FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Gucciardi reports: "In a riveting victory against genetically modified creations, a major biotech company known as Syngenta has been criminally charged for denying knowledge that its GM Bt corn actually kills livestock."

Corn is the second-most important GM crop worldwide, growing in 18 countries. GM corn includes insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant varieties, and unlike soybeans, some GM corn has both modifications 'stacked' together. (photo: Reuters)
Corn is the second-most important GM crop worldwide, growing in 18 countries. GM corn includes insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant varieties, and unlike soybeans, some GM corn has both modifications 'stacked' together. (photo: Reuters)



Biotech Leader Covered Up Animal Deaths From GM Corn

By Anthony Gucciardi, Natural Society

16 June 12

 

n a riveting victory against genetically modified creations, a major biotech company known as Syngenta has been criminally charged for denying knowledge that its GM Bt corn actually kills livestock. What's more is not only did the company deny this fact, but they did so in a civil court case that ended back in 2007. The charges were finally issued after a long legal struggle against the mega corp initiated by a German farmer named Gottfried Gloeckner whose dairy cattle died after eating the Bt toxin and coming down with a ‘mysterious' illness.

Grown on his own farm from 1997 to 2002, the cows on the farm were all being fed exclusively on Syngenta's Bt 176 corn by the year 2000. It was around this time that the mysterious illnesses began to emerge among the cattle population. Syngenta paid Gloeckner 40,000 euros in an effort to silence the farmer, however a civil lawsuit was brought upon the company. Amazingly, 2 cows ate genetically modified maize (now banned in Poland over serious concerns) and died. During the civil lawsuit, however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was responsible. In fact, they went as far as to claim having no knowledge whatsoever of harm.

The case was dismissed and Gloeckner, the farmer who launched the suit, was left thousands of euros in debt. And that's not all; Gloeckner continued to lose many cows as a result of Syngenta's modified Bt corn. After halting the use of GM feed in 2002, Gloeckner attempted a full investigation with the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta involved. The data of this investigation is still unavailable to the public, and only examined one cow. In 2009, however, the Gloeckner teamed up with a German action group known as Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and to ultimately bring Syngenta to the criminal court.

Using the testimony of another farmer whose cows died after eating Syngenta product, Gloeckner and the team have charged the biotech giant for the death of over 65 cows, withholding knowledge of the death-link, and holding the corporation liable for not registering the cattle deaths. The team is even charging Hans-Theo Jahmann, the German head of Syngenta , personally over the withholding of knowledge.

The charges bring to light just how far large biotechnology companies will go to conceal evidence linking their genetically modified products to serious harm. Monsanto, for example, has even threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont if they attempt to label its genetically modified ingredients. Why are they so afraid of the consumer knowing what they are putting in their mouths?

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+217 # KrazyFromPolitics 2012-06-16 13:03
GM foods need to be banned worldwide. Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta should lose their corporate charters, and any of the "scientists" or corporate execs and lawyers that are covering up negative outcomes should be indicted.
 
 
+154 # cynnibunny 2012-06-16 13:47
These events point out the corruptibility and the a-morality of the corporate structure. Even so, Monsanto and Syngenta are far beyond the pale in their self-righteous greed. I agree with KrazyFromPoliti cs that these corporations need to have their charters removed.

It's time to hold corporations - because they are big and wield incredible power - responsible for their greed, their murders, and their destruction on our environment.
 
 
+50 # Vardoz 2012-06-16 18:26
Corporations in general don't care who or what they kill even if it's the entire planet. They have no princiles, ethics or regard for life of any kind. Out fate is in the hands of these killers and it is very, very frightening. We have a garden and try to eat organic as much as possible. Life is short for most living things so why aren't they interested in making the world a better place? Perhaps because they are mentally ill.
 
 
-38 # wrknight 2012-06-16 15:50
GM foods need to be adequately tested before being released to the public. Banning GM foods entirely removes all possibility of benefiting from genetic modification. The problem is that long term testing is expensive and chemical companies don't want to pay for it. Selling it on the open market without adequate testing is privatizing the profits and socializing the risks, and that is unacceptable. Monsanto, Syngenta and other chemical companies must be banned from selling inadequately tested products.

However, we must remain open to the idea that genetic food modification could possibly benefit all mankind; and while we don't know for sure, we want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
 
+65 # paulrevere 2012-06-16 16:36
Genetic manipulation, of any sort, is a direct and stunning example of the hubris and arrogance of science.

How on earth, with the above kind of evidence prevailing and with no credible studies measured in decades, can anyone consider this junk science safe?

