Virus DNA hidden in GMO crops

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/safety-group-blows-lid-secret-virus-hidden-gmo-crops-1360337646

In the EFSA report, which can be read online, you can find (within the scientific wording) that researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations. NK603 maize, of course, was also recently linked to the development of mass tumors in rats.

According to Independent Science News, Gene VI also inhibits RNA silencing. As you may know, RNA silencing has been pinpointed as vital for the proper functioning of gene expression when it comes to RNA. Perhaps more topically, it is a defense mechanism against viruses in plants and animals alike. On the contrary, many viruses have developed genes that disable this protective process. Independent Science News reports that the Gene VI is one such gene.

Overall, there is a degree of knowledge on Gene VI. What we do know going by information within the report is that the gene:

•Helps to assemble virus particles
•Inhibits the natural defense of the cellular system
•Produces proteins that are potentially problematic
•Makes plants susceptible to bacterial pathogens
All of which are very significant effects that should be studied in depth by an independent team of scientists after GMO products are taken off the market pending further research on the entire array of associated diseases. And that does not even include the effects we are unaware of.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[Angry Dragon]

2. rec and kick

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. "we told you this would happen" is going to be such a Pyrrhic victory

after more of this damning evidence is uncovered.

[Buzz Clik]

4. So this virus gene, which is naturally occurring, has been demonstrated to cause problems?

The article in question did some human testing and demonstrated that the P6 was expressed and cause the problems listed in the OP, right?

[Overseas]

10. Somehow, I don't think Monsanto wants to recruit volunteers to see how widely it is expressed.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Good point. No one is eating GMO foods right now.

[farminator3000]

45. How the hell do people know what they're eating if the

Gmos arent labeled?

[Buzz Clik]

46. Go...

.... away.

You and I have been down this road before. You are incapable of maintaining a thread of consistency in your responses, sending the discussion on wild tangents based on whatever pops up in your head. In no time, you'll be fouling the thread with endless links to unsubstantiated crap from all over the 'net, most of which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Do you want to talk about labeling? Go for it. Many many threads have been started on this issue, and I have participated. But not here. We're talking about embedded viruses in GMOs.

[farminator3000]

50. Why would I post a link when you don't read them you just babble

if you want to talk about the virus it is completely different from CMV

[farminator3000]

43. it most certainly is not naturally occurring whatsoever

Which shows how little you know about science that you would say such a thing

[loudsue]

5. This world gets more terrifying every day.

[Buzz Clik]

19. I suggest you follow the links in the article. This is not terrifying.

The author of the OP and the article he quoted are creating a problem that does not exist.

[defacto7]

103. Yesterday's terrifying if today's norm.

Today's terrifying is tomorrows norm.

Life goes on... and then stops. That's the way it is.

(sigh)

[ReRe]

6. K&R

... I look at this as the "soilent green" writ large coming true in our time. Dammit, I want labels on all foods that contain these deadly mutating GMOs!

[SCVDem]

26. We tried and lost on the 2012 California ballot.

Always a next time.

Remember when life expectancy jumped from 38 to 80?

This is a minor correction like the stock market.

[Javaman]

7. Where are the GMO supporters now? nt

[Overseas]

16. They're out there mocking peoples' concerns. Hoping social pressure can bully people into acceptance

Making people feel silly for not wanting Mexico's many varieties of corn to be contaminated with patented GMOs.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Oh, bullshit.

The OP is quoting in internet article citing a pretty much benign literature review combined with a weak statistical analysis that says a scenario exists that a virus -- that already exists in nature -- might somehow become expressed in GMO foods if all the stars align. Nothing more.

[reACTIONary]

130. +10 !!! (NT)

[nebenaube]

135. Actually that's not what it says at all.

The question regards the endogenic production of a toxic protein.

[Overseas]

8. K&R. Hope we decide to choose safety and stop the GMOs now. Rather than discover later

that "Oh gee, those concerns we dismissed back in 2013 were right."

I just hope we can insist like other countries have, that GMO crops are labeled, so that those who choose to be the tough brave pioneers debunking others' caution can go ahead and prove that Gene VI is just fine to eat.

[NorthCarolina]

11. It's not about "safety", it's about $$$. nt

[Overseas]

13. If GMOs were not a private profit center, things would be quite different.

I can't believe we are so eager to allow a company to flood the planet with GMOs for which they have patents, when we know we can't prevent their seeds from mixing with others that are royalty free and evolved over the centuries.

[longship]

9. For Christ sakes, there's viral DNA in every lifeform on the planet.

Humans have retrovirus genes in their genome.

Somebody's pulling your leg here. Virus DNA is in every genome.

[Overseas]

12. This is just a previously undiscovered one that causes mutations and tumors if expressed.

That's all.

Probably won't be expressed anyhow.

And we don't want to find out too much. That would scare people away from GMOs. That would inhibit a company's right to patent our most basic foodstuff with their proprietary seeds!

[longship]

15. Well I am against the patent bullshit

Or at least the way companies are acting with regards to their patents.

But there's nothing really wrong in principle with genetically modifying plants. Humans have been doing that since the beginning of agriculture. And as I posted above, their is viral DNA in every lifeform on the planet. That's just the way biology works.

However, Monsanto needs to be horsewhipped.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. calling bullshit right here

people have been crossing plants NATURALLY for a few thousand years, not splicing genes of different species together in a lab like GMO's.

[longship]

28. Well what the hell do you think cross breeding does?

It splices genes together. When a couple mates, their baby is a result of spliced genes, half from one parent and half from the other.

That's biology.

So is the fact that you, and every other living thing on the planet, has viral DNA in their genome.

GMO food is no more inherently harmful than any other method of cross-breeding, etc. which we have been doing for millenia.

But Monsanto still deserves to be horsewhipped.

[Overseas]

31. Actually it does seem to be inherently more harmful. I have seen some evidence on film.

Some countries have banned the GMO crops. Not because their scientists are too mystical and romantic, but because they have strong concerns and would rather their basic food supplies remain safe.

[farminator3000]

32. Bombarding DNA with a gene gun is absolutely not like breeding

and telling people to shrug it off is insidious. are you a scientist? No 1 has ever used it before. Patented secret could be worse than DDT

[longship]

49. A gene gun?

Science isn't what one sees in the movies. There is no gene gun.

You do know that you share DNA with every other lifeform on the planet, don't you? You do know that there are entire viral DNA codices within the human genome, don't you? Every time one breeds with ones spouse, their DNA gets scrambled together giving rise to new genes over generations.

That's biology. Unlike a mythical gene gun.

[farminator3000]

51. yes that is how monSanto inserts the genes into cells

Look it up that's the whole problem they aren't using biology

[longship]

62. Of course they're using biology.

Come on now. Let's not descend into specious argument here.

I don't know anything about this so-called gene gun. I will look into it.

But inserting genes into an organism cannot be done by "shooting" AFAIK. You have to uncouple a strand of DNA, add a segment, and couple it back up. It's actually much more complex than that, but that's the basic process.

