Can you provide the original references to the work on feeding GM soya to rats? I assume that this is a balanced diet and was done in an appropriately controlled experiment.
WELL I`M OUT! So sad that people have to start badmouthing each other. Yes Myndy you do have an annoying way of thrusting strange links in the face. But NO TheAntiV that doesnt make her a bitch. Trying to save the world is quite honorable to me no matter what she believes.
PS. I dont think anyone gives a flying F... if any of you have studied at the university or not. Mind your words!
@martintf Although we disagree for the most part, you have been one of the more respectable people I have debated on youtube, and I thank you for that. I have one last question before you go, what was the supersymmetry reference about?
@myndy86 I have never said I dont want studies to be made. I too care for peoples health and the environment etc. What a silly statement! It is simply not true. Instead of answering my arguments. You attack me as a person and tell me what I think. Yes I do believe in GM methods. I think it is a marvelous thing but I am not here to demand things. I am here to disprove the preposterous statements of the video. Then you have forced me into a debate about alot more than that.
@martintf When I stated, "Human studies(like in 3 phase drug trials) should be conducted, as I stated earlier there are enough studies suggesting potential adverse affects in GM fed animals, to warrant testing in humans and to use the precautionary principle." You replied, "and now we are lost... sad". This gave me the indication that you believe anyone who wants 3 phase testing, etc. is "lost".
@martintf When I stated "My argument isn't that a GM crop, etc. will always be bad in every circumstance. My argument is that GM crops should be subject to the same 3 phase health regulations as human drugs and reviewed by an independent panel, etc." You replied, "Regarding your arguments. Those are not arguments. Those are statements and you use very little arguments to support your statements." This suggested that you believed there was little argument to support 3 phase testing.
@martintf Most of my argument has been that more studies should be done such as 3 phase testing, etc., so if you support 3 phase testing, etc. before GM crops are fed to the masses, introduced into the environment, etc., then you should support most of the statements in this video, because none of the transgenic crops on the market have been subject to 3 phase testing and therefore I don't see an objection to saying "no" to the GM crops on the market until 3 phase testing is done.
@martintf I believe I've answered all of your arguments and provided several peer reviewed studies to back my arguments, which you have not responded to. Your first statement "GMO crops rely heavily on pesticides" ??? NO The most common "GMO"-gene (BT) is used to reduce pesticides.""Why is there few studies? Because common sense says that there is no reason for it to be unhealthy." I refuted your pesticide argument and this again indicates that you don't believe studies are needed.
You have to forgive. She's a childish naive individual who just goes around spamming comment sections with studies that she doesn't even bother to read nor are most of them even viewable.
@TheAntiV I read the studies, unlike you, who posted studies saying how bad Rotenone is, but didn't even read the part that says only conventional farmers still use it! It's not my fault you don't know how to use the internet, or you would know all of the studies I post are viewable!
Kind of like how you missed the part where the author of your study suggested that the risk of adervse affects were unlikely? One more thing bitch, I've used the internet numerous times primarily for university level research primarily dealing with anthropological studies. So please don't make assumptions about me. Second, most of your sources were not viewable even when I googled them. A lot of them repeatedly said "page not found."
Speaking of not knowing how the internet works did you ever wonder why your comments keep getting flaged as spam? It's because youtube has caught onto your bullshit of spamming comment sections with drivel.
@TheAntiV Most of your comments are flagged as spam as well, you can't see it because youtube allows you to see your own comments even if they are marked as spam!
@TheAntiV You admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
@TheAntiV You admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
@TheAntiV You even admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview with the researcher! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
@TheAntiV You even admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview with the researcher! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
stupid liberals.. hating industry, always got some new theories to spread that nobody give's a f--k about. All you are doing is regurgitating of mindless sheep talk. shut up you idiotic prostitutes, A GMO human would be superior and would last at least 200 years. You spread the word that the top sheep say when in reality the Marxists just hate industry and jealous of their success.
@myndy86 Thank you for such a marvelous conversation. "The recent excess observed by CDF in Bs0→μ+μ- is interpreted in terms of a possible supersymmetric origin"
Excess observed in CDF Bs0→μ+μ- and supersymmetry at the LHC
@myndy86 AS I said I know what they wrote. I posted it. The 500 character limit did not stop me from posting the WHOLE sentence. It is not what they say but how they say it that shows that they are biased. You need not to have financial gain to be biased. Its about having an idea about results before the research is made. I am not protecting monsanto. I am protecting the methods of GMO.
@martintf The 500 character limit, stopped me from posting the whole quote and having enough space to explain each sentence. I split the sentences into 2 parts and explained them, I didn't edit the quote or take anything out of context. There is no motive for those resarchers to be biased, unlike the majority of GM studies which are done by the biotech companies themselves or done by researchers with ties to the biotech industry, suggesting bias.
@martintf I'm protecting people's health, the environment, etc. so I request 3 phase trials, independent review for approval, after market studies, inspections, etc. You don't want 3 phase trials, or any other studies, because you are, "protecting the methods of GMO." from further studies which may find adverse affects. If you believed GM crops, etc. could stand the scrutiny of 3 phase trials, etc. you would have no problem with that but obviously you think GM crops will fail.
@myndy86 OF coarse I know what they wrote, those are my words to show how I look upon that sentence. The sentence shows that the researchers are biased. They have a view of what they think the results should be and interpret the data according to that. At least thats how I see it!
and now you bring a new sentence completely out of context into the conversation.. How does that sentence contradict my accusation of fiddling with the data???
By fiddling i did not mean falsify I meant tampering.
@martintf The sentence doesn't show bias it suggests that they already found some evidence of toxicity and they wanted to investigate further and look at more data tsee if the additional ata supports toxicity or not. You can interpret however you want, but I'm not taking anything out of context, I have a 500 character limit so I can't quote every word. They do not tamper with anything they add more data and look at the results, that is not, "fiddling" that is good science.
@martintf Again, that study is not the only studied I posted and several studies suggest similar results. I don't see a reason for these researchers to be biased, unlike the biotech companies or those with financial interests in transgenic crops, the researchers in the studies I posted have nothing to gain by being biased. I think the bias is more likely on the side of those who profit from GM and studies suggest those who profit most represent the majority of studies on the subject.
@martintf "the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001).”
@martintf "Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops.""Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers." scientificAmerican"dot"com/art icle.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
@martintf "For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects." Same article.
@myndy86 By, as you do, I mean you pick a sentence of choice. Bring it out of context and make into your argument. Now I can state that non GM maize IS more dangerous than none GM maize cause it has more Zea m14... I wont though but I could.
@martintf No actually you can't claim "non GM maize IS more dangerous than none GM maize", because you don't know what health affects lower levels of maize allergen Zea m14 has on humans or even rodents. My argument for protein expression differences was not that it automatically means harm but that "Even a snp change can change gene expression, sometimes for the better but often for the worse." So "GM crops should be subject to the same 3 phase health regulations as human drugs"
@martintf I didn't take any sentence out of context, as I stated "one study doesn't constitute "proof" of adverse affects""those results need verification. So they looked at more data." So they "extended our initial analysis" while "collectively compiling the significant differences observed in the physiological and biochemical parameters measured in feeding trials of rats". You accuse, "fiddling" but, "We have previously reported indications of toxicity in rats fed with MON 863"
@myndy86 These guys have no problem explaining there experimental design. As you do:
"The transcriptomics data showed some differences between the GM varieties and the non-GM maize variety in the PCA as well as the anova. Probably, the most interesting difference at the gene expression level was the lower level of maize allergen Zea m14 found in the GM varieties" Barros et al (2010)
@myndy86 About Zolla(2008) I will be more careful. Honestly I dont have the effort to read it properly. I do see that they do not dispay any graphs or any statistics. No standard deviations. So it is hard to know how big these alleged changes are. I also found it strange that they did not clearly show their experimental design. Finally I did find that they took a sample size of 8 although they did not treat them as 8 but one sample to create a mean. Really strange! So youve lost your calculator?
@myndy86 No I did not misinterpret. They were not stating that one study wasn´t enough they said that the results were not satisfying so they changed the statistics of the same data. Why did you cut the quote when I already have posted the full sentence. You brought it out of context and made a false statement about it.
@martintf No I didn't they never said "the results were not satisfying so they changed the statistics of the same data", you are misinterpreting the whole statement. "We have therefore extended our initial analysis on the MON 863 feeding data by collectively compiling the significant differences observed in the physiological and biochemical parameters measured in feeding trials of rats with each of the three GM maize varieties." They "extended" the analysis, not "fiddled with it"!
@martintf I would also like to point out that this is not the only study suggesting adverse affects, I posted many studies. As for my arguments, I have posted many studies suggesting more studies, including human studies should be conducted. As for difference in protein expression, studies suggest as I mentioned that there can be dozen of differences between transgenic crops and their near-isolines.
@martintf Study proteomic profile MON810, "43 proteins resulted up- or down-regulated in transgenic seeds with respect to their controls (T06 vs WT06), which could be specifically related to the insertion of a single gene into a maize genome by particle bombardment. Transgenic seeds responded differentially to the same environment as compared to their respective isogenic controls, as a result of the genome rearrangement derived from gene insertion." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393457
@martintf There are many independent studies suggesting potential adverse health affects. Science requires the precautionary principle to be used, so 3 phase trials as used for human drug regulations, review by an independent review panel, after market testing and inspections, would better ensure safety and would increase consumer confidence as well. A 28-90 day rodent trial isn't enough and some of those studies suggest potential adverse affects, more testing is needed.
We have previously reported indications of toxicity in rats fed with MON 863 GM maize for 90 days [5]. However, these signs of toxicity alone do not constitute proof of adverse health effects. We have therefore extended our initial analysis on the MON 863 feeding data by collectively compiling the significant differences observed in the physiological and biochemical parameters measured in feeding trials of rats with each of the three GM maize varieties. They actually say we fiddled with it so...