We know it takes tens of years for things like cancers and other diseases to develop. We also have zero ability to predict how genetic modification will affect the ecosystem in the future.

Consider gmo salmon growing one and a half times bigger in half the time of a normal salmon or actually putting a gene from a pesticide or herbicide INTO the food we eat??? How about the fish gene in strawberries so they will not be harmed by early frosts?

Sorry, but all the prattle and fear mongering about too many people not enough food we need gmo, is an empty suit honed over decades by the likes of Monsanto.

These gene manipulation people are easily as looney as nuclear energy or fracking being safe advocates.
 
 
-37 # Timaloha 2012-06-16 17:34
[quote name="paulrever e"]Genetic manipulation, of any sort, is a direct and stunning example of the hubris and arrogance of science.

Beagles are an example of genetic manipulation. Why do you hate beagles?
 
 
+4 # Timaloha 2012-06-16 20:32
Jeez, can't you guys take a joke?
 
 
+18 # paulrevere 2012-06-17 14:22
Beagles are an example of gene SELECTION...

your take is typical of our education system and MSM informing US.
 
 
+13 # AMLLLLL 2012-06-17 16:23
I don't eat Beagles, unless there's nothing else in the fridge.
 
 
+8 # paulrevere 2012-06-17 19:04
heh...drop the e and add locs...n onions...n cream cheese...n tomato and they become quite edible...I've been adding a bit of salt, fresh ground black pepper and a squeeze of lime all round...probabl y squinted at on their home ground but a bit of south of the border is a good meld!
 
 
+8 # sokolowmus 2012-06-17 18:01
We don't eat beagles! GMO bagles, that's a problem.
 
 
+4 # Hey There 2012-06-18 00:15
WE don't eat beagles so genetic manipulation is OK.Breeding carefully to maintain a certain breed is not the same as modifying food where animals die.I have 7 cats,1 possum,and have had dogs before. There have even been several recalls on pet food which is bad enough We don't need to be feeding herbicide, spliced food to our animals and we certainly shouldn't be eating it either.
I take it you have a beagle or two so enjoy. They are a neat breed of dog.
 
 
-28 # Timaloha 2012-06-16 17:48
Baccilus thuringiensis is not a "toxin." It is a naturally occurring, soil-dwelling bacterium. It is used as an organic alternative to chemical pesticides and widely used by organic farmers and organic landscapers. It is safe for both humans and livestock to consume. Unless you're a caterpillar, it isn't going to make you sick, much less kill you.
Considering the fact that millions upon millions of head of cattle have been reared on this treated corn and the complaint stems from two to sixty-five cows from the same area, it is much more likely that a local phenomenon caused the livestock fatalities than did Bt treated corn.
 
 
+12 # paulrevere 2012-06-17 14:29
'naturally occuring' does not mean okay for human consumption...y ou convey a typical half notion of the full reality of action.

Lessee here, uranium is naturally occuring, poison oak/ivy are naturally occuring, bella donna is naturally ocurring, rattlesname venom is naturally ocurring, cyanide is naturally ocurring all of which is to say that you and yours need DECADES of double and triple blind studies in order to make the presently insane claims you attempt to make.
 
 
+8 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-17 20:10
Organic growers used BT for years...so perhaps they were not using BT but something far worse.

I grow organically and I had used it. I now use diamaecous earth food grade to control bugs. I believe unless we are all doing tests on the crap sold, we may be all buying poison ....
 
 
+35 # tomr 2012-06-16 20:45
I disagree on one major point, Paulrevere, it is not SCIENCE or even junk science that brings these horrors to our front doors - it it TECHNOLOGY. Science is the study of nature - not just bambi and butterflies, but the way life works, the universe works, etc. Technology is using limited knowledge to try to alter something. Scientists, namely ecologists, have been screaming warnings about GMOs for years, but they don't have lobbyists to take senators to massage parlors.

Obviously, some technology is good. Heck, a winter coat made out of nylon and polyester represents technology, not to mention things like surgical instruments. But when technology is used just as a way to look for lots and lots of money, things often go wrong.
 
 
+7 # paulrevere 2012-06-17 16:22
I see your point tomr.

It is none the less the tools of science that are used and abused by science itself in technology applications...

AND in 'proving' itself as seen in Monsanto purchasing Beeologics which had found that Monsanto's gmo crops were playing a major part in colony collapse.

Science+technology+$$'s ='s junk science...farrr rr tooooo often!
 
