Virus DNA hidden in GMO crops

[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