By Ingrid Blank
Instead of blaming multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis on patients and their alleged non-adherence to the prescribed drug regime, it would be prudent to investigate and eradicate the underlying cause for multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and other drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases first—namely commercial gene technology.
The disaster unfolding on a global scale is exactly the reason why the first genetic engineers called for a moratorium in the Asilomar Declaration of 1975. For decades, reputable and ethical scientists such as Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins have warned—substantiated by scientific evidence— that horizontal gene transfer, i.e. the transfer of genes by vectors (viruses and other infectious agents) designed to cross species barriers and thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases.
According to these eminent genetic researchers, strains of bacteria “crippled” in the laboratory can survive in the environment and exchange genes with other organisms. DNA from dead and living cells persists in the environment and transfers to other organisms.
Naked viral DNA (virus without its protein coat) is even more infectious and may well be taken up by mammalian cells including our own! In addition, viral DNA has been shown to resist digestion in the gut of mice, and enters the bloodstream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells.
One such virus most commonly used as a promoter in genetic engineering is the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) which, due to its recombination hotspot, is prone to break and join with other DNA to integrate into the cell’s genome, which could activate host genes and lead to cancer. In addition, CaMV is closely related to the hepatitis B and HIV virus and due to its ability to propagate in plant and insect hosts after recombination may also recombine with related hepatitis B and HIV to create a most powerful disease in a large number of people consuming large numbers of virus genes incorporated into crop plants.
In the South African setting, the number of people at risk could not get any larger, since our government unilaterally decided without the people’s knowledge and above all prior consent, to grow our staple food (white maize) in genetically modified form without adhering to the precautionary principle, thus violating our constitutional rights to healthy food.
For the reasons described above, it is therefore imperative to demand immediate implementation of mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products in compliance with our constitutional rights of informed choice and consent, participation in decision-making processes and above all the individual’s right to bodily integrity, the latter being the most significant provision of the Nuremberg Code, which sets forth legal requirements for human experimentation, i.e. “voluntary consent of subject is absolutely essential.”
Likewise, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares bodily integrity central to both human rights and human dignity and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unmistakably declares that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
By deliberately ignoring the precautionary principle and refusing to implement mandatory labeling of GM products, this government allows its citizens to be used as guinea pigs, sacrificing the nation’s health for corporate greed. There is no such thing as “substantial equivalence.”
This phrase was coined by scientifically illiterate lawyers of the biotech industry and in 1992 written into law by G.H.W. Bush, who proclaimed GM plants to be “substantially equivalent” to their traditional counterparts and therefore did not need any special health safety study or testing. Ethical scientists and researchers consider this the biggest farce and fraud ever committed in the science field.
Contrary to what the corporate yarn spinners of biotech companies want the public to believe, not one single human safety study has ever been conducted. One does not need a Ph.D. in genetics to see the correlation between GMOs and the sharp rise in HIV infections and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and other diseases. The decision-makers who keep violating our human right to bodily integrity by unleashing these toxins into our environment and food chain without our knowledge and consent must be held accountable.
April 25, 2009 at 11:33 am
Hi Barbara. There is NO evidence that there is a link between tuberculosis and GMOs.
This article is a scare piece.
The paper they mention is from 1999. Hardly recent at all. And it was criticized widely at the time it was published.
The Editor of Nature Biotechnology described the paper as “utterly unbelievable” and “unsupported by any real data”.
The two scientists have gone on to start a foundation–and they have not published any peer review articles that I can find since 2000. Everything is self published, either in a journal of their creation, or in books they published.
This is really a non-issue, created by two guys with an agenda.
April 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You wrote:
“There is NO evidence that there is a link between tuberculosis and GMOs.”
There is a link between antibiotic resistance and GMO.
“The transfer of genes by vectors (viruses and other infectious agents) designed to cross species barriers and thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases.”
Just like superbugs are created by spraying pesticides consistently, and repeatedly for years. They develop a resistance to the pesticide. Antibiotic resistance is also created in much the same way with bacteria. We cannot ignore the potential for resistance developing to antibiotics used to treat diseases such as tuberculosis. Are you familiar with horizontal gene transfer? Are you familiar with the process of genetic engineering through the use of modified bacteria? Are you also familiar with the farmer agreements that specifically outline a buffer zone to supposedly keep resistant bugs from spreading? Antibiotic resistance is a real concern, especially with the advent of the new pharma crops.
April 25, 2009 at 5:23 pm
On specific issues such as these, it gets very hard to prove the DIRECT connection because of the thousands of interactions that are involved! This is like the tobacco industry that claimed for several decades that there was NO proof of a direct connection between lung cancer and smoking!
But, NO one now denies that smoking creates and environment inducive to LUNG CANCER CELLS taking hold of lung tissue!
So, to me, the TOBACCO Company was lying, even though on a strictly legal basis, they may not have been! AT least one can say that the picture they were painting was DECEPTION at it’s best.
(A side note: Now due to work done at the HHMI institute, they know that there is a direct connection between heart disease and smoking because of the damage that the smoking does to the smooth muscle cells that line the arteries and that act to pulse the blood flow through the body, which may even prove to be worse health matter as a whole than the lung cancer connection!)
And I believe this tobacco– lung cancer issue is the same as Ingrid Blank’s article on GMO’s and pest viruses!
I have been in agriculture, producing food for over 40 years! I have seen first hand, how that today’s practice of farming, works to create PESTS at all levels, from microbes, to birds, to insects, to weeds, to bacteria, to PEST CORPORATIONS that want to control all food production and to interject “THEIR personalized TRUTH” into the mix, and have the people believe it because NO one can prove a direct connection between the pest viruses and GMO’s
They could care less about the health of the food produced, only to the extent that the beliefs of the consumer will… not interfere with their profits.
And, they also want to control me to the extent that I can NOT offer a different food source to the consumer!
This same spirit of evil deception can be traced back to the selective breeding used to produce the modern corn plant.
This selective breeding took thousands of years to produce the modern day corn plant of which I have grown 100’s of thousands of bushels.
This modern day corn plant acts to reveal to the desires of the flesh or all energy based entities, to conserve energy, to get the most for the least effort, or. to use, tap into someone else’s energy supply, (slave labor) even animals that lived thousands of years ago, and now are in oil form.
So, the modern day corn plant caters to the desires of the flesh to get the MOST FOR THE LEAST, (In available energy anyway) and is therefore very HIGH in sugar or easily assessed calories though high carb ratios, and easily digested! It has LARGE SEEDS! Small seeds are just naturally higher in fiber, omega 3’s and 6’s, and lower in carbs and require more energy to digest!
