomologist Bruce Tabashnik.

"The lesson here is that Bt cotton is not a silver bullet," warns Tabashnik, who nonetheless endorses the crop for its role in reducing the need for anti-bollworm pesticides.

There is no reason to think that other types of genetically engineered crops would be immune to this type of problem, Pinsturp-Andersen said. Ultimately, he said, the solution is to develop genetically modified plants that are resistant to a variety of insects, but that will be a continuous process. --adapted from the Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2010.

Comment: Hmm...Will they ever learn? You can't fool with Mother Nature. She strikes back in unanticipated ways, and we the consumers usually end up on the short end of the process.

Suzanne

Thank you for this topic...
Further than what is happening in the field, what are the consequences of ingesting gmo food products? Many many studies have shown that we are in danger b eating gmo foods, so now it may be safer to eat organic meats than to eat gmo tomatoes??
Wow this world is upside down

GMO-Free is Fastest Growing Retail Brand

by Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) In a blog post on Nielsen.com1 earlier this month, Nielsen's Tom Pirovano says that U.S. retailers are expanding their store brands and the latest, fastest-growing branding health claim is to label products "GMO-free." This labeling, according to Nielsen's numbers, is up by 67% in 2009 with a sales growth of $60.2 million in that sector.

In fact, healthy claims are tops in many categories of sales growth for store brands, including "Gluten free" and claims of adding or bolstering Omega acids.

Most of these store brands are large and are well-known chains, some known for healthy and whole foods and others more as being cookie-cutter boxes. Supermarkets have been certifying products as organic for in-store brands for some time, so the trend towards healthy claims and marketing is not new.

The rise of sentiment against genetically modified foods (GM or GMO) is growing, however, and market brands reflect that. Readers of NaturalNews are no simpletons when it comes to the dangers of GM foods.2

With genetically modified organisms and foods being linked to organ damage, crop failures, increased water usage, and worse, consumers are finally waking up to the dangers of these products.

Another hot growing trend amongst retail store brands is the claim of being high fructose corn syrup free, which gained 28% or $13 million in market share, according to the Nielsen numbers. This one may become a growing trend, and as Pirovano points out, many retailers are adopting a "wait-and-see attutide to determine if a claim has 'legs' or is merely the latest blip on the consumer trend screen."

Further, thousands of organic and natural food products are now enrolled in the Non-GMO Project's Product Verification Program (known as PVP). This is the nation's first and largest system for scientific testing of product standards against genetic modification.3 This project includes some of the biggest retail names in the food industry and labels from the PVP will be appearing on retail packages this year.

As sentiment against the GMO seeds and products made from their crops grows, so too will the retail market backlash. Although government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration have refused to rule against GM foods, despite the evidence, the free market and consumer demand is turning the tide against them on its own.

As Shelly Roche of Bytestyle.tv says, "The great thing about this new report is that it shows how quickly the market responds when it sees a shift in consumer demand."4

It's becoming obvious that many health-conscious consumers in America are indeed voting with their forks.

Resources:
1 - U.S. Healthy Eating Trends Part 4: Store Brands Expand Healthy Offerings by Tom Pirovano, Director of Industry Insights, Nielsen Co.

2 - Feature NaturalNews Articles on GMOs and http://www.naturalnews.com/027931_G...

3 - Non-GMO Project

4 - 'GMO-free' is fastest-growing retailer brand claim by Shelly Roche, Bytestyle.tv

Suzanne

GMO Poisons Found in Indiana Waterways

Previous ArticleThe Indiana Business Journal reports that proteins from genetically modified crops are showing up in Indiana waterways.

According to the Journal, the University of Notre Dame and Loyola University looked at 217 streams, drains and ditches near Indiana cornfields and found genetically modified (GM) bug-killing protein in 50 of them.

The protein is in genetically modified corn and other crops that are engineered to produce their own pesticide when insects bite them. But when farmers mow the fields, the residue remains from the crushed plants – and it's finding its way to the waterways.

"The protein is carried to surface water by runoff and by the leaves and stalks that sometimes wash into streams," the Journal said. "And the protein lingers. The study was conducted six months after harvest."

The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says it is not known whether the trace levels of the protein are a threat to invertebrates in the water.

But either way – it's still poison, and it's a poison that was in 85 percent of the U.S. corn crop last year.

Sources:
Indianapolis Business Journal September 29, 2010

USAToday.com September 28, 2010

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences September 27, 2010

--Posted by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Suzanne

Monsanto Roundup Linked to Birth Defects in New Study

by Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Everybody's favorite genetically modified seed and biotech company, Monsanto, has yet again proven their lovability. The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit1 was the focus of a new study looking at their top-selling product, Roundup herbicides.