 
+8 # cm wilson 2012-06-17 19:06
Absolutely. I grow organic tomatoes, my neighbor uses chemical fertilizer. My neighbor often comes and picks my tomatoes, about which I'm fine. An old mountain woman said when told about this: "Well yeah, his tomatoes grow fast and furious, but they have no flavor so he prefers yours that had time to develop flavor. Strangely, his seem to get diseases and wilt, and we usually grow the same type of tomatoes.
This is simplified; but the essence is the greed and impatience of farmers is going to kill the business.
 
 
+39 # unitedwestand 2012-06-16 20:26
What you should be demanding is ORGANIC FARMING throughout. With proper rotation of crops and continuous natural composting of all plant life, there would be no need for the Monsantos and SINgentas.
As things stand right now Monsanto can pollute and in fact have sued farmers for their creepy seeds flying into organic farming fields. Something is really evil about this.
 
 
+10 # paulrevere 2012-06-17 14:32
There was a guy named Alan Chadwick at UC Santa Cruz who proved over and over that with proper soil science framed in natural cycles, applications and implementations , there is more than enough vitality in agriculture to take care of and even enhance the planetary ecosystem and its inhabitants.
 
 
+8 # AMLLLLL 2012-06-17 16:27
united, have you seen the documentary"FRE SH"? Really brings it home how we're sold a bill of goods with the 'feed the world thru GMO's' myth.
 
 
+6 # cm wilson 2012-06-17 19:00
The worst part of GM crops is they seem to "infect" other crops. There are several studies of neighboring farms where the GM crops "volunteered" onto the other farms. This is like a monster crop taking over, unaltered or disturbed by efforts to destroy it. For organic growers these crops are like spraying Agent Orange on their farms.
 
 
+96 # Barbara K 2012-06-16 13:30
Well, well, well. I've been signing so many petitions and fighting GM foods for what seems an eternity. We knew it would not be good for us, now we have proof. How stupid of them to put out stuff that wasn't tested first. I hope some heads roll, metaphorically speaking of course. I had already planned not to buy sweet corn from any store that didn't have labeling, but we know we cannot even trust labeling. We, who can, should just grow all of our own food that we possibly can. I've done that for years.
 
 
+51 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-16 14:38
How do you know it wasn't tested -- how do know the tests didn't come up showing it was toxic and didn't just bury or change the test results?

It wouldn't be the first time that companies knowingly sold harmful deadly products because they saw better chances of profits than the liabilities if they were caught. When we hear about private corporations taking risks in the free market, that's what it usually means.
 
 
+4 # paulrevere 2012-06-17 14:34
and what you two present as 'speculation' is far closer to reality me thinks. The 'bottom line' is an incideous partner in human affairs.
 
 
+57 # The Ice Maiden 2012-06-16 15:09
Thank you for fighting the good fight! Too many of us sit idly by and we're one reason these damned companies get away with the harm they are causing.
 
 
+79 # LeeBlack 2012-06-16 13:31
And they wonder why we want to have labels that include GM/GE
on our food.
 
 
+7 # michelle 2012-06-17 18:24
I agree. You also have to wonder why these 'free marketeers' fight labeling food. If they really believe in market forces and choice in the marketplace, what could they fear with labeling the food. Consumers will decide if it is a valuable product. Isn't that how they think it works?

We all know GM foods are not labeled because consumers will reject them. Lundberg rice has labeled their rice as not genetically modified. Perhaps that is a way around the corporate refusal to label. Just look for products that let you know they are not modified.
 
 
+62 # bikewriter 2012-06-16 14:11
You have to wonder what would happen if people ate corn meal made from this corn, especially small children or the elderly.
 
 
+41 # Erdajean 2012-06-16 16:22
Quoting bikewriter:
You have to wonder what would happen if people ate corn meal made from this corn, especially small children or the elderly.


How do we know that we're NOT eating this stuff? Sitting in the hospital this past week with a relative near death from some mysterious digestive ailment, I began to wonder -- Is the HUGE fuss that's being made about gluten in our diet at least in part a scam to cover the terrible effects of GMO foods we're all being fed?

RESEARCH (SERIOUSLY!) the ill effects of these suckers -- and JAIL the responsible parties who are cashing in on the suffering, of man and beast!
 
 
+16 # Barbara K 2012-06-16 17:31
Erdajean: Thank you, thank you! I hadn't thought of this stuff! I have been ill with digestive problems for over 2 years now, very limited as to what I can tolerate, and in this time recently discovered that I have a wheat sensitivity, along with many other sensitivities, cannot tolerate grains, etc., etc. I thought of the poisons put on the foods, but didn't think of the GMO factor that I've been fighting all this time. I was so ill 2 years ago that I just wanted to go to bed and stay there. Couldn't eat, lost weight til I looked like a skeleton. Without the love of my boyfriend who IM'd every day so that I had to get up and dressed and talk to him every day, I wouldn't have made it. I'm just now doing some better, but my diet is seriously limited. Gee, I miss Apple Pie. lol.
 