So, who or what was directing the modern day corn plant, the same spirit that gets people to dismiss anything negative about human manipulated genetic plants for THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT, or for profit, under the guise that they CARE ABOUT POVERTY AND STARVING…especially if these new corn plants are more CONVENIENT AND QUICK ENERGY RELEASE and are making the directors rich!
NO one, including Monsanto, wants their self-centeredness to show…Especially whenever THEIR SELF-SERVING PRACTICES work to put the masses at risk because they refuse to assume the precautionary principle!
The precautionary principle should be invoked in all cases where certain practices work to create conditions that are basically irreversible, and works to force their way upon others that personal choose NOT to engage in the life style that the rich few are trying to cram down their throats!
I have been in discussions where CEO’s from big corporations say, “If you CANNOT disprove what we are saying, THEN you have to accept are opinions as BEING TRUE!”
To me, this is a deceptive way of saying that we are going to cram our ways and chemicals down your throats, and there is NOTHING you can do about it! Why? Because the time that the truth does show up, (or we can be DISPROVED) …..it will BE TO LATE TO CHANGE COURSES, or we are now TO BIG TO FAIL!
So, get used to the fact that we not only engineer your food, WE CREATE AND PRODUCE OUR OWN BRAND OF TRUTH! These are the type of PEST corporations that my present, ANNUAL STYLE PLANTS, help to CREATE!
Because of these points of consideration, I believe that the article written by Ingrid Blank, with the facts as they are presented, should be taken very seriously,….EVEN THOUGH THEY MAYNOT BE DIRECTLY PROVEABLE!!!
Jerold Hubbard, Top Soil Miner, Pest Creator, ALIAS……GRASS ROOTS FARMER, a phrase that creates the picture that I am a STEWARD OF THE LAND, NOT A MINER OF PEST CREATOR!
April 25, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I cannot find any link between antibiotic resistance and GMOs in any primary literature.
(Primary = peer reviewed journals)
You are also confusing natural selection and changes in reproductive fitness of a whole organism (pesticide resistance and antibiotic resistance) with transgenic organisms and horizontal gene transfer. Two very different mechanisms.
The buffer zone exists for a lot of reasons, but mostly “just in case”. The primary concern is movement of transgenic pollen, not insects or bacteria.
In the case of the Bt transgenic crops, the concern is selection for resistance, NOT that the insects will pick up genetic material. Additionally, Bt itself is not a human pathogen.
I am not 100% in favor of transgenic crops, but I am definitely against the spreading of misinformation. This post has no scientific evidence to back it up.
As for your question: I actually am a scientist, and an entomologist. Your experience with transgenics is…?
April 25, 2009 at 10:08 pm
As a farmer I am against letting transgenic crops grow in areas where cross pollination is possible and will eventually occur.
This is the means that Monsanto is using to incapacitate my ability to grow conventional crops; and thus ensalve me to their patented gentics on life!
I will enclose actual cases below.
Who Owns Life Not Monsanto?
Percy Schmeiser is a real life hero who played David to Monsanto’s Goliath, and like David, he won Sam Burcher
A referenced and illustrated version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details here
An electronic version of the full report can be downloaded from the ISIS online store. Download Now
Percy and Louise Schmeiser in London
Governments approve Monsanto’s GM crops
Percy Schmeiser and his wife Louise are third generation farmers from the prairies of Western Canada in the province of Saskatchewan near the city of Saskatoon. They feel really blessed not only that his grandparents moved there, but by the fact that in Central Saskatchewan so many types of grain crops can be grown; pulses, oil seeds, in what the locals call God’s Country.
The Schmeisers, like hundreds of thousands of farmers all over the world, were using their canola (oilseed rape) seed from year to year and developing new varieties suitable for climatic soil conditions on the prairies. Percy had also been the Mayor of his town for over thirty years, a member of the provincial Parliament and an active member of agricultural committees representing his province on new agricultural policy, law and regulations for the benefit of farmers.
In 1996, the Canadian Federal Government and the US Government gave regulatory approval to four genetically modified (GM) crops: soya, corn or maize, cotton and canola. At the time not all GM crops in Canada were herbicide tolerant except for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola and soya, both resistant to the company’s herbicide Roundup. The US Government had also approved Bt cotton and Bt corn that has the added GM toxin from Bacillus thuringenisis (Bt). The Canadian government were fully complicit in allowing Monsanto to develop GM crops on Government test plots and research stations in return for a royalty on every bushel of GM crops sold.
Monsanto versus farmer
In 1998, two years after the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Canada, the Schmeisers received a lawsuit notice from Monsanto which said that they were growing Roundup Ready canola without a licence from Monsanto and that this was a patent infringement. Monsanto had a patent on a gene to make GM canola resistant to the glyphosate herbicide in its formulation Roundup. This came as a complete surprise to the Schmeisers who immediately realised that all their research and development on canola over the past fifty years had been contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs. They felt that they had a case against Monsanto for liability and the damages possibly caused to them, and that was the beginning of [1] Schmeiser’s Battle for the Seed (SiS 19). And 10 years on, the Schmeisers have been invited to London to tell their full story [2].
The Schmeisers stood up to Monsanto’s claims of patent infringement in the Federal Court with just one judge and no jury. The pre-trial took two years to go to court in which Monsanto claimed that despite having no knowledge of Percy Schmeiser ever having obtained any GM seed, he must have used their seed on his 1 030 acres of land because ninety-eight percent of the land was GM contaminated. And, because the Schmeisers had contaminated their own seed supply with Monsanto seed, ownership of the Schmeisers seed supply reverted to Monsanto under patent law.
Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled
The Court ruled after a two-and-half-week trial that it was the first patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge’s ruling and Percy Schmeiser’s name became famous overnight:
•It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property.
•The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it’s 1 percent, 2 percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to Monsanto.
•It’s immaterial how the GM contamination occurs, or where it comes from.
The Schmeisers tracked down the source of the contamination. It was their neighbour who had planted GM crops in 1996 with no fence or buffer between them. Nevertheless, the Schmeisers’ seeds and plants reverted to Monsanto, and they were not allowed to use their own seeds and plants again, nor keep any profit from their canola crop in 1998.
The Schmeisers appealed against the ruling, and after another two years, it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal judges even though they did not agree with all the trial judge’s statements. The Schmeisers believe that the case should have been thrown out of Court and not upheld. After having lost the two trials costing them $300 000 of their own money, Percy took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was warned that there was only a very small chance that the case would be heard; but was granted a second leave of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Schmeiser raised important questions during the Supreme Court Appeal
The Appeal was good news for the Schmeisers, but in the meantime Monsanto had brought another lawsuit against them for $1million in legal costs, fines and punitive damages. Monsanto said that the Schmeisers were recalcitrant and that they wanted a million dollars from them. For good measure, Monsanto brought a third lawsuit against the Schmeisers to seize their farmland, farm equipment and house, in an effort to stop them mortgaging their assets to pay their legal bill.
