Monsanto's GM corn MON863 shows kidney, liver toxicity

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by gg, Apr 11, 2007.

  1. gg

    gg Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Monsanto's GM corn MON863 shows kidney, liver toxicity in animal studies


    A variety of genetically modified corn that was approved for human consumption in 2006 caused signs of liver and kidney toxicity as well as hormonal changes in rats in a study performed by researchers from the independent Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering at the University of Caen in France.

    What you need to know - Conventional View
    • The corn in question, MON863, is made by the Monsanto Company and approved for use in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, and the United States. It has had a gene inserted from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which causes the plant's cells to produce a pesticide.

    • Researchers fed rats either unmodified corn or diets containing 11 or 30 percent MON863 for 90 days. The rats who ate modified corn were found to exhibit signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as signs of hormonal changes.

    • Male rats lost an average of 3.3 percent of their body weight, and their excretion of phosphorus and sodium decreased. Female rats gained an average of 3.7 percent of their body weight, while their triglyceride levels increased by 24 to 40 percent.

    • The mechanism that causes the toxicity is not yet known, but the researchers say there is evidence that the Bt toxin may cause the perforation of blood cells. They expressed concern that the methods used by Monsanto in initial tests of the corn were statistically flawed and called their own tests "the best mammalian toxicity tests available."

    • Greenpeace responded to the study by calling for an immediate recall of all MON863 corn and the reassessment of all genetically modified foods currently approved for the market.

    • Quote: "Our counter-evaluation shows that there are signs of toxicity, and nobody can say scientifically and seriously the consumption of the transgenic maize MON863 is safe and good for health." - Lead Author Gilles Eric Seralini



    What you need to know - Alternative View

    • It seems that the more these GM foods are tested, the more frightening the implications seem to be for human health. When companies like Monsanto do their own in-house testing, results are mysteriously favorable in nearly all cases, but when independent labs run their own tests, the results are downright shocking.

    • I find it interesting that the FDA believes U.S. consumers should not be allowed to know which foods are genetically modified and which aren't. The push for honest labeling of GM foods has been blockaded by corporate interests and corrupt federal regulators.



    Resources you need to know
    The Campaign for labeling of GM foods: https://www.thecampaign.org



    Bottom line
    • A variety of genetically modified corn was found to cause signs of hormonal changes and liver and kidney toxicity in rats

    Source: https://www.newstarget.com/021784.html
     
  2. digging

    digging Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yes,

    I totally believe it! I have a house full of baby plants because I do not trust my food supply any more! I feel that man is going to learn the bad old hard way on this one like so many other things in the past.....

    Digging
     
  3. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    g'day gg,

    reckon too late to close the agte the horse has well and truely bolted unless we get absolute or almost general consensus in all ouir communities this won't stop.

    we called for labelling over here and in the end our win was a loss it was all watered down and for the main has been long fogotten, all we wanted was for manufacuteres to say they used GMO ingredients, we didn't want to know which ingredients may contain the stuff, so ultimately that is what the gov deemed we realy wanted so along with that so long as they didn't use any more than say 1% gmo ingredient then it didn't need to be shown on the label along with 1st & 2nd + level of labelling which meant that an ingredient supplied to a maker had to show the maker the ingredients (1st level) as per GMO or not but once they use that product in their product they don't have to tell the next level on which mostly is us.

    that is why people get conned daily by hot bread shops saying they don't add anti fungals/preservatives into their breads because they the franchise shop doesn't it is already in the flour when their network purchases it from the mill, so when they the network sells it to the franchisee that is second level and we the customer are 3rd level, so things people don't want in the bread are already there. same with GMO honesty there is none.

    len
     
  4. Honeychrome

    Honeychrome Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know if there's been any press about this down under, but a large number of pets here in the US have recently been sickened and many have died from a pet-food 'contamination.' Business and the MSM are presenting it as an unfortunate accident- that somehow 'rat poison' got into the food supply. A more likely analysis of what happened (GMOs anyone?) is here-

    https://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... e_4776.cfm
     
  5. gg

    gg Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Honeychrome, thanks for the link.

    I thought they had decided that the chemical plastic substance melamine (the kind they make dishes etc. from?) had somehow contaminated the grain supplies used in making cat and dog food and (prolly people food as well)??? They are not going to do anything about the animal deaths it looks like. Nothing seems clear at this juncture regarding our foodstuffs except it's best to avoid anything grown by business other than yourself and likeminded friends. Seems like everything is contaminated one way or another.
     
  6. Honeychrome

    Honeychrome Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's the interesting response to the 'plastic' escuse-

    3. The plastic, wood preservative, contaminant melamine, the parent chemical for a potent insecticide cyromazine, could well have been manufactured WITHIN the wheat plants themselves as a genetically engineered pesticide. This is much like the Bt. insecticidal poison present in most US commodity crops that go into animal feed.

