No need for condoms – GE corn can do the job

[Fireweed247]

India — New research from Austria shows that a commercial strain of Monsanto-made GE corn causes mice to have fewer and weaker babies. What is this doing to human fertility?...

The GE corn research

Austrian scientists fed mice over a course of 20 weeks a mixture of 33 percent Monsanto GE corn (NK 603 x MON 810) and non-GE corn.

These mice gave birth to less babies and lighter babies in their third and fourth litters. Mice fed on non-GE corn had babies as normal.

These differences are statistically significant...


Monsanto’s GE corn hurts mouse reproduction. So what is it doing to human reproduction?

Considering the severity of the potential threat, Greenpeace is demanding a recall of genetically-engineered food and crops from the global market.

http://www.greenpeace.org/india/news/no-need-for-condoms-ge-corn



I've always wondered how they found GE foods to be completely safe when they hadn't even tested it.

[Hydra]

1. The poison is baked into the mix

After watching that movie about Monsanto, it's clear that it's more than a monopoly- it's a system to destroy people.

[Fireweed247]

4. Monsanto is EVIL!

and so it the government that supports them...

[Hannah Bell]

10. Bill Gates & the Gates Foundation = partners with Monsanto

funds Monsanto research, & has Monsanto personnel onboard.

Then there's its involvement with the cold storage for the world's "seed bank" which amounts to privatizing the world's agricultural genetic code while they're busy reducing & patenting the remainder.

[waiting for hope]

2. Have you looked into the millions upon

millions of erectile dysfunction medication that has been dispensed over the last couple of years? I always thought it was just a tad bit odd that millions upon millions of guys were having problems ... no to make light of the situation, but it kinda fits.

[Fireweed247]

3. interesting

I hadn't thought of that.

[Occam Bandage]

6. This study doesn't suggest an effect on impotence.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Mice are not people -

chemicals can have different effects on different species.

What this suggests is that despite Monsanto's claims, GE corn MIGHT have deleterious effects on those who consume it, as reflect in mice by their deficiencies in births (and in people by infertility?).

[HillbillyBob]

19. Mice are used because their chemical and biological indicators

are so very similar to ours, but with their short life and breed span make them ideal for lab animals

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. True, but similar is not identical.

Particularly if you take into account the very differences between the species, of size and life span and breeding span.

What is trackable in mice as reproductive failure over several generations might show up as only reduced fertility in humans - after all, we've only been mass consuming GE foods for less than a generation, ourselves. The significance is the indicator that there is SOMETHING not working right, and it affects the reproductive system.

When the canary in the coal mine keels over, that doesn't mean the mine is only dangerous to canaries.

I'm not saying it IS GE foods that is the problem - but this, plus the collapse of the bee colonies, plus the rise of human infertility PLUS Monsanto's well funded campaign to create support for GE crops tends to make it something we should look at, to my mind.

[MajorChode]

26. There are all sorts of reasonable explanations for the results....

which don't include what Greenpeace simply assumes, nor do they actually provide a link to the study so that any reasonable person can see the data for themselves.

Perhaps the GE corn doesn't taste as good to the mice so they don't eat as much. Perhaps they like it better and eat too much. Perhaps the GE corn has different nutritional values that whatever other type of corn that was used. All of this assumes that the study was conducted with methods that allow for a sufficient sampling and whoever conducted the study performed it within ethical standards.

Here is Greenpeace's logic:

A happens after B, so B must be the cause of A. Furthermore Greenpeace assumes that B must have some type of voodoo chemical as the only reasonable explanation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. By the same token, we cannot simply dismiss Greenpeace's claims,

nor blindly accept what Monsanto says. And of the two, which has the most to gain in regards to their particular positions?

[MajorChode]

29. Of course one can dismiss what Greenpeace claims

Just as easily as one could dismiss Monsanto if they made reciprocal claims without enough information.