Percy Schmeiser effectively raised several important questions at the Supreme Court Appeal:
1. Can living organisms, seeds, plants, genes, and human organs be owned and protected by corporate patents on intellectual property?
2. Can genetically modified traits invade and become noxious weeds that then become resistant to weed killers and become superweeds? (The answer was obviously yes, as these are now all over Western Canada and almost the rest of Canada, see below.)
3. Can the farmers’ rights to grow conventional or organic crops be protected, especially organic crops?
4. Can farmers keep their ancient right to save their own seeds and develop them further if they so desire?
5. Who owns life? Has anyone, either an individual or a corporation, the right to put a patent on a higher life form?
On the important issue of “Who owns life?” the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that “Monsanto’s patent on a gene is valid and wherever that gene arrives in any higher life form they own or control that higher life form.” That was considered to be a major victory for Monsanto at the time, but is a decision that has come home to roost in the form of corporate liability for GMOs. Percy explained that if a corporation own and control a higher life form and they put it into the environment where everyone knows it cannot be controlled or contained and co-existence is impossible then the corporation should be liable for the damages done to an organic farmer or a conventional farmer, as well as for the negative impacts on biodiversity.
Despite strong recommendations by the Supreme Court for the Parliament of Canada to bring in new laws and regulations on patents on life and the rights of farmers to use their seed from year to year these issues have yet to be addressed to date. In the US, Monsanto has filed lawsuits against at least ninety farmers (see [3] Monsanto versus Farmers, SiS 26).
Monsanto’s contamination no benefit to farmers, the Supreme Court ruled
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that in the case of patent infringement the Schmeisers owed no money to Monsanto because they did not benefit by being contaminated by the GM genes. Furthermore, they had not used Monsanto’s patent because they had not sprayed the Roundup herbicide on their canola crops. However, both parties had to pay their own legal bills. The Schmeisers legal bill was over $400 000 and Monsanto’s was over $2 million.
In essence, Monsanto had used Percy Schmeiser as a test case to see how far they could exercise intellectual property rights (IPR) over farmers’ rights. “At one point, Monsanto had nineteen lawyers in court, I had one. Talk about intimidation,” Percy said.
No longer able to grow canola in their fields for fear of infringing Monsanto’s patent, The Schmeisers began research into yellow mustard and started cultivating 50 acres of land in preparation for planting. In the autumn of 2005, they noticed canola plants growing despite not having been seeded in those fields for many years. They brought in witnesses and tested the plants by spraying Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on the plants. Monsanto claim that any green plant that is sprayed with Roundup that does not die must contain their patented gene. When the Schmeisers plants did not die they realised that Monsanto’s canola was in their fields again.
The Schmeisers contacted Monsanto and asked them to remove the canola plants from their property. Monsanto took samples of the plants that confirmed they were their patented variety and two days later Louise Schmeiser received a fax from Monsanto containing a signed release statement which was blackened out in parts. Louise refused to sign it and insisted that Monsanto send her the unexpurgated document. Monsanto sent what was essentially a gagging order on the Schmeisers from ever telling anyone, neighbours, and the press about the terms of settlement, or ever taking Monsanto to court again for the rest of their lives no matter how much Monsanto contaminated their fifty acre parcel of land with GM canola.
Victory for Schmeisers and farmers at last
There was no way that the Schmeisers were ever going to sign a statement like that and give up their freedom to a corporation. Monsanto said that if they refused to sign then they would not remove the plants. The argument raged backed and forth; the Schmeisers said they will remove the plants themselves and Monsanto wrote back saying we wish to remind you that the plants that are on your field are our property and you are not allowed to do with those plants what you want. The Schmeisers said get your property off our property, you’re trespassing! Monsanto said only if you sign the release form.
The Schmeisers wanted the plants off their land before the pods ripened and the seeds were dispersed into the field. They hired the neighbours to help remove the plants and notified Monsanto about what had been done and Monsanto sent another fax saying that you can’t do what you want with those plants. A bill was eventually sent to Monsanto by the Schmeisers for $640 to pay for the neighbours help to clear the field. Monsanto refused to pay the bill unless Percy signed the release statement. This went on for about a year so the Schmeisers made a decision to go back to Court amid media reports about the new dispute. The judge in the small claims Court agreed with the Schmeisers and sent Monsanto a summons. Percy said, “We then had a billion dollar Corporation in Court on a $640 bill and you can imagine the publicity that got in Canada.”
In March 2008, the case went to trial and when the judge came into the Court room Monsanto got up with a cheque in hand to pay the $640 plus $20 costs. “I’ll never forget that $20 costs!” Percy laughed. “It was a great victory, not only for ourselves, but for farmers all over the world because it has set a precedent where a corporation has accepted liability for contamination and clean up costs”, he said. Percy Schmeiser had become the first farmer in history to successfully counter-sue Monsanto for liability over damages done to his seeds and crops by Monsanto’s GM crops
GM in Canada – lessons learnt
Thirteen years ago when GM soya and rapeseed was introduced in Canada (and in the US) the Corporations and Government told farmers that GM would increase yields, be more nutritious, use less chemicals, and feed a hungry world. Now we will always have a sustainable agriculture, they claimed. The Canadian Department of Agriculture figures states canola yields have decreased at least ten percent and soya at least fifteen percent [4], but worst of all, farmers are using three to five times more chemicals because of the GM superweeds that have developed. The reality is that the nutritional content of all crops are down fifty percent of what they were before GMOs were introduced and now we have less yields and more chemicals used, exactly the opposite of what Monsanto promised.
Percy Schmeiser said, “Once you introduce GMOs, believe me the days of organic farmers are over, the days of the conventional farmer are over, it all becomes GMOs in a matter of a few years.” In addition, he said, there is no such thing as containment, you cannot contain pollen flow. It doesn’t matter if contamination is by seeds blowing in the wind, or by bees, or by farmers transporting their seeds to market, or so on. Ultimately, farmers, growers and consumers will no longer have a choice because despite Monsanto’s promise that farmers will have choice, they won’t because it’s absolutely impossible for organic and conventional farming to co-exist with GM crops.
Mountains of contaminated produce that cannot be exported
Canadian organic farmers can no longer grow canola and soya crops organically. The seed stocks of those two crops are now totally contaminated by GMOs, which cross- pollinate into other market garden crops from the brassica family. Percy describes the devastating effect GMOs have had on Canada’s markets, as a nation reliant on exporting eighty percent of what it produces. The markets for rapeseed have shrunk to primarily exporting to Mexico, the US and Japan, Canada is now sitting on a mountain of canola, not one bushel can be exported to the EU. Furthermore, Canada’s honey markets throughout the world have been lost because of GM contamination.
