Mexican farmers protest GMO
Submitted by fyl on Mon, 2013/02/25 - 08:59.
While we see Central America being silent on GMO crops, Mexico is not. Mexican farmers are protesting against the issuance of permits to introduce GMO corn into Mexico.
As one of the people interviewed in the video points out, corn is the plant most cultivated in Mexico. It clearly is a more significant part of the diet of people in Mexico and Central America. Thus, these people have more to lose with a GMO invasion.
GMO's in Nicaragua
Back in falll I saw the French 2 year study on the rats that were fed several types of a strictly GMO diet, tumors poping out everywhere. I was aware of many different aspects of GMO's, but that study was enough for me to make the change to a non GMO diet. I completely removed 95% out of my diet and I'm glad I did. Many countries are waking up and banning the usage all together. I will soon try to grow as much of my own food as possible, but the question remains, as to what GMO's are being used througout Nicaragua? Anybody know?
That rat study
The rats in that study were not just fed GMO corn, they were also fed doses of Roundup tainted water. While GMO food may be unwise and wildly unsafe, this study won't get one to that conclusion. The study is statistically flawed: there were 18 GMO groups and only 2 control groups; it was done with a rat breed prone to tumors of all kinds; done across 2 years as opposed to the more standard 90-100 day study; and, that rats that ate the most GMO corn and Roundup tainted water were not the GMO test groups with the greatest number or largest tumors. Not saying GMO food is safe, but there isn’t even good reason to assume rat-testing is the best testing for effects of toxic GMO corn, given the small amounts they eat and the tiny lifespan of the average rat, as they only average something like 26 months. That said, knowing what GMO are used is worthwhile and I know from Honduras experience determining this is all-but a full-time detective job.
Why two years
While I agree that study needs a followup, the reason for the 2-year study was by design. The reasoning was that the whole life effects needed to be studied and, in rats, that pretty much meant two years.
In the US, most of these types of studies are conducted by industry to prove their products are safe. They want the shortest possible tests because they want their products to get to market quickly so if the FDA is happy with 90 days, 90 days it is. Two years is a long time to wait but it is pretty clear that someone needs to do a well-controlled long-term study. Don't expect that to be Monsanto.
Why not many more years
We have been studying GMO food using the world's population for 15 years or so according to Monsanto. As far as lab tests this industry pays for the safety tests just like the pharmaceutical industry so the results may always be suspect. But the French test was done to disprove the safety of GMO and included completely irrelevant, extraneous tests of rats fed food sprayed with Roundup as well as Roundup tainted water that have nothing to do with the basic safety of GMO.
This whole subject also needs to address the dangers of GMO compared to the dangers of a malnourished population if GMO really improves the yields of food that much. The US is broke but maybe should pay for a big non-biased study if that is possible.
Well, ...
If anything, the test seems mislabeled. I am not sure if that is from the original tests or from the media attention but the point is that the combination of GMOs and Roundup are representative of what is grown/we eat. A long-term test of all the different parts that make up our GMO diet is what is needed. Unfortunately, a lot of money lobbies against this.
As for crop yields, recent data indicates that higher yields are not really the case. Or, more accurately, under certain conditions, temporarily higher yields are possible.
As for who should do the study, my guess is that the EU or possibly one of the multi-country organizations in Latin America is more likely to get the study done. They seem less controlled by the GMO racket and generally more interest in actually doing what the voters rather than big business wants. That more interest may just be a result of the voters being more involved but, no matter.
Where did you learn this?
Detailed facts you got from the French study or ???. The other side claims that the rats were given an unlimited supply of food - How would this affect the health of humans or other animals like a dog for example?. Got any photos of people that have eaten GMO food for 15 years with tumors like those shown in that study.
Reference & analysis of ALL that recent data please. If so why are the big commercial farms paying for GMO seeds?
More logic -- It has been widely reported & discussed extensively that GMO food is safe and the anti GMO lobby is trying to starve the world.
EDIT: Too much conflicting information so what are the facts? Most of the tests prove that GMO is safe but they are all paid for by Monsanto. To me the jury is still out on this one.
Anti-GMO trying to starve the world?
Anti-GMO trying to starve the world? That's a new one.
Wikileaks revealed the US government talking of punitive action if the EU wouldn't accept GMO crops, yet European consumers don't want them. So much for letting the market decide. In Europe, the market *can* decide because the products are labeled.