What they are doing is giving some data, which may or may not be correct, and then they give you their conclusions. They are not revealing the source or nature of that data which could very well be just as biased as they are. It doesn't matter which has more to gain. What matters is that both have an agenda based bias. As such, neither can be trusted to draw reasonable conclusions and use unbiased sources. However, if I had to pick one of them to trust more, as you imply, then I would probably pick Monsanto because they have more to lose by publishing misleading data about their product and the chances of them losing such a lawsuit are high. Greenpeace has less to lose and the worst they would face is a defamation suit that would be almost impossible to prove in such instances. Personally I'd rather pick neither and go with unbiased independent sources of which there are many.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Oh, OK, I get it.

Multi billion dollar corporation with much to gain and much to lose - believable.
Environmental organization of limited resources which could be used on many other projects - untrustworthy.

"...I would probably pick Monsanto because they have more to lose by publishing misleading data about their product and the chances of them losing such a lawsuit are high."

That is a very naive take on them. They have WAY more to gain in pushing their product, and they can afford super-lawyers who can insulate them from ANY consequences - they can outspend their opponents, dragging any lawsuit out for years, and then even if they lose they will be fined a fraction of the amount they've made in the intervening years, and then get that amount reduced even more. Do you imagine for one moment that Monsanto is afraid of Greenpeace's lawyers?

[MajorChode]

36. Ever hear of a company called Philip Morris?

How about Exxon?

Large corporations have a lot to lose by going down the road of misrepresentation. You also have the undeniable fact that ethical consumerism is on the rise and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Monsanto is most likely more afraid of alarmism which undoubtedly has the potential for greater harm and in fact already has done so.

But you missed my entire point completely. I don't trust either group, and neither should anyone else.

[SoCalDem]

12. Guys "of a certain age" have always 'had problems", BUT

it's only recently that medicines have come along to "help"....often discovered as a "side effect" of a drug prescribed for something else:)

[ensho]

25. and it used to be that fertility clinics were RARE

now there is one on every corner.

[TheWraith]

31. It also used to be that fertility clinics didn't exist.

Neither did medication for erectile dysfunction. (And let's be honest, some of that stuff is being used recreationally.) The fact that these things exist now doesn't speak to a conspiracy, it speaks to improvements in medical science.

[pipi_k]

27. I honestly think

that most of it stems from the aging baby boomer population that's not going down without a fight...i.e. they're not going to just accept a normal loss (no matter how small) of sexual function like perhaps their fathers or grandfathers might have.

I've read for a long time that males hit their sexual peak in their late teens, which means it's pretty much downhill after that. Not much, but let's face it...even a 45 year old guy isn't what he used to be at 18. I would imagine it only natural that millions of guys would like to have that back...

Especially if women aren't hitting their sexual peaks until their 30s or later...

The men might be uncomfortable with the competition...and if the help is there, might as well take advantage of it...

;)

[carlyhippy]

5. well, if they feed this corn to all mice, then we wont have a rodent problem anymore

scary stuff...

[Occam Bandage]

7. Oh, good. Score another one for zero population growth. nt

[damntexdem]

8. The subject line makes it sound painful.

And how do they get the cobs into those little packages?

[leftstreet]

14. I agree. I was terrified there'd be photos

But I clicked anyway

:D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. The article cites no peer-reviewed paper.

[Runcible Spoon]

15. Here's a link to the study

Not taking sides here, just thought you might like to poke through it.
bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Thanks.

"Reproductive traits were not statistically different over 4 generations in the MGS study... differences became obvious in RACB study."

Translation: they measured reproduction with two different studies. One showed a signficant difference, the other showed no significant difference.

"The findings were weak and need confirmation."

Agreed.

This is an very inconclusive paper. Perhaps why they haven't submitted for publication?