Schmeiser is also concerned about a new wave of GM crops in Canada called “pharma-plants”. There are six major types of drugs now being produced by GM plants, including prescription vaccines, industrial enzymes, blood thinners, blood clotting proteins, growth hormones and contraceptives, all known to be much more dangerous than conventional drugs (see [5] Biologicals’, Wonder Drugs with Problems, SiS 42) What if somebody has had major surgery and then eats food contaminated with genes from a plant manufactured to be a blood thinner? Or what about a pregnant woman who eats food contaminated by genes from a plant that is manufactured as a contraceptive? These are just some of the worrying implications of pharma-plants, along with containment and co-existence.
Superweeds now ubiquitous in Canada, requiring supertoxic herbicides
Superweeds have evolved from conventional canola plants that have taken on the genes from three or four companies selling GM canola that has cross-pollinated and ended up in one plant. It had become established in Canada by 1996 (so quickly that horizontal gene transfer was suspected as having been involved, see [6] What Lurks Behind Triple Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape?, ISIS Report). Percy warns that superweeds are ubiquitous throughout Canada in wheat fields, barley fields, cemeteries, university grounds, towns, and golf courses. He said that all these people that never even grew GM canola have this new expense of trying to control it, and this is responsible for the massive increase in the use of chemicals to control the superweeds.
One third of Canada’s insecticides, herbicides and pesticides are used in Saskatchewan, which has the highest rate of breast cancer and prostate cancer in Canada. “We’re killing ourselves with the chemicals we are using and the chemicals are more powerful and more toxic than ever before,” Percy says. He warns that Roundup herbicide is now four times stronger than it was in 1996. Roundup is bad enough as new research reveals (see [7] Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42); the new type “24D”, contains 70 percent Agent Orange, and is being used on the prairies to combat superweeds. The adverse health effect of Agent Orange in Vietnam is common knowledge and could explain the major health problems, environment damage and loss of biodiversity in Canada.
Monsanto’s culture of fear
Monsanto is perpetrating a culture of fear and intimidation in Canada in an effort to gain control of the seed supply, and ultimately the food supply. It was not easy to stand up to Monsanto. Percy said, “They tried everything to break us down mentally and financially.” His main fear was the harm that they would do to his wife and family. Monsanto employees would sit in the road in their vehicles watching us all day long when we were working in our field, he said. They would sit in the driveway for hours at a time watching Louise Schmeiser when she was working in the garden and then phone her and say “You better watch it; we’re going to get you.” Monsanto would then phone their neighbours and say if you support Percy and Louise Schmeiser we’re going to come after you and do the same to you as we’re doing to them. Monsanto offered $20 000 worth of chemicals to the Schmeisers’ neighbours if they would say something negative about them in Court.
Percy warns farmers about Monsanto’s “Inform on your neighbour” policy for a free gift such as a leather jacket or chemicals. He said when the “gene police” arrive on contaminated farm land threatening the farmer and his wife with a court case, what do you think goes through a farmers’ mind? You have a suspicion about your neighbours; it breaks down the social fabric of rural society, farmers’ relationships, farmers not trusting one another, farmers scared to talk to each other about what they are seeding. We don’t know how many thousands of farmers they have done that to. But by 2004 at least 30,000 farmers were paying royalties to Monsanto in Canada [8]. As a former politician, Percy thinks this is the worst thing that has happened with the introduction of GM crops, a whole new culture of fear that Monsanto has been able to establish on the prairies of North America and Canada.
If Monsanto can’t find the farmer at home they go to the municipality office and get the farmers address and extortion letters follow. Percy has collected a lot of letters that farmers have given to him that say: “We have reason to believe that you might be growing Monsanto’s GM rapeseed without a licence. We estimate that you have so many acres. In lieu of us not sending you to court send us $100 000 dollars or $200 000 dollars in two weeks time and we may or may not send you to court.” Can you imagine the fear of a farm family when they receive this letter from a billion dollar Corporation? The letter ends, “You’re not allowed to show this letter to anyone or we will fine you.” One farmer’s wife sent Percy a letter from Monsanto because she was at her wits end. Her husband had four heart attacks and she pleaded with them to put her in jail. Monsanto replied, “We don’t want to put you in jail lady, sell your farm and we’ll let you go for half the money.” This behaviour is ruthless and if Monsanto can victimise farmers in First World countries such as Canada and America, it is a given that they will do this in many countries all over the world.
No new GM crops for Canada
But the Schmeisers’ struggles have brought a ray of hope.
In Canada food is not labelled, and campaigners have protested to find out what’s in their food by demanding labelling. The National Farmers Union has warned farmers not to buy Monsanto’s GM seeds because of their aggressive attitude. The Government has been unsuccessful in introducing any new GM crops such as wheat, rice, flax, and alfalfa because there was such an uproar by the people who have seen the damage and don’t want any more GM crops. Schmeiser said, “If we’re trying to stop them in the US and especially Canada, why would you want to introduce them in the UK and Europe?” He believes that now the Corporations have lost the ability to introduce any more GMOs in Canada they have turned their attention to other countries in the world. He compared this dominant strategy with the sale of agricultural pesticides and chemicals that have been exported wholesale to Africa and Asia once the North American markets were saturated.
Percy said we do not know if you can ever recall out of the environment a life form that you put into it. And in relation to GMOs, what are we leaving for the future? We are at a fork in the road. If you go the GM way, this is what will happen; if you go down the other fork, you will maintain good food, safe food, and your environment. “I don’t think any of us want to leave to the future generations our environment, our soil, our water, our food, and our air full of poisons, none of us want to leave that,” he concluded. Percy has five children, fifteen grandchildren and two great grandchildren and that is why the Schmeisers have taken such a strong stand because they want to leave a legacy of safe food, water, air and soil.
He leaves us with a final question: “What will happen if you introduce GM crops in the UK?” We still have the chance to make the right decision.
Suicide Genes being dispensed among native seeds
Terminator Information On Behalf Of bt-actionalerts-en-bounces@banterminator.org
To:
Subject: [bt-actionalerts-en] President of Ecuador opens the door toTerminator seeds
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:55:32 -0400
April 17, 2009
ETC Group News Release http://www.etcgroup.org
Terminating Food Sovereignty in Ecuador? President opens door to
Terminator seeds
On February 18, 2009, the Ecuadorian Congress approved a new Law on
Food Sovereignty, which, among other important points, declared the
country “free of transgenic crops and seeds.” However, in spite of
vocal popular opposition, the legislation left the door open to
approvals of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in “exceptional”
cases. Now, President Rafael Correa has proposed several changes to
the legislation – in what is known in Ecuador as a partial-veto – and
sent it back to the Congress. The president’s changes dangerously
weaken the law and open the door to Terminator seeds.
