Personally, I don't see a problem with the concept of GMO. However, I see a serious problem with the implementation of it.

The implementation is an art, not a science. In fact, one may question the "art" part as it is not very controlled. It is more of a let's try it and hope for the best. The two ways I know is by bacterial injection or by the shotgun approach. Either way, the gene must first be excised. I forget some of the details or proper terms, but an enzyme or bacteria (?) is used to cut the DNA strand. Different enzymes cut it closer to the gene or further than others. You hope for a fairly close cut. It may include or exclude the "junk" DNA between genes. Markers are used to assist the process.

Junk DNA means that part of the code which has yet to be determined what it's for. It may be useful for the gene in question or it may be useful for some other gene in the source plant. Imagine if the excising gets it wrong. If it is code which turns on (or off) some other gene in the source DNA, gets inserted in the target DNA, what if it is pointing to some unrelated target DNA gene? If left out for the targeted gene, then most likely, those plants won't be used. But what if it is code which only turns it on (or off) under certain circumstances? Those circumstances are different in the target DNA.

Anyway, once this "close enough" gene is excised and properly prepared for insertion, special infecting bacteria can be used which take up the gene into their own DNA, and infect/insert into the target plant's DNA. And yes, part of the bacteria's DNA may be transferred as part of the natural infection process. Hope it doesn't seriously affect the end result.

An alternative way is to bombard the target DNA cell culture. Basically with a shotgun approach. Do enough cells, and some of them may accidentally get the gene in the right areas of the target DNA which is expressed "good enough" to be used. Just like in normal plant breeding, hundreds are selected through to find one that works.

So, you have extra DNA from the source, extra DNA from bacteria, inserted in an unknown or uncontrolled location in the target DNA. Amazing that it even works! But hey, it's good enough, let's use it.

If you are one who eats anything, then you should have little worries about what gene is inserted into what. But if you avoid animal products, what happens when they use a frog gene to create a frost resistant plant? And of course, there is the issues with ingesting other animal genes and then worrying about viruses targeting those genes/characteristics or your immune system not recognizing those genes.

That was approaching it from the greed/ignorance level. Some say such embedded genes are causing health problems. Maybe it's just an unfortunate side effect.

But what if someone wanted to intentionally cause problems? With the irrationality of vaccinations and even though the few experiments done have shown no benefit but they keep urging it upon people, one wonders if there is something else going on. Something sinister, something intentional rather than one of ignorance or hopefulness. What if a gene is inserted into a plant/plant product, it becomes commonly accepted, it causes no problems, but it does code for part of a compound or reactant? Then, once it's in place, what if another gene is introduced which codes for the other half?....

How does one determine whether a product is genetically modified? How does one screen for an unknown gene?

GMOs killing off Monarch butterflies, report finds

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) You have likely seen them dancing through the air and gracing the petals and leaves of various plants and shrubs. But a new study published in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity says that the popular Monarch butterfly, which is an absolute necessity for farmers, is on the decline. And the cause? Genetically-modified (GM) crops like corn, soy, and cotton, which today blanket millions of acres of American cropland.

Though not necessarily in the same vein as bees and bats, Monarch butterflies are still considered to be migrational pollinators. They travel very long distances and often inadvertently pollinate various flowers and plants. But Monarchs rely on milkweed plants to breed -- milkweed is actually the only plant on which Monarch larvae can feed -- and the use of pesticides in GM agriculture is contributing to the elimination of milkweed, and thus the elimination of Monarchs.

The study explains that during the 2009 - 2010 Monarch overwintering season, which represents the time during which eastern North American Monarch butterflies hold out through the winter in warmer Mexico, populations reached an all-time low. And while they increased slightly the following year, they still remained at dismally low levels.

Besides loss of forest in overwintering areas and continued land development, the report tacks the "expansion of GM herbicide-resistant crops, with consequent loss of milkweed host plants" as the culprit in declining Monarch butterfly populations. After all, Monsanto's Roundup herbicide specifically targets milkweed for termination, and roughly 150 million pounds of the poison are applied to US cropland every year.

If GM crops continue to take over the whole of agriculture with great strides, as they continue to do, Monarch butterflies (as well as bees and bats), may eventually become extinct. And without these pollinators, of course, it will be no longer possible to grow food.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011...

Suzanne

Sorry, I don't buy that.

First, I don't see, nor ever have seen, very many milkweeds in a corn field. Second, why would Monsanto create a herbicide to target milkweed rather than Russian thistle, pigweed, bindweed, or other serious weeds? And aren't milkweeds perennials which would most likely require more than one year to flower and therefore would not be established to any extent of a food source in cultivated fields anyway?

This is stating that Monarchs are not extinct due to farmer's sloppy field practices. Farmers who don't spray, cultivate their corn and I would be surprised if very many milkweeds grew in it. A slogan could be, "Save the monarch, become lazy farmers".

But why the concern for Monarchs? What about corn ear worm? Or corn borers, rootworms, stalk borer, cutworms, armyworms? Many of these produce butterflies which would be as much of and more of a minor pollinator as Monarchs are. And some of those are what Monsanto is specifically targeting. Save the Ear Worm!

And which food crops, of which the majority eats, require insect pollination?
Not corn, not wheat, not oats, not rice, not beans.

Kland, this agenda is explained in Seeds of Destruction by F. William Engdahl.

Seeds of Destruction review:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7716

_____________________________________

But I don't read that as intentional but more of greed and a don't care attitude of the side effects. What I'm questioning is if there is something very intentional and not just for protecting profits. In other words, could these illnesses not be a "side effect" of the imprecise process, but could they have been intentionally studied, researched, and designed to cause harm?