 
+11 # Erdajean 2012-06-17 00:19
Which makes me wonder, Barbara -- are you sensitive to wheat -- or are you sensitive to GMO wheat and Lord knows what other GMO stuff?
We keep hearing how harmless Bt is to humans. Have in fact used it myself on some crops. BUT -- with GMOs now affecting most of our grains, soy beans, fruits, vegetables AND the meat, milk and eggs of livestock fed these crops, we talking a full diet of Bt and a whole range of other ingredients FAR from natural. It's like saying oh, table salt is not poison. Of COURSE not -- until we are dosed with enough of it!
I hope, hope you will soon be MUCH better -- we NEED you in this world!
 
 
+10 # Lolanne 2012-06-17 10:31
Quoting Erdajean:
Which makes me wonder, Barbara -- are you sensitive to wheat -- or are you sensitive to GMO wheat and Lord knows what other GMO stuff?
We keep hearing how harmless Bt is to humans. Have in fact used it myself on some crops. BUT -- with GMOs now affecting most of our grains, soy beans, fruits, vegetables AND the meat, milk and eggs of livestock fed these crops, we talking a full diet of Bt and a whole range of other ingredients FAR from natural. It's like saying oh, table salt is not poison. Of COURSE not -- until we are dosed with enough of it!
I hope, hope you will soon be MUCH better -- we NEED you in this world!


You are absolutely right, Erdajean. Just about any substance can be lethal if used improperly and in greater than needed quantities. I think the GM stuff may have pushed things way past the tipping point.
And Barbara, I'm sorry to learn you are suffering from such illness. May you be healed.
 
 
+7 # Califa 2012-06-17 12:32
Barbara:

You are not alone. I have been battling digestive problems for the past 4 years and hospitalized twice. I also lost weight and looked like a skeleton and am still quite thin.I'm doing better too but still have to watch what I eat.

I have met so many people that have digestive problems young and old. Just yesterday I was talking with two women, one in her mid 30's and the other was my age in her late 50's and both also had digestive problems and were limited in what they can eat. Whenever the subject of digestive problems comes up most of the time the person or persons I'm talking with also has problems. It's an epidemic that is going unnoticed by the medical community, media, and etc.

It's not only the GM and the poisons put on foods like insectacides it's the poisons that are put IN the foods. You need a PhD in Chemistry to read ingredient labels.

BTW, I just recently read that 90% of all corn is GM. So no more Corn Flakes or corn on the cob smothered in butter and grated cheese :-( The thing about GM corn that really gets my goat is that not only the insanity of putting pig genes in corn but also putting killer E-coli bacteria into corn.
 
 
+4 # Banichi 2012-06-17 22:13
Barbara - I have said this before in comments on GM products, particularly Monsanto's GM seeds: Monsanto sells seeds that are "Roundup Ready" so that they can sell more Roundup - which is a weed killer and would kill the corn or alfalfa or other plants if not for it being more or less immune by virtue of being GM. But - as a scientific study and subsequent lawsuit in Argentina is proving, it is the Roundup itself that causes a great deal of health problems. So, what does this have to do with your illness?

What no one has answered anywhere yet is the question of how much Roundup (or other pesticides from other companies) is absorbed by the plants it is sprayed on to control pests. Just because GMO corn is immune to being killed by Roundup does not mean that it does not absorb it when it is sprayed by it!
 
 
-48 # Zarvox 2012-06-16 14:23
The article neglects to mention whether this farmer has any actual evidence that it was the corn that killed his cows. Many of you will likely remember the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc:" after this, therefore because of this. Just because the cows got sick after eating Syngenta corn doesn't mean the corn did it; the illness could just as easily have been from a different source, with the timing being a coincidence.

The burden of proof is on the farmer and his team. They must demonstrate either this corn contains something toxic to cows (the Bt toxin that this corn produces is only toxic to insects; vertebrates like cows and humans are unaffected), or they must demonstrate that cows in controlled conditions are more likely to get sick if eating this corn.

Unless the farmer and his team can show one of these things, this entire case is just an anecdote and entirely without scientific merit.
 