Terminator technology is designed to make “suicide seeds,” genetically
engineered to be sterile in the second generation. The technology has
been widely rejected around the world by farmers’ movements,
governments, research institutions and UN agencies as dangerous,
immoral and undesirable.
Alarmed by President Correa’s proposals, civil society is now calling
on him to drop his amendments and to explicitly ban Terminator
technology.
“It’s very disturbing that a law that aims to affirm food sovereignty
could instead clear the way for a technology that was designed to
prevent it,” said Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group. “The U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the companies that designed suicide seed technology
did so explicitly to replace what they called peasants’ ‘old seeds.’
Since 2000, when a de facto moratorium against Terminator technology
was agreed at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], these
companies have re-branded Terminator as a ‘biosafety’ tool. This is
the interpretation reflected in the president’s amended text. Ribeiro
adds, “We’re worried that this kind of language is showing up in
several countries in the global South and we see it as a new push by
the biotech industry to overturn the moratorium on Terminator at the
CBD’s meeting next year in Japan.”
Article 26 of Ecuador’s Law on Food Sovereignty, entitled “Regulation
of biotechnology and its products,” allowed for the import and
processing of “raw materials containing transgenic inputs, provided
they meet the requirements of health and safety, and that the
reproductive capacity of the seeds is disabled by breaking [of grains]
(…)”
The explicit clarification of “seed disabled by breaking” was included
to ensure that if transgenic seeds were imported through food aid, or
for processing, accidental gene flow from these grains would not
contaminate crops in Ecuador, as has tragically happened in Mexico and
other countries.
The partial-veto of President Correa removes the phrase “by
breaking”[1] from this article, arguing that breaking the grains would
mean increased costs. The result is that the amended wording now
allows for the importation of GM materials provided only that the
“reproductive capacity of seeds is disabled.” Such language equals an
acceptance of grains with Terminator technology.
Elizabeth Bravo of Acción Ecológica, an internationally-respected
environmental civil society organization in Ecuador, comments,
“Unfortunately, the president’s changes to the legislation reflect the
influence of his biotech industry-friendly advisors. Terminator is an
experimental technology that has never been proven. Scientific reports
submitted to the CBD demonstrate that the complexity and instability
of Terminator seeds mean that, in practice, there will still be
leakage of GM traits. We could face a worst-case scenario: Ecuador
enabling both GM contamination and suicide seeds. That is a direct
threat to agricultural biodiversity, an essential basis for food
sovereignty in Ecuador.”
Bravo added, “This text works against the provisions of article 73 of
Ecuador’s Constitution, which ‘prohibits the introduction of organic
and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national
genetic heritage.’”
Maria José Guazzelli from Brazil and the international Ban Terminator
Campaign (made up of hundreds of organizations throughout the world),
also voiced concern. “It would be outrageous for Ecuador, which always
supported the international moratorium against Terminator, to open the
gate to this terrible technology at the national level. Instead,
Ecuador should legislate a ban on the import, development, trials and
commercialization of Terminator seeds, as Brazil has already done.”
For more information:
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (México) etcmexico@etcgroup.org, tel +52
(55) 5563 2664
Elizabeth Bravo, Acción Ecológica (Ecuador) ebravo@rallt.org, tel +
593 (2) 254 7516
María José Guazzelli, Ban Terminator Campaign, (Brazil), mariajose.guazzelli@gmail.com
End Note:
[1] The second paragraph of article 26 of the Law on Food Sovereignty
approved February 18th 2009, by the Ecuadorian National Assembly
said : Las materias primas que contengan insumos de origen transgénico
únicamente podrán ser importadas y procesadas, siempre y cuando
cumplan con los requisitos de sanidad e inocuidad y que su capacidad
de reproducción como semillas sea inhabilitada por trozamiento,
respetando el principio de precaución, de modo que no atenten contra
la salud humana, la soberanía alimentaria y los
ecosistemas. (…)
The text proposed by President Rafael Correa on March 19th says: Las
materias primas que contengan insumos de origen transgénico únicamente
podrán ser importadas y procesadas, siempre y cuando cumplan con los
requisitos de sanidad e inocuidad y que su capacidad de reproducción
como semillas sea inhabilitada, respetando el principio de precaución,
de modo que no atenten contra la salud humana, la soberanía
alimentaria y los ecosistemas.(…)
_______________________________________________
Ban Terminator Action Alerts Canada
contact@banterminator.org
http://www.banterminator.org
April 26, 2009 at 1:40 am
Bug Girl,
Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. do not allow any comparison testing of their GM seeds without their approval. Therefore, the only peer reviewed studies you will find are Monsanto et als. Not exactly a non-biased source. In fact, the studies you find from these sources are skewed in favor of GM, since they are the only ones approved.
Read the farmers agreements and user’s guide. You will find that the buffer zones are there to keep resistant bugs from spreading beyond the zones in Bt crops, and to let resistant bugs mate with non-resistant bugs in the zone and create non-resistant offspring. I can’t make this stuff up, it really says that. This is ludicrous, as the resistance will pass to the offspring and bugs do not make a habit of staying in a few feet of buffer zone area.
Insects do pick up genetic material, and Horizontal gene transfer can cause DNA from one organism to transfer to another organism, related or not. In the case of pharma crops, this issue is very important.
By the way, I never asked your experience. I asked if you had heard of certain processes.
Most of the pro GM people I have dealt with like to flaunt degrees and credentials, then condescendingly tell people that they have no business writing about GM if they are not credentialed. I don’t care if you have a PhD, or are a high school graduate. Degrees mean nothing to me because I know from personal experience that it doesn’t take a degree to make someone intelligent.
Therefore, please do not try to impress anyone with credentials. I have had it up to the eyeballs with Monsanto’s people conducting smear campaigns across the Internet on anyone who does not support GM and is vocal.
I have animals, and have seen for myself what happens when I feed them a diet of pure GM corn. The results are not pretty. And, I know about resistance. If I use a wormer too often, the worms become resistant and the wormer does not work anymore, so I have to switch to another. This is the same with antibiotics. We have more and more resistance building up, and bigger and better antibiotics to kill bigger and meaner bacteria that have built up resistance. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
April 26, 2009 at 1:46 am
Jerold,
You’ve said a mouth full, and I couldn’t agree more.
April 26, 2009 at 3:59 am
Primary = peer reviewed journals = corporate funded.
Big Tobacco influenced the science, buried the bad news and spent a lot of money on propaganda. It’s the oldest play in the spin book. Could this be the spin on GMO today?
Many corporations either maintain their own print and Internet Reputation Management gurus, or hire someone to do so. This IRM can cost millions, and there are a lot of people who are paid to post disinformation without having a real opinion of their own. It is a form of spam, but insidious, since these people don’t have to identify themselves as paid IRM posters.
In 1996, there were approximately 6,563 square miles of farmland in the world devoted to GMO crops. In 2006, there were 393,828 square miles devoted to GMO crops (GMO Compass, 2007). This is a 5900% increase in land devoted to GMO crops in a 10-year period! At this rate, the amount of GM crops will double in the next ten years, not including cross-pollination factors.
Paul Turner
April 26, 2009 at 5:26 am
And speaking of resistance developing:
“Superweeds” are plaguing high-tech Monsanto crops in southern US states, driving farmers to use more herbicides, return to conventional crops or even abandon their farms.
How has this happened? Farmers over-relied on Monsanto’s revolutionary and controversial combination of a single “round up” herbicide and a high-tech seed with a built-in resistance to glyphosate, scientists say.
Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia.
http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops
April 27, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I totally agree with the position that Paul Turner has presented.
There is more evidence all the time being uncovered that whenever “everything” within any ecosystem is totally INTERCONNECTED, which means thousands of interactions are taking place at any time which act to produce a WHOLE, or COMMUNITY that can be totally UNLIKE any of the parts which originally contributed to the mix,.. MANKIND NEEDS TO TREAD VERY SOFTLY and certainly NOT get dogmatic to the extent that he can say for sure WITHOUT HESITATION….that there is NO connection between anti-biotic resistance and GMO’s and there is NO connection between tuberculosis and GMO’s.
In OUR interconnected world, CERTAINTY,… needs to be handled very carefully.
I will show you why with a recently released paper on TOXIC COCKTAILS!
And I would also like to let the Bug lady know that I appreciate the fact that she cares enough to speak up and express her opinion! This is the type of INTERACTION that we need to be engaging in.
And that my purpose in answering her is NOT to prove my point beyond doubt, NOR to shut her up! I hope my answers work to inspire her to continue the INTERACTION, even though we may appear to be on different sides! It takes TWO opposing positions in order to get into a real meaningful debate!
Here is the article. This article shows why one cannot say with certainty that….a butterfly flapping it’s wings did NOT help cause the hurricane! Chaos theory reveals how BLIND men can be, and certainly NOT be CERTAIN BEYOND DOUBT, when the actual cause involves thousands of interacting parts…..NOT just ONE, TWO or THREE!
CHEMICAL COCKTAILS AND WHY THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
IS CRITICAL
Super-Toxic Cocktails
#################
Concentrations of pesticides insufficient to cause harm
individually become highly toxic in combinations that occur
in our environment. Current testing regimes are failing to
cope with such lethal cocktails Prof. Peter Saunders
Synthetic chemicals are all around us, in the air we
breathe, in the water we drink, in the food we eat, in the
objects we touch. Many of them are hazardous, some more than
others, and it is not easy to know how safe any of them is.
Nowadays chemicals are tested when they are first
introduced, but while this may pick up most of the acute
effects that happen rapidly, it is likely to miss chronic
effects that take longer to appear, such as the harm done by
smoking. Chemicals that have been used for a long time will
not have been subjected to the same sort of scrutiny as more
recent ones, and we cannot assume that they are safe just
because they are familiar. Lead was in common use for
centuries before it was recognised to be dangerous.
What makes the problem of safeguarding health and the
environment even harder is that testing is almost always
carried out one chemical at a time. In real life, we
encounter them in combinations, and it is well known when
two chemicals act together, what happens may be quite
different from the sum of their separate effects (see Box).
In particular, a chemical that has been judged safe when
tested on its own may be toxic in combination with certain
others [1].
Potentiation A chemical that is not itself toxic increases
the effect of one that is Isopropynol makes carbon tetra-
chloride more toxic to the liver Inhibition A non-toxic dose
of one chemical decreases the toxic effect of another Some
antidotes act this way
Unfortunately, it is simply not possible to test all
possible combinations of chemicals. The EU’s scheme to
register, evaluate and authorise the use of chemicals
(REACH) proposes to prioritise 30 000 chemicals. That is
only a small fraction of those in use; and yet it is
estimated to cost ?2.3 billion over the 11 years to do the
testing; though it is also estimated that the potential
health benefits over 30 years will be roughly ?50 billion
[2].
If we were to set out to test all pairs of chemicals, or all
combinations of three, or four, the number of trials
required would rapidly become astronomical. But that doesn’t
mean we can ignore the issue. On the contrary, we have to do
the best we can to understand the additional hazards that
can arise from mixtures. And even if we believe that a
particular chemical is safe at the dosage or concentration
that we have specified, we still have to ask whether it
might be toxic when it acts together with others.
Read the rest of this article here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/supertoxicCocktails.php
May 6, 2009 at 3:42 am
There are several reasons why the (now rarely used) antibiotic resistance genes in GMO’s cannot be responsible for the various outbreaks of tuberculosis resistant.
First and foremost, the antibiotics used in constructing GMO’s are not those used to treat tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is treated firstly with ethambutol, isoniazid, pyrazinamide or rifampicin. Second line drugs include ciproflaxin and p-aminosalasilic acid. The antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin used in constructing GMO have complete different targets and mechanisms of action in bacteria from the TB antibiotics. Even if a tuberculosis bacteria was to acquire a kanomycin resistance gene from a GMO crop, it would have absolutely no effect against isoniazid, rifampicin etc.
Secondly, we know why TB becomes drug resistant, researchers have cloned the genes responsible of drug resistance, and they are mutations in the target genes for isoniazid, rifampicin etc. No exogenous kanamycin resistance genes have been found in any drug resistant TB bacteria (the commonest resistance is against isoniazid, followed by resistance to rifampacin etc. eg see BMJ 2008;0(2008):bmj.39546.573067.25v1 (1 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39546.573067.25)
Thirdly, there should be some correlation with origin of resistance and planting of GMO crops, there isn’t (the recent outbreak in Micronesia for example, which is devoid of GMO crops).
Fourthly, GMO’s can’t be responsible for multi-drug resistance if the contain only one class of antibiotic. You can’t get isoniazid resistance AND rifamacin AND ethambutol resistance from a kanamycin or neomycin resistance element (kanamycin resistance can get you some neomycin resistance, but not any of the others as they work through completely different mechanisms).
There are many reasons why there are outbreaks of resistant TB, poverty, failure of medical care and so on. GMO’s are not one of the reasons.
May 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Most of the pro GM people I have dealt with like to flaunt degrees and credentials, then condescendingly tell people that they have no business writing about GM if they are not credentialed. I don’t care if you have a PhD, or are a high school graduate. Degrees mean nothing to me because I know from personal experience that it doesn’t take a degree to make someone intelligent.”
Intelligence is something you’re born with. But education does help to critically analyze statements, and familiarity with scientific literature and how to search it for information do help one to seek out the facts on an issue.
As a disclaimer, I am a molecular biologist, but I also have a lot of problems – scientific and ethical – with the state of the agricultural biotech industry and of course everyone’s least favorite company, Monsanto.
I just thought I would ask whether you have any evidence that the specific genetic mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in TB (and there are several, which is why it is so dangerous!) are in fact even used in genetic engineering? Certainly, none of the first-line anti-TB drugs that I can find reference to are used for “selection” (separating modified cells from unmodified) in GMO research. Most of the antibiotics used during experiments are chosen specifically because they are clinically obsolete or less useful.
As for your reference to a link between HIV infection and GMOs, I’m sure you know that HIV is a virus, and thus is not treated with antibiotics. HIV infection rates seem largely related to societal practices, medical care, and access to prophylactics and education, not GMO’s. That statement is extraordinary and unless it is backed up with real proof I would not recommend you make such claims.
May 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I did not write the article. The author, as posted, is Ingrid Blank. The thrust of the article is this:
“Horizontal gene transfer, i.e. the transfer of genes by vectors (viruses and other infectious agents) designed to cross species barriers and thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases.”
This is absolutely correct. Whether or not the end-game plays out like the author believes is yet to be seen.
May 7, 2009 at 4:03 am
I like to put it this way, “GMO foods do not promote health. A less healthy body is more likely to get diseases.” Paul Turner
May 7, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Paul, I agree. If our immune systems are strong, we do not get sick like people whose immune systems have been compromised. I worked in a prison for 10 years, and the last year was in a building that had an over 50% TB infection rate in the inmates. Guards were wearing masks to try and keep from getting TB. I believe that the best protection is health, so I concentrated on diet and exercise and got through it unscathed.
May 7, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Dear Barbara;
I would like to thank you for allowing the public to discuss such topics on your web site, and to express the fact that the window YOU look through, gives me great hope and inspiration!
I would like to say I also agree with your last statement!
The new Chaos theory, reveals that CERTAINTY, needs to be used with caution!
Chaos is the study of order and disorder within NON-LINEAR, deterministic systems!
This new field of study, over the last 25 years, has helped us learn so much about how things work.
In NON-LINEAR systems, where there is NO single direct cause and effect, but it’s the interaction of thousands if not millions of pieces, and when TIME is added into the mix, (TIME IS NECESSARY FOR CHAOS TO WORK) just like SPACE is for FRACTALS;
one can come to detect things, ASSOCIATIONS, or events, that were intiatially SOOO small and insignificant that NOTHING could have detected them! BUT, whenever one adds TIME to the mix, then, things that were once UNNOTICEABLE, CAN BECOME SO LARGE, SIGNIFICANT AND OVER WHELMING……THAT NO OME CAN IGNORE THEM!
So, it is quite clear that when some one states with UNWAVERING CERTAINTY,that certain things or events CAN NEVER be tied to the consequences that some are trying to tie them too, it becomes clear, that they are not aware of or considering the fact that chaos theory has already established that those who originate such new parts, ARE IN NO (you cannot get there from here)…POSITION TO BE ACCURATE JUDGES OF SUCH THINGS as their own inventions or creations! (Only time will tell!)
Once again Barbara, I would like to thank you for allowing my voice to be heard!
Jerold Hubbard, Top Soil Miner, Pest Creator,. ..Alias,… Grass Roots Farmer
May 7, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Jerold,
Years ago, people were proclaiming that the world was flat, and that DDT was good for us. Now we know differently. As you point out, a direct cause and effect relationship is not always cut and dried, and limited knowledge at any given point in time will restrict our understanding of relationships. Therefore, we must rely on circumstantial evidence to point us in the right direction.
May 8, 2009 at 12:49 am
If you are providing a “public forum”, then why have none of my past 3 comments been approved?
Interestingly, they all contained the statement that I actually agreed with you that roundup ready crops were a terrible idea.
And..that I thought you were totally misunderstanding the science, and providing incorrect info.
May 8, 2009 at 1:07 am
Bug girl,
The reason your previous comments were not approved is because they contained personal attacks on the people in the forum.
I have no problem posting alternate views as long as they are kept civil and are not personally confrontational such as accusing people of simply copying and pasting their responses, and not wanting to discuss the issues.
It is apparent from reading the discussions that people have responded in a civil manner, and their posts have most certainly not been copy/pasted from another source without credit given. False personal accusations will not be posted.
May 8, 2009 at 3:05 am
I post a lot in various forums and have been commenting on mainstream media coverage of current events. I started doing this because I am a concerned citizen who has been on this planet long enough to see a lot of changes which are not to mankind’s benefit.
I see a lot of effort being put into protecting transnational corporate interests. Advertising works and is why so much money is spent on it. This “advertising” now includes the posting on public forums where honest concerned citizens are being attacked by corporate shills.
Tactics I see being used include accusing an honest poster of just “cutting and pasting”.
It is the content which matters, and not whether someone cuts and pastes or types every letter.
Another common tactic is to accuse an honest poster of being a “tin foil hatter” or a “conspiracy theorist”. According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA), in the 1950s, “some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were engaged in propaganda efforts”. It would be naive to believe this is not going on today.
One of the goals behind propaganda is to create a stereotype associated with “conspiracy theory” so people will go into a kind of self-defense mode and be less likely to accept facts surrounding covert operations and other such events. This has worked surprisingly well it seems. Somebody else in the world may have written the above words before, but you can trust it is something I figured out on my own.
Concerning a “public forum”, go to the BarbackObamadotcom YouTube channel and try to post anything that is not an All Hail the great Obama type comment and see how far you get.
Now here is a cut and paste for you:
Even at Monsanto, many in-the-know employees won’t consume the company’s own GM creations. Back in 1999, the management of the cafeteria at Monsanto’s UK headquarters in High Wycombe, England wrote:
“In response to concern raised by our customers . . . we have decided to remove, as far as possible, genetically modified soy and maize (corn) from all food products served in our restaurant. . . . We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-Obama-s-Food-Safety-T-by-Jeffrey-M-Smith-090328-708.html
May 8, 2009 at 10:41 am
Mr. Turner, I don’t think BugGirl is a “corporate shill” as you imply, her own blog seems pretty legit. She just disagrees with you on this issue. And in case I am also thought to be a “shill”, I’ve now linked to MY blog… not that it has much to do with GMO’s, or even science.