[MajorChode]

33. That explains why Greenpeace didn't link to it either.

Another thing you have to understand is that there are MANY organizations that are against GE products for a number of reasons. American companies are the ones that hold most of the patents on these products and they are primarily produced in the US for export. So the agriculture industries in Europe have a vested interest in keeping US crops out of their markets which are heavily supplied by smaller farms that use more traditional methods. You can't even always trust data from university studies if the university itself receives funding from one side or the other. One thing is for sure, GE has received far more scrutiny than any other human crop modification method by far, and the basis for such scrutiny is very limited and cloudy. It seems prudent to start asking why, particularly given what is at stake.

[Edweird]

13. Unless G.E. corn is also an immunization for HIV and Herpes, I'm rolling with the Trojans...

[HeraldSquare212]

16. Well, at least the fundies in Iowa will now support distribution of birth control.

[HillbillyBob]

17. I used to be quite fat, I was told by dr that I would have a stroke by

lunchtime, it was already 10:30.
My bp was sky high, my cholesterol was 353 and I was 250 pounds and Im only 5'9" my bmi was something like 65.
I got stuck in my little 2 seater car, I was an over the road sales man for the previous 3 years after years of being an electrician and doing heavy construction..and I did not slow down on eating. I was eating at McDs etc.
I started to change my diet, over the next few years I lost almost all of that weight, slowly moving away from fast food , things with corn syrup, several coca colas a day after their switch to corn syrup sweetener.
As time went on I went from prepared foods to natural stuff.
I am long term HIV, have had colon cancer and a heart attack.
I still fall off the wagon from time to time and have a mc d or hardees, but mainly natural foods and stay away from white breads that sort of thing..its been years since I have had a twinkie, dingdong or other little debbie type snake.
My BP, cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar drops out some times, but my dad, his father, and g grandfather all had diabetes by the time they were 40 or so. They were also all overweight and ate Southern , pancakes with Karo syrup.
What I started to think was that when my dad came up with diabetes was the thought they ate stuff made from parts of corn as in starch , or sugars, not whole grain corn. I still it as a veggie, but i look at packaging if I see hydrolyzed this or that , corn syrup solids, molecular break offs..I m grasping at a term for chemically broken corn stuff.
A couple years ago we decided we wanted to eat more natural.
So we planted a garden, started collection of organic heirloom seeds.
Another benefit of heirloom is that they do not need chemical fertilizers, or round up pesticides etc.
From 12 tomato vines (several varieties, Roma, Johnson, Wayahead, we got 20 pints of tomato sauce and 20 pints of tomato paste..it was so sweet I had to tart it up with some lemon juice)
We turned in ashes from a pile of brush that had to be burned as it had poison ivy, got hay straw to turn into the soil too, This is old tobacco fields that was pretty played out and was a plot only about 40x50 feet. Anyone almost can grow organic food, hydroponics can be done almost anywhere and organic heirloom is much better than the genie poisons..

[glitch]

20. Excellent HillbillyBob! Is your cholesterol now back to a safe level?

Nothing beats homegrown heirloom, especially beefsteak tomatoes.

(and belated welcome to DU!)

[MajorChode]

32. The reason w hy heirloom tomatoes are so much better...

is because commercially grown tomatoes must be able to endure transport to market under less than favorable conditions. Due to perishability, they are also almost never fully vine ripened which even includes the ones that claim to be vine ripened.

As such, home grown tomatoes or the ones you'll sometimes find at farmer's markets are almost always better.

[LeftHander]

22. Monsanto....now with 20% more inert ingredients!

New Engineered Flavor!

[mistertrickster]

23. Greenpeace demands a recall and that is good. But it's already too late.

GE corn has cross-pollinated with native corn. You can't reverse-engineer it.

We've unleashed Franken-food across the planet and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

We can slow it down somewhat, heigh ho.

Bon appetit

[ensho]

24. that can go hand in hand with man breasts caused by

man made hormones.

[PVnRT]

30. Other than a flawed study

(as pointed out above), why would fewer people being born on a steadily-overcrowding planet be a bad thing?

[Quantess]

34. I see your point. However, it's nice when people control their reproduction consciously

and voluntarily.
Especially, considering that several effective birth control options exist already.