Again my idea would solve this problem.

http://www.change.org/actions/view/step_one_end_special_interest_in_washington

Stop special interest from buying our representatives vote. Which is our vote yet our lawmakers vote not what is in the best interest of our country or its people. But instead what company will pay them the most to vote against we the people..

Cherokee Fred Jesus

Any chance you might answer some of the questions I put to you Natasha?

Just in case you missed them in the many posts here are a few again.

1) Please show this forum a single National Academy of Science that states GE crops are not safe.

2) Please show this forum an example of an organic farm loosing certification from adventitious presense of a GE crop.

3) Please explain to this forum why Bt is safe for organic crops but dangerous when used in GE crops.

4) If the WHO, UN-FAO, the UN-OECD, the International Council for Science (Most National Academies of Science are members) the US food regulatory system, the Canadian food regulatory system, the European food regulatory system, the Australian food regulatory system etc,  ALL say GE crops and food are as safe or safer than conventionally bred crops, then what would it take for you to accept that there is in fact scienctific concensus?

5) How is manure not directly related to organic agriculture?

6) Please show a single case of hamr form consuming GE crops documented anywhere in the world.  This one is of particular interest as the critics of this technology have been claiming (and I am sure desperately looking for) GE crops are dangerous for twelve years and yet not a single case can be cocumented.  How long will it take till you admit they are as safe as conventionally bred crops?

I take it you have no interest in reading "Tomorrow's Table" then.  Too bad really.  For everyone else I encourage you to learn why GE crops and organic agriculture have a great deal in common and it makes little sense (but big money for organic producers) to continue to say otherwise.

If people would like to know the real science please have a look at my website.  http://web.viu.ca/wager

Cheers

Thank you Natasha!

Great work!

Money makes the world go around...its obvious that the Industry is very interested to protect their businesess!

Monsanto is like EXXON just worse they will do everything to protect their business, everything! Farmers don't count people don't count all that counts for Monsanto is PROFIT!

Genetically engineering of the food we eat is an inherently risky process. Current understanding of genetics is extremely limited and scientists do not know the long-term effects of releasing these unpredictable organisms into the environment and people's diets.

Due to consumer pressure, supermarkets in many countries have cleared genetically engineered (GE) food from their shelves and global food companies have removed GE ingredients from their products. In addition, some leading pig and poultry producers have promised not to supply animals with GE feed.

Europe is leading the way in the fight against GE food; a huge mobilisation of European consumers and environmentalists has held genetically engineered organisms (also called GMOs or genetically modified organisms) at bay in Europe over the past eight years. In April 2004 it brought into force the world's toughest labelling regime.

Consumers should be protected from the dangers of GE food, not only in Europe but the whole world. However in many countries food manufacturers and corporations are failing or refusing to inform the public about the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in their products.

Consumers have the right to know and the right to choose: While labelling does not fully address the concerns of GE ingredients, it at least allows the consumer to make informed choices and decisions. Information about a product would enable and assist consumers who would want to take a precautionary approach in their food choices to do so. Moreover, failure to provide information is considered a breach of fair trade.

Thanks to consumer pressure, only a handful of GE products exist in Europe.

One person can make a difference

Its all about your pressure.... EAT SAFE!

Go veg,Be green,Save the planet!

Which one of these institutions are lying?

1) From my article on the failure of the IAASTD:

The authors of the IAASTD report are correct when they say that, "choices we make at this junction in history will determine how we protect our planet and secure our future." Yet, there is no mention of a UN-FAO statement that biotechnology would provide powerful tools for the sustainable development of agriculture and food production (FAO, 2000).

2) The executive summary of the IAASTD report repeatedly advocates increases in organic agriculture without similar endorsements for biotechnology. This seems strange as the body of the report describes an alternative way forward: less biotechnology would mean that, "humanity would likely be more vulnerable to climate and other shocks and to increased natural resource scarcity."

3) In 2001, the European Commission released a report on the safety of GM crops and food, which was based on more than 15 years of research involving 81 projects and more than 400 scientists. It concluded: "GM plants [...] have not shown any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. Indeed, the use of more precise technology and greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them safer than conventional plants and food" (EC, 2001).

Here is the EC opinion of the so-called Austrian research.

Request from the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by Austria on maize MON810 and T25 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC Question number: EFSA-Q-2008-314
Adopted date: 4 December 2008
Summary (0.1Mb)
Opinion (0.3Mb)

Summary
On 10 June 1999 and on 8 May 2000, Austria invoked Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC (safeguard clause) to provisionally prohibit the placing on the market of the authorised genetically modified (GM) maize events MON810 and T25 on its territory. In February 2004 and November 2007, Austria provided additional information to support the national safeguard measure to be considered under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC. To define whether the information submitted by Austria comprises new information that would affect the environmental risk assessment for the uses laid down in the corresponding consent, the European Commission requested in a letter, dated 18 April 2008, a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).Following investigation of the evidence presented in the Austrian submission, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) of EFSA concludes that there is no new scientific evidence that would invalidate the previous risk assessments of maize MON810 and T25. Therefore, no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC for the marketing of maize MON810 and T25, for its intended uses, in Austria.

