GM soy linked to birth defects, cancer

You're starting to sound like PETA.

I wonder why that would be true of Hamsters, and not of Mice, Guinea Pigs, cats, birds, and dogs. --all are mammals, and domesticated pets.
All of which have been pets for generations. You don't see them dropping like flies.

They would have definitely controlled for that. I want to know if its the pesticides or the actual plant that is causing it. I have no doubt that its the pesticide.

"Given the right fiscal incentives a lab coat clad whore can prove anything their pimps want proved."

I'll give you that. If you want my honest opinion, and this is an educated opinion, I don't see how a genetically modified plant to create a foreign enzyme can cause anyone harm. If the enzyme makes a toxin, sure, but the enzymes they put in GM soy don't make toxins, they break down pesticides. Now, if you factor in the pesticides, I could think of a few things. But the plant alone? I don't get what the resistance is about. I avoid GMO's for other reasons. I'm not biased about this at all, its just that what is causing it doesn't leap out and present itself to me. If someone could give me a scientific reason, I'll jump on the boat, but until till then, I'll remain skeptical. I know a lot about biotechnology so perhaps this is why I have this opinion, and perhaps those who don't know much about biotechnology, that is the reason for theirs.

EDIT: I could be wrong. This simply my opinion at the present moment. Don't take this to mean I that I think GM crops shouldn't be tested. GM crops should be rigorously tested. What I don't like is people going around believing that GM crops are deadly when they have no concrete evidence. I personally prefer to remain skeptical until the evidence is clear.

As long as food is cooked, any proteins that the recombinant DNA makes is denatured. In other words: useless. This is why the idea that "growth hormone in chicken is making our kids have puberty faster" is bullshit.

And I hope you live in Europe, by the way. You wont escape GMOs in America. Even eating "organically grown" food from Whole Foods is GM. Proved that one myself in class.

"As long as food is cooked, any proteins that the recombinant DNA makes is denatured."

Even if it doesn't get denatured from cooking, your stomach is going to do the rest. Proteins don't get absorbed as a whole in your intestines, they are broken down first. Then following that, in the unlikely scenario that it somehow made in into your blood all together, you have to have a chemical in your blood that will bind the active site of the enzyme, and react to have some adverse effect. That or it would have to interfere with some chemical process, but none of that matters, because the whole protein isn't making it into your blood anyway! It's all too unlikely. I think what they're worried about is the fact that the gene gun Monsanto uses to develop these plants puts the insert into the plants genome in a random place (there are also other ways of doing this). Yes, screwing with a plants genome can have nasty effects -- for the plant. I'm trying to imagine a situation where you shoot inserts into plants genome, screen out the ones that are messed up phenotypically, and then still somehow have a plant that is going to harm humans. Anything is possible, but this situation seems unlikely.

"They don't bother to look and see if the guru is pushing an "all organic super food supliment" or some such nonsense."

Most people aren't capable of finding the fallacies of claims involving advanced subjects such as biochemistry and biotechnology. But even then, if you can't critique what you are being told, then the side you choose is based on something that isn't even factual, which makes no sense *cough*global warming*cough*

It is my understanding that , when the proteins start to break down in the digestive system , they can attach ( as they are programmed to do to protein fragments ) to the human cells , they then start to produce pesticide inside the person who ate them ... that is why the young get sterile and die ..... they get compromised by toxins made from within.

The tests i read about were rats and mice ( Australia and Soviet Union , respectively ) . yeah , same results though .

I was only referring to enzymes that are cloned into the plant to break down herbicides and pesticides, not enzymes that are cloned into plants to make them. That's a whole other ball game. I'm not a big fan of Monsanto's BT lineup.

Looking back at my comments, I didn't specify that I was only talking about soy. My apologies.

Lots of formula fed babies can't tolerate the formula made with cow's milk, and their doctors recommend a switch to soy, which very often makes for a more comfortable and happy baby. Its very unfair of you to label the parents of those babies "monsters."

Once GM plants are out in the wild, their breeding, and containment will go out of control.
Birds, insects, and the Wind, are responsible for carrying seeds, cross pollination, etc.
Eventually, all corn will be GM corn.

Organic food, used to be the only food you could get. Before farms where turned into factories.
Soon, only the rich will have it.

Is it fermented soy or raw soy? I hope it's not the latter.

"Eventually, all corn will be GM corn."

The real problem with GM crops is that the pests inevitably develop resistance to the pesticides (are we going to try and ban those too?) that the plant is engineered to break down, and at that point their product is useless. In that sense, GM crops are completely unsustainable and in the long run will probably do more harm to the economy than good. Read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetic-engineering-match-weed-...

I'm really tempted to write this off as fear of technology, but we'll have to see. I've been wrong before.

Aren't GM foods altered to make the resulting seed sterile ? That would not be good at all .

Thank you , Jan !

The report does include the impacts of this soy production, and I would also assert that RoundUp being sprayed on the plant will have residue on it along with consuming soy that has been genetically modified to resist it. I would guess that is why the story was titled as it was as there is definitely a link between the two as the herbicide is actually the plant.

I don't understand why a parent would feed their child soy in the first place.

Sometimes babies can't tolerate the cow's milk based baby formulas, and thrive better with the soy based. Usually the switch is encouraged/ insisted upon by the baby's pediatrician.

Not all babies can breast feed , or digest dairy , what DO you propose they be fed ?