The study was conducted by Professor Andres Carrasco and an international team of scientists and researchers at the Laboratorio de Embriolagia Molecular at the University of Buenos Aires and was published by the American Chemical Society in August.2 It focused on glyphosate, the prime ingredient of Roundup and the most widely-used broad spectrum herbicide in use worldwide. Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are also the focus of most of Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant (HT-ready) genetically modified seeds (GM or GMO).

The Argentinian study looked at how GBH affects vertebrate embryos in development. Treated during incubation with a dilute 1/5,000 GBH, the embryos showed several abnormalities in bone development, particularly in the skull and vertebrae. The animal embryos used were frogs and chickens.

For comparison, a 1/5,000 concentration (2.03mg/kg) is about 1/10th of the amount used on most agricultural plants. The maximum level for GBH allowed in soybeans in the European Union is 20mg/kg (established in 1997 when GMO soy was commercialized in Europe). Soybeans after harvest can typically contain up to 17mg/kg of GBH residue.

The research done by Carrasco and his team was prompted by the high rate of birth defects in rural areas of Argentina where Monsanto's GMO soybeans are often grown in large monocultures and sprayed with Roundup from aircraft.

At a press conference during the 6th European Conference of GMO-Free Regions in the European Parliament in Brussels, Professor Carrasco said, "The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy."3

Here in the U.S., we are undergoing a 3-pronged attack against our agricultural and food system. Over 90% of our soybeans, 70% of our corn, and many other common crops are now genetically modified. The plant-patenting and manipulation industry, led by Monsanto, has been taking over both the USDA and the FDA while systematically eliminating family and independent farmers who resist using GM seeds.4

Meanwhile, the evidence against the safety of GM foods continues to mount. This study from Professor Carrasco and his team is just the latest in a long line of research showing the extremely negative effects of the genetic manipulation of our food supply.

The best way to combat this problem individually? Buy from local, non-GMO farmers and growers, eat healthy, non-processed foods, and continue to spread the word about the evils of Big Agra. Things will only change when people begin voting en masse with their wallets and forks, walking away from the Big Agra-Industrial-Pharma-Government complex that is attempting to destroy our lives.

Resources:
1 - Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit by Jeffrey M. Smith, NaturalNews

2 - Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling by Alejandra Paganelli, Andres Carrasco, et al, American Chemical Society, August 9, 2010

3 - Groundbreaking study shows Roundup link to birth defects, Press Release, GMO-Free Regions Conference 2010

4 - Three-Pronged System Enables GMO Takeover of American Agriculture by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews

Suzanne

Genetically Modified Potatoes: Scientists Unleash New Monster

by Anthony Gucciardi

(NaturalNews) Genetic modification of the food supply has run rampant within the past couple of years. A new genetically modified creation has emerged, and may soon end up on your dinner table. Researchers in India have developed a genetically modified potato, loaded with genetically altered amino acids. It seems as if scientists are attempting to recreate nature entirely.

Genetically modified fish have threatened the very genetic coding of fish worldwide, and the genetically modified canola plant has spread into the wild. It is apparent that a tidal wave of genetic modulation has hit the environment very hard.

Genetically modified potatoes now threaten the purity of potatoes internationally. All it takes is a careless farmer to allow his modified crop to be planted elsewhere, without properly labeling the crop as modified. This would mix in the genetically modified crop with traditional, and even organic, crops. This is a legitimate environmental issue, as it is a major threat to food integrity.

Arguably as important as the need to protect our food supply, is the need to protect ourselves from the deadly effects of genetically modified food. Consuming genetically modified food can lead to auto immune disorders, organ failure, sterility, and much more.

If you are unfamiliar with the risks associated with modified food, you are most likely not familiar with how it is created.

The process in which food is genetically modified is extremely outlandish. Billions are spent each year to genetically modify the food supply, leading to an influx of tainted food products. Modifying foods requires one to tamper with the very genetic coding of the crop and/or seed.

The process entails the transfer of genes from one organism to another, such as taking particular genes from a pig and transferring them to a tomato. Not only does this defile nature, but it also leads to a host of health problems.

Due to the complexity of a living organism`s genetic structure, it is impossible to track the long-term results of consuming genetically modified food. Introducing new genes into even the most simple bacterium may cause an array of issues, highlighting the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Introducing new genes to highly complex organisms such as animals or crops is even riskier.

When introducing the gene to its new host, it is essentially impossible to predict the reaction. The genetic intelligence of the host could be disrupted with the introduction of the new gene, creating an adverse reaction. There is truly no way of knowing the long-term effects of genetically modified food, as there are too many variables. There is simply no room for science when Monsanto is involved.

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
http://shatterlimits.com/new-geneti...
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-po...

Suzanne

NY Times asks: Why aren't GMO foods labeled?

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) It is a question that more people should be asking, and one that even some in the mainstream media have begun to entertain: why are genetically-modified (GM) foods, which are patently (no pun intended) different from conventional and organic foods, not required to be properly labeled on food packaging? The answer, dictated directly from the public relations departments of Monsanto and friends via the U.S. government, is that GMOs are safe and identical to natural varieties, and do not require differentiation. But this notion is a flat out lie.

No matter what those in the ivory towers of conventional academia and science often say in defense of GMOs, the simple fact remains that GMOs, also known as imitation food, has never been proven to be safe for consumption, either by animals or by humans, and the technology neither increases crops yields nor reduces the use of toxic pesticides and herbicides. In fact, it does all of the opposite, all while giving complete control of agriculture to a few multinational biotechnology companies that are rapidly eliminating all competition.

And you surely do not have to take our word for it. A simple look into the history of GMOs and how they even gained a foothold in agriculture in the first place clearly illustrates the heavy hand of the likes of Monsanto in weaseling its way into the limelight through lobbying, lies, and deceit (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...).

One would think that the proposition of, at the very least, simply requiring GMOs to be labeled -- just as they are in Europe -- is more than reasonable, as it allows the public to rightfully know what they are buying and feeding their children. But the pro-GM stacked Obama administration, in the spirit of carrying on the pro-GM legacy of previous administrations, has repeatedly said NO to this common-sense approach to food transparency.

According to Obama's U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), labeling GMOs is "false, misleading, [and] deceptive." In other words, being honest is lying, and lying is being honest, according to the administration of transparency (http://www.theatlantic.com/food/arc...).

Or course, the simple explanation for this rhetorical nonsense is the fact that the vast majority of those who now hold positions of power in federal agencies that deal with food, agriculture, and drugs, are former higher-ups at Monsanto (http://www.organicconsumers.org/usd...). So anything that opposes the Monsanto agenda automatically gets shut down, even if it makes perfect sense.

But it goes beyond just labeling, as numerous studies showing the detrimental effects of GMOs prove they are poisons. So in reality, the bare minimum of a reasonable approach is to label GMO poisons as being present in food, even though they truly do not even belong in food, or deserve to be even be called food.

A 2009 study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that three varieties of GM corn that have been approved for human consumption in the U.S. cause "adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system." And this conclusion was arrived upon based on the same data Monsanto used to somehow get these GMOs approved (http://www.naturalnews.com/027931_G...).

Various other studies have also found that GMOs lead to infertility, allergic reactions, autoimmune disorders, intestinal problems, liver dysfunction, enlarged bile ducts, stomach ulcers, premature delivery during pregnancy, and death (http://www.naturalnews.com/026426_G...).

Numerous biologists and others have come forth insisting that, upon review of all available scientific literature on the subject, GMOs are wholly unfit for human consumption. Even the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has stated that an indefinite moratorium is needed on GMOs until proper safety studies have been conducted, rather than industry-funded ones, proving the safety of GMOs. The organization has warned the public to stop consuming GMOs until that time. And the list of documented safety concerns goes on and on.

Jest and jeer as they might, GMO apologists simply do not have science or even reasonable speculation on their side. The evidence is highly stacked against the safety of GMOs, and it is time for their proper labeling on food packaging. Let the public decide whether or not to consume "Frankenfoods" and see how long they last on the market. And in doing so, it will become clear exactly why Monsanto is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that never happens: because the "most evil corporation in the world" would be put out of business in no time.

To learn more about the dangers of GMOs, visit:
http://www.naturalnews.com/GMO.html

Sources for this story include:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...

Suzanne

Suzanne, just so you know, the links don't paste completely.

I hadn't heard about this GMO thing until lately. I do remember wondering why animals nor birds wouldn't eat the corn left by the farmers after the harvest. My wife and I take walks in the country here in Southern Indiana and it is really noticable that there is lots of corn, ears and loose, left by the farmers. It has lain in the fields all winter. Not when I was young. If you wanted to get some of it, you had to beat the varmits and birds.
Just recently we went to my wife's mother's. It was in the morning, and she ask me to let her chickens out of their house. She told me that they had water but no food as it drew mice. So I went to do it. I noticed that she had piled up some loose corn that she had gotten from the field next to the house. I thought that was nice. The chickens would have something to eat as soon as they got out. Not so. They walked right over it and none of them even looked at it. Not so when I was young. We fed our chickens right out of the field. None of it was left.
What are they feeding us?