 
+31 # The Ice Maiden 2012-06-16 15:15
It is so difficult to prove, scientifically, that A caused B. Unfortunately the party with the relevant evidence is usually the party who produces the material in question, so the facts get hidden. (In our supremely pro-corporation environment, this will be encouraged.) The same problem allowed tobacco manufacturers (who referred to cigarettes as "nicotine-deliv ery systems") to argue in court that the plaintiffs had not PROVEN that nicotine was addictive or that, if proven, that the defendants KNEW nicotine was addictive, and/or that cigarettes caused the development of physical ailments.
 
 
+27 # wrknight 2012-06-16 16:03
In the case of outbreak of a strange food related disease among humans, it is not the responsibility of the patient to prove that a particular food vendor is guilty. We have institutions such as the Center for Disease Control whose mission is to investigate the cause of disease and take appropriate action. In the case of livestock in the U.S., the Dept. of Agriculture is the appropriate institution to investigate. These institutions have the resources needed to fully investigate the cause. An individual farmer (including whatever team he might assemble) is at a distinct disadvantage in not having those resources. Most developed countries have similar institutions to ours and the onus is on them, not the farmer, to show that the food caused the disease.
 
 
+16 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-06-16 18:54
Quoting Zarvox:
The article neglects to mention whether this farmer has any actual evidence that it was the corn that killed his cows.


Really, Tristan?
It wasn't Syngenta corn that killed his cows?
So Syngenta just gave the farmer 40,000 Euros because they felt sorry for him, right?
Did you read the article and pass over this telling little fact?
 
 
+16 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-16 21:09
I understand your argument and it makes sense however in this case the burtden of proof is on Syngenta:
They claim "substencial equivalence" between their product and the natural plant to bypass rigorouis testing, and then they just flood the market and line their pockets.
The natural plant does not produce insecticides, so how comes the insecticide produced by this plant does not need to undergo FDA testing?
Then, as an engineer I can relate to the idea of inserting the code for a protein between a start and a stop - except these guys insert it anywhere, thereby obtaining start- beginning of some protein /start the insecticide stop/ rest of the protein stop.
What does the "beginning of some protein" or the "rest of the protein" code?
They don't know and they don't want to know.
They only test that the insecticide is produced, not whether the rest of the plant has been adversely modified.
PRIONS are malformed proteins responsible for BSE in cattle and Kreutzfeld-Jaco b in humans.

And they have the gall, when someone comes with a case that at the very least calls for some questioning, positing that it cannot be their product?

PRIONS, in French, happens to mean "Let's pray" - how suitable.
 
 
-5 # Bob-Investigates 2012-06-17 09:25
Zarvox---you are absolutely right. I do investigative work and I get really tired of people who reject scientific investigation. Where are the forensics in that German case? OK, if they can prove that the corn sickened / killed the cattle, then let's see the results of the autopsies. A lot of commenters on the Internet do not have the educational background to make an intelligent statement. Of course, that doesn't stop them from hitting the keys. AND, I'm not a fan of Monsanto, given many of the things they have done that defy scientific research.
 
 
+7 # sokolowmus 2012-06-17 18:10
Corporations should do the scientific investigation BEFORE they use the product, otherwise the public is guinea pigs. It's happened many times before. And we have little resources to sue a Monsanto. So we need stricter govt. regulation and testing first, and in the case of GMO its too late so they should be stopped from using them until IMPARTIAL GOVT. TESTING occurs.
 
 
+6 # rsnfan 2012-06-17 12:36
Would you drink a bottle of the toxin?
I believe in Canada it was found in the blood of tested women.
Back to the bottle of toxin.
If it is in corn and we get a lot of corn in our diet then we have a lot of it in our bodies.
 
 
+8 # sokolowmus 2012-06-17 18:06
I would argue that the burden of proof that GMO technology is safe is on the corporations that unleash it on the public...before they start using it. Otherwise it should not be allowed. How many times have we used a technology w/out enough testing and caused innumerable cancers and other problems. Lots of time, just in my lifetime.
 
 
+27 # hobbesian 2012-06-16 14:39
I think Archer Daniel Midland may also be implicated. I have never trusted them since some scandal involving their activities about five years ago? Price fixing I believe. Above the law, of course! as with Monsanto and Syngenta.
 
 
+36 # fredboy 2012-06-16 14:50
OK, just for the heck of it, let's all act surprised.
 
 
+34 # Archie1954 2012-06-16 14:58
The obvious answer to your question and the reason these biotech companies are worried is that if the consumer knew the truth they wouldn't put such genetically modified food in their mouths.
 