WikiLeaks: US Should Retaliate Against EU for Genetically Modified Resistance
Ja Ja Ja
I thought that it would be obvious that statement was tongue in cheek that is typical of the baseless hysteria from the anti-GMO crowd.
For crying out loud - If a human gorged himself on a diet of only GMO maize mixed with Roundup for 80 years I would expect a lot worse that tumors on his neck. Those researchers refused to release any raw data about the quantity of GMO maize & Roundup fed to the rats - WHY if they are so proud of their study?
How many humans mix roundup with the food they eat anyhow? Sure - GMO is treated with Roundup early in life - Where is the measured data of that food residue compared to the levels in this "research" project? Obviously the results of that "study" might be meaningful but so far the limited data & results released are nothing more than meaningless propaganda that proves nothing.
But the claim that GMO food should be labeled would probably supported by a huge majority of consumers who can then decide. Monsanto has put itself in the same situation as the tobacco companies a few year ago.
And I can verify the story about animals being smarter than people. I brought home a bag of fresh cut mixed veggies from the farmers market but noticed I had a 2 pound T-Bone steak in the refi. So I cut off a few chunks of both the steak & the veggies and threw them to the dogs. Before I could say "doggie...doggie" the steak was gone but they turned up their noses at the veggies. Smart dogs - Stupid me - I thought the veggies were healthier!
P. T. Barnum said it best - It is all Obama's fault!
Monsanto has fought the labeling
Monsanto has fought the labeling.
Very true that it's tough to form an opinion when both sides exaggerate, and without investigative journalists sorting it out, or if they do, their network won't run the story for fear of being sued.
It's also a shame that the only ones that go to the trouble of finding and reading the research, if it's bad enough to upset them, get labeled hysterical when they try to save the rest of us. Go figure.
GMO certainly holds real promise, and I'm thinking of the GM rice with the higher vitamin A to prevent blindness, but that doesn't mean it should be forced on anyone against their will. Besides, sometimes it takes time to recognize a problem. Look at Atrazine, one of the most common herbicides in the world. We have been putting it on crops for 50 years and it was determined to be safe, except more recently it was discovered to be a hormone disruptor. I remember an older neighbor who thought it was fantastic because he used to be sent out to hoe the corn when he was a kid.
Actually if we are gonna get
hysterical about anything it ought to be about this grave problem:
Budweiser has been caught adding even less beer to their water!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/02/27/business-beer-budweiser...
Labeling
To me, that's the core issue. I don't care if you want to eat GMO products the same as I don't care if you want to use sleeping pills, antibiotics, ... all the time. I just want a choice and as long as there are no labeling requirements, I can't make that choice.
If GMO is so wonderful, it would seem that Monsanto et al would want labels. The bogus story about it costing too much to label is pretty absurd. If the manufacturers don't know what they are putting in packages, the problem is a lot bigger than just GMO (and, to me, that's a HUGE problem).
Not a GMO site ...
I read a lot. I have considered setting up a digg-like site with limited topics and, in general, non-mainstream sources. But, I haven't. (I probably would have but a request from an old high school classmate for a "reunion web site" got me working on a much more generic "site for old farts" at Our Flashbacks. But, I digress.
There are lots of sources and, in general, lots of different answers. So far, mainstream media -- at least in the US -- is mostly telling us what Monsanto wants us to hear. All too many alternative news sites just want to tell us the other side. While this makes sense (Monsanto has enough press already) it makes it hard to look for balance. There are some that seem pretty balanced ( the Schwartz Report being one of my favorite examples) but they tend to present today's article rather than end up with a topical discussion that covers all the related articles. I think it is something that is needed.
Now, back to your comments.
Some of the most interesting studies I have seen (OK, interesting to me) have been cases where animals were offered the choice of GMO and non-GMO feed. All the animals went for non-GMO. While us humans are busy trying to justify our conclusions, it seems animals are, well, just smarter.
Very little "beef" there
but whatever.
Lots of alternative news sites, studies, & interesting articles about many evils today - Chlorinated water for example - decades old and still going! And these days you don't even have to know HTML to educate the online world.
I don't see how the average guy today could find a meaningful answer to most of these complex issues given the amount of information & dis-information out there..
That is the question, does
That is the question, does any body know???????? A friend of mine worked on the "Manhattan Project" , and told me many years later, that a significant number of his "fellows" believed that the nuclear reaction could consume all of the earth's atmosphere and kill every living thing!!!! Yet, they did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1???????????????/ I'm a carpenter, I measure twice, maybe three times before I cut. This scares me!!!!!!!!!