@martintf You are misinterpreting the statement. "We have previously reported indications of toxicity in rats fed with MON 863 GM maize for 90 days [5]. However, these signs of toxicity alone do not constitute proof of adverse health effects." They are stating that one study doesn't constitute "proof" of adverse affects, (Monsanto believes one 28-90 day rodent trial constitutes "proof" of safety so that is all they do) those results need verification. So they looked at more data.
@myndy86 It in some cases shows that there might be a toxic effect. Which is something I did not believe. I still have a hard time to see where the potential toxicity comes from. Usually there is a toxin accountable for it. Also I must say there was a sentece that unvailed the authors as very biased it is long so...
@martintf You said "I still have a hard time to see where the potential toxicity comes from." For the RR crop the toxicity comes from glyphosate and/or other ingredients in Roundup(I can provide dozens of studies if you like). For MON810 and MON863 the toxicity comes from the Cry proteins, which are endotoxins. I already posted a study suggesting Cry1Ab(found in MON810) caused an antibody response both through ingestion and inhalation in mice fed a transgenic rice expressing Cry1Ab.
@myndy86 Now it works again. Must say that it is embarrasing how I missed the results of the BT maize. I guess it is because I am also biased. I read it quickly and when I believed I haf found what I want I stopped. This report is very interesting. Based on research made by monsanto, which stated it as safe, they have pushed it the other way funded by Greenpeace. The results are above my knowledge to analyse since regards things I know nothing about like urea in blood and so forth. Although...
@martintf You're misinterpreting the situation. Monsanto refused release of the study, so Greenpeace filed a lawsuit and Monsanto was forced to release it. Greenpeace funded the initial statistical analysis(they had the data), but unlike Monsanto, they allowed researchers access to the study. "Greenpeace contributed to the start of the investigations by funding first statistical analyses in 2006, the results were then processed further and evaluated independently by the authors."
@myndy86 Interestingly the link to article doesnt work anymore. Does it work for you? Strange that I missed those results. They were not shown in the tables I believe. Excuse me Im not trying to twist things. Anyhow I still can not see how the transferal of specific genes to a plant should be harmful regardles of which gene it is. Is that what you see?
@martintf You said "I still can not see how the transferal of specific genes to a plant should be harmful regardles of which gene it is. Is that what you see?" It would depend on the circumstance. Even a snp change can change gene expression, sometimes for the better but often for the worse. Inserting gene A into organism 1 may have no adverse affects on the organism or organisms consuming it, but inserting the same gene A into organism 2 may change gene expression(s) for the worse.
@martintf My argument isn't that a GM crop, etc. will always be bad in every circumstance. My argument is that GM crops should be subject to the same 3 phase health regulations as human drugs and reviewed by an independent panel, etc. If all goes well and the same GM crop, etc. passes all environmental testing and containment testing, etc. and is followed up with after market testing, inspections, etc. then it should have temporary approval until after market testing is reviewed.
@myndy86 Since you ask me after my reply "which one do I mean?". I have to ask you. DO YOU ACTUALLY READ THESE REPORTS? or do you just post reports with topics you BELIEVE supports your believs about GMO:S.
@martintf I have read the reports several times, but I also read more than a dozen studies every day, so I can't keep track of every minute detail in every study I last read several weeks or even months ago. The first study I posted used only HT soy and the last study I posted was a meta-analysis on multiple studies, so rather than have to reread all of the studies again I figured you could just tell me what study you meant.
@martintf Next, I would like to point out that if it is the correct study I believe it is, it's a reevaluation of a Monsanto study, and therefore the, "minimum sample size so the statistic power is BAD. " is the issue with most of the GM food studies because "most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants." sciencedirect"dot"com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055
@myndy86 so to conclude. It is NOT a toxicity that comes from the plant being genetically modified. WHo would have thought that from the beginning? Also round up is not very toxic. 33% for 90 days straight is alot! I personally dont support Round up but I dislike fear mongering more. I do support organic farming in some senses but just to put thing in perspective to you. There are far more dangerous mycotoxins to be found in food from organic farms.
@martintf Actually mycotoxins are likely higher in Roundup Ready crops than conventional or organic.“We conducted studies during 1997-2007 showing Fusarium root colonization was consistently higher on RR soybean treated with glyphosate than on RR soybean without glyphosate and on conventional soybean.” ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications"dot"htm?seq_no_115=242660
Mycotoxins on Bt crops may be lower(studies vary) but should still be tested humans based on animal studies.
@martintf Organic generally has lower levels of mycotoxins "in all cereal species, Fusarium infestation and levels of important mycotoxins were significantly lower when grown organically than conventionally” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20425661
There are also conventionally bred crops(used in organic) that have reduced mycotoxins.
"Mp715 and Mp717 are also resistant to the accumulation of another fungal toxin—fumonisin" teatronaturale"dot"com/article/2166.html
@plzenjoymybigolpenis When I posted numerous peer reviewed studies that disagreed with your uneducated opinion, you said "The data is deliberately being misinterpreted and misrepresented", yet you say I, "ignore all data that doesn't fit your prejudice" LMAO! Your main argument is a nursery school rant, only missing you stating your daddy can beat up my daddy and calling me a poopy pants.
@myndy86 More retarded bullshit, myndy. Anyone here can click on your page and see your history. You're a religious zealot. A total fucking idiot who rejects all data that doesn't fit in to your delusional worldview.
You are anti-logic, anti-science, anti-progress. You are lower than a parasite, myndy, and you need to be eliminated.
@plzenjoymybigolpenis When I posted numerous peer reviewed studies that disagreed with your uneducated opinion, you said "The data is deliberately being misinterpreted and misrepresented", yet you say I, "ignore all data that doesn't fit your prejudice" LMAO! Your main argument is a nursery school rant, only missing you stating your daddy can beat up my daddy and calling me a poopy pants.
@myndy86 ok so I read your last article below. A study on rats and different GM Maize both roundup ready and BT. First of all they stated in the report that they used an absolut minimum sample size so the statistic power is BAD. They found toxicity on rats which had been fed 33% maize of there diet for 90 days straight. Not on the 18 % diet. They did not show any results at all about the BT maize hence no toxicity. So as they stated in abstract the toxicity comes from round up residues.
@martintf I'm not sure which article you are referring to as the last article, can you be more specific? I also posted several studies and there are several reasons why one study may show no adverse affects and another wouldn't. One example is an earlier study I posted that suggested the control group had an antibody response when they just inhaled the Bt food. Things like that could mask an adverse affect. I would suggest you read all the studies and we discuss them individually.
@martintf I just reread the abstracts I believe I found the study you are referring to, but if it is the correct study, I did not recognize it because it does not specifically state "roundup residues" it mentions "new pesticides specific to each GM corn" which include "two different Bt toxins used as insecticides". biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
This study also does show results for Bt corn(MON810, MON863) "Feeding of MON 810 resulted in 11/15 significant effects in females" etc.
@myndy86 now im really tired of this. yes you are just commenting in a really biased way. the primary focus of the video is without a doubt. say no to gmo. which is fear mongering. At this point id like to refer readers to my first comment.
@martintf Human studies(like in 3 phase drug trials) should be conducted, as I stated earlier there are enough studies suggesting potential adverse affects in GM fed animals, to warrant testing in humans and to use the precautionary principle. "GM-fed mice of all ages considered, the number of perichromatin granules is higher and the nuclear pore density lower.""we found enlargements in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in GM-fed mice Sertoli cells." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15718213
@martintf "Several proteins belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria were differentially expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls. Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial and nuclear modifications indicative of reduced metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features"ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843
@martintf "Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters)." enveurope"dot"com/content/23/1/10
@martintf "3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex-and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn." biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
@martintf "We observed that after the consumption of MON863""Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity""Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%)""with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17356802
@martintf "D. magna fed GM-maize showed a significantly reduced fitness performance: The mortality was higher, a lower proportion of females reached sexual maturation, and the overall egg production was lower compared to D. magna fed UM isogenic maize.""The combination of a reduced fitness performance combined with earlier onset of reproduction of D. magna fed Bt-maize indicates a toxic effect rather than a lower nutritional value of the GM-maize." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347840
@martintf Demographic responses of Daphnia magna fed transgenic Bt-maize, "The GM-fed D. magna had lower survival (lx) than the UM-fed D. magna throughout the experiment" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811247/
"our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441651
@martintf "this study was designed to evaluate the effects of transgenic corn on the rats that were fed through three generations with either GM corn or its conventional counterpart.""there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney. Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191319
@martintf "This indicates that GM soy protein intake affected pancreas function, evidenced by the early acute PAP mRNA increased levels and pancreas cellular changes followed by recuperation of acinar cells after 30 days." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1319/abstract
"The RACB trial showed time related negative reproductive effects
of the GM maize under the given experimental conditions." biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf
@martintf "Atlantic salmon fed GM maize showed some small changes in stress protein levels and activities, but none of these changes were comparable to the normalized gene expression levels analysed for these stress proteins. GM maize seemed to induce significant changes in white blood cell populations which are associated with an immune response."onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2007.00808.x/abstract
@martintf "mice were fed a diet containing MON810 or its parental control maize or a pellet diet containing a GM-free maize""MON810 maize induced alterations in the percentage of T and B cells and of CD4(+), CD8(+), gammadeltaT, and alphabetaT subpopulations of weaning and old mice fed for 30 or 90 days, respectively, at the gut and peripheral sites. An increase of serum IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1beta after MON810 feeding was also found." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007233
@martintf "Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems.""The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
@myndy86 I dont see how using a BT crop would be detrimental to having for example predatory spiders in the field. Why wouldnt you be able to use other methods such as push/pull, lures and traps if your using a BT crop???
So ask for these mandatory requirements instead of fear mongering about a variety of novel technics in plant breeding. This video is fear mongering and it scares me that a bright girl like you would support it.