 
+19 # Third_stone 2012-06-16 15:35
Did you notice the statement that the company is criminally charged? Apparently the state believes the case has merit. This is not a scientific journal, so the evidence you are so anxious to read would not be found here.You have no idea what this BT toxin is going to do. It is a product with little testing an no public disclosure. The case cannot be impeded by trolling to mis inform people.
 
 
+18 # wrknight 2012-06-16 16:05
Unfortunately, the victims in this case were cows that had no choice in the matter.
 
 
+2 # hobbesian 2012-06-19 05:33
No choice for the cows - right! - and now WE have no choice either; GM crops are ours for ever, cannot be stopped; we too will be eat and be mutants from now on.
 
 
+39 # Lolanne 2012-06-16 15:03
Lots of corn available in the stores now in Texas, and I haven't bought any of it. Now I LOVE fresh corn on the cob, but since I have no way of knowing how this was grown, I'll be doing without for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, I think I'll search for an organic food co-op but I'm afraid I won't find one anywhere near me. Wish I could grow my own food, but unfortunately no way I can do that now other than a few containers of things.

Monsanto and other companies marketing this poison ought to be prosecuted. And let's keep on signing those petitions and protesting GM foods at every opportunity.
 
 
-7 # caylworth@gmail.com 2012-06-16 16:52
[quote name="Lolanne"] Meanwhile, I think I'll search for an organic food co-op but I'm afraid I won't find one anywhere near me.

If you did, you would probably get more BT "toxin" in your corn than if you bought BTGM corn. Most Organic labeled corn has been given a heavy dose of BT, since BT kills earworm and corn borers without harming beneficial insects. Because BT is a bacteria, it qualifies as Organic pest control. People have been ingesting BT laden fruits and vegetables for over 50 years with no reported ill effects.
 
 
+6 # Lolanne 2012-06-17 10:25
Quoting caylworth@gmail.com:
If you did, you would probably get more BT "toxin" in your corn than if you bought BTGM corn. Most Organic labeled corn has been given a heavy dose of BT, since BT kills earworm and corn borers without harming beneficial insects. Because BT is a bacteria, it qualifies as Organic pest control. People have been ingesting BT laden fruits and vegetables for over 50 years with no reported ill effects.


Yes, I know that, but here's a good point Erdajean made in a conversation with Barbara back up there somewhere: many, many substances are fine, even beneficial, used judiciously -- think aspirin, or any of the drugs that help heal us when we're ill; misused, any of them can also kill us! There's a tipping point -- cross that line and you get into the negative effects. Could be that BT has been beneficial used carefully as pest control all these years, but seems to me genetically modifying our food with it -- or any other substance -- is pushing things WAY too far.

The biotech industry is just one more big business motivated by nothing but GREED at the top. More and more profits and to hell with the consequences! That seems to be their mantra, over and over and over again.
 
 
+8 # Califa 2012-06-17 12:39
As I commented somewhere above I also love corn on the cob. However, I also commented somewhere above that I recently read that 90% of corn is GM. Ninety percent!! Absolutely disgusting.
 
 
+50 # ghostperson 2012-06-16 15:04
In the parallel universe we occupy, the bad is not in doing wrong, it is in having the temerity to describe the wrong being done.

China executes those who put lethal products into the stream of commerce.

Strict liability laws are needed with criminal penalties, including imprisonment, appended. Threats against those who reveal wrongdoing should be treated like hate crimes, as a penalty enhancer.

However, in the world in which we live there is no sense of right and wrong or of human morality. Decency is an illusion. The only thing that matters is money. Those without it lose. Those with it win.

Pretty soon more and more people will withdraw in an effort to save themselves and their families. Our government no longer functions except to make things work for those at the top and their handmaidens in the three branches.
 
 
+21 # angelfish 2012-06-16 15:05
Anyone remember that old Sci-Fi Turkey, Soylent Green? Don't look now but, it's on it's way to a Grocery Store near you any day now!
 
 
+16 # Barbara K 2012-06-16 15:40
angelfish: I remember that movie. Real scary. The vision of the only tree in the world being in Boston, and a high fence around it to protect it and long lines of people just to look at it. The tears in the eyes of the old guy at the sight of a piece of meat he hadn't seen meat in years, etc. Yep, sounds like it's getting closer to reality.
 
 
+10 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-06-16 19:01
Bravo, Nancy!
I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the article. Soylent Green here we come.
Oh, but wait; we have its girlish cousin here with us today. Can you say, "Pink Slime for lunch today students?"
 
 
+19 # seakat 2012-06-16 15:49
The birthrate for the U.S. is down, more people are suffering from kidney stones. Does anyone besides me wonder if there is a GMO connection with these?
 