I'm not here to make proposals for what babies should drink. I was just concerned because of the anti-nutrient nature of unfermented soy.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/illegal-backyard-garden/
H.R. 875 - will not make growing your own food illegal, but will make selling it without a license illegal.
If you want your food to have a label saying that it's GM Free, and where it came from, and inspector has to come out and confirm it for a farm. Once confirmed, they're granted labeling, and you know where your food came from, and that it's safe.

If I decided to grow a peppers, had too much, and wanted to sell the rest at a local produce stand, they couldn't guarantee that it was safe, that I didn't put LSD in it, etc.

It's a doubled edged sword. But, when it comes to locally grown food, I feel safer about it anyways.

"Hey Farmer, farmer, put away your DDT. I don't care about spots on my apples, leave me the birds and the bees"

Not me !

Thank for this !

It can, if you want it to. Because soy isn't good for you at all, you know.

yes... but that has nothing to do with being vegetarian... I'm vegan and hardly ever eat soy products.

Well, good for you then.

Eating soy beans raw isn't the greatest idea. Nor is it a good idea to eat any legume raw, or even grains for that matter. There is a reason that people fermented soy in the past. Trypsin inhibitors is only one reason of many.

thanks.

Maybe the point is to require more products to be used? Sounds like something a giant evil corporation would do

now thats the heart of it.

The point is to use more by making it herbicide tolerant. And now farmers are using even more with weeds becoming resistant to it. And the fact that you sign a contract that requires you buy Roundup with their GM seeds that you must then buy yearly without having the ability to save them is the profit motive behind this fake technology for profit. BTW, what school do you go to? There was another poster on a Monsanto thread not too long ago who stated the exact same thing you did... that they were going to school for this field. Maybe you two could hook up...

You honestly believe the USDA and FDA does everything positive for the consumers of the U.S.? Pft... Money talks, honesty walks!

Yes, and money talks and bs walks as well. That is the FDA in a nutshell.

Yes and the *less tilling* of that compacted top soil tends to protect from erosion more at the same time retaining water over those longer drought periods.

We of course collect healthy vitamin roundup in our drinking aquifers and natural runoffs while managing to moderate food diversity.

So unfortunately unsustainable but very quickly gratifying at the same time.

In light of standing corrected. Genetically modifying food is to make the plant resistant to the pesticide RoundUp so it will kill all the weeds around it but not the plant itself. Novel idea but the brainchild behind GM Foods is also the maker of RoundUp, Monsanto. As far as human testing goes, thats where it's at right now. All the test to get this crap passed through the FDA are done by Monsanto's scientist. So that evidence along with a wheelboro full of cash and budda-bing, budda-boom your approved.

Over 80% of atrazine is used by farmers and plus include golf courses added in that would raise the percentage even more while leaving the home owner out of *most* blame. Otherwise I support what you're saying because the average people don't try and understand the ecosystem and how we best work within it.

We should also note that FDA often *forgets* to regulate organic farming as it should. Particularly Government-OWNED organic farms that compete with the REAL organic farms.

Less government interference would alleviate most our problems because the environmental effect is rarely ever tagged to the price. We go from one exploitation to another buying off whomever makes the decisions.

and from the mouth of the Mississippi are created massive dead-zones in the Gulf of Mexico so I cannot excuse this oversight if it can be helped.... regardless

and what's the point for cheep-made-American produce in the US government's campaign to keep us fed constantly at all cost necessary!?!

That's my real point... how long this can last is uncertain.

I agree that *peace* is good for business. (as what's usually the ground basis for any religion, cult or brand)

No, you're right, but the banana slowly adapted itself to be consumed by us. So many foods we eat today naturally adapted themselves to be consumed by us so that they can benefit from it, like strawberries, whose seeds can pass through our stomach undigested.

GMO's, however, have DNA from other organisms - genes that never would have developed in nature. That's the critical difference between the two. Natural foods have developed themselves - and sometimes we've developed - so that we can interact with each other perfectly, while GMOs are, at best, unpredictable in how they might interact with us.

Of course pesticides are sometimes bad for us, but we can't entirely dismiss GMOs. They probably have some effect on us that we may not even be aware of.

"No, you're right, but the banana slowly adapted itself to be consumed by us."

Not entirely. Artificial selection fits in here as well, arguably more so.

DNA is simply genetic code, the fact that it comes from other organisms is irrelevant.

And it would it be impossible to argue that such things couldn't have developed naturally. There's no way to know what organisms could or could not develop into over time.

Also, my bio roommate is informing me that natural gene transfer is actually possible and occasionally occurs in nature.

But essentially, what we attempt to accomplish with selective breeding is not different than genetic modification. It's just that one process is undirected and the other is a direct manipulation.

As far as being dangerous, there's no reason why it would be because there's nothing inherently dangerous about the process.

Unless there's some new factor none of us have considered, nothing could be dangerous. And since people have been eating it for decades now, there obviously isn't anything to worry about.

There's lots of interesting issues to deal with when it comes to GM food. But there is no basis, at all, for its supposed health issues.

Awww you're no fun. . . And I would like to see the research rather than the ethics. . . That could be a realistic way to cure world hunger!

Mothers do think long term . It is biologically wise to do so . I cannot speak for fathers , since i am not one .

It would be nice if the first tomatoes that were GM became outlawed fifteen years ago. The GM soy provides about 90% of crops at home in the US..and which usually means it's subsidized. Who do you go to for help. I live in Florida not the Middle West.