But regardless of how you insert genes -- the methodology is irrelevant -- new genes are not inherently bad because nature does it all the time. The way nature does it is randomly and a new gene persists in the population when that gene gives a breeding advantage.

With GMO, specific genes with specific, desired phenotypic effects are inserted. That's the only difference between nature and GMO. That genomic difference is inherently benign, just like it would be in nature.

There is nothing inherently different between nature and GMO except for the method of selection.

Should GMO be regulated? You betcha!

Should companies using GMO be regulated? You betcha.

Should Monsanto be horsewhipped? A thousand times or more, you betcha.

Is GMO inherently dangerous? Nope!

[farminator3000]

80. nature certainly doesn't mix genes using bacteria. try sperm and egg?

GMO randomly inserts crap with bacteria and/or gene guns- no telling what the results will be

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/breaking_news_viral_gen/

[longship]

86. Nevertheless, humans share DNA with all life forms.

http://genetics.thetech.org/online-exhibits/genes-common

So nature herself does what GMO does.

I am not making an argument advocating GMO, but merely correcting the science in this thread.

Putting bacterial genes in plants is not necessarily harmful since plants already share genes with bacteria. Humans and bacteria share about 7%.

So any argument about inserting bacteria genes into plants being inherently harmful, is falsified by nature herself.

The vast majority of what makes up your body are bacteria! That's a fact, too.

Nature can be weird, eh?

If you do not like GMO, I may very well be with you, but if you are going to argue against it, at least get the science right.

One of my main complaints against GMO is that nature may find a way for the inserted genes to spread to other species. In other words, Round-Up resistant soybeans could give rise to Round-Up resistant invasive weeds. Now that would be a real problem!

[farminator3000]

111. thanks for being polite!

i'd like to correct you, however.

i'm a farmer, i know how plant viruses work.

you can't smoke a cig near tomato plants- tobacco and tomato (and pepper, potato, and eggplant, all nightshade family) all share a virus, TMV (tobacco mosaic)

all crops have naturally occurring viruses- onion family, lettuce familt, etc.

these viruses are OUTSIDE the nucleus of the cell, which is why plants can be healthy while infected- they have learned to fight off the viruses in good growing conditions- if conditions aren't ideal, the virus wins.

what monsanto is doing is inserting a random piece of this cabbage virus into the NUCLEUS of different families of plants.

monsanto's study proving 'safety' was paid for by big M, and lasted 90 days.

we are now in the process of 'spin control' by big M, and 'calling them out' by non big M.

basically, big M has enough $$ to pay scientists to say what they want to hear, AND to ruin anyone who tries to disagree.

not the first time they have screwed up, not at all!

Monsanto and BASF Pull Out of Europe: Good News or Sleight of ...
gaia-health.com/.../monsanto-and-basf-pull-out-of-europe-goo...
Feb 2, 2012 – Ace Up Sleeve Monsanto and BASF are pulling out of Europe, saying that they've been beaten by the protesters. It sounds too good to be true.

BASF drops GM potato projects
Chemistry World-Feb 7, 2013
The company already has approval for one type of GM potato. In 2010, the European commission granted approval for Amflora potatoes, which ...

GM potatoes likely to return, researcher says
Capital Press-Jan 31, 2013
KENNEWICK, Wash. — A University of Idaho researcher says he's optimistic efforts to develop genetically modified potatoes will resurface.

BASF stops seeking EU approval of GM potatoes
FoodNavigator.com-Jan 31, 2013
BASF has said it will stop seeking approval of its genetically modified (GM) potato varieties in the European Union after a decade of research ...

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/EU-health-commissioner-to-prioritise-talks-on-GM-crop-bans
can't paste from that ^^^

[longship]

112. Thanks for the info.

My info on GMO is apparently lagging behind the technology.

It happens, I guess, when it's not something in your field (pun intended).

I always try to be polite. Apparently you do, too. Much appreciated.

Will digest your info, so to speak.

[farminator3000]

114. nice puns!

i try and type as typed TO...

that common dreams article explains a lot (from my post 5 min ago)

enjoy...no don't enjoy, but i hope ya learn something!

here's the best defense against big M:
http://www.caroldeppe.com/byovv.html

[eridani]

90. Yup--tomatoes fuck salmon all the time and produce hybrid offspring, right? n/t

[longship]

91. It's called the "tree of life" for a reason.

Every lifeform on Earth is related to every other lifeform. That means that all share common genes.

It's called biology. You know, genetics. Evolution. All lifeforms on Earth are cousins, from bacteria, insects, fish... and yes, humans, too.

About 7% of our genes are the same as bacteria. Over 75% of our body is bacteria, not human. And yes, there's viral DNA amongst our genes, too.

And plants have more in common with bacteria than mammals. That's the way nature works whether people like it or not.

[eridani]

92. The common genes shared are those that rarely change at all, like those for histone proteins

--and those related to basic metabolic processes.

Those are not the genes that Monsanto is trying to change, because changing them would have no effect whatsoever on phenotype. Bacteria have their own DNA, separate from eukaryotic nuclear DNA.

Nature does not work by crossbreeding salmon and tomatoes.

[longship]

93. Tomatoes and salmon?

Who said salmon and tomatoes crossbreed? Straw man fallacy!!! Sounds like an argument from Answers in Genesis.

Salmon and tomatoes still have many genes in common. And no, they aren't all for histone. Plus, by gene duplication and other genetic processes, genes can be co-opted for other uses whether the gene came from a tomato, a bacteria, or your parents. If the new gene is propagated into a population, it may also subsequently be preserved.

I am no biologist, but these processes are well known.

To argue against GMO by saying tomatoes cannot crossbreed with a salmon isn't a very good one.

[eridani]

94. The genes they have in common DON'T CHANGE!!

Gene duplication occurs within species, not between them. 100% of crossbreeding in nature occurs between species that can produce viable offspring.

[longship]

95. Every lifeform on earth shares genes with every other.

And that includes the non-coding genes. Bonobos and humans share 98% yet they cannot breed. Bacteria and humans share about 7%. The overlap includes non-coding genes which just get passed on and are available for selection. And that histone gene from bacteria is available for gene duplication, as are all others.

Your body mass has more bacteria cells than human!

Biology isn't a simple thing, and I am far from an expert. But straw man arguments are not going to win against GMO.

Inserting genes into an organism is not cross breeding any more than would be the duplication and subsequent adaptation of the histone gene.

I don't object to people fighting GMO. I object to using fallacious arguments and bad science.

There are many good arguments which stand up. Saying salmon and tomatoes cannot crossbreed is not one of them. Sounds like the creationist crocaduck. Both are ridiculous straw men.

[eridani]

107. Genes inserted into GMO crops are by definition NOT shared.

Otherwise, why bother with the technology? There is no known natural process for putting coding for an antifreeze protein in salmon into tomatoes.

(BTW, bacteria don't have histones--those are structural proteins in chromosomes found only in eukaryotic organisms. Of course you can put genes from eukaryotes into bacteria, and that is done in pharmaceutical production. The bacteria have genomes in which a large number of critical metabolic genes are deleted so that they can survive only when provided with complex mixes of the neutrients they can no longer synthesize. This is to keep them the hell OUT of the natural environment, and it's worked OK so far. There is NO reason for genetically modified organisms to be freed from these confined vats.)