@martintf As I stated earlier, there are other aspects to Bt crops that could be more detrimental than Bt spray. What I am in support of is 3 phase testing, an independent review panel and required after-market studies like with human drug regulations, mandatory labeling so population studies, etc. can be better conducted, environmental testing(non-target, etc.) and after-market testing to account for contamination, recombination, etc. As well as mandatory crop rotations, etc.
@martintf The primary focus of the video is honey bees and lack of human testing, because Bt crops are supposed to produce Cry proteins 100% of the time and studies suggest honey bee behavior is affected by the Cry in the pollen of at least some Bt crops, it is more likely to affect honey bees compared to limited Bt spray use. There also are very few human studies. Some of the info is inaccurate, there was no flounder gene in FlavrSavr tomato, but I'm just commenting.
@mandy86 Interesting... Such a pity that the BT crops are being malused as such. High dose and refuge strategy should be applied meticulously and the BT crops should definately not be planted year after year. Good crop rotations is an outstanding method which is sadly not used.
@martintf Those are great suggestions, and if applied as you stated, Bt crops would certainly have less likelihood of resistance, potential adverse affects on Non-target organisms, etc. issues. The problem is that there would have to be some sort of mandatory requirement for Bt crops to be used that way as well as for herbicide tolerant crops, which farmers often use only the herbicide the plant is tolerant to and the same crop yearly, which may contribute to herbicide tolerant weeds.
Really! What an asshole! The character limit is almost as annoying :) especially if your using a smart phone like I did. Yes it temporarily. Resistance will surely come some day but I am not sure that having the cry protein present att all time increases the risk. The thing is that a plant protection is better protected from resistance if it kills as many as possible from the pest population. If they die they can not spread the any genes at all hence no resistance.
@martintf That may be true, but by wiping out a species(or greatly reducing its numbers) there is the possibility of creating an evolutionary niche for another organism, which may lead to infestation due to lack of competition, etc. By using a variety of tactics(pesticides, predatory insects, push/pull, lures and traps, etc.) and creating or contributing to a more diverse pest population, you reduce the chance of infestation compared to using a crop that targets a specific species.
@myndy about research. That is something you will have a hard time to prove. Yes please send me id like to scrutinize them. I think this analogy is accurate: everyone knows that fish is very good and healthy food. If i were to state that specifically tuna is dangerous to eat in the long run. Do you think any researcher would want spend their time and money on investigating that. No there are tonnes of issues that are really constructive to investigate into.
@martintf I certainly wouldn't say the adverse affects or potential affects the studies suggest are "proof". However, science requires the precautionary principle to be used and a more cautionary approach should be used, including a 3 phase protocol, with an independent review panel, human trials, etc. that it used in human drug regulations(in the U.S.). It may also be pesticides, etc. used on GM crops that cause or contribute to the adverse affects, but further studies are needed.
@martintf For the studies are you just interested in studies on transgenic crops, or would you also like studies on glyphosate or glufosinate that is obviously sprayed on varieties of herbicide tolerant crops? Even if the herbicide tolerant transgenic crops(which would be pointless without that trait) themselves do not cause or contribute to adverse affects, they are specifically designed to be sprayed with an herbicide that may cause or contribute to adverse affects.
hi mandy. I won't argue which is the most common transgenic gene (I prefere transgenic since all crops are genetically modified, look into brassicaes). I won't argue either against bt crops being a pesticide but it doesn't change the fact that they do reduce the use of chemicals. The cry protein is only harmful to a few genera of insects. It was first and still used in organic farming. My argument will be that crops are always attacked by pests.
@martintf I thank you for that reply, I am unfortunately being stalked by that youtube user. I also prefer the term transgenic, however the 500 character limit leads me to use the term GM, and the APHIS definition of GMO((7CFR340: 340.1) is virtually the same definition as transgenic. Bt crops may temporarily reduce the use of chemical(spray, etc.) pesticides, but because Bt crops are supposed to express Cry 100% of the time, this increases the potential for resistance. cont..
@martintf Because 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use very little, and use more biological pest control(predatory insects, crop cover, push/pull, etc.) instead. Bt spray is less likely to have the issue of resistance than Bt crops. There is already evidence that some species are developing resistance to t crops and although refuges are supposed to deter this, there are studies suggesting refuges are not as effective as once believed.
@martintf "This is the first report of field-evolved resistance to a Bt toxin by the western corn rootworm and by any species of Coleoptera." plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022629
"Analysis of more than a decade of global monitoring data reveals that the frequency of resistance alleles has increased substantially in some field populations of Helicoverpa zea" nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/abs/nbt1382.html
@martintf "Variable Bt toxin production in seeds of refuge plants undermines the high-dose/refuge strategy and could accelerate pest resistance to Bt crops." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419639/
Reistance to Bt crops could cause farmers to use more harmful chemicals than Bt spray currently used in organic farming. Also because Bt crops are generally designed to affect only certain insects, other harmful species that would normally be controlled by pesticides, etc. may flourish.
@martintf "our analyses show that Bt cotton has become a source of mirid bugs and that their population increases are related to drops in insecticide use in this crop. Hence, alterations of pest management regimes in Bt cotton could be responsible for the appearance and subsequent spread of nontarget pests at an agro-landscape level." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20466880
@martintf Although I agree that Cry proteins primarily affect certain species of insects, there other possible adverse affects to non-target organisms. "Plant residues of transgenic plants, plowed under at harvest and kept mixed with soil for up to 4 months, affected soil respiration, bacterial communities, and mycorrhizal establishment by indigenous endophytes." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC1287690/
@martintf "corn byproducts, such as pollen and detritus, enter headwater streams and are subject to storage, consumption, and transport to downstream water bodies. Laboratory feeding trials showed that consumption of Bt corn byproducts reduced growth and increased mortality of nontarget stream insects. Stream insects are important prey for aquatic and riparian predators, and widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923672
@martintf "during a 7-day oral exposure to the various treatments (transgenic, imidacloprid-treated and control), honey bee feeding behaviour was disturbed and bees consumed significantly less CCRI41 cotton pollen than in the control group in which bees were exposed to conventional cotton pollen. It may indicate an antifeedant effect of CCRI41 pollen on honey bees and thus bees may be at risk because of large areas are planted with transgenic Bt cotton" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20700762
@martintf Our results show that transgenic crops expressing Cry1Ab protein at 5000 ppb may affect food consumption or learning processes and thereby may impact honey bee foraging efficiency." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206234
Because Bt spray is used less often, it is more exposed to the elements and therefore more likely to be degraded that Cry in Bt crops, high levels of nitrogen absorbed by plants may cause higher levels of Cry, etc. Bt crops may have more of an adverse impact.
@martintf "Increased available N likely increases Bt δ-endotoxin–synthesizing proteins and thus increases the Bt δ-endotoxin concentration." agronomy.org/publications/aj/articles/95/1/207
Some studies suggest Bt crops may alse have at least some impact on mammals such as an antibody response. While this may not necessarily cause or contribute to any adverse affects, it would certainly warrant human studies.
@martintf "An anti-PHA-E and anti-Cry1Ab antibody response was induced both after inhalation (control groups) and after inhalation/ingestion (groups fed recombinant protein alone or together with transgenic rice). ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18215453
I would also argue that Bt crops may have different effects than Bt spray used in organic farming, due to recombination, rearrangement, etc. from the modification or from breeding, etc.
"GMO crops rely heavily on pesticides" ??? NO The most common "GMO"-gene (BT) is used to reduce pesticides. Say NO to pesticides! Say yes to GMO!
and you first state that there have been few scientific studies into health issues from GMO and then you go on stating that it is unhealthy...Why is there few studies? Because common sense says that there is no reason for it to be unhealthy. WHY would for example BT crops be unhealthy?
YES there are problems in the food industry but its NOT GMO!
@martintf The most common GM crops are not Bt they are herbicide tolerant and designed to be sprayed with herbicides. Even if the most common GM crops were Bt, the Bt crops themselves are labeled as Bt "plant-pesticides" by the EPA. So Bt crops are themselves pesticides. A Bt crop is supposed to express Cry proteins 100% of the time so they should always be producing a pesticide, compared to Non-GM crops that are generally only sprayed with a pesticide when a pest is present.
@martintf The reason that there has been few studies is because most biotech companies limit independent research to only the Universities they have a "deal" with. Most of the studies done have been by the biotech companies themselves or researchers with financial ties to the biotech companies. Many of the independent studies that have been done on some GM foods suggest potential adverse affects in the GM fed animals. I'll post a dozen or so, if you are interested in reading them.
@myndy86 You deny science and all rational thought, myndy. Everything is a conspiracy if it threatens your fragile, illogical, religious worldview regarding organic food.
You pick and choose your data that you're willing to accept. Even when you do accept it, you still don't understand it. You're a religious fundamentalist nut, myndy.
Drink the Kool-aid, myndy. We'll all be better off.
@StarrJaded There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
@morningmayan There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
Top Scientist discovers TRUE cause of MS & Alzheimers -- Drug companies furious Check out the June 9th & June 10th, 2010 archives on the Crash! Are You Ready?! show - on the Genesis Communications Network
@Uuuurk I do know there is more than just GM in modern plant breeding, I explained what the report says they mean by "modern biotechnology". Unlike you I have first hand experience with GM problems as I live in the U.S. where there is far more GM crops, food, etc. than where you live. I`m not saying GM is bad because of 1 instance there are thousands of instances with several crops and I already stated there is many more than UN reports, etc., you just make up data.
@myndy86 But claiming that modern biotechnology only includes GMO is false, since its not. I have first hand experience of GMO and used it several times in my education.
There are so many thousand of reports in this field u cannot cherrypicki a couple of reports, they might be intresting yes. But u need insight, u need atleast basic knowledge and understanding in the field.