 
+19 # James Marcus 2012-06-16 16:02
Lying, cover-up, False documents..... false everything....
ARE DESTROYING US FROM WITHIN.
They are 'Legion'.
Rule of Law. Rules of Accounting, Rules of accurate reporting. Rules of Moraity.
All Dead.
 
 
+6 # Bob P 2012-06-16 16:29
We have a long history of selective breeding to enhance desirable atributes in our food supply. But selective breeding also causes undesirable traits also. Dog breeders know that pure breds can have tndencies to hearing problems, bone weakness, etc. We also know that antibiotics have been very powerful, but have led to resistant bacteria (super bugs). Now we have GM where we can target specific genes to give us a less risky result. I would expect this to be a huge improvement.

But we are flooded with horror stories of how bad and lethhal GM is. So I have been trying to figure out where my logic went wrong. But I can't find facts to help me out. How many farmers fed GM Bt corn and had no animal illnesses or deaths? What was it about the corn that was toxic? Is GM as imprecise as selective breeding or even more so?
In the past, corporations have put harmful products on the market which were and are reprehensible. That is why we have a Food and Drug Administration and a Consumer Protection Agency. I am impressed by the charged emmotions on this issue. These emotions seem stronger than emotions that would be caused by the economic dislocations caused by technological breakthroughs. I wish I had more solid facts about what is really going on technically. The emotions and politics are pretty clear.
 
 
+7 # Califa 2012-06-17 12:49
Quoting Bob P:
We have a long history of selective breeding to enhance desirable atributes in our food supply.


Traditionally the selective breeding has been done through natural means such as cross pollenation of two varieties of the same kind of plant and then using the seeds to grow a better vegetable.

GM is not natural. Corn will not naturally cross pollenate with a pig or E-coli bacteria.
 
 
+2 # Hey There 2012-06-18 00:39
GOOD POINT and well explained.
I've never heard of a pig and corn mating.
 
 
+7 # Old Man 2012-06-16 16:46
Accountability and "Greed" do not exist in the capitalistic world, they have no liability. Look what happened to Japan, we haven't heard a peep from GE.
We need to boycott as much as possible.
 
 
+26 # jlg 2012-06-16 16:59
What perfect timing for the California ballot on labelling GM food -another huge nail in the GM coffin!
 
 
+18 # Floridatexan 2012-06-16 17:37
These corporations are not only killing animals; they're engaged in destroying our planet's ecosystem...all for the bottom line.
 
 
+11 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-06-16 19:16
Wow, I guess Syngenta, as big as it is, doesn't have lawyers as good as Monsanto has. Monsanto has been getting away with 'MURDER' for years and years. Can you imagine a whole state being sued by a corporate entity! The gall of some corporate 'people.' And what has Vermont done...backed down of course. That's how powerfully evil Monsanto is.

BTW, genetic modification happens in nature all the time, but it's called by a different name, that being MUTATIONS! Chow down folks. They always say that two heads are better than one, and a four legged runner will break the 3 minute mile for sure some day.
 
 
0 # Charlie Peters 2012-06-16 20:46
GOOGLE: Prop 87 (510) 537-1796

Bill Clinton, Al Gore & Senator Obama supported the California 2006 Prop. 87, a GMO corn ethanol welfare program.

Bill, Al, have changed opinion on the ethanol mandate, I wonder if Obama will make this the time for CHANGE?

I support a waiver of the ethanol mandate, voluntary use of ethanol in my gas.

Federal ethanol policy increases Government motors oil use and Big oil profit.

It is reported that today California is using Brazil sugar cane ethanol at $0.16 per gal increase over using GMO corn fuel ethanol. In this game the cars and trucks get to pay and Big oil profits are the result that may be ready for change.

We do NOT support AB 523 or SB 1396 unless the ethanol mandate is changed to voluntary ethanol in our gas.

Folks that pay more at the pump for less from Cars, trucks, food, water & air need better, it is time.

The car tax of AB 118 Nunez is just a simple Big oil welfare program, AAA questioned the policy and some folks still agree.

AB 523 & SB 1326 are just a short put (waiver) from better results.

GOOGLE: Prop 87 (510) 537-1796
 
 
+6 # She Cee 2012-06-16 22:31
I don't know how to do it, but this should be posted on facebook.

Let's give Facebook a real and significant purpose for existing.
 
 
+5 # Street Level 2012-06-16 23:27
Organicconsumer .org has an incredible amount of information and timelines in regard to the bio-tech industry's continued lobbying, lies and cover-ups around the planet.