[farminator3000]

52. Here's Monsanto being sued by their buddies about it

http://www.alt.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=20

[farminator3000]

79. oh, excuse me, they use something worse now. but they used to

The Planet Versus Monsanto - Forbes.com
www.forbes.com/.../americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-...
Dec 31, 2009 – Monsanto's first round of attackers said its seeds were evil. ... scientists would blast new genes into plant cells at high velocity with a gene gun.

USDA Won't Regulate Genetically Modified Grass, Sparking ...
www.popsci.com/.../usda-wont-regulate-genetically-modified-grass-s...
Jul 11, 2011 – Monsanto no longer uses gene guns, switching several years ago to a targeted gene insertion process involving a strain of bacteria.

you are both condescending AND wrong

[newthinking]

101. You cannot generally cross different species'. GMO *is* different

And yes the process is quite different than what farmers have practiced over the ages.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

35. No

Breeding two plants together requires that they be the same species, and close enough genetically that they pollinate each other. Just as Denovians and Neanderthal were close enough to Homo Sapien Sapien to mate and produce viable offspring. A human mating with a Gorilla would not produce offspring, they are too far apart genetically. You could do it in a lab, but it won't happen in nature.

A fish cannot pollinate a tomato, and manually splicing the two together is complicated and requires the addition of virus genes to get the two to combine. This is not the way nature does it.

[longship]

37. Well, you share a significant number of genes with a fish.

And a significant number of genes with a cabbage. You even share genes with bacteria.

All life on Earth are cousins. We all share genes with each other because we all came from a common ancestor.

That's biology, too.

Regardless. Monsanto should be horsewhipped!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

65. "Science Channel" science is not going to cut it here

Either you don't really understand genetics or you are purposefully being obtuse.

have a nice day.

[longship]

73. There's no cable TV here.

I have never watched the Science Channel.

But I do read a lot about biology and evolution, although my background is physics.

And if there is anything incorrect in my post, I will admit my mistake. That's how science works, too.

But I stand by what I posted because it is a fact that all lifeforms on Earth share a common ancestry. We've known this for 150 years. It has been verified over and over. Molecular genetics, something Darwin knew nothing about, verifies it to a high degree of precision.

We share DNA with all life on this planet. All lifeforms are cousins. Get used to that fact.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

77. of course they do, that's 5th grade stuff

but you were wrong when you stated making a gmo is no different than plant breeding.

Neither you or I is a Biologist or Geneticist, these people are..
Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

[longship]

78. Thanks for the link.

Well, I am not sure that all the claims in the cited petition can stand up to peer review. I know that many signers are biologists, but many are also concerned citizens.

I would have to look more closely at this petition, but I see some of it I agree with

* continued research is needed
* regulations are needed
* restrictions may be necessary
* corporations are being abusive
* their may be dangers

I will read this in more depth when I have more time and will look at what others are saying on these particular claims.

Thank you.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

82. I hope I didn't offend. I got a little passionate

My Gram is in her last hours, and I'm running on little sleep.

I look forward to discussing this again later.

[longship]

88. No offense taken.

I am undecided on GMO. I have heard good arguments both for and against. I have heard many, many very bad arguments against, that go against basic science. And, of course, I ignore everything companies like Monsanto say about it.

My whole point in interjecting in this thread was to bring a modicum of sense in the argument.

For instance, using bacterial genes is not inherently bad since all life shares genes with bacteria. About 7% of human DNA is shared with bacteria. A plant would share more than that. That's just the way nature is. So any argument against using bacterial genes is dead.

[FogerRox]

137. Thats the whole point, nature does not splice material from a fish into corn.

Or BT into corn.

[Tumbulu]

97. Genes are not spliced by breeding, please stop

splicing is different from pairing . Totally different mechanism.

[longship]

99. I should have said crossover.

Which does mix thinks up a bit.

I apologize. It's been decades since I have had any biological education. I try to keep up, but as you can imagine, it's like swallowing an elephant.

[Tumbulu]

131. No, crossover's are extremely rare

I had to plant out over 3 million cultivars over 6 years to get ONE recognizable crossover. Very expensive as well.

Listen the malarky spewed by the gmo folks is outrageous as well as incorrect. Read up on what the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say about the technology.

[Tumbulu]

96. Correct !!!!! nt

[Buzz Clik]

24. Exactly!!! The problem with Monsanto is their business practices, not the science.

The hysteria associated with this subject is truly amusing.

[farminator3000]

33. That is a preposterous statement

They are the worst company on the face of the earth

[Buzz Clik]

41. I am defeated. Well played, sir!

[longship]

54. Hysteria and ignorance of biology.

I am no biologist, but I read enough to know that the basic arguments against GMO are seriously flawed on their basic science.

Inserting known genes into organisms is not inherently dangerous. Nature does it all the time.

Hell, over 75% of your mass is bacteria. They live all over you and within you. You'd die without them.

When you eat a GMO food, its DNA gets broken down and digested, just like all the other food you eat. Eating it just isn't a problem.

Regardless, Monsanto should be horsewhipped!

[Buzz Clik]

58. +1

[farminator3000]

81. why has monsanto's crap been banned in some countries, and failed to boot?

nature DOES NOT randomly combine species are you nuts?

different species DON'T mate.

you are reading the wrong facts about monsanto.

they are scum and should not be trusted for 5 seconds, in truth

[longship]

102. I agree about Monsanto.

But inserting a gene into a plant is not at all the same thing as mating. They are two different things altogether. Equating them shows ignorance of the science and does nothing to advance the fight. It comes off as a straw man.

As another poster wrote, this stuff IS rocket science.

[farminator3000]

113. i hear you on the rocket science...

which is ANOTHER argument against it!

But inserting a gene into a plant is not at all the same thing as mating.

YES! that's the prob. inserting PARTS of genes from other families into plants is some sort of futuristic hoo-hah that people have survived for 10,000+ years without.

monsanto's 'idea' that they are saving people from hunger is total BS- if they cared about the poor, their profits wouldn't be so enormous, and they might stop to consider safety. but they don't!

THIS is what they are really about-
An Iraqi farmer described the pitiful state of today’s agriculture:
“Since the invasion prices have skyrocketed, I don’t know why! So many farmers have stopped farming; they cannot afford it anymore.”

The U.S agribusiness is now reaping huge profits from this collapse, with Iraq importing agricultural products worth one billion dollars a year.

The GRAIN article concludes with the following words:
“While political sovereignty remains an illusion, food sovereignty for the Iraqi people has already been made near impossible by these new regulations. Iraq's freedom and sovereignty will remain questionable for as long as Iraqis do not have control over what they sow, grow, reap and eat.”
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/24

***

How Do Pollen Grains on a Stigma Cause the Fertilization of Egg ...
www.ehow.com › Hobbies & Science
Two sperm are released into the ovule through the pollen tube. One sperm fertilizes the egg cell, forming a zygote which develops into the plant embryo, while ...

