GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed
Mortality rate for new-born rats six times higher when mother was fed on a diet of modified soya
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 08 January 2006

Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.

The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.

The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.

And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.

The Russian research threatens to have an explosive effect on already hostile public opinion. Carried out by Dr Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it is believed to be the first to look at the effects of GM food on the unborn.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece

I wonder what it is that is actually causing the problems. Is it due to crude methods, or is there something inherent about the act of modifying an organism's genetic pattern that causes immune systems to reject parts of the food, if that is what is indeed happening.

or is there something inherent about the act of modifying an organism's genetic pattern that causes immune systems to reject parts of the food, Nature has worked unconsciously for millions and millions of years to acheive a banlence or harmony between all living systems. Shooting random genes into the mix disrupts this.

But hey it doesn't matter anymore since the companies have allowed GMOs to cross with natural strains. Now you don't have a choice. Those fuckers should be executed as soon as a direct link is found. They intentionally went after the staples and tainted them, wheat, rice, corn, soy, and potatos.

Nature has worked unconsciously for millions and millions of years to acheive a banlence or harmony between all living systems. Shooting random genes into the mix disrupts this.

Such a simplistic explanation... Surely there's something better?

Don't hate the biotech organizations for the march of progress. As long as humans walk this earth we will be acting in ways seemingly contrary to nature. We've been doing so ever since we came down from the trees.

Sooner or later somebody's going to come up with a genetic plan that doesn't kill babies, doesn't harm people, and doesn't harm nature. What will you say then? Are you just going to exclaim, "It's not natural!" and keep trying to resurrect a lost cause?

Sooner or later somebody's going to come up with a genetic plan that doesn't kill babies, doesn't harm people, and doesn't harm nature. What will you say then? Are you just going to exclaim, "It's not natural!" and keep trying to resurrect a lost cause? I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am not judgeing GMOs on what they are but what results we have seen. The only non-industry study found that GM potatos cause lower organ failure and blood poisoning. Now we have this new study.

I would love it if someone could create such a thing. In fact I have no problem with companies breeding huge field of GMOs so long as the crop is segregated by a greenhouse and the pollen is not allowed to spread. And so long as everything with GMO's is labeled. As it stands we have not a single one of those things in place.

Don't hate the biotech organizations for the march of progress. I hate biotech because greedy assholes don't like to wait and see if their creations are safe before tainting the food supply. They don't care if its safe or good or any of that. All they care about is profit. I hate them because they are greedy idiots willing to risk poisoning their offspring (and the world) to suppossedly make a nest egg for them. They breed a "natural" pesticide into (bt)corn (i say "natural" because once it is GM it is no longer such). Any farmer can tell you that pesticides only work for so long. Eventually the bugs evolve immunity, and we will still be eating it.

Such a simplistic explanation... Surely there's something better? Ockham's Razor. It is the simplist and most logical answer. Don't hate simplicity just because you want to be dazzeled.

Is it really a mystery why sustainable agricltural methods more closely resemble nature? Why pushing the soil and plants to the limit, while producing amazing results, makes them useless in an extremely short period of time?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I would love it if someone could create such a thing.Ever see the movie Silent Running (http://shipofdreams.net/sfmovies/silent.htm)? One premise of the film is that the invention of artificial food makes protection of the environment unnecessary (not to mention uneconomical). Great story, and still relevant as a cautionary tale.

Ockham's Razor. It is the simplist and most logical answer. Don't hate simplicity just because you want to be dazzeled.

Not so. It seems like a simple and logical answer on the surface, but I can tell you don't have much experience using the Razor.

Allow me to elaborate. The original meaning of the Razor is "Multiples (entities) should never be used if not necessary." In this case, you are making too many assumptions (entities) here. First, you are making the proposition that nature works. That implies an intelligence on the part of nature that we have not scientifically observed yet. Then you are making the assumption that it works for harmony between living systems. Not so, it tends (not "works") towards a type of dynamic equilibrium, which is a little bit different. Nature can reach an equilibrium with the bioengineered organisms just like other ones. That is in line with the Razor, because it makes fewer assumptions. And yet another is that introducing genes into an organism disrupts the "harmony" that nature has "worked" to bring.