In my view, the reason GMO is wrong is that combining genes from different species is a divine, creative prerogative. That's my understanding of what is involved. But I'd really like to hear your reasons Kland for thinking the concept is fine.

I read your description of the process of creating a GMO organism and it seems you're acknowledging that men are combining genes from different species. This was what men were doing before the flood and the dinosaurs are an indication they were far more advanced than modern geneticists. The interference of men in the created order was one of the primary reasons for the flood according to inspiration. It seems the flood annihilated genetically modified creatures and we're going to see a repetition of that history when the earth is cleansed again - this time with fire.

When I said I don't see a problem with it, I was stating it from a position of the world rather than a believer. For if approaching it from a believer, splicing in frog genes into a tomato plant, does that make tomatoes unclean?

However, still, I see genes as code. Inserting code from one place into another, is that wrong? Not what God created, but if you come at that angle, is anything today what God created? I'd say nothing is. It's part of evolution - change over time. Not change into something totally different, not a dog into a cat type of evolution, not a increase of information, but more of a filtering or a loss over time.

Were dinosaurs amalgamated species? Were they created by man before the flood? Were they extinguished at the flood? Were none on the ark? More specifically, what is a dinosaur?

What about the flowers Ellen White described being larger than they are today? Since they don't exist, does that mean they were amalgamated?

Speaking of plants, if amalgamation means genetically modified, does that mean men before the flood did not genetically modify, or amalgamate, plants?

Did only man amalgamate things? I think something else is going on. Not sure what, but one thought is things amalgamated either through satan and/or on their own. The flood merely reset it. Maybe so, maybe not...

And, since "there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" does that mean men were genetically modifying man and beast at least by the time of Ellen White if not before?

Which further leads me to think something else is intended, but course, not man with beast.

Four ways Monsanto threatens the environment and public health

by Anthony Gucciardi

(NaturalNews) Biotechnology giant Monsanto has been the leader in genetically modifying the planet, altering the genetic structure of crops and seeds that are consumed by individuals around the globe. Scientific research has found that GM crops and herbicides are not only leading to a number of health disorders, but they are also spawning mutated species of insects and powerful superweeds. This is only a couple of the ways that Monsanto continues to recklessly endanger human health and the environment -- here are the complete 4.

1. GM crops consistently linked to organ problems, other biological damage
Despite hard evidence linking the consumption of GM crops to organ disruption and a host of other health ailments, Monsanto continues to push its GM crops on developing nations under the guise of solving world hunger and empowering local farmers. In a telling review of 19 studies analyzing the dangers of GM crops including corn and soybeans, scientists reached a shocking conclusion regarding the true safety of these ubiquitous food staples. Researchers concluded that consumption of genetically altered corn and soybean products can actually lead to significant organ disruption in rats and mice.

The organ damage was specific to the liver and kidneys, two organs that are vital in the cleansing of toxins. It is important to remember that over 93 percent of United States soybeans are genetically modified, and this number is increasing. What this means is that public health is continually being threatened by the global food supply, as evidenced by the major study review.

2. Bt-containing gmo crops are spawning mutated superbugs
Going beyond the initial genetic modification process, Monsanto also offers GM crops filled with a toxic biopesticide known as Bt. Incorporated into the crops to kill insects, Bt usage has led to the development of mutated insects that are resistant to the biopesticide. Insects that are continually exposed to Bt actually begin to develop a resistance to the toxin through the act of mutation. In present day, around 8 insect populations have mutated to resist Bt. Of the 8, 2 species are specifically resistant to Bt sprays and a staggering 6 are resistant to Bt crops as a whole.

As a result of the resistance, farmers are forced to increase their pesticide use. Meanwhile, Monsanto continues to genetically manipulate the Bt-filled crops further in an attempt to overcome the powerful mutations exhibited in the insect populations. Despite heavy modification, research has found that even further modified Bt crops provided 'little or no advantage' in fighting off the insects. If Monsanto chooses to continue with this process, it will undoubtedly lead to even more pesticide spraying.

3. Roundup creating superweeds spanning millions of acres
Superweeds now infest over 120 million hectares of farmland, all thanks to Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup. Farms across the world are being infested with herbicide-resistant superweeds that show no sign of stopping. These are the very same farms that Monsanto claims to be assisting and empowering. The super resistant weeds developed an immunity to glyphosate, a primary herbicide that Roundup contains. In 2010, experts estimated the weeds to cover over 120 million hectares across the globe, 4.5 million of which are within the United States. Nations like Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa are experiencing an increase in these superweeds.

When farmers have come to Monsanto seeking aid, Monsanto denies them any warranty. On their website, the company states "Roundup agricultural warranties will not cover the failure to control glyphosate resistant weed populations."

4. Monsanto is involved in creating aspartame
A 1999 investigation by The Independent revealed that aspartame is actually created using GM bacteria. The article, entitled "World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria" included a Monsanto spokesperson admitting that aspartame was indeed created using genetically altered bacteria. According to the report, the Monsanto rep stated:

"We have two strains of bacteria - one is traditionally modified and one is genetically modified," said the source. "It's got a modified enzyme. It has one amino acid different."

Aspartame, of course, has been linked to brain tumors and other health conditions. Amazingly, one showed that of 48 rats experimented on, up to 67 percent of all female rats developed tumors roughly the size of golf balls or larger.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_de...
http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagem...
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt_resistan...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23...

Suzanne