How Do the Sperm Nuclei in a Pollen Grain Get to the Egg Nucleus ...
www.ehow.com › Housekeeping
Pollination is to plants what sex is to humans: a way to transfer sperm and fertilize an egg. Once pollen lands on a flower, it must develop a pollen tube so that its ...

Pollen tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollen_tube
Once the pollen tube successfully attains an ovule, it delivers the two sperm cells with a burst. One of them fertilizes the egg cell to form an embryo, which will ...

[farminator3000]

115. in ref. to post #113 and the common dreams article

Protester hurls shoes at Paul Bremer, former US envoy to Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014395030

just happened to spot that in LBN forum!

i don't know if you saw the movie Green Zone, but that a-hole in the movie is supposed to be brenner, i think...

[Tumbulu]

98. I am a scientist and nature does not do this all the time

and there is evidence that the virus used to infect the engineered plants will jump and infect the microorganisms in the digestive system of the animal eating the engineered crops.

But without testing, what is really known about dangers?

But make no mistake, this is rocket science stuff and needs to be tested. Look at what the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say.

[longship]

100. And I agree. It has to be tested.

And in secure labs.

[NoMoreWarNow]

108. their science is not very good either

their business practices are evil... and their science sloppy and ill-conceived. Hence, the original post.

[Buzz Clik]

109. The incorporation of the viral genes was not inadvertant.

I don't think you understand the underlying science.

[NoMoreWarNow]

119. oh but I do

I am a biologist and my wife actually works at an agroscience biotech company designing GMOs

[Buzz Clik]

120. It would be great to hear from someone in the industry about this.

It's pretty rare to have someone familiar with the science be so negative.

Please elaborate!

[NoMoreWarNow]

132. well, I have talked with my wife a lot about this

In her opinion, most plant genetic engineers are not very good scientists. Also, it just seems like the scientists are kind of clueless about adverse effects of what they do. They are so focused on their projects and products, they don't have much idea about the huge concerns about GMOs. There is a disconnect between the scientists from the consumers, I guess.

Monsanto in particularly did a lot of work early on when the technology wasn't as advanced. My wife's job (at another plant biotech company) is to actually design better ways of inserting genes into plant genomes, so there is less variation and more predictability in expression. That's the theory anyway.

Personally, I don't have a major problem with GMO technology but I think they need to do a better job on safety issues-- better testing. And Monsanto is just obscenely cut throat with their business practices.

[Buzz Clik]

22. That is a lie.

You didn't read the article. Start over.

[Overseas]

27. Not sure which part of my alarm you are considering a lie.

Maybe the fact that people are studying the crops after they've been in use for quite a while shows that we are finally trying to find out how harmful Monsanto's GMOs are?

[Buzz Clik]

29. I didn't get past the "previously undiscovered virus". That's bullshit. You didn't read any of it.

[Overseas]

30. I did read the thing. It discusses genetic mutations and tumors. Real concerns.

Risks Monsanto is running just to sell their patented seeds.

It may be an overly alarmist presentation but I want the public to be alarmed and stop the further use of GMOs until their safety has been more thoroughly proven.

[Buzz Clik]

40. Nice try. The virus in question is the Cauliflower mosaic.

Previously undiscovered. Good lord.

[Overseas]

44. I don't like the headline either. Tumors and mutations

have been a serious issue with GMOs so far.

There are enough serious health concerns to stop GMOs now.

I would also like to see more rigorous regulations placed upon the development of GMOs. To introduce a GMO just to make crops more ready for a privately owned herbicide or pesticide should not be allowed, in my opinion. The benefit (private) is not worth the risk of contaminating thousands of other seed lines all over the world.

[farminator3000]

34. So why are you commenting if you didn't read it?

[Buzz Clik]

39. ..

fail. sorry.

[farminator3000]

84. the virus that occurs in nature is NOT inserted into the DNA with a bacteria

it is COMPLETELY different, and your lame statements of 'it is it is i know it all'

are tiresome.

the natural one lies OUTSIDE the nucleus, the MONSANTO one is INSIDE,

to put it in layman's terms, which you still prob won't get

[farminator3000]

47. If you don't know that the cauliflower virus is different from

[Buzz Clik]

48. Go to the OP. Click the link to the article. Click the link to the original article. Read it.

[farminator3000]

53. I'm quite sure I know more than you about this

Why would you tell me to read something you haven't read yourself? How can you crap on it if you haven't read it?

[Buzz Clik]

55. I have no doubt you believe what you just said.

[farminator3000]

59. I also think you are doing the same thing monsanto does

Sure you know all about science and we don't.
It makes me think you are working for them.

[farminator3000]

83. you didn't read a damn thing

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/breaking_news_viral_gen/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html

the ESFA is just trying to pretend they didn't screw up royally.

you can't post a single quote or link, i don't think you read any paper.

all i hear from you is
'i say blah blah because i think so and gmos are great and you are all dumb'

[Buzz Clik]

89. Again? And, rather than give us something from the scientific literature, it's back to the websites.

Great.

You are predictable.

Again: go to the OP. Click the link to the article. Then click the link to the original scientific publication. Then, quote for me where they say that the virus was previously undiscovered.

I'm waiting....

[farminator3000]

110. what have YOU cited from 'scientific lit'- a short 'peer review'

monsanto loving weirdo-
So this virus gene, which is naturally occurring, has been demonstrated to cause problems?
The author of the OP and the article he quoted are creating a problem that does not exist.
The OP is quoting in internet article citing a pretty much benign literature review combined with a weak statistical analysis that says a scenario exists that a virus -- that already exists in nature -- might somehow become expressed in GMO foods if all the stars align
Exactly!!! The problem with Monsanto is their business practices, not the science.
You didn't read the article. Start over.
I didn't get past the "previously undiscovered virus". That's bullshit. You didn't read any of it.
Nice try. The virus in question is the Cauliflower mosaic.
Again: go to the OP. Click the link to the article. Then click the link to the original scientific publication. Then, quote for me where they say that the virus was previously undiscovered.
Off you go again, despite being corrected about this further up thread.
Ok. Quote it right here.
Read the damned article. Educate yourself.

I quoted the scientific article upon which the OP was based as saying that it is a well known naturally occurring virus.

...

hmmm, that is really weird, the words nature, natural, OR naturally DO NOT APPEAR in the article, so how did you quote that?

oh, right, you didn't even paste a quote or link, YOU MADE IT UP

do you see how that is just a huge pile of BS? EXTRA obnoxious, as you are demanding evidence from something u haven't read yourself?

The product of gene VI is a multifunctional protein (P6,
62 kDa) that harbours nuclear targeting and export signals15 and
ssRNA-, dsRNA- and protein-binding domains. Considerable
effort has been devoted to determine the various functions of P6
(Fig. 1).12,16-18

In this article, we discuss
the possible consequences of the overlap between gene VI and
the 35S promoter, when variants of this promoter are introduced
into plant nuclear genomes using stable transformation technology.