I find it interesting (perhaps due to my own ego) that my previous comment has been ignored, and the discussion seems to have shifted to the general ills of GMO’s. I didn’t accuse anyone of copypasta (hardly the internet’s greatest sin at any rate), all I asked was that someone provide any specific evidence at all to back up the central claims of the original post – that GMO’s are somehow responsible for drug resistance in tuberculosis, or “HIV infections”. So far I have seen none: no evidence that they share a molecular mechanism or even that the drugs used against TB are also used in genetic research. This idea must have come from somewhere, after all. Why do people think there is a link?
May 8, 2009 at 4:02 pm
What a lively debate!!! The subject that got this debate started was the negative aspects of GMO’s! But, from there, many different issues have been discussed and debated!
This seems to be, for the most part, a very lively, passionate, and balanced debate!
This is how DIVERSITY, can be negotiated and managed for the overall good instead of being used TO BUILD WALLS WHICH DIVIDE THINGS,espcially people! Whenever people are divided, usually all participants are losers, EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM MAKING WEAPONS OF WAR, then these few hope to perpetuate the DIVIDE!
There is a phenomenon called the Heterosis Phenomenon! This phenomenon reveals the hidden strength from the interaction of similar, yet opposing entities! Examples of this phenomenon could be such things as hybrid vigor in living organisms, black and white colors, contrast between light and darkness, between matter which occupies space and so called empty space, the consciousness brain and unconsciousness one, and etc. all these could fall under the category of heterosis phenomenon!
The public forum that Barbara has allowed us to use, acts as a facilitator to NEGOTIATE THESE DIVIDES, for the benefit of all, EXCEPT THOSE WHO PROFIT BIG TIME FROM WARS OR DIVISIONS!
I will try to get back soon with some information that ABM asks for; but again, no one’s research should stand alone as the Gospel on any issue, it should just serve to offer a diverse course of choices or a different window to look through and consider, study, the things which are seen in a different light!
Thanks again to Barbara and all who have felt passionate enough in their perspectives to actively engage in dialogue!
Jerold Hubbard,
May 8, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Incidentally, my on-topic argument that TB drug resistance is unlikely to be related to GMO’s is as follows.
Common first-line TB treatments are isoniazid, rifampin/rifampicin, ethambutol, pyrazinamide and streptomycin. “MDR” tuberculosis is by definition resistant to several of these, even though they are always used in combination in order to reduce the ability of the disease to evolve resistance to any one drug.
Of these, only rifampicin is ever used as a “selection marker” when developing GMO’s (especially for cloning genes in bacteria). For example Flavr-Savr tomatoes contain a gene for kanamycin/neomycin resistance, and Bt-corn contains a gene for ampicillin resistance (Gay and Gillespie, 2005). Even if horizontal gene transfer is occurring neither of these should influence TB treatment. At any rate there is evidence that DNA transfer from raw plant material to bacteria happens at an extremely low rate even under optimal lab conditions (Bertolla et al. 2000)
Refs:
Bertolla, F. et al. (2000) “Potential Dissemination of Antibiotic Resistance Genes From Transgenic Plants to Microorganisms” – Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 21 pp 390–393.
Gay, P.B. and Gillespie, S.H. (2005) “Antibiotic resistance markers in genetically modified plants: a risk to human health?” – The Lancet 5(10) pp 637-646.
May 9, 2009 at 3:49 am
Paul Turner brought it to my attention that the address to my web site is wrong.
It should read
May 9, 2009 at 5:26 am
Over one million Americans have been killed by Big Pharma in the last decade. Tens of millions have been seriously injured.
Up to 60,000 Americans died from Vioxx-related heart attacks, about as many as the number of US soldiers killed during the Viet Nam War. Another 80,000 suffered non-fatal, but nonetheless life-threatening, heart attacks. FDA had multiple opportunities to prevent this harm but did nothing.
Scientists within the FDA are routinely pressured to alter science to fit administrative and bureaucratic priorities. Major funding to the FDA comes from drug companies, who negotiate how they will be regulated. This information gets very little mainstream media coverage.
A handful of people die from salmonella or are sickened by E.coli and this is front and center and repeated over and over by mainstream media. The salmonella and E.coli comes from the large industrialized food processing and not the small farms, but we now have “food safety” Bills which would give a clear advantage to these same larger players and hurt the small farmers.
While I understand the need for honest and unbiased information, I just wish more people would direct there efforts into exposing the real “scare pieces” corporate government dupes the public with all the time. Paul Turner
May 9, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Paul speaks with words that paint an OVERALL scene of the BIG PICTURE!
So, many of those people who are making millions off of patented seeds and chemicals and military weapons….DO NOT CARE IF INDIVIDUALS PICTURES of what is happening is discussed! Why? It will lead to NOWHERE,,..WHILE DIVIDING THOSE, (because of to detailed specific issues) that hold the knowledge to do something about it!
The old military plan of DIVIDE AND CONQUER is still being used today! The tactics are different, but the principle is the same!
I can see a common bond between all of us who have shared are views on a very narrow issue OF A MUCH BIGGER CONCERN!
It is going to be the UNITING OF PEOPLE of that have engaged in this discussion group that will offer the only hope of changing the overall direction we are heading!
I was once on a discussion group called the GREENS OF KANSAS!
All of those on the discussion site had at least ONE COMMON BOND;…..they all cared abut the overall decaying of the planet we all shared, even with those who will be forced to live in the remians we leave!
The group was actually having a significant impact on certain legislative issues.
Then all at once, someone, (who knows who,
but I have some suspicions), someone introduced the subject of abstinence and the use of broader sex education!
The subject was totally irrelevant to the common CONNECTING BOND…..BUT…..THIS SINGLE, SPECIFIC TOPIC ISSUE…..DIVIDED THE GROUP SO MUCH…..THAT IT NEVER RECOVERED!
Someone was smiling all the way to the bank!
So, after Paul’s BIG PICTURE, it would be my wish, that when responding, which I BELIEVE ALL SHOULD DO..(why? John Wooden, one of the most famous college basketball coaches said… and it can be proven why… said “Whenever everyone is thinking just alike…NO ONE IS THINKING”! There are reasons why this is true, but I will not go into it for now!)
LET’S please keep in MIND…THE “OVERALL OBJECTIVE” of our responding….AND IT IS NOT TO DIVIDE US INTO WINNERS AND LOSERS.. but is to create people with much broader MIND WAVES and are able to see the world through the eyes of another!
Thanks for your time;
Jerold Hubbard