Now im done debating whit u.U think theres a fast way to get educated, its not. U only proved my first point.
@myndy86 But claiming that modern biotechnology only includes GMO is false, since its not. I have first hand experience of GMO and used it several times in my education.
There are so many thousand of reports in this field u cannot cherrypicki a couple of reports, they might be intresting yes. But u need insight, u need atleast basic knowledge and understanding in the field.
Now im done debating whit u.U think theres a fast way to get educated, its not. U only proved my first point.
@Uuuurk I never claimed modern biotechnology only included GNO, this is your inability to read or understand. What I said was that the terminology in the report explained what they meant when they say "modern biotechnology". Not that this was my terminology but the reports. Of the thousands of reports in the field, you are aware that about 75%-80% of those reports and studies were done by or funded by the biotech companies that manufacture those GMO's, right? That is a conflict of interest.
The BioTech industry has powerful lobbyists. GE foods are not tested for safety and they remain unlabeled. It's a scam based on extreme capitalistic greed that has wreaked havoc with the planet's food supply including the health of millions worldwide. Let's rally to label GE foods now! Help stop the devastation before it's too late. Get involved at a local level. Peace.
According to David Suzuki over 99,99% of scientests working in the agricultural field is ignorant. Who do you whant to belive? One random person or a great majority in this big field of science?
The anti GMO ppl r the same as creationists. Having no clue whatsover about science they cherry pick scientific reports whit wild claims or claims they dont understand how to interpret. The logic these ppl use organic food is dangerouse since the ehec outbrake in EU this summer came from organic farm.
@Uuuurk That isn't what David Suzuki said. Here is the scientific consensus on GM foods. "Hence assesments of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of these risks are yet unknown." -IAASTD, UN/World Bank report by 400 scientists.
@myndy86 As I wrote dont understand how to interpret scientific conclusions.
U dont know that modern biotechnology include more than GMO? When it comes to health there are so many diffrent substances in our food our food that it is impossible to tell how they all effect one another.U dont know that agricultural including organic is bad for the enviroment? Theire conclusion is nothing new to me.Man have manipulated nature for 15000years the wide range of perspectives have always been unknown.
@Uuuuk Had you read the report you would know that it says modern biotechnology uses recombinant DNA techniques, which is basically GM. You obviously didn't read the report or you don't understand it, as has been the case with many of your comments. You are claiming 99.99% of agricultural scientists believe GMO's are safe, I just showed you the scientific consensus which is that most scientists can not say for sure that GMO's are safe, David Suzuki is just repeating the scientific consensus.
@myndy86 I would say that mutagenesis is another modern method since its only like 20 years older than GM.
My point was that Scientest can not say for sure that GMO, non GMO, organic food, conventional food, etc, is absolutely safe. But theres no reason to think that a GM is bad. GM rice has as little in comon whit GM cabbage as non-GM rice has whit non-GM cabbage. Dun think u understand what GMO is.
I study agriculture science and im well aware what over 99% of agricultural scientists think.
@Uuuurk I have read and responded to several of your comments and if you study agricultural science than you need to study a lot more. I understand perfectly well what GMO is, perhaps you should read the report as they clarify what they mean when they say "modern biotechnology". So, because you claim to study agricultural science that somehow means you asked 99.99% of scientists what they think? It's that kind of unscientific statement that makes me doubt your credibility.
@myndy86 I have studied for several years and come in contact whit many scientests and no one is against GMO because everybody knows what it is. There is no talk if any scientest disagrees but theres talk about how uneducated the public is in this matter. Why the hell would GMO be bad?! Just search wikipedia for plant breeding and then read up on the modern plant breeding.I never said that 99,99% was from a scientific study, its from first hand experianse something u clearly lack.
@Uuuurk You are claiming you asked the opinion of every scientist about GM crops and 99.99% responded that they safe(there is no way you asked every scientist), then in a previous comment you said there is no way to say anything is safe? This is the most insane argument for GM that I have ever heard. Why the hell would GMO be bad? Let's start with contamination, in the U.S. Bayer currently has thousands of lawsuits against them from when there experimental rice contaminated thousands of farms
@myndy86 Well that was one singel type of GM rice that for example has nothing in common whit some typ of GM potato. And I have no idea if the lawsuit was right or not.
The ehec virus that spread through EU this summer and killed alot of ppl came from a organic farm. Does that mean that organic food is dangerouse? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! But if I use ur logic it would.
@Uuuurk Bayer has paid millions of $ and so has several other biotech companies for other cases of contamination. It is really bad in the U.S., a survey found 11% of organic farms tested had GM contamination. We are talking billions of $ in losses from contamination, billion of $ in losses from herbicide resistant weeds, etc. You are either not exposed to GM crops on a large scale like I am in the U.S., or you are just in denial about all the problems GM crops have already caused.
@myndy86 U meant the contamination was that GM crops were in organic farms? I see your point here since GM crops is not allowed organic farms. But organic farming has much more to win on including GMO because the reasons why its not allowed is just because of bullshit religiouse organisations and organisations like greenpeace having to much influence on the public.
Yes sadly in my country the so called enviromentalists have even more influence then your countries creationists.
@Uuuurk Not just organic farms. In the case of Bayer for example this was contamination of an experimental GM rice that was not approved for human consumption but was grown outdoors in field trials and contaminated conventional rice. Obviously the conventional farmers could not sell a rice that was not approved for human consumption and it costs farmers billions of dollars in losses. There are several other examples of this occurring as well.
@myndy86 Ive learned what plant breeding is in my university. My point was that you dont know that theres more than just GM technology in modern plant breeding so I pointed out were u can read up on it.
I never claimed I asked 99,99% scientests, I didn need to ask any they educated me. What I wrote was no one can know for sure that absolutely anything is safe but theres no need to think that GM is unsafe.
And no science is about looking at several data, not just some data from one report.
@GENIAyCABALLO There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
Say no? You mean to use the same technique that they use for drugs in the America the land of the KKK! Hows that working for ya? Some one should study NLP fundamentals! I'm surprised no one has cared enough to mention this! And as far as you fucking representatives are concerned they only take donations. Which poor working soul trying to following the American KKK Clan genocidal dream is gonna take the time out of their busy time manifesting paper wealth. Pacifism is dead
b) we dont really know what the effects of GMOs are, might be completely safe in many cases, might not in others.
c) no connection whatsoever has ever been made between the disappearance of bees to GMOs, no proper scientific study in the matter exists.
d) ok lets say we get rid of all GMOs, how exactly are we supposed to feed the world? if we replace all crops to non GMOs there will not be enough food.
@yolok3 The UN and World Bank report,International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK DEFRA, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, "I would argue, no."
@yolok3 "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods"" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
@yolok3 "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@yolok3 UN report Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa which states "Poverty is a major contributory factor to food security, organic farmers benefit from (i) cash savings, as organic farming precludes the need to purchase synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; (ii) extra incomes gained by selling the surplus produce(resulting from the change to organic); (iii) premium prices for certified organic produce, obtained primarily in Africa for export but also for domestic markets;"
@yolok3 UNEP-UNCTAD report "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa "and (iv) added value to organic products through processing activities. These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way."
@yolok3 The 2010 data on the worldhunger website shows there is more than enough food right now to feed everyone on earth. Poor people starve because they can not afford food, not because of a lack of food production. It is immoral to promote GM foods being kept outdoors and for human consumption when there are possible health, environmental and contamination risks. Especially when GMOs have done little to reduce hunger and studies suggest organic foods can feed the world without GMOs.
@yolok3 "honey bee feeding behaviour was affected when exposed to the highest concentration of Cry1Ab protein, with honey bees taking longer to imbibe the contaminated syrup. Moreover, honey bees exposed to 5000 ppb of Cry1Ab had disturbed learning performances.""Our results show that transgenic crops expressing Cry1Ab protein at 5000 ppb may affect food consumption or learning processes and thereby may impact honey bee foraging efficiency." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206234
Excellent video ladies!!!
dragongue76 1 week ago
Can you provide the original references to the work on feeding GM soya to rats? I assume that this is a balanced diet and was done in an appropriately controlled experiment.
48metalman 1 week ago
I want this video on my N78 phone.
reemanwells37f 3 weeks ago
WELL I`M OUT! So sad that people have to start badmouthing each other. Yes Myndy you do have an annoying way of thrusting strange links in the face. But NO TheAntiV that doesnt make her a bitch. Trying to save the world is quite honorable to me no matter what she believes.
PS. I dont think anyone gives a flying F... if any of you have studied at the university or not. Mind your words!
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf Although we disagree for the most part, you have been one of the more respectable people I have debated on youtube, and I thank you for that. I have one last question before you go, what was the supersymmetry reference about?
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 I have never said I dont want studies to be made. I too care for peoples health and the environment etc. What a silly statement! It is simply not true. Instead of answering my arguments. You attack me as a person and tell me what I think. Yes I do believe in GM methods. I think it is a marvelous thing but I am not here to demand things. I am here to disprove the preposterous statements of the video. Then you have forced me into a debate about alot more than that.
martintf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martintf When I stated, "Human studies(like in 3 phase drug trials) should be conducted, as I stated earlier there are enough studies suggesting potential adverse affects in GM fed animals, to warrant testing in humans and to use the precautionary principle." You replied, "and now we are lost... sad". This gave me the indication that you believe anyone who wants 3 phase testing, etc. is "lost".
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martintf When I stated "My argument isn't that a GM crop, etc. will always be bad in every circumstance. My argument is that GM crops should be subject to the same 3 phase health regulations as human drugs and reviewed by an independent panel, etc." You replied, "Regarding your arguments. Those are not arguments. Those are statements and you use very little arguments to support your statements." This suggested that you believed there was little argument to support 3 phase testing.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Most of my argument has been that more studies should be done such as 3 phase testing, etc., so if you support 3 phase testing, etc. before GM crops are fed to the masses, introduced into the environment, etc., then you should support most of the statements in this video, because none of the transgenic crops on the market have been subject to 3 phase testing and therefore I don't see an objection to saying "no" to the GM crops on the market until 3 phase testing is done.
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martintf I believe I've answered all of your arguments and provided several peer reviewed studies to back my arguments, which you have not responded to. Your first statement "GMO crops rely heavily on pesticides" ??? NO The most common "GMO"-gene (BT) is used to reduce pesticides.""Why is there few studies? Because common sense says that there is no reason for it to be unhealthy." I refuted your pesticide argument and this again indicates that you don't believe studies are needed.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf
You have to forgive. She's a childish naive individual who just goes around spamming comment sections with studies that she doesn't even bother to read nor are most of them even viewable.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV I read the studies, unlike you, who posted studies saying how bad Rotenone is, but didn't even read the part that says only conventional farmers still use it! It's not my fault you don't know how to use the internet, or you would know all of the studies I post are viewable!
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86
Kind of like how you missed the part where the author of your study suggested that the risk of adervse affects were unlikely? One more thing bitch, I've used the internet numerous times primarily for university level research primarily dealing with anthropological studies. So please don't make assumptions about me. Second, most of your sources were not viewable even when I googled them. A lot of them repeatedly said "page not found."
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@myndy86
Speaking of not knowing how the internet works did you ever wonder why your comments keep getting flaged as spam? It's because youtube has caught onto your bullshit of spamming comment sections with drivel.
TheAntiV 1 month ago
@TheAntiV Most of your comments are flagged as spam as well, you can't see it because youtube allows you to see your own comments even if they are marked as spam!
myndy86 1 month ago
@TheAntiV You admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV You admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
myndy86 1 month ago
@TheAntiV You even admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview with the researcher! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
myndy86 1 month ago
@TheAntiV You even admitted the study never said that! You were quoting from an interview with the researcher! You have no idea how to use the internet other than to plagiarize from Pro-GM websites. All of my links are viewable, you are just pretending you can't find them because you have no response and/or you are just too stupid to use a Google search engine! You have never done university research, you can't even post your own comments, you just PLAGIARIZE!
myndy86 1 month ago
stupid liberals.. hating industry, always got some new theories to spread that nobody give's a f--k about. All you are doing is regurgitating of mindless sheep talk. shut up you idiotic prostitutes, A GMO human would be superior and would last at least 200 years. You spread the word that the top sheep say when in reality the Marxists just hate industry and jealous of their success.
Time4Reality101 1 month ago
@myndy86 Thank you for such a marvelous conversation. "The recent excess observed by CDF in Bs0→μ+μ- is interpreted in terms of a possible supersymmetric origin"
Excess observed in CDF Bs0→μ+μ- and supersymmetry at the LHC
martintf 1 month ago
@myndy86 AS I said I know what they wrote. I posted it. The 500 character limit did not stop me from posting the WHOLE sentence. It is not what they say but how they say it that shows that they are biased. You need not to have financial gain to be biased. Its about having an idea about results before the research is made. I am not protecting monsanto. I am protecting the methods of GMO.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf The 500 character limit, stopped me from posting the whole quote and having enough space to explain each sentence. I split the sentences into 2 parts and explained them, I didn't edit the quote or take anything out of context. There is no motive for those resarchers to be biased, unlike the majority of GM studies which are done by the biotech companies themselves or done by researchers with ties to the biotech industry, suggesting bias.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf I'm protecting people's health, the environment, etc. so I request 3 phase trials, independent review for approval, after market studies, inspections, etc. You don't want 3 phase trials, or any other studies, because you are, "protecting the methods of GMO." from further studies which may find adverse affects. If you believed GM crops, etc. could stand the scrutiny of 3 phase trials, etc. you would have no problem with that but obviously you think GM crops will fail.
myndy86 1 month ago
there is a youtube vid about this go watch it.
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food
artmettle 1 month ago
@myndy86 OF coarse I know what they wrote, those are my words to show how I look upon that sentence. The sentence shows that the researchers are biased. They have a view of what they think the results should be and interpret the data according to that. At least thats how I see it!
and now you bring a new sentence completely out of context into the conversation.. How does that sentence contradict my accusation of fiddling with the data???
By fiddling i did not mean falsify I meant tampering.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf The sentence doesn't show bias it suggests that they already found some evidence of toxicity and they wanted to investigate further and look at more data tsee if the additional ata supports toxicity or not. You can interpret however you want, but I'm not taking anything out of context, I have a 500 character limit so I can't quote every word. They do not tamper with anything they add more data and look at the results, that is not, "fiddling" that is good science.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Again, that study is not the only studied I posted and several studies suggest similar results. I don't see a reason for these researchers to be biased, unlike the biotech companies or those with financial interests in transgenic crops, the researchers in the studies I posted have nothing to gain by being biased. I think the bias is more likely on the side of those who profit from GM and studies suggest those who profit most represent the majority of studies on the subject.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001).”
sciencedirect"dot"com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001302
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops.""Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers." scientificAmerican"dot"com/art icle.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects." Same article.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 By, as you do, I mean you pick a sentence of choice. Bring it out of context and make into your argument. Now I can state that non GM maize IS more dangerous than none GM maize cause it has more Zea m14... I wont though but I could.
martintf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martintf No actually you can't claim "non GM maize IS more dangerous than none GM maize", because you don't know what health affects lower levels of maize allergen Zea m14 has on humans or even rodents. My argument for protein expression differences was not that it automatically means harm but that "Even a snp change can change gene expression, sometimes for the better but often for the worse." So "GM crops should be subject to the same 3 phase health regulations as human drugs"
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf I didn't take any sentence out of context, as I stated "one study doesn't constitute "proof" of adverse affects""those results need verification. So they looked at more data." So they "extended our initial analysis" while "collectively compiling the significant differences observed in the physiological and biochemical parameters measured in feeding trials of rats". You accuse, "fiddling" but, "We have previously reported indications of toxicity in rats fed with MON 863"
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 These guys have no problem explaining there experimental design. As you do:
"The transcriptomics data showed some differences between the GM varieties and the non-GM maize variety in the PCA as well as the anova. Probably, the most interesting difference at the gene expression level was the lower level of maize allergen Zea m14 found in the GM varieties" Barros et al (2010)
martintf 1 month ago
@myndy86 About Zolla(2008) I will be more careful. Honestly I dont have the effort to read it properly. I do see that they do not dispay any graphs or any statistics. No standard deviations. So it is hard to know how big these alleged changes are. I also found it strange that they did not clearly show their experimental design. Finally I did find that they took a sample size of 8 although they did not treat them as 8 but one sample to create a mean. Really strange! So youve lost your calculator?
martintf 1 month ago
@myndy86 No I did not misinterpret. They were not stating that one study wasn´t enough they said that the results were not satisfying so they changed the statistics of the same data. Why did you cut the quote when I already have posted the full sentence. You brought it out of context and made a false statement about it.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf No I didn't they never said "the results were not satisfying so they changed the statistics of the same data", you are misinterpreting the whole statement. "We have therefore extended our initial analysis on the MON 863 feeding data by collectively compiling the significant differences observed in the physiological and biochemical parameters measured in feeding trials of rats with each of the three GM maize varieties." They "extended" the analysis, not "fiddled with it"!
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Regarding your arguments. Those are not arguments. Those are statements and you use very little arguments to support your statements.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf I would also like to point out that this is not the only study suggesting adverse affects, I posted many studies. As for my arguments, I have posted many studies suggesting more studies, including human studies should be conducted. As for difference in protein expression, studies suggest as I mentioned that there can be dozen of differences between transgenic crops and their near-isolines.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Study proteomic profile MON810, "43 proteins resulted up- or down-regulated in transgenic seeds with respect to their controls (T06 vs WT06), which could be specifically related to the insertion of a single gene into a maize genome by particle bombardment. Transgenic seeds responded differentially to the same environment as compared to their respective isogenic controls, as a result of the genome rearrangement derived from gene insertion." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393457
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf There are many independent studies suggesting potential adverse health affects. Science requires the precautionary principle to be used, so 3 phase trials as used for human drug regulations, review by an independent review panel, after market testing and inspections, would better ensure safety and would increase consumer confidence as well. A 28-90 day rodent trial isn't enough and some of those studies suggest potential adverse affects, more testing is needed.
myndy86 1 month ago
We have previously reported indications of toxicity in rats fed with MON 863 GM maize for 90 days [5]. However, these signs of toxicity alone do not constitute proof of adverse health effects. We have therefore extended our initial analysis on the MON 863 feeding data by collectively compiling the significant differences observed in the physiological and biochemical parameters measured in feeding trials of rats with each of the three GM maize varieties. They actually say we fiddled with it so...
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf You are misinterpreting the statement. "We have previously reported indications of toxicity in rats fed with MON 863 GM maize for 90 days [5]. However, these signs of toxicity alone do not constitute proof of adverse health effects." They are stating that one study doesn't constitute "proof" of adverse affects, (Monsanto believes one 28-90 day rodent trial constitutes "proof" of safety so that is all they do) those results need verification. So they looked at more data.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 It in some cases shows that there might be a toxic effect. Which is something I did not believe. I still have a hard time to see where the potential toxicity comes from. Usually there is a toxin accountable for it. Also I must say there was a sentece that unvailed the authors as very biased it is long so...
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf You said "I still have a hard time to see where the potential toxicity comes from." For the RR crop the toxicity comes from glyphosate and/or other ingredients in Roundup(I can provide dozens of studies if you like). For MON810 and MON863 the toxicity comes from the Cry proteins, which are endotoxins. I already posted a study suggesting Cry1Ab(found in MON810) caused an antibody response both through ingestion and inhalation in mice fed a transgenic rice expressing Cry1Ab.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Now it works again. Must say that it is embarrasing how I missed the results of the BT maize. I guess it is because I am also biased. I read it quickly and when I believed I haf found what I want I stopped. This report is very interesting. Based on research made by monsanto, which stated it as safe, they have pushed it the other way funded by Greenpeace. The results are above my knowledge to analyse since regards things I know nothing about like urea in blood and so forth. Although...
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf You're misinterpreting the situation. Monsanto refused release of the study, so Greenpeace filed a lawsuit and Monsanto was forced to release it. Greenpeace funded the initial statistical analysis(they had the data), but unlike Monsanto, they allowed researchers access to the study. "Greenpeace contributed to the start of the investigations by funding first statistical analyses in 2006, the results were then processed further and evaluated independently by the authors."
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Interestingly the link to article doesnt work anymore. Does it work for you? Strange that I missed those results. They were not shown in the tables I believe. Excuse me Im not trying to twist things. Anyhow I still can not see how the transferal of specific genes to a plant should be harmful regardles of which gene it is. Is that what you see?
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf If you put h t t p : / / w w w . (without the spaces) in front of biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
It should work. If not the title of the study is "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health".
If putting the title in a search engine like Google doesn't work, try putting a quote from the study(without the quotation marks) in Google, etc.
If that doesn't work I can always copy and paste the whole study and personal message it to you.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf You said "I still can not see how the transferal of specific genes to a plant should be harmful regardles of which gene it is. Is that what you see?" It would depend on the circumstance. Even a snp change can change gene expression, sometimes for the better but often for the worse. Inserting gene A into organism 1 may have no adverse affects on the organism or organisms consuming it, but inserting the same gene A into organism 2 may change gene expression(s) for the worse.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf My argument isn't that a GM crop, etc. will always be bad in every circumstance. My argument is that GM crops should be subject to the same 3 phase health regulations as human drugs and reviewed by an independent panel, etc. If all goes well and the same GM crop, etc. passes all environmental testing and containment testing, etc. and is followed up with after market testing, inspections, etc. then it should have temporary approval until after market testing is reviewed.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Since you ask me after my reply "which one do I mean?". I have to ask you. DO YOU ACTUALLY READ THESE REPORTS? or do you just post reports with topics you BELIEVE supports your believs about GMO:S.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf I have read the reports several times, but I also read more than a dozen studies every day, so I can't keep track of every minute detail in every study I last read several weeks or even months ago. The first study I posted used only HT soy and the last study I posted was a meta-analysis on multiple studies, so rather than have to reread all of the studies again I figured you could just tell me what study you meant.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Next, I would like to point out that if it is the correct study I believe it is, it's a reevaluation of a Monsanto study, and therefore the, "minimum sample size so the statistic power is BAD. " is the issue with most of the GM food studies because "most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants." sciencedirect"dot"com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 so to conclude. It is NOT a toxicity that comes from the plant being genetically modified. WHo would have thought that from the beginning? Also round up is not very toxic. 33% for 90 days straight is alot! I personally dont support Round up but I dislike fear mongering more. I do support organic farming in some senses but just to put thing in perspective to you. There are far more dangerous mycotoxins to be found in food from organic farms.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf Actually mycotoxins are likely higher in Roundup Ready crops than conventional or organic.“We conducted studies during 1997-2007 showing Fusarium root colonization was consistently higher on RR soybean treated with glyphosate than on RR soybean without glyphosate and on conventional soybean.” ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications"dot"htm?seq_no_115=242660
Mycotoxins on Bt crops may be lower(studies vary) but should still be tested humans based on animal studies.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Organic generally has lower levels of mycotoxins "in all cereal species, Fusarium infestation and levels of important mycotoxins were significantly lower when grown organically than conventionally” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20425661
There are also conventionally bred crops(used in organic) that have reduced mycotoxins.
"Mp715 and Mp717 are also resistant to the accumulation of another fungal toxin—fumonisin" teatronaturale"dot"com/article/2166.html
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Absolute bullshit, myndy. You don't know the first thing about GMO's and ignore all data that doesn't fit your prejudice.
You are anti-logic, anti-science, anti-progress. You are lower than a parasite, myndy.
plzenjoymybigolpenis 1 month ago
@plzenjoymybigolpenis When I posted numerous peer reviewed studies that disagreed with your uneducated opinion, you said "The data is deliberately being misinterpreted and misrepresented", yet you say I, "ignore all data that doesn't fit your prejudice" LMAO! Your main argument is a nursery school rant, only missing you stating your daddy can beat up my daddy and calling me a poopy pants.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 More retarded bullshit, myndy. Anyone here can click on your page and see your history. You're a religious zealot. A total fucking idiot who rejects all data that doesn't fit in to your delusional worldview.
You are anti-logic, anti-science, anti-progress. You are lower than a parasite, myndy, and you need to be eliminated.
plzenjoymybigolpenis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@plzenjoymybigolpenis When I posted numerous peer reviewed studies that disagreed with your uneducated opinion, you said "The data is deliberately being misinterpreted and misrepresented", yet you say I, "ignore all data that doesn't fit your prejudice" LMAO! Your main argument is a nursery school rant, only missing you stating your daddy can beat up my daddy and calling me a poopy pants.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 ok so I read your last article below. A study on rats and different GM Maize both roundup ready and BT. First of all they stated in the report that they used an absolut minimum sample size so the statistic power is BAD. They found toxicity on rats which had been fed 33% maize of there diet for 90 days straight. Not on the 18 % diet. They did not show any results at all about the BT maize hence no toxicity. So as they stated in abstract the toxicity comes from round up residues.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf I'm not sure which article you are referring to as the last article, can you be more specific? I also posted several studies and there are several reasons why one study may show no adverse affects and another wouldn't. One example is an earlier study I posted that suggested the control group had an antibody response when they just inhaled the Bt food. Things like that could mask an adverse affect. I would suggest you read all the studies and we discuss them individually.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf I just reread the abstracts I believe I found the study you are referring to, but if it is the correct study, I did not recognize it because it does not specifically state "roundup residues" it mentions "new pesticides specific to each GM corn" which include "two different Bt toxins used as insecticides". biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
This study also does show results for Bt corn(MON810, MON863) "Feeding of MON 810 resulted in 11/15 significant effects in females" etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 now im really tired of this. yes you are just commenting in a really biased way. the primary focus of the video is without a doubt. say no to gmo. which is fear mongering. At this point id like to refer readers to my first comment.
martintf 1 month ago
@myndy86 and now we are lost... sad
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf Human studies(like in 3 phase drug trials) should be conducted, as I stated earlier there are enough studies suggesting potential adverse affects in GM fed animals, to warrant testing in humans and to use the precautionary principle. "GM-fed mice of all ages considered, the number of perichromatin granules is higher and the nuclear pore density lower.""we found enlargements in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in GM-fed mice Sertoli cells." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15718213
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "Several proteins belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria were differentially expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls. Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial and nuclear modifications indicative of reduced metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features"ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters)." enveurope"dot"com/content/23/1/10
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex-and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn." biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "We observed that after the consumption of MON863""Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity""Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%)""with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17356802
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "D. magna fed GM-maize showed a significantly reduced fitness performance: The mortality was higher, a lower proportion of females reached sexual maturation, and the overall egg production was lower compared to D. magna fed UM isogenic maize.""The combination of a reduced fitness performance combined with earlier onset of reproduction of D. magna fed Bt-maize indicates a toxic effect rather than a lower nutritional value of the GM-maize." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347840
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Demographic responses of Daphnia magna fed transgenic Bt-maize, "The GM-fed D. magna had lower survival (lx) than the UM-fed D. magna throughout the experiment" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811247/
"our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441651
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "this study was designed to evaluate the effects of transgenic corn on the rats that were fed through three generations with either GM corn or its conventional counterpart.""there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney. Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191319
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "This indicates that GM soy protein intake affected pancreas function, evidenced by the early acute PAP mRNA increased levels and pancreas cellular changes followed by recuperation of acinar cells after 30 days." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1319/abstract
"The RACB trial showed time related negative reproductive effects
of the GM maize under the given experimental conditions." biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "Atlantic salmon fed GM maize showed some small changes in stress protein levels and activities, but none of these changes were comparable to the normalized gene expression levels analysed for these stress proteins. GM maize seemed to induce significant changes in white blood cell populations which are associated with an immune response."onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2007.00808.x/abstract
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "mice were fed a diet containing MON810 or its parental control maize or a pellet diet containing a GM-free maize""MON810 maize induced alterations in the percentage of T and B cells and of CD4(+), CD8(+), gammadeltaT, and alphabetaT subpopulations of weaning and old mice fed for 30 or 90 days, respectively, at the gut and peripheral sites. An increase of serum IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1beta after MON810 feeding was also found." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007233
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems.""The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 I dont see how using a BT crop would be detrimental to having for example predatory spiders in the field. Why wouldnt you be able to use other methods such as push/pull, lures and traps if your using a BT crop???
So ask for these mandatory requirements instead of fear mongering about a variety of novel technics in plant breeding. This video is fear mongering and it scares me that a bright girl like you would support it.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf As I stated earlier, there are other aspects to Bt crops that could be more detrimental than Bt spray. What I am in support of is 3 phase testing, an independent review panel and required after-market studies like with human drug regulations, mandatory labeling so population studies, etc. can be better conducted, environmental testing(non-target, etc.) and after-market testing to account for contamination, recombination, etc. As well as mandatory crop rotations, etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf The primary focus of the video is honey bees and lack of human testing, because Bt crops are supposed to produce Cry proteins 100% of the time and studies suggest honey bee behavior is affected by the Cry in the pollen of at least some Bt crops, it is more likely to affect honey bees compared to limited Bt spray use. There also are very few human studies. Some of the info is inaccurate, there was no flounder gene in FlavrSavr tomato, but I'm just commenting.
myndy86 1 month ago
@mandy86 Interesting... Such a pity that the BT crops are being malused as such. High dose and refuge strategy should be applied meticulously and the BT crops should definately not be planted year after year. Good crop rotations is an outstanding method which is sadly not used.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf Those are great suggestions, and if applied as you stated, Bt crops would certainly have less likelihood of resistance, potential adverse affects on Non-target organisms, etc. issues. The problem is that there would have to be some sort of mandatory requirement for Bt crops to be used that way as well as for herbicide tolerant crops, which farmers often use only the herbicide the plant is tolerant to and the same crop yearly, which may contribute to herbicide tolerant weeds.
myndy86 1 month ago
Really! What an asshole! The character limit is almost as annoying :) especially if your using a smart phone like I did. Yes it temporarily. Resistance will surely come some day but I am not sure that having the cry protein present att all time increases the risk. The thing is that a plant protection is better protected from resistance if it kills as many as possible from the pest population. If they die they can not spread the any genes at all hence no resistance.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf That may be true, but by wiping out a species(or greatly reducing its numbers) there is the possibility of creating an evolutionary niche for another organism, which may lead to infestation due to lack of competition, etc. By using a variety of tactics(pesticides, predatory insects, push/pull, lures and traps, etc.) and creating or contributing to a more diverse pest population, you reduce the chance of infestation compared to using a crop that targets a specific species.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy about research. That is something you will have a hard time to prove. Yes please send me id like to scrutinize them. I think this analogy is accurate: everyone knows that fish is very good and healthy food. If i were to state that specifically tuna is dangerous to eat in the long run. Do you think any researcher would want spend their time and money on investigating that. No there are tonnes of issues that are really constructive to investigate into.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf I certainly wouldn't say the adverse affects or potential affects the studies suggest are "proof". However, science requires the precautionary principle to be used and a more cautionary approach should be used, including a 3 phase protocol, with an independent review panel, human trials, etc. that it used in human drug regulations(in the U.S.). It may also be pesticides, etc. used on GM crops that cause or contribute to the adverse affects, but further studies are needed.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf For the studies are you just interested in studies on transgenic crops, or would you also like studies on glyphosate or glufosinate that is obviously sprayed on varieties of herbicide tolerant crops? Even if the herbicide tolerant transgenic crops(which would be pointless without that trait) themselves do not cause or contribute to adverse affects, they are specifically designed to be sprayed with an herbicide that may cause or contribute to adverse affects.
myndy86 1 month ago
@plzenjoymybigolpenis Hey mister idiot. please fuck of you are messing up my conversation.
martintf 1 month ago
hi mandy. I won't argue which is the most common transgenic gene (I prefere transgenic since all crops are genetically modified, look into brassicaes). I won't argue either against bt crops being a pesticide but it doesn't change the fact that they do reduce the use of chemicals. The cry protein is only harmful to a few genera of insects. It was first and still used in organic farming. My argument will be that crops are always attacked by pests.
martintf 1 month ago
@martintf I thank you for that reply, I am unfortunately being stalked by that youtube user. I also prefer the term transgenic, however the 500 character limit leads me to use the term GM, and the APHIS definition of GMO((7CFR340: 340.1) is virtually the same definition as transgenic. Bt crops may temporarily reduce the use of chemical(spray, etc.) pesticides, but because Bt crops are supposed to express Cry 100% of the time, this increases the potential for resistance. cont..
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Because 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use very little, and use more biological pest control(predatory insects, crop cover, push/pull, etc.) instead. Bt spray is less likely to have the issue of resistance than Bt crops. There is already evidence that some species are developing resistance to t crops and although refuges are supposed to deter this, there are studies suggesting refuges are not as effective as once believed.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "This is the first report of field-evolved resistance to a Bt toxin by the western corn rootworm and by any species of Coleoptera." plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022629
"Analysis of more than a decade of global monitoring data reveals that the frequency of resistance alleles has increased substantially in some field populations of Helicoverpa zea" nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/abs/nbt1382.html
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "Variable Bt toxin production in seeds of refuge plants undermines the high-dose/refuge strategy and could accelerate pest resistance to Bt crops." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419639/
Reistance to Bt crops could cause farmers to use more harmful chemicals than Bt spray currently used in organic farming. Also because Bt crops are generally designed to affect only certain insects, other harmful species that would normally be controlled by pesticides, etc. may flourish.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "our analyses show that Bt cotton has become a source of mirid bugs and that their population increases are related to drops in insecticide use in this crop. Hence, alterations of pest management regimes in Bt cotton could be responsible for the appearance and subsequent spread of nontarget pests at an agro-landscape level." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20466880
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Although I agree that Cry proteins primarily affect certain species of insects, there other possible adverse affects to non-target organisms. "Plant residues of transgenic plants, plowed under at harvest and kept mixed with soil for up to 4 months, affected soil respiration, bacterial communities, and mycorrhizal establishment by indigenous endophytes." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC1287690/
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "corn byproducts, such as pollen and detritus, enter headwater streams and are subject to storage, consumption, and transport to downstream water bodies. Laboratory feeding trials showed that consumption of Bt corn byproducts reduced growth and increased mortality of nontarget stream insects. Stream insects are important prey for aquatic and riparian predators, and widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923672
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "during a 7-day oral exposure to the various treatments (transgenic, imidacloprid-treated and control), honey bee feeding behaviour was disturbed and bees consumed significantly less CCRI41 cotton pollen than in the control group in which bees were exposed to conventional cotton pollen. It may indicate an antifeedant effect of CCRI41 pollen on honey bees and thus bees may be at risk because of large areas are planted with transgenic Bt cotton" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20700762
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf Our results show that transgenic crops expressing Cry1Ab protein at 5000 ppb may affect food consumption or learning processes and thereby may impact honey bee foraging efficiency." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206234
Because Bt spray is used less often, it is more exposed to the elements and therefore more likely to be degraded that Cry in Bt crops, high levels of nitrogen absorbed by plants may cause higher levels of Cry, etc. Bt crops may have more of an adverse impact.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "Increased available N likely increases Bt δ-endotoxin–synthesizing proteins and thus increases the Bt δ-endotoxin concentration." agronomy.org/publications/aj/articles/95/1/207
Some studies suggest Bt crops may alse have at least some impact on mammals such as an antibody response. While this may not necessarily cause or contribute to any adverse affects, it would certainly warrant human studies.
myndy86 1 month ago
@martintf "An anti-PHA-E and anti-Cry1Ab antibody response was induced both after inhalation (control groups) and after inhalation/ingestion (groups fed recombinant protein alone or together with transgenic rice). ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18215453
I would also argue that Bt crops may have different effects than Bt spray used in organic farming, due to recombination, rearrangement, etc. from the modification or from breeding, etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
"GMO crops rely heavily on pesticides" ??? NO The most common "GMO"-gene (BT) is used to reduce pesticides. Say NO to pesticides! Say yes to GMO!
and you first state that there have been few scientific studies into health issues from GMO and then you go on stating that it is unhealthy...Why is there few studies? Because common sense says that there is no reason for it to be unhealthy. WHY would for example BT crops be unhealthy?
YES there are problems in the food industry but its NOT GMO!
martintf 1 month ago 2
@martintf The most common GM crops are not Bt they are herbicide tolerant and designed to be sprayed with herbicides. Even if the most common GM crops were Bt, the Bt crops themselves are labeled as Bt "plant-pesticides" by the EPA. So Bt crops are themselves pesticides. A Bt crop is supposed to express Cry proteins 100% of the time so they should always be producing a pesticide, compared to Non-GM crops that are generally only sprayed with a pesticide when a pest is present.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 More retarded crap and non-sequiturs from myndy, the ultimate whore.
plzenjoymybigolpenis 1 month ago
@martintf The reason that there has been few studies is because most biotech companies limit independent research to only the Universities they have a "deal" with. Most of the studies done have been by the biotech companies themselves or researchers with financial ties to the biotech companies. Many of the independent studies that have been done on some GM foods suggest potential adverse affects in the GM fed animals. I'll post a dozen or so, if you are interested in reading them.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 You deny science and all rational thought, myndy. Everything is a conspiracy if it threatens your fragile, illogical, religious worldview regarding organic food.
You pick and choose your data that you're willing to accept. Even when you do accept it, you still don't understand it. You're a religious fundamentalist nut, myndy.
Drink the Kool-aid, myndy. We'll all be better off.
plzenjoymybigolpenis 1 month ago
Big law suits need to be files against Monsanto and other big GMO companies.
screwopenborders 1 month ago 2
Every food we eat is GMO, so how do you avoid it?
opteryx1 1 month ago
@opteryx1 Organic foods are an alternative, but they are generally more expensive and less accessible.
pmanpatty 1 month ago in playlist Earths Keepers
This has been flagged as spam show
This vid went viral on Equatorial Guinea
edbarr1128 1 month ago
I UK REAL RAPPERS SAY NO TO G.M.O
marco5real 2 months ago
love you all women light and truth and love !!!!!!!
marco5real 2 months ago
lol
tomjenkins1234 2 months ago
Great job and thanks so much for sharing this information
Soulman785 2 months ago
XD
Good to see someone actually thinking.
Spray food with poison and then feed it to the population. Good job megacorps!
Psychentist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Monsanto must be stopped, they are making poison !!!
MindofaJedi 4 months ago
GMO bad. LIKED!!!
Mythra13 4 months ago 2
I am so glad I was a part of this. Who the hell would thumbs down this????????
morningmayan 4 months ago
@morningmayan Ditto to that sista! Hey, I've been looking back on our old vid's...it's time. . . it's time to stand again with a colab....