The P6 protein that
lacks domain D1 localizes exclusively to the nucleus, because
D1 contains residues that are required for P6-P6 intermolecular
interactions and viroplasm formation.15 At least one of P6’s
nuclear functions is to suppress RNA silencing,32

We believe that if P35S is
embedded in a transformation construct with another gene cassette
at its 5' flank, it is unlikely that the partial gene VI will
be transcribed. In contrast, when the P35S is inserted adjacent
to plant genomic DNA, transcription from an endogenous plant
promoter might take place and create a chimeric protein that contains
part of P6.

***

When a segment of the CaMV genome bearing gene VI is transferred to tobacco plants by the Agrobacterium tumefaciens Ti plasmid, the resulting transgenic plants display viral-like symptoms. Symptoms produced by the DNA from two different viral isolates (CaMV Cabb B-JI and CM1841) were distinct-symptoms from the first were mosaic-like, whereas the other caused uniform bleaching of leaves. That gene VI was responsible for the symptomatic phenotype was demonstrated by showing that symptom production was blocked by deletions and by a frame-shifting linker mutation in gene VI. Furthermore, in primary transformants, there was a strict correlation between the appearance of symptoms and the presence of gene VI product, P(66), detected by immunoblots. Hence, a protein encoded by the CaMV genome produces viral-like symptoms in transgenic tobacco plants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16578828

natural, you say?

[Buzz Clik]

116. I guess you think this is some sort of joke. It is definitely not funny.

A lot of people who fear GMOs have little or scientific training, and they unwittingly trust things they read here. So, when you spew lies, fabrications, misinterpretations, and ignorance, I will call you on it.

I have no idea where you were going with your last post, so I will simply focus on your last comment: "natural, you say?"

Yes. 100% natural. The Cauliflower mosaic virus occurs in nature, just like billions of other viruses. The fact that the CaMV causes causes mosaic symptoms in tobacco is a natural result of the fact that CaMV is not limited in its infection to cauliflower: it infects members of Brassicaceae, Solanaceae, Datura and Nicotiana. That's what they do, and it is all quite natural. Your link was a bizarre excursion into the incredibly obvious.

Back to the root of our argument: you claimed that the virus or its gene VI was "previously unobserved." I asked you to prove it. Instead, you proved my point. Thank you. We're done with that.

Back to the OP: the scientific article at the heart of the post is very soft cautionary tale that under a certain set of extraordinary circumstances, gene VI might be expressed in GMOs. That's it.

We're done here. Thanks for playing. I hope you learned something.

[farminator3000]

117. i'm glad i have offended you, because you have really blown your argument now! cheerio!

The Cauliflower mosaic virus occurs in nature, just like billions of other viruses. The fact that the CaMV causes causes mosaic symptoms in tobacco is a natural result of the fact that CaMV is not limited in its infection to cauliflower: it infects members of Brassicaceae, Solanaceae, Datura and Nicotiana.

now, here is the UNfootnoted part you 'pasted' from wiki

Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) is the type species of the family Caulimoviridae. This family is grouped together with Hepadnaviruses into the Pararetrovirus group due to its mode of replication via reverse transcription of a pre-genomic RNA intermediate.
CaMV infects mostly plants of the Brassicaceae family (examples: Caulifower, Turnip) but some CaMV strains (D4 and W260) are also able to infect Solanaceae species of the genera Datura and Nicotiana. CaMV induces a variety of systemic symptoms such as mosaic, necrotic lesions on leaf surfaces, or stunting and deformation of the whole plant, which vary depending on the viral strain, host ecotype and environmental conditions.
CaMV is transmitted in a no-circulated manner by aphid species such as Myzus persicae.Once introduced within a plant host cell, virions migrate to the nuclear envelope.

oh, YOU ARE SO WRONG. when you read the below, you see that the ONLY CaMV that affects tobacco, etc......

IS THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ONE!!! GET IT??? D4 and W260 are MONSANTO's CRAP!!!

An analysis of 24 infected plants showed that a recombination event occurred in every plant, demonstrating that under strong selection conditions, the recovery of CaMV recombinants from transgenic plants can be very high.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004268229690464X

did you mean cucumber, not cauliflower?
For example, plants including tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, and tobacco may all be infected by the tobacco mosaic virus.
http://biology.about.com/od/virology/ss/plant-viruses.htm

so, yes, in nature, the CUCUMBER virus will cross to tobacco, but NOT in the nucleus, as i explained previously.
only in THE LAB does CaMV cross over INTO THE NUCLEUS, which is the WHOLE POINT of the controversy.

you just PROVED you don't know what you are talking about!

why so upset, does losing arguments affect your take home pay?

CaMV is a DNA virus, TMV is an RNA virus. get it?

Cauliflower mosaic virus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cauliflower mosaic virus
Virus classification
Group: Group VII (dsDNA-RT)
Family: Caulimoviridae
Genus: Caulimovirus
Species

Cauliflower mosaic virus

Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) is the type member of the caulimoviruses, one of the six genera in the Caulimoviridae family, pararetroviruses that infect plants (Pringle, 1999). Pararetroviruses replicate through reverse transcription just like retroviruses, but the viral particles contain DNA instead of RNA (Rothnie et al., 1994).

Tobacco mosaic virus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tobacco mosaic virus
Electron micrograph of TMV particles stained to enhance visibility at 160,000x magnification
Virus classification
Group: Group IV ((+)ssRNA)
Family: Virgaviridae
Genus: Tobamovirus
Species: Tobacco mosaic virus

Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) is a positive-sense single stranded RNA virus that infects plants, especially tobacco and other members of the family Solanaceae. The infection causes characteristic patterns (mottling and discoloration) on the leaves (hence the name). TMV was the first virus to be discovered. Although it was known from the late 19th century that an infectious disease was damaging tobacco crops, it was not until 1930 that the infectious agent was determined to be a virus.

[Buzz Clik]

118. No. You're wrong. It is not the virus being modified.

How can you read this stuff and have absolutely no comprehension of what you're reading?

Nobody is genetically modifying the virus, they are using genes from the virus to modify the crops.

Dammit, man. Get a clue.

You said you know more about this than I do, but I am getting the impression you know nothing of this subject -- to the point that you cannot even comprehend what you are pasting into your posts.

[farminator3000]

121. i am completely right and you look more foolish with each post!

Nobody is genetically modifying the virus, they are using genes from the virus to modify the crops.

this shows that you either don't now how the process works or are deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes for infernal purposes.

please explain how THIS, which is used to get the type VI, is not GE:
The gene can be isolated using restriction enzymes to cut DNA into fragments and gel electrophoresis to separate them out according to length.[48] Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can also be used to amplify up a gene segment, which can then be isolated through gel electrophoresis.[49] If the chosen gene or the donor organism's genome has been well studied it may be present in a genetic library. If the DNA sequence is known, but no copies of the gene are available, it can be artificially synthesized.[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Process

CaMV Type VI is a PROMOTER (just a RANDOM PART of the NATURAL CaMV virus) which is combined with YET ANOTHER organism and INJECTED INTO THE NUCLEI OF PLANT'S CELLS.

to say that this does not happen in nature is more than a bit of an understatement.

also please check the section in bold at the end of this post!

a short course-

CaMV is a promoter-
What is a 'promoter'?

A 'promoter' is a stretch of genetic material that acts as a switch for turning genes on. Every gene needs its own promoter. But the promoter is not a simple switch like that for an electric light, which has only two positions, either fully on or fully off. Instead, the gene promoter has many different parts or modules that act as sensors, to enable it to respond, in ways we do not yet fully understand, to signals from other genes and from the environment. These signals tell it when and where to switch on, by how much and for how long. And under certain circumstances, the promoter may be silenced, so that it is off all the time.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/story.htm

for things such as-
Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops
www.pnas.org/content/103/35/13010.full
by T Funke - 2006 - Cited by 64 - Related articles
Aug 29, 2006 – Roundup Ready plants carry the gene coding for a glyphosate-insensitive form of this enzyme, obtained from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4.

AND
Bt-Corn: What It Is and How It Works | University of Kentucky ...
www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp
Jan 22, 2013 – In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a ...

AND
LibertyLink (gene)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

LibertyLink is a Bayer owned brand of genes for use in agriculture providing tolerance to ignite herbicide and glufosinate (a.k.a. Liberty or Basta). The genes were developed by Bayer CropScience. LibertyLink is the only herbicide tolerant gene other than Roundup Ready on the market. Also, LibertyLink provides an herbicide resistance system that is still effective in the presence of glyphosate resistant weeds.[1] The gene which gives resistance to glufosinate is a bar or pat gene which was first isolated from two species of Streptomyces bacteria. Glufosinate was included in a biocide ban proposed by the Swedish Chemicals Agency [2] and approved by the European Parliament on January 13, 2009.[3]

Streptomyces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Streptomyces is the largest genus of Actinobacteria and the type genus of the family Streptomycetaceae.[1] Over 500 species of Streptomyces bacteria have been described.[2] As with the other Actinobacteria, streptomycetes are Gram-positive, and have genomes with high GC content.[3] Found predominantly in soil and decaying vegetation, most streptomycetes produce spores, and are noted for their distinct "earthy" odor that results from production of a volatile metabolite, geosmin.


***

Abstract
To search for strong promoters that confer constitutive expression of transgenes, we evaluated the
prornoters of an Arabidopsis tryptophan synthase protein ~ subunit gene (PTSB1) and a phytochrome B
gene (PPHYB) as alternatives to the 35S RNA promoter (P35S) of Caullflower mosaic virus.
Characteristics of the Soybean chrolotic mottle virus promoter (PNCR) were also studied for
comparison.
http://www.kazusa.or.jp/ja/plant/jspcmb/PlantBiotech/PBpdf/PB19-1_PDF/PB19A019.PDF


The regulatory elements of CaMV have been used since the
1980s to express novel genes in plants;2 specifically, the 35S promoter
(P35S) and terminator are widely used in research and
plant biotechnology.3,4 The P35S is a strong constitutive promoter,
generating high levels of gene expression in dicotyledonous
plants. Of the 86 single transgenic plant events that have
been authorised in the United States, 54 contain one or more
copies of the CaMV P35S.5
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0020R.pdf


Abstract:
Multiple variants of the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P35S) are used to drive the expression of transgenes in genetically modified plants, for both research purposes and commercial applications. The genetic organization of the densely packed genome of this virus results in sequence overlap between P35S and viral gene VI, encoding the multifunctional P6 protein. The present paper investigates whether introduction of P35S variants by genetic transformation is likely to result in the expression of functional domains of the P6 protein and in potential impacts in transgenic plants.
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/21406/?show_full_text=true

***

The CaMV promoter - a recipe for disaster?

THIS was the title of a scientific paper co-authored by myself and my colleagues, Angela Ryan from the Open University UK and Prof. Joe Cummins from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and submitted to the journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease last October. The journal-s Editor, Prof. Tore Midtvedt, a distinguished medical microbial ecologist working in the Karolinska Institute of Sweden, promptly posted our paper on the journal's website before publication and put out a press release. Within two days, someone managed to solicit at least nine critiques, including one from Monsanto, which were posted on a website funded by the biotech industry and widely circulated on the Internet. The critiques varied in tone from the moderately polite to the ill-mannered.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/story.htm

[Buzz Clik]

123. This is your style -- you paste in more and more irrelevant shit hoping I'll give up.

Slow down. Take a breath. And read the two sentences below very slowly:

You do not understand the science involved. You do not even understand the terminology.

Is that clear?

You can cut-and-paste another 10,000 words and call me all sorts of names, but it will not change the fact that you do not understand.

I will copy the words from your post, explain them, and then we are done.

"The gene can be isolated using restriction enzymes to cut DNA into fragments and gel electrophoresis to separate them out according to length."

In this case, we are using the gene VI from the NATURALLY OCCURRING Cauliflower mosaic virus and that is the gene that is put into the GMOs. Genetically Modified Organisms. In this case, it is the crop that is being modified. Not the virus. The virus is not being modified into a new virus. The virus is being used for parts, like a car at a junkyard, to put those parts in our own car (the crop). We then get a modified crop. Not a modified gene.

1. The virus occurs naturally.
2. We take a gene from the virus.
3. We put the gene in the crop.
4. The result is a genetically modified crop.

It is really, really simple.

We are finished here. It is not my job to educate you.

[farminator3000]

125. so you ARE working for big M! why should anyone listen to you again?

In this case, we are using the gene VI

"we" means monsanto, yes?

did you not read this part?

please explain how THIS, which is used to get the type VI, is not GE:
The gene can be isolated using restriction enzymes to cut DNA into fragments and gel electrophoresis to separate them out according to length. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can also be used to amplify up a gene segment, which can then be isolated through gel electrophoresis. If the chosen gene or the donor organism's genome has been well studied it may be present in a genetic library. If the DNA sequence is known, but no copies of the gene are available, it can be artificially synthesized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Process

so you are a scientist, but you are saying restriction enzymes, gel whateverthefuck, PCR, and artificial synthesis of DNA are all natural processes?

The virus is being used for parts, like a car at a junkyard, to put those parts in our own car (the crop). We then get a modified crop. Not a modified gene.

and breaking a plant virus' DNA into bits, combining it with a soil bacteria's DNA and THEN injecting it into the nucleus of plant cells is NOT modifying things?
just tinkering around with an old car?

so nature = an old car?

calling george orwell!

we aren't done until you give up, like i said you're getting worse and worse...

not making a very good case for your 'argument', i'd say.

really, that car thing is pandering.

[Buzz Clik]

126. LOL!

[farminator3000]

127. if you are looking for a way to escape this argument

i'll say that GMOs MIGHT be good for some things, done by the right people.

but big M is NOT worth trusting with ANYTHING for 5 seconds.

ok, one thing. $$$ grabbing.

there WAS a guy who was trying to make lettuce that cured diabetes

all of a sudden his company disappeared- bought by Dow. no more diabetes lettuce.

5 years later we get-

According to Tanya Alfonso, Seminis’ Consumer Traits Business Development Manager, the company’s Vegetable Seed business developed Frescada using traditional plant breeding.

she means they hired the guy who invented it

At the end of a street in a quiet residential area of Arroyo Grande is a seed research station where plant breeder Bill Waycott has toiled for years, patiently cross-breeding ancient and modern types of lettuce, never dreaming that the result of his painstaking efforts would one day be taken over by agriculture giant Monsanto.
Now Monsanto has begun marketing the new lettuce it owns, branding it as Frescada and offering it for the last month in Sam’s Club stores in California and five other states. Test-grown in fields in the Santa Maria Valley, Arroyo Grande, King City, and Arizona, it’s a crunchy cross between iceberg and romaine.

“It’s a nice story, and it’s all happened here, with individuals working together to make a more nutritious lettuce and a new experience for consumers,” Waycott said.
http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/8001/tip-of-theiceberg/

of course he thinks 'nice story', i'm sure they paid him, probably not enough, but...

are YOU MR. Waycott?

[Buzz Clik]

128. I've read enough of your tangential stuff. See you next time.

[farminator3000]

129. AND, they're doing GMO friggin zucchinni now!!! wtf?

like anybody needs more zucchinni?

[FogerRox]

138. So thats the main difference, into the nucleus? or outside the nucleus?

[DhhD]

14. Human life expectancy: 35 years. Is this the way that World population will be controlled?

By genes in the food supply?

It is my understanding that people born today, may live today to be 1000 years old by using genetics. Along the way, perhaps they can get rid of the mutant humans living in these times.

As the wealthy suck all of the wealth out of the World, they are beginning to experiment on the living organisms of the Earth today, having their cash of normal natural seeds to grow their food from. Growing animal tissue for food is possible too.

And plants cells can use additional DNA to provide immunization against the horrible diseases that plaque mankind like Ebola and Bird Flu. Plant cells can make insulin just like bacteria can. I believe the Lettuce family has been experimented on.

Could Gene VI be another, "escaped," plasmid-like nucleic particle that was carrying, by sticky ends, DNA or RNA to provide a new trait to a GMO? Is it possible that a viral gene carrier is from a loose experiment, accidental having left its containment field? It is my understanding that pathogenic genes are in the air of places in India that cause disease; genes not even needing to be inside a virus. Then there are other long molecules like viron and prion diseases. Non-Containment should be OUTLAWED.

It is endless now. The wealthy are wanting a colony on the Moon and Mars. Just think, a new race of humans, The Methuselah Strain.

[Buzz Clik]

25. You should sell that rant as an idea for a sci-fi movie.

[mettamega]

17. yeaks

here i am hanging out in bed, with the strangest lung virus, unlike anything I have experienced, and find this, during my semi-dazed DU morning hangout time ... YEAKS

[Highway61]

23. How terrible

Thanks for posting

[farminator3000]

36. Monsanto's golden rice hoax read it here!

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

[mike_c]

38. science illiteracy is strong in this thread....

All I need to see is a reference to the thoroughly discredited Seralini paper to know the OP is Luddite fearmongering. Viral genes are everywhere.

[farminator3000]

42. Oh SHUT UP!

Natural plant viruses are everywhere. lab made ones are a completely different thing.

Another guy who doesn't even read the article because it's anti Monsanto

[Buzz Clik]

56. Off you go again, despite being corrected about this further up thread.

Repeating something you know is wrong to a different person does not suddenly make it correct.

You are consistent. I will give you that.

[farminator3000]

60. Corrected by you typing some nonsense?

Let's see a link not sponsored by Monsanto to prove your point

[Buzz Clik]

61. You claimed that the viral DNA in the GMOs was "previously undiscovered."

I quoted the scientific article upon which the OP was based as saying that it is a well known, naturally occurring virus. So, the onus is on you to show me some scientific evidence to support this claim.

[farminator3000]

63. No I did not the article did.

You have not quoted a thing you just make statements that you don't back up

[Buzz Clik]

64. Ok. Quote it right here.

[farminator3000]

66. Quote what you? don't know what you're talking about

http://www.farminguk.com/News/Hidden-viral-gene-revealed-in-GMOs_24842.html

Quote that

[Buzz Clik]

67. As I thought. You have nothing. Goodbye!

[farminator3000]

68. i've got more than you

Wouldn't want to let your woo go unanswered!

[Buzz Clik]

69. Start backing up your claims with substance, ...

... and you will show that you have more than NOTHING. Otherwise, nothing.

[farminator3000]

72. You have provided no substance

To respond to

[farminator3000]

70. Is this the part you don't want to talk about.

Gene VI was tested against known toxins and allergens, but such evaluation will miss novel proteins and/or toxins being produced by the gene in plants. It is impossible to determine if these are present or harmful without further study.

[Buzz Clik]

71. That was NOT your original claim. Have you given up on the "previously undiscovered" claim?

If you are willing to conceded that you were wrong, I will discuss the next.

[farminator3000]

74. not at all

Why would I believe they are the same virus just because you say so?u provide evidence. Oh wait u cant it isnt true!

[Buzz Clik]

75. Read the damned article. Educate yourself.

You claim to be so informed on this subject, and you either won't read the journal article, or you read it and didn't understand it.

You lost this debate. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Have fun wallowing in you ignorance.

[farminator3000]

76. phone dead

I'll be back

[farminator3000]

85. here's the scoop, you dupe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html

the ESFA is covering its ASS ^^^here. why?as you see in the next link, they DID THE STUDY FOR MONSANTO saying gmos are good

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/doc/753.pdf

which lasted 90 DAYS. total BS.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/breaking_news_viral_gen/

[patrice]

57. KICKING!

[wtmusic]

87. I've changed my mind on this subject.

Monsanto has no idea about the wider implications of their gene-tampering. Will some GM hybrid prove toxic to wildlife, possibly a species critical to the local ecosystem? Will cross-pollination of GM plants introduce non-beneficial characteristics in non-Monsanto crops? Hybridization never results in a simple change of a gene or two, but complex changes across the genome of a plant. It's impossible to conclude that just because people have evolved to be tolerant to hybrid crops, they would not find these artificially-modified foods less nutritive or even toxic.

They're tweaking a gene, getting more yields, and introducing it to nature where there's no do-overs - no Ctrl-Z. And making a lot of money. I suspect it will take some ecological disaster to get the general public to reconsider this trend.

[farminator3000]

122. HALLEH FREAKING LULYAH!!!

you just made my day!


They're tweaking a gene, getting more yields, and introducing it to nature where there's no do-overs - no Ctrl-Z. And making a lot of money. I suspect it will take some ecological disaster to get the general public to reconsider this trend.


unfortunately, the disasters are in the 3rd world...(see last link of this post for more)

this is their latest BS:

big M has decided to save the world AGAIN with 'golden vitamin A rice'
their study proving it has a lot of Vit A compares it to spinach,
which has a very small amount of not easily absorbable vit A.
i honestly think they believe laypeople will see the study and think 'oh spinach is good for you! wow!',
without realizing it has barely any Vit a.

if they had compared it to a mango, DUH.....

spinach BS study- (not that it is readable in the slightest- skip anything to do with equations if you try)

Objective: The objective was to compare the vitamin A value of
b-carotene in GR and in spinach with that of pure b-carotene in oil
when consumed by children.
Design: Children (n = 68; age 6–8 y) were randomly assigned to
consume GR or spinach (both grown in a nutrient solution containing
23 atom% 2H2O) or [2H8]b-carotene in an oil capsule. The GR
and spinach b-carotene were enriched with deuterium (2H) with the
highest abundance molecular mass (M) at Mb-C+2H10.
http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/GR_bioavailability_AJCN2012.pdf

I MEAN WTF??????
Deuterium is used as a tracer, in nuclear fusion reactors and to slow down neutrons in heavy water moderated fission reactors.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/hydrogen/a/Deuterium-Facts.htm

more BS-
http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how8_tests.php


this mention spinach, too, not even sure why...( i recommend ctrl-F)
Nearly 600,000 women die from childbirth-related causes
each year, many of them from complications which could be reduced through better
provisionof vitaminA (Sommer and West, 1996). The most affected are the
poor, whose diets are predominated by less nutritious staple foods on account of
lacking purchasing power and limited awareness.
http://www.goldenrice.orwww.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Philippines_GR_Food_Policy_2004.pdf

the truth- (isn't the reason the poor are staving a bit..ironic? at least ^^ that study proves SOMETHING!)

The reason there is vitamin A deficiency in India in spite of the rich biodiversity a base and indigenous
knowledge base in India is because the Green Revolution technologies wiped out biodiversity by
converting mixed cropping systems to monocultures of wheat and rice and by spreading the use of
herbicides which destroy field greens.
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html





Top 10 Facts YOU Should Know About Monsanto

No GMO Labeling Laws in the USA!
Lack of Adequate FDA / USDA Safety Testing
Monsanto Puts Small Farmers out of Business
Farmer Suicides After GMO Crop Failures
Monsanto Products Pollute the Developing World
500,000 Agent Orange Babies
Monsanto Blocking Government Regulations
Monsanto Guilty of False Advertising & Scientific FRAUD
Consumers Reject Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH in Milk
GMO Crops Do NOT Increase Yields
Monsanto Controls U.S. Soy Market
Monsanto's GMO Foods Cause NEW Food Allergies
http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml

[blkmusclmachine]

104. Poisoned

?

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Oh hey, it's this thread from Jan 23 again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2243841

*POWER YAWN*

[farminator3000]

124. sure is, do you want to continue the part about monsanto's safety study being 3 MONTHS TOTAL?

or are you feeling sleepy?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15110110

that one there ^^^?

the one where the LEAD author WORKS FOR big M?

i think what that french dude everybody is crapping on did is pretty slick-

his study showing rats got tumors from GMO corn was modeled on monsanto's 90 DAY study saying it is safe.

perfect!

he knew his OWN study was too short to prove anything, thereby making big M's study also worthless!

how....french.

[Maraya1969]

106. May these people rot in Hell. Although I take that back because I don't even like to wish bad

on others. It makes me feel like I am bringing bad onto myself. I wonder what they bring on themselves though. I really wonder what their lives are like.

[OKIsItJustMe]

133. EFSA: FAQ on inserted fragment of viral gene in GM plants (Please read)

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqinsertedfragmentofviralgeneingmplants.htm

[font face=Serif][font size=5]FAQ on inserted fragment of viral gene in GM plants[/font]

[font size=3]

1. Certain media reports have claimed a paper published in the academic journal GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain had discovered a previously unknown viral gene in commercial GM crops that may present a hazard to human health. Is this claim true?
2. What is the viral gene discussed in the paper?
3. Was EFSA aware of the existence of fragments of Gene VI in certain GM plants prior to the publication of this paper and have EFSA’s risk assessments of GMOs considered the potential effects of such fragments?
4. Is this paper an official EFSA scientific output?

…[/font][/font]

1. No …
2. … cannot infect animals or humans …
3. Yes. …
4. No…

(Follow the link for more complete answers.)

[farminator3000]

134. if you are going to read that, you should read this, too. (because those answers aren't right)

http://www.es.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0020R.pdf <--paper in question (EFSA answers all backwards)

1.Certain media reports have claimed a paper published in the academic journal GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain had discovered a previously unknown viral gene in commercial GM crops that may present a hazard to human health. Is this claim true?
From a literature study it became clear that long variants of the P35S do contain
an open reading frame, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes.
CaMV DNA is transcribed from two promoters
in the intergenic regions into two major capped and polyadenylated
transcripts, the 19S and 35S RNAs.The similarity
searches against the Patent division of GenBank and information
from the literature indicated that different variants of the CaMV
P35S are used by plant biotechnologists.

so, that's more of a yes- the 'might result' turns out to be a yes, the random bit of gene is sure unknown to nature, and all the scientists are using different bit of the gene. so it DOES result in phenotypic changes, which makes the MAY be dangerous sound like a 'better than 50% chance'. i'd guess 100%, but that's me.


2. What is the viral gene discussed in the paper?
The viral gene (Gene VI) belongs to a plant virus (Cauliflower Mosaic virus) that cannot infect animals or humans and therefore presents no threat to human or animal health. This virus naturally infects many plants with no recorded health effects.

false- the type VI is a randomly selected PART (it belongs to???) the DNA of the natural plant virus. the 19S and 35S bits from above.
'DNA is transcribed' means SEPARATED FROM the natural plant virus, for its ability to carry YET ANOTHER organism's DNA into the host plant. it is a MANMADE construction (not a hybrid or cross) of a plant virus (CMV) and bacteria from the dirt, injected into the cell nuclei of the host.

that ain't right. of course it gets into animals and humans. they EAT IT.

3. Was EFSA aware of the existence of fragments of Gene VI in certain GM plants prior to the publication of this paper and have EFSA’s risk assessments of GMOs considered the potential effects of such fragments?


no. see where 'literature' is mentioned twice in the italics? that means they found out AFTER the 1st safety study (2004), which only lasted 90 days in the first place. so they did 2 more studies (2007), because they realized all the engineers were using different bits of the gene. 90 days with rats. so 3 studies done in total, in 13 years. all the same study, same corn.

derp. what kind of fucking sense does that make? 'oh, we'll just do the study over, using the same corn, even though things have changed'?

prior to the publication? WHAT BULLSHIT, they did the paper because they discovered the scientists were all using different crap, because they BECAME aware, and they had done NO risk assessment, the paper is the risk assessment, and it says there's a risk.

not that anybody who isn't a PhD can read the frigging thing.

4. Is this paper an official EFSA scientific output?
if they are going to say no to that, maybe they should take their name off the headline of the paper. derp.
Nancy Podevin1,* and Patrick du Jardin2
1The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); Parma, Italy; 2Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech; Plant Biology Unit; University of Liège; Gembloux, Belgium

in conclusion, the EFSA is covering their ass, because they are the route for monsanto to flood the market with their crap.

the EFSA is in big Ms pocket, of course they'll deny everything.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html

[FogerRox]

136. And that does not even include the effects we are unaware of.

Nuff said right there. KnR. Tweeted and shared on FB.