KEVINFALTA is a troll paid for by Monstroso - here's an earlier exchange we had, before he polished his corporate patter to better hide his true intentions:

http ://www DOT nationofchange DOT org/monsanto-threatens-sue-vermont-if-legislators-pass-bill-requiring-gmo-food-be-labeled-1333718758#

kevinfolta

April 06, 2012 3:49pm
new

I'm all for transgenic technology. I can agree on labeling too. However, if we are going to label transgenic products (that contain 1-2 genes added) then we need to also label everything coming from wide crosses (40-100K genes changing in unpredictable ways), mutation breeding (no way to know changes) and induced polyploids (where whole genomes -or parts thereof- are multiplied). These are extensive genetic modifications that are far more unpredictable and potentially dangerous- yet are acceptable to consumers and org/sus cultivation.

This is the great paradox. If one gene is added, it is forbidden. But if humans intervene to shift around tens of thousands of genes (encoding who knows what allergens/toxins) and uncountable mobile DNA elements, that is acceptable.

I'm all for labeling, as long as labeling is based on science, not hatred for one company or a naturalist fallacy. Everything plan you eat has been extensively genetically modified by humans.

...

SaulT

April 06, 2012 5:05pm
new

Oh, no! "Hatred for a company" - is that like crying "racism?"

So - does this mean that being pissed at Monstroso's victim-blaming strong-arm tactics, is from now on to be considered (at least by such obvious corporazi shills as yourself,) to be a "hate-crime!"?

Your first logical fallacy, KEVINFALTA, is to pretend that random natural mutation such as breeding different grasses together and developing wheat is the exact same thing as, or could ever accidentally produce something similar to, (as another poster just asserted, above,) the deliberate induction of taking, say, a gene from a jellyfish and puting it into a tomato, or removing a gene sequence from a bacterium and putting it randomly into a plant cell nucleus and choosing the plant that seems to grow the best and with insect resistence. The list is long and this is *not* the same as plant breeding through pollination and selection (!)

Similarly, one of Mutanto's favorite tactics is to make plants without seeds - so that the farmers will have to depend on buying the cloned stock again and again, every year, from the company. This is a corporate form of slavery, which also proscribes all future natural beneficial mutations entirely.

As for the corporate food industry: food is a NEED - so it isn't affected by the usual supply-and-demand rules; if the cost rises, the demand can not decrease!

That makes the food industry into an addictions industry!

If and when Monsatanco can literally destroy it's competition by destroying and replacing their crops, they will own the world because they can then set the prices and so determine who lives and who dies! (Just like in the plot of those 'The Omen" movies, where Damian the antiChrist tries to gain control of the world's food production, by pretending to want to stop global famine)!

Your further fallacy is that of numbers: as if swapping hundreds of naturally-occurring genes (as occurs in every single sexual reproduction exchange, even for plants) could matter "more" than adding the one or two completely foreign (jellyfish or bacterium, or man-made hybrids of same) genes in the first place!

Nice try, though!

;-)

I guess cottonseed meal is fed to the cows as a protein feed. If Bt cotton is grwon extensively then all those seeds will go to the mill to extract oil (edible) and the meal left over will be fed to animals. and end up in the food chain higher up. Now is Monsanto doing an analysis of the proteins in Bt cotton versus the normal one? That should be done first. I used to be an ex-Monsanto scientist but did not participate in GE crops. What Monsanto should do is to mimic the cow's digestive system in the lab, feed the two cotton seed meals mentioned above and perform HPLC analysis before and after the digestion process. Actually they should give a grant to a third party to avoid a bias in the analysis. The results with actual profiles should be published.

When the Europeans ran animal testing in a short term 4 month test they found enlarged livers and kidneys. Noy only is it wise to test for long periods before introducing products but the influence, and revolving door between industry and the government regulatory agencies should be prohibited as it it is not in "the people's" interests. We the people does not include unethical corporate influence. Bottomline problem. This has become a national epedemic of chronyism at the expense of WE THE PEOPLE

Okay, once again a science lesson to quell the hysteria. Sure, a T-DNA insertion (the DNA with the transgene on it) can disrupt a gene or potentially change the expression of a protein. Back in 1996 it was not so simple to tell where genes were landing or processes they might be affecting.

Today however, it is routine to sequence T-DNA insertion sites if not whole genomes to examine where these genes reside in the genome. Easily done, important to do, limits potential for any unintended consequences. Those realistically are gene disruptions that could affect the plant itself. Remember, these are genes added to elite lines, so companies want to be sure that the original genetics stay in tact.

There are no prions in plants and do way that they can contribute to Mad Cow or other prion disorders. NOC makes stuff up here and there to get you whipped into an anti-science frenzy.

@Albert- can you please provide a peer-reviewed paper linking these crops to cancer? The "limited European test"? Thanks.

Finally, if you are worried about new proteins, don't sweat GMOs. Worry about the plants themselves. Plants have transposable elements, pieces of DNA that literally jump out of the genome and land in other places. They can disrupt genes or create new proteins. They do it all the time. Countless examples provide the basis for many of our foods, such as the plum tomato shape- new function of a gene from a transpoable element. Plus, agrobacterium used to make trangenic plants in the lab is the same one that does it in nature.

So let's stop the fear mongering and get a perspective. The Bt cotton referenced here keeps millions of pounds of insecticide out of the environment every year. This is a technology we should all be excited about and not afraid of.

My first reaction is, this an important story and it's only being read by a few of us who are basically already aware of the dangers/uncertainties of GE seeds and crops. Mad cow disease is mentioned, and I'd like to know more about how this type of disease could relate to GM crops being used as feed. Have specific tests been conducted, whether in the US or Europe? If the author reads these comments, I'd like to know more directly, or be referred to a source.

Genetically-engineered crops might produce some unintended poisonous proteins, and trusting GREEDmongering corporations to do the right thing which would be contrary to their short-term financial interests would be extremely stupid and irtresponsible.

This shows why all new food products should be tested for food safety because we dfon't know what the effects are from genetically modified crops although limited European test have linked them to cancer and a few other problems.unfortunately the heads of the FDA work for the business corporations.