    What really scares me is the 'killer gene' development going on (and it seems safe to assume that what we know about is only the tip of the iceberg) by Monsanto et al. This will be the lever they use to completely industrailize and control the ENTIRE global food supply. It is precisely their intention to have such genetically modified food crops 'escape' and infect all varieties, essentially rendering it impossible for individuals or small-shares to grow food. Can anyone really doubt that, in the interest of increased corporate profits, Monsanto wouldn't like to see all varieties of corn (soy, whatever) except for their own destroyed?
     
  7. gg

    gg Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I just read a scary thing the other day that ties in with this. The article started out questioning the reader if they remembered the Jetsons, ( a cartoon space age family from the '60's) where all the mother had to do was go to a microwave looking machine and press a button and out came the meal fully cooked etc. ready to serve. The article then went on to talk about how nanotechnology and cloning were being researched to do just that.

    We are getting further and further away from reality, from being based and more importantly from being a part of the Earth processes.

    I don't like the way the future looks. It could have been, could be so very different.
     
  8. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    honeychrome,

    that all come under ther terminator technology, and as you say they plant to control all seeds, and you can extrapolate that out to where you are comfortable with, but for me that means home growers of all food plants, and all farmers who don't fit the broadacre/factory farm criteria.

    funny how now people can relate to comical issues and see that "the truth is oft' spoke in jest". look further you will see the results in elevated levels of all sort of "lifestyle illnesses".

    my advice grow your own, buy from local growers who even if they aren't totally organic (that is no chemical uses) won't be using genetic modified plants). learn what to look for in more naturally grown food ther are suttle differences. nad only ever eat grass fed beef & lamb etc.,. and ckooks that are fed only on clean grains and allowed to graze on grass daily. also seek out fresh whole grass grazed milk, no need for pasteurization or worse homogenisation. and don't eat farm raised fish ever. all of the above in the regular food chain have been contaminated by genetics.

    len
     
  9. heuristics

    heuristics Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If anyone is reading these posts and thinks to themselves what is being said here is the biggest crock of shit you've ever heard -
    get yourself a copy of the Future of Food DVD - it explains exactly what is going on, and what Monsanto has done to date to protect itself and persecute farmers.

    The truth is so much more extreme and more outrageous than you think
     
  10. Honeychrome

    Honeychrome Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    there are links to a youtube version of 'The Future of Food' a couple threads down. probably nothing really new to most here, but still very worth a watch.
     
  11. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    heuristics,

    they call us conspiracy theorists mate, only trouble is their vision is so narrow they can't see it is no longer and hasn't been for a long time a "theory".

    it's practise and maybe non-reversable, as so very few of us know or give a damn.

    len
     
  12. digging

    digging Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Greetings friends,

    In thinking about the size of this problem something just hit me. The mule effect, in nature this naturally kicks in when a breed gets close to the limits of it's kind. Well perhaps this natural effect is going to kick in also with these plants when they start crossing over with others?

    Digging
     
  13. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes digging,

    that is going to & already is occuring.

    and when they walk onto your property uninvited as they can (the gene owners) and find you ahve their genes in your plants and you didn't buyt those seeds from them then they take you to court where the courts levy huge fines against you in a one sided case tht you have no hope of winning, you see they are gov' backed.

    len
     
  14. heuristics

    heuristics Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Digging Re "The mule effect"
    Yes in NATURE there are limits to cross breeding - and you are right, the natural gene limits are reached and the brakes applied......

    Trouble is, with genetic engineering - see they take a gene from a salmon and transplant it into a tomato to make it easier to transport the tomato, or last longer in the supermarket cool room, - or some such reason.

    The thing is, in nature a tomato does not mate with a salmon.......
    that's where the ""engineering"" comes in. They introduce another greeblie (techical term) to make the tomato accept the salmon gene...

    Nature's own "braking" mechanism which says "thus far and no further" with regard to species crossing over is thwarted and circumvented.

    Which is why GM is so scary .......... we really dont know what we are tampering with - and nor do the scientists.

    What the Future of Food exposes is not just the GM practices, but the real scary fact that so little comprehensive research is done before the seeds and genetic material is released.

    See also a post here on this board about diminishing bee numbers - me, I have no proof, but my gut tells me it is GM at the root cause..... asssisted by habitat removal..

    and ya right Len - we are not talking theories - we are talking demonstrated and document conspiracy conducted by Corporates.

    ie/ Enron deliberately cut power to California to make $2 billion on the stockmarket.
    Not ""theory"" - it happened!
     
  15. Honeychrome

    Honeychrome Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...and control of the global food supply is certainly worth far more than $2billion! Its actually almost hard to see Monsanto et al as evil- with such massive amounts of money involved and the fundamental imperatives of a corporation in a capitalist system, how can they not behave the way they are behaving? Truly it is the system that we've created that is evil and will ultimately destroy us.
     

Share This Page

-->