StarrJaded 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StarrJaded There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
myndy86 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@morningmayan There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
myndy86 4 months ago
@morningmayan
yay morningmyan. :)
seriously, dummies..
jedichris8 2 months ago
@morningmayan
btw, i see you looked extra did up and pretty for it. ;)
jedichris8 2 months ago
Top Scientist discovers TRUE cause of MS & Alzheimers -- Drug companies furious Check out the June 9th & June 10th, 2010 archives on the Crash! Are You Ready?! show - on the Genesis Communications Network
CrashAreYouReady 4 months ago
@Uuuurk I do know there is more than just GM in modern plant breeding, I explained what the report says they mean by "modern biotechnology". Unlike you I have first hand experience with GM problems as I live in the U.S. where there is far more GM crops, food, etc. than where you live. I`m not saying GM is bad because of 1 instance there are thousands of instances with several crops and I already stated there is many more than UN reports, etc., you just make up data.
myndy86 4 months ago
@myndy86 But claiming that modern biotechnology only includes GMO is false, since its not. I have first hand experience of GMO and used it several times in my education.
There are so many thousand of reports in this field u cannot cherrypicki a couple of reports, they might be intresting yes. But u need insight, u need atleast basic knowledge and understanding in the field.
Now im done debating whit u.U think theres a fast way to get educated, its not. U only proved my first point.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@myndy86 But claiming that modern biotechnology only includes GMO is false, since its not. I have first hand experience of GMO and used it several times in my education.
There are so many thousand of reports in this field u cannot cherrypicki a couple of reports, they might be intresting yes. But u need insight, u need atleast basic knowledge and understanding in the field.
Now im done debating whit u.U think theres a fast way to get educated, its not. U only proved my first point.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk I never claimed modern biotechnology only included GNO, this is your inability to read or understand. What I said was that the terminology in the report explained what they meant when they say "modern biotechnology". Not that this was my terminology but the reports. Of the thousands of reports in the field, you are aware that about 75%-80% of those reports and studies were done by or funded by the biotech companies that manufacture those GMO's, right? That is a conflict of interest.
myndy86 4 months ago
Cut out all GE corn and high fructose corn syrup from your diet and you will
be making a bigger statement than any politico can make.
maayys 4 months ago
The BioTech industry has powerful lobbyists. GE foods are not tested for safety and they remain unlabeled. It's a scam based on extreme capitalistic greed that has wreaked havoc with the planet's food supply including the health of millions worldwide. Let's rally to label GE foods now! Help stop the devastation before it's too late. Get involved at a local level. Peace.
dabrowski1515 4 months ago
According to David Suzuki over 99,99% of scientests working in the agricultural field is ignorant. Who do you whant to belive? One random person or a great majority in this big field of science?
The anti GMO ppl r the same as creationists. Having no clue whatsover about science they cherry pick scientific reports whit wild claims or claims they dont understand how to interpret. The logic these ppl use organic food is dangerouse since the ehec outbrake in EU this summer came from organic farm.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk That isn't what David Suzuki said. Here is the scientific consensus on GM foods. "Hence assesments of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of these risks are yet unknown." -IAASTD, UN/World Bank report by 400 scientists.
myndy86 4 months ago
@myndy86 As I wrote dont understand how to interpret scientific conclusions.
U dont know that modern biotechnology include more than GMO? When it comes to health there are so many diffrent substances in our food our food that it is impossible to tell how they all effect one another.U dont know that agricultural including organic is bad for the enviroment? Theire conclusion is nothing new to me.Man have manipulated nature for 15000years the wide range of perspectives have always been unknown.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuuk Had you read the report you would know that it says modern biotechnology uses recombinant DNA techniques, which is basically GM. You obviously didn't read the report or you don't understand it, as has been the case with many of your comments. You are claiming 99.99% of agricultural scientists believe GMO's are safe, I just showed you the scientific consensus which is that most scientists can not say for sure that GMO's are safe, David Suzuki is just repeating the scientific consensus.
myndy86 4 months ago
@myndy86 I would say that mutagenesis is another modern method since its only like 20 years older than GM.
My point was that Scientest can not say for sure that GMO, non GMO, organic food, conventional food, etc, is absolutely safe. But theres no reason to think that a GM is bad. GM rice has as little in comon whit GM cabbage as non-GM rice has whit non-GM cabbage. Dun think u understand what GMO is.
I study agriculture science and im well aware what over 99% of agricultural scientists think.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk I have read and responded to several of your comments and if you study agricultural science than you need to study a lot more. I understand perfectly well what GMO is, perhaps you should read the report as they clarify what they mean when they say "modern biotechnology". So, because you claim to study agricultural science that somehow means you asked 99.99% of scientists what they think? It's that kind of unscientific statement that makes me doubt your credibility.
myndy86 4 months ago
@myndy86 I have studied for several years and come in contact whit many scientests and no one is against GMO because everybody knows what it is. There is no talk if any scientest disagrees but theres talk about how uneducated the public is in this matter. Why the hell would GMO be bad?! Just search wikipedia for plant breeding and then read up on the modern plant breeding.I never said that 99,99% was from a scientific study, its from first hand experianse something u clearly lack.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk You are claiming you asked the opinion of every scientist about GM crops and 99.99% responded that they safe(there is no way you asked every scientist), then in a previous comment you said there is no way to say anything is safe? This is the most insane argument for GM that I have ever heard. Why the hell would GMO be bad? Let's start with contamination, in the U.S. Bayer currently has thousands of lawsuits against them from when there experimental rice contaminated thousands of farms
myndy86 4 months ago
@myndy86 Well that was one singel type of GM rice that for example has nothing in common whit some typ of GM potato. And I have no idea if the lawsuit was right or not.
The ehec virus that spread through EU this summer and killed alot of ppl came from a organic farm. Does that mean that organic food is dangerouse? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! But if I use ur logic it would.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk Bayer has paid millions of $ and so has several other biotech companies for other cases of contamination. It is really bad in the U.S., a survey found 11% of organic farms tested had GM contamination. We are talking billions of $ in losses from contamination, billion of $ in losses from herbicide resistant weeds, etc. You are either not exposed to GM crops on a large scale like I am in the U.S., or you are just in denial about all the problems GM crops have already caused.
myndy86 4 months ago
@myndy86 U meant the contamination was that GM crops were in organic farms? I see your point here since GM crops is not allowed organic farms. But organic farming has much more to win on including GMO because the reasons why its not allowed is just because of bullshit religiouse organisations and organisations like greenpeace having to much influence on the public.
Yes sadly in my country the so called enviromentalists have even more influence then your countries creationists.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk Not just organic farms. In the case of Bayer for example this was contamination of an experimental GM rice that was not approved for human consumption but was grown outdoors in field trials and contaminated conventional rice. Obviously the conventional farmers could not sell a rice that was not approved for human consumption and it costs farmers billions of dollars in losses. There are several other examples of this occurring as well.
myndy86 4 months ago
@Uuuurk LMAO! The fact that you said "Just search wikipedia for plant breeding", proves you know very little about the subject.
myndy86 4 months ago
@myndy86 Ive learned what plant breeding is in my university. My point was that you dont know that theres more than just GM technology in modern plant breeding so I pointed out were u can read up on it.
I never claimed I asked 99,99% scientests, I didn need to ask any they educated me. What I wrote was no one can know for sure that absolutely anything is safe but theres no need to think that GM is unsafe.
And no science is about looking at several data, not just some data from one report.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
I always buy organic only.. It's better to eat nothing, than to eat GMO!
GENIAyCABALLO 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GENIAyCABALLO There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
myndy86 4 months ago
Say no? You mean to use the same technique that they use for drugs in the America the land of the KKK! Hows that working for ya? Some one should study NLP fundamentals! I'm surprised no one has cared enough to mention this! And as far as you fucking representatives are concerned they only take donations. Which poor working soul trying to following the American KKK Clan genocidal dream is gonna take the time out of their busy time manifesting paper wealth. Pacifism is dead
Mystery207 5 months ago
232 viewers are braindead bottom feeding dying foodsacks for the UN.
venuecam 6 months ago
ok, lets get some things straight:
a) there are many types of GMOs.
b) we dont really know what the effects of GMOs are, might be completely safe in many cases, might not in others.
c) no connection whatsoever has ever been made between the disappearance of bees to GMOs, no proper scientific study in the matter exists.
d) ok lets say we get rid of all GMOs, how exactly are we supposed to feed the world? if we replace all crops to non GMOs there will not be enough food.
yolok3 6 months ago
@yolok3 The UN and World Bank report,International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK DEFRA, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, "I would argue, no."
myndy86 6 months ago
@yolok3 "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods"" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
myndy86 6 months ago
@yolok3 "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 6 months ago
@yolok3 UN report Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa which states "Poverty is a major contributory factor to food security, organic farmers benefit from (i) cash savings, as organic farming precludes the need to purchase synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; (ii) extra incomes gained by selling the surplus produce(resulting from the change to organic); (iii) premium prices for certified organic produce, obtained primarily in Africa for export but also for domestic markets;"
myndy86 6 months ago
@yolok3 UNEP-UNCTAD report "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa "and (iv) added value to organic products through processing activities. These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way."
unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted2007 15_en.pdf
myndy86 6 months ago
@yolok3 The 2010 data on the worldhunger website shows there is more than enough food right now to feed everyone on earth. Poor people starve because they can not afford food, not because of a lack of food production. It is immoral to promote GM foods being kept outdoors and for human consumption when there are possible health, environmental and contamination risks. Especially when GMOs have done little to reduce hunger and studies suggest organic foods can feed the world without GMOs.
myndy86 6 months ago
@yolok3 "honey bee feeding behaviour was affected when exposed to the highest concentration of Cry1Ab protein, with honey bees taking longer to imbibe the contaminated syrup. Moreover, honey bees exposed to 5000 ppb of Cry1Ab had disturbed learning performances.""Our results show that transgenic crops expressing Cry1Ab protein at 5000 ppb may affect food consumption or learning processes and thereby may impact honey bee foraging efficiency." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206234
myndy86 6 months ago