Details of critical comments by EFSA

And the Russian study on rats:

STATEMENT ON THE EFFECT OF GM SOYA ON NEWBORN RATS

The Committee has examined a report provided to it by Dr Irina Ermakova containing preliminary results from a study of genetically modified (herbicide-tolerant) soya that was conducted in Russia. The report described reduced growth and increased mortality amongst pups born to rats given soya flour from GM soya beans, when compared with those born to rats given non-GM soya flour or a control group given no soya.

The report lacks detail essential to meaningful assessment of the results. In particular, it does not provide key information concerning the composition and nutritional adequacy of the test diets. Also, the Committee notes that these are preliminary results; the study has not been quality-controlled through the normal peer review process preceding scientific publication.

It is well known that rodents fed large quantities of raw soya will suffer various nutrient imbalances that cause reduced growth rates and other adverse effects. This would be expected whether the soya beans are from a GM or non-GM source. It is also well known that protein quality varies between varieties and geographical origins of soya, independently of whether they have been genetically modified. It is therefore essential to ensure that diets which contain a high proportion of different types of soya are carefully balanced and equivalent in terms of nutrients and anti-nutritional components. It is not known whether this was done in the present study. Unusually, the soya flour was given to the animals alongside conventional feed pellets rather than incorporated into the feed. The mothers received up to 20g of soya flour per day during the study, which could have displaced a significant quantity of the conventional feed pellets which normally assure optimum vitamin and mineral intake. The quantities of soya consumed by each animal are not known and there are no data on the consumption of the conventional feed. Neither were any data on cause of death provided.

The GM and non-GM soya samples were obtained from different sources and there is no information on the presence of potential contaminants, such as mycotoxins, resulting from contamination during transportation and storage.

In conclusion, there are a number of possible explanations for the results obtained in this preliminary study, apart from the GM and non-GM origin of the test materials. Without information on a range of important factors conclusions cannot be drawn from this work. The Committee Secretariat is contacting Dr Ermakova to obtain further information on this study and the Committee will consider any further information that can be obtained and review the position if a full report of the study is published in the peer-reviewed literature.

The Committee also notes that Dr Ermakova's findings are not consistent with those described in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2004.1 In a well controlled study no adverse effects were found in mice fed on diets containing 21% GM herbicide-resistant soya beans and followed through up to 4 generations.

5 December 2005

1 "A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development"

Brake DG and Evenson DP; Food and Chemical Toxicology 42 (2004) 29-36.

Many studies and many interesting comments, AND many proofs are out there about GE foods and GMO's, and I will admit that many years ago, I would have read all the data and taken it with a grain of salt; primarily, I guess, because I would have trusted the FDA to make sure we got all the right information about what is potentially harmful and what is safe to eat. I never really worried much about my own health, since at the time I was relatively healthy, and was careful to eat what I believed to be nutritious, unadulterated foods. Back then, we didn't have to worry about genetically modified foods. As the years passed, however, a few things began to happen. I realized I could no longer eat corn or peanuts. I thought I was developing some severe allergies or sensitivities to these foods, because I would feel feel sick after eating them. So I gave them up, things I have eaten all my life. Another interesting thing happened after I had my children. I realized they were negatively affected by some of the things I was feeding them. This is when I realized I should do my own research. Many years passed, and I reached these conclusions:

1. artificial colors negatively affected my children's behavior, AND their ability to learn.

2. anything with TBHQ (preservative) made me nervous.

3. organic corn and whole-grain wheat, as well as peanuts DO NOT make me sick, but most other types will.

4. artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame, will make me very nervous and affect my vision.

5. small amounts of sugar never affected my children nor me.

6. my children were born very, very healthy, but had increasing health problems with each immunization they received.

I guess that bottom line is, that we should err on the side of extreme caution as to what we consume, and I totally believe that the less unadulterated, the less unnatural, the more purely organic our food supply is, the healthier we will be. I also do not believe that we need to experiment with GE foods to increase the world's food supply. Rather what we need to do is find better, natural and sustainable ways of farming that utilize indigenous crops and preserve the soil.

GE foods and GMO's permanently alter the genetic structure of the crop. This is serious business, and we do not have the centuries it took for these crops to mutate and adapt naturally on their own. We are risking the death of our food supply, if we believe that we can continually modify their genetic structure without significant damage to their unique nutritional value, something which the human race has relied on and adapted to for centuries.

We need to be smart here and use common sense; we need to trust our empirical observations and not lie about the results for the sake of profits; we need to listen to the consumers and record their data and their stories. WE NEED TO STOP FOOLING OURSELVES.

For those whom believe orgasnic crop production can feed the world I present this to read.

http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2894

Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug, who has spent over 70 yeafrs working on crops in and for the developing world says it can only possibly feed four billion.  What would we do with the rest? I don't see two(plus) billion volunteers to disappear.

On the topic of "DO NOT WANT!", I just found this old article, when I remembered back to my original personal reasons not to trust GM food -- aside from any reasons posted here in recent days/weeks.  I would not buy broccolini, because I'm a vegan and don't want rat genes in my veggies, muddying up that whole "animal vegetable or mineral" thing .... http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gm260401.txt

(But I don't think I've ever seen broccolini in the stores, anyway.)

I'd like to know which GM crops contain animal genes.