California needs to know what winning the labeling law means to the rest of the country this November. If they don't vote for anything else, they need to support this, for all our sakes.
 
 
+3 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-17 02:02
Look at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=microbiome-survey&print=true

Body Count: Taking Stock of All the Bugs That Call Humans Home

Characterizing the diverse human microbiome may someday help us avoid disease and boost health
By Katherine Harmon | Wednesday, June 13, 2012 | 11
[...]

Now a question: how does BT, as just one example, affect the normal flora in a particular person (or cow)? Any interactions? Perhaps with some percentage of people (as some people are intolerant of lactose or gluten)?

Notice that the related article in Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486194a.html is not available unless you pay $18 for it, and many of these sorts of scientific articles cost much more. Some research data is not available at all, even to government agencies responsible for certifying safety.

This is not a question of 'x is safe and y is not' in nature, because this is a very complex and dynamic system, always changing and evolving, with various elements in interaction. Species (including people) evolved to handle changes as they arose (those who could not, dying out) -- and then other species either were able to, or were able to evolve to, handle THOSE adaptations or they died out. Static testing, even if well done, is problematic.
 
 
+3 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-17 02:24
Here is an example of interaction between microbes -- bt and E. faecalis in the tobacco hornworm.

http://mbio.asm.org/content/2/4/e00161-11.full
Expand+
mBiombio.asm.orgdoi: 10.1128/​mBio.0 0161-11 16 August 2011 mBio vol. 2 no. 4 e00161-11
Shifting Paradigm on Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin and a Natural Model for Enterococcus faecalis Septicemia
Joerg Graf

ABSTRACT
The Bt toxin is widely used in agriculture both as a spray and in transgenic plants, yet its precise mode of action against lepidopterans is poorly understood. The study by Mason et al. [mBio 2(3):e00065-11, 2011] revealed that Bt toxin enables an inhabitant of the midgut, Enterococcus faecalis, to enter the hemolymph of larvae and cause septicemia, leading to death.
[...]

Now compare to the article I linked to about how human flora vary in individuals -- and wonder if unreported or unknown interactions occur there too...
 
 
+5 # Bob P 2012-06-17 13:10
Thank you, bluepilgrim. You led me to research bT toxin itself. My comments above were reacting to the sense that GM is considered bad per se. Looking at bT toxin is another whole ball game. Telling the EPA that the toxin would not enter animal or human bloodstreams, when, in fact it does is a serious problem. Why the EPA is approving toxic content of animal or human food is a mystery to me. This is a mandate of the Food and Drug Adiministration . The sale of corn itself may involve jurisdictional problems between the US Departmentof Agriculture and the FDA, but animal feed ingredients and human food ingredients are subject to FDA approval. If the FDA objects, the burden of proof falls on the manufacturer. That is how it is supposed to work, but apparently enough money can buy your way to exemptions from the law. I still think GM can be a boon to mankind. Imbedding unresearched toxins into our food supply is a horror fully justifying the emotional response in the comments above.
 
 
+12 # skipwkk 2012-06-17 08:54
1) Get rid of all lobbyist, they are not needed in this day and age with the ability to communicate with all.
2) Long term jail for all politicians receiving any kind of monetary gain from any corporations, companies or special interest groups. This would be while in office and for a 10 year period after leaving office.
3) Fines equal to 10% of a corporations, companies or special interest groups total worth for contributing to any person or organization assisting in the election of any person running for political office or holding office. These organizations have no business influencing our elections or decision making (policy or law). They don't represent people they represent stock holders and owners that in many cases aren't even Americans
 
 
+4 # Califa 2012-06-17 12:54
Sorry, 10% is not enough. That's pocket change to the Agribusiness Welfare Kings. I think at least 50% would be better.
 
 
+7 # panhead49 2012-06-17 11:43
Guess y'all didn't get the memo. We have too many people on this planet. We do not have enough resources left. Abortion/family planning are taboo. So what's left? Getting rid of those of us already born. Oh, don't worry, the kleptocrats will keep breeding enough of us to serve their needs. Well, we tried the hammering of swords into plowshares - is it time to reverse that order?
 
 
+9 # capricorn45 2012-06-18 00:59
Apparently a group of people went to Mexico, where corn originally came from, to save seeds of the indigenous corn varieties before the seeds would get cross-contamina ted with GE pollen being blown around by the wind. They found that they were too late: all the strains of corn they examined had already been contaminated! Why are so-called bio-tech company CEOs not in jail for crimes against nature and humankind?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN