GMOs anyone?

We do not need GMO.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.cfm

Hello,

 I did start the thread about the film trailer. I've been looking through the discussion boards looking for the right place to talk about these issues and concerns, and it looks like this is the place.  I did go to natural girls, but I think the thread was going in another direction and fast (there are so many posts I couldn't keep up).

Anyways, the moderators informed me that the thread I started was removed because it had taken a negative turn. That certainly wasn't my intention and I want to apologize for bringing up the subject in the wrong discussion board, I really didn't want to make people angry or upset. I hope this discussion continues to challenging in it's ideas and everyone shares information and thoughts.

 I emailed the production company of the filmmakers of the trailer. I told them how their trailer had set off a heated debate and if they could answer some questions. I made a note of some of the interesting arguements (I hope no one minds). I'm waiting back for a reply, and if they do respond, I'll share with the group. Maybe the filmmakers can clear up a view issues. 

Ah, I don't know why the font changed, sorry about that. Bessie, I am curious, when you mention "In the 3 minute film clip, I heard probably a dozen "facts" which I know with certainty to be absolutely untrue." Which are the facts that are untrue?

Glad to be disscusing these topics. My dad's a doctor and sometimes I've brought up these subjects and it's been difficult. Thank you for having continued the discussion.

Courtney 

Its a mixed bag of benefits and pitfalls.  As a benefit, it speeds up development of new hybrids.  The consumption of the altered genetic material in and of itself should be inconsequential.  But, if the existing crops are all replaced by GMO's, natural diversity and ability to resist complete anihiliation are reduced.  Monoclonal forests for instance are far more vulnerable to being wiped out.  Diversity is good.  The worst of it all has to be the use of genetic engineering to increase the resistance of a crop to herbicides.  That's all we need, the ability to use more herbicides on our foodstuffs.

I'm just responding to this comment, from Beesie:

"Smoking tobacco has been around forever and for quite some time, cigarettes were thought to be good for your health.  So,as you said, when the cigarette companies first started manufacturing and selling their products, they were not knowingly selling carcinogens.  There was no intentionality, at least back then. Then I think what happened is that by the time it was discovered that cigarettes are harmful, the industry was huge and highly profitably, and no one was willing to pull the plug on the industry.  For some, it was pure greed.  For others, there was probably more to it.  Cities and states and thousands upon thousands of people were dependent on the cigarette industry for their livelihood.  Once the evidence about the harm from cigarettes became clear, it must have been a terrible dilemma for many people in the companies and in government."

I believe this same argument could be proposed for processed foods. Hydrogenated oils. Preservatives, The list goes on and on. Food processing whose entire purpose was to increase the "shelf life," and so increase profits. No thought given to that these "foods" are not good for you. The foods, themselves, cause cancer.

Can I just say .... McDonalds? ConAgra? Numerous, others?

But as Beesie said, I'd say millions of workers are dependent on these "food" providers. The people that work for all of these "processed food" companies.

The "harm" from this "processed food" is going to become clear. The Congress is already contemplating the Sugar Beverage tax. How are we going to be able to shut that down? Without dislocating, millions of workers. 

And even Obama, his total aim is to cut health costs. So, how many health care workers will there not be, anymore? After Obama's cuts?  

I'm the CPA, if a business wants to cut costs, they cut people. That's just bottom line. People are the dominant expense, in ANY industry. 

Sorry,sort of off topic, on this thread. If the moderators want to move it, fine.  Or delete it, whatever. 

Hi Courtney - really pleased you are still around, and hi everybody- very glad we all get the chance to discuss, to think, to digest and to have the freedom to do so.

Thanks to all above for your thought provoking and reflective posts.

Overall, I am never particularly comfortable with the food industry and supermarkets.  In the UK there has been a very lively debate about GM/GMO etc.  For some years we have stopped the import of GM cans of soya beans and also tomatoes.  Cans have to be clearly labelled with info in this regard.  But as Mr Blair was very keen on GMO etc, we are having to get back into this argument (and it is and argument here, not a debate.).  For my own part I don't really want any GMO etc, and as this is only a little island it could have a devastating effect on all sort of plants and diversity etc.  However,  we do not have extremities of climate here.  Would I feel this way if I lived in Africa or India? 

 One thing that does amuse me is that "hippy" has been used as a perjorative description on this site.  (which is fine - I am not offended and it wouldn't matter if I was.  too small to matter!) but it is a frustration to think that this sort of discussion concerning the welfare of the earth and its inhabitants, has not really moved on in the past 35 years.

We also do have power as consumers.  There is nothing to stop us writing and complaining about all sorts of things, and if done repeatedly it can effect at least some change.   Although I don't think food labelling is always as fulsome or as comprehendible as it might be, we do have choice in foods.

 I find many interesting points in Beesie's posts too.

I have no brief for big industry and big commerce (and as for globalisation, well......) but humans are not all self serving shits.  For example, I have worked in past years in biotech and there were some fine people there.  They were'nt unthinking serfs.  

Whilst I too enjoy watching what are sometimes controversial films, progs etc, remember - these people are making money too.

That's a great post Barbe - you are bang on about the Monsanto thing about seeds having to be bought annually.  I listened to a very good World Service (that's a radio station which broadcasts from England for those unfamiliar) documentary last year about exactly that topic and farmers in India were very angry about that.

 Actually I wasn't thinking about you re the hippie tag - it was someone else's less than loving tag!!  I don't care anyway, though I live a very typical middle class professional's life, more and more I am of the opinion that we young kids were right way back.  What we worried about has come to be.  And the sad thing is we have had 30 or 40 years in which we could have made so many improvements.  grrrr.  Anyway, I stick with my personal anthem tune "Peaches en regalia" by Mr Frank Zappa and am glad I have lived the life I have, it's been great and I hope will continue to be so.  It has been a life well lived and for that I am very grateful.

I think it is a good thing for all of to continue to question all sorts of things.  What we shouldn't do is sit on our bums thinking everything is just fine, because often,it isn't.  But I am afraid I don't always have any trust in the conspiracy theory people (for lack of a better description) because very often they havee a whole other crap shoot of agendas.

Crazy world huh?  !!       love to all, whether we agree on anything or not! 

Virginia, I think you hit the nail on the head.  We need to question what's going on and we shouldn't think that everything is just fine, because it's not.  But the conspiracy theory folks have their own agendas - and I don't think they can be trusted a whole lot more than anyone else (including the big bad corporations).  As someone who's spent years working for big business and knowing many people in the medical science, biotech and pharma industries, I agree too that there are a lot of really good people in those industries, people with good intentions.  There are the bad seeds, of course, but most people who work in those industries are people who have the same concerns we do and who have loved ones or who themselves have been affected by cancer or other serious diseases. 

Despite my protestations about the film, I look at my generation (I'm in my early 50s) and my parent's generation and I believe that mine will be the first generation to not outlive our parents.  With some exceptions, my parents and their peers have faced serious illness in their 70s, 80s and 90s.  My generation seems to be facing more serious illness at a much younger age.  Why is that?  I can think of dozens of possible causes.  The x-rays we had on our teeth as children, probably at higher doses than what's given today and probably without the protection?  The mercury fillings we got as kids?   The asbestos ceiling tiles in our classrooms?  The lead in the paint on the walls? Carbon monoxide - and everything else - from car exhausts and factories?  The chemicals our parents put on the lawns (the company Chemlawn is now known as TruGreen)?  The perservatives put in our food to extend shelf life (which was not just for profit but which allowed a greater variety of foods - including healthy foods - to be available to more people year round)?  The healthy new foods that turned out to not be so healthy (hydrogenated margarines that replaced bad butter fat, for example)?  The list is endless.  And all were things that upon introduction were thought to be innovative and beneficial to society. No one was trying to hurt us.  But the fact is that we grew up with a lot of carcinogens all around us (and put into us).  And as I said in one of my posts in the deleted thread (I'm still angry at the moderators for that), even now we are probably exposed to hundreds of carcinogens every day. 

So I do think that this is a serious issue.  But it's a complicated one.  Many of the products that may have hurt us are already off the market, but we may suffer the effects for the rest of our lives.  Others of the products provide benefits of one sort, but possible harms of another sort.  In regulating these products, how do you determine if the benefit outweighs the harm or the harm outweighs the benefit?  And since many of these products are integral to society, should companies be allowed to continue to sell these products until healthier alternatives become available?  In 30 years, will we discover that these healthier alternatives are no more healthy?  To try to wrap it all up in a simple package - this is a conspiracy, GMOs are the big issue and all the problems are caused by 6 companies who pretty much run the world - is just silly.  In my opinion, anyway.

Thanks, I'm happy to have stayed

London-Virgina: I came arcoss this interesting article in the UK paper, you may have already read this: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

 Also, a really great in depth investigative article about Monsanto that was done by Vanity Fair: 

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

I'm still wondering how some things that end up being known carcinogens like asbestos weren't tested before they were approved for sale. It was used everywhere, then people get sick, then they decide to remove it (which costs money, usually not paid for by the asbestos maker), then they replace it with something we're not sure has been tested either. Why is that? It seems like it would make economical sense for the government, since health care costs would go down, they'd have healthier, happier citizens who could be productive, and we wouldn't have to spend taxpayer dollars to clean up toxic spills or remove asebestos from buildings. It seems so silly.

Barbe - yicks, that doesn't sound good. I can't remember if our school had asbestos, but I'm sure it did. Canada seemed to have gone full throttle with asbestos, we actually still export it to third world countries. 

I received this email from the production company who made The Idiot Cycle. I thought I'd share with the group. 

 

Hi  Courtney,

You have a lot of great questions, and I hope I can answer them as clearly and as thoroughly as I can. We will have the web site for the film up soon, where many of these issues will be addressed. We've been getting a lot of emails, which we're trying to respond to as quickly and as well as we can. Sorry in advance if we missed anything, hopefully anything missed will be answered by the content on the web site. 

We would also like to add that most of the people who worked on this film lost parents to cancer, (the average age of the crew is 31). So this is a subject that is deeply personal, and has affected all of us working on the film.

 

1) The conspiracy angle:

You mentioned a conspiracy theory about bigPharma and the chemical companies. The film is definitely NOT about a conspiracy, nor does it lay the ground work for a "conspiracy theory." The only people we interviewed are some of the most respected and well known doctors and researchers in their respective fields, their statements come from decades of research and work on the subjects. Not only did we want top specialists, but specialists without conflicts of interest.

Unfortunately there are some conflicts of interests that have corrupted the good intentions of some people, and created an atmosphere where the causes of cancer are ignored, overlooked or banalized. Many brave people who have raised legimate concerns have been ridiculed and in some cases fired from their jobs. (Sometimes even within the companies - example Glen Evers from Dupont).

I'll give you just one example of how a conflict of interest can influence the way issues are addressed:

ExxonMobil is the largest emitter of benzene in the world.  They also had overseerers on Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center's board. This is not a conspiracy, but what tends to happen when there's a conflict of interest is certain things are addressed and talked about, and some things get ignored. It's not illegal to tell a half truth or ignore a topic. So why would Exxon Mobil want to push researching carcinogens when they are emitting most of the world's benzene? (Bezene is linked to leukemia.) Also, bad news doesn't sell well (unless it's a gossip magazine!), so instead of telling people they may have to cut back on their driving, or make room for bike lanes, they market a message of hope, like a cure for cancer. Because everyone wants a cure, it's easier and it means less life altering changes.

 

2) The cure for cancer.

I'm sure research facilites and pharmacutical companies sincerely want to find a cure for cancer. I'm defintely not against that myself having seen loved ones suffer from the disease. There are also some very wonderful people who work for these companies, some of whom are family members of people who have worked on this film!

Unfortunately, a lot of cancer causing agents are also linked to global warming effects. For example, refining gaoline releases benzene (a carcinogen), and that gasoline is then used in cars that produce CO2. This is just one example.

Finding a cure would certainly allow these companies to keep emitting carcinogens, guilt free, but unforuntely carcinogens also effect animals (which we eat). Do we give them medicines too? Maybe, but they can't pay for drugs, so I'm guessing no one wants them as customers.

Also, treatments are much more profitable than cures. Patents last for about 20 years, which would mean that a cure would be patented for 20 years, then the money wheel stops. Treatments are more profitable, preventing cancer by riding a bike, for example, isn't.

2) When you say "untested" chemicals what do you mean? Don't all governments test products before they go on the consumer market?

No, they don't.

Let me explain. Health Canada, for example, does not do any toxicological lab testing of any kind for any genetically modified crop, synthetic chemical (man made chemical) or drug. Government testing takes place after an agent has been shown to cause problems in an exposed population, which means after it's already on the consumer market.

The Food Inspection Agency of Canada, not only promotes GM crops, but they are also responsibe for regulating them. Another conflict of interest. The FDA has never done any testing of GM crops. Well, none that has been published and peer reviewed. The European Health Commission is responsible for GM crops in Europe and their decisions are based on the scientific expertise of EFSA (who does not require companies to submit full health testing with their applications).   

Companies do their own testing (as in the case for drugs), but most remains unpublished, so that neither the public nor other scientists can have access. Companies say it's to protect their products, to retain trade secrets.

As for the 95,000 untested chemicals. There are about 3 new chemical compounds that come onto the consumer market each day. There are about 100,000 known chemicals in heavy commercial use, of which only 2% have full toxicological profiles. Once again, not a conspiracy, but we're now bombarded with more man made chemicals then at any other time in history. First, should companies be allowed to test these on us without our consent? And secondly, what about pregnant mother and their fetuses (who are the most senstitive to these)? Why can companies make a safer product for Europe (where laws are a little stricter) and then make a more toxic product for North America? And most importantly, why would the chemical industry lobbyists push to get the REACH regulation that would have required that known toxic chemicals be replaced with safer alternatives watered down? That last one seemed like a no brainer, safer alternatives exist, use them instead of the toxic ones? 

This is from the ATSDR web site, so you can understand how some chemicals are deemed a problem and studied only when they are in "NPL" sites, or other toxic sites, and not before they are licensed.

"By Congressional mandate, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) produces "toxicological profiles" for hazardous substances found at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. These hazardous substances are ranked based on frequency of occurrence at NPL sites, toxicity, and potential for human exposure. Toxicological profiles are developed from a priority list of 275 substances. ATSDR also prepares toxicological profiles for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) on substances related to federal sites.

So far, 305 toxicological profiles have been published or are under development as “finals” or “drafts for public comment”; 289 profiles were published as finals; 130 profiles have been updated. Currently, 7 profiles are being revised based on public comments received; 12 profiles are under development or review. These profiles cover more than 250 substances."

 

3) The "90%" family history statement:

The gentleman that makes this statement in the trailer is Elmer Huerta, an oncologist who was also the former president of the American Cancer Society. What he goes on to say is that 100% of cancers happen at a genetic level, something happens in the gene, which sets off the cancer (although there is now another group of scientists who are exploring the connection between tissue dysgenesis and cancer), but that 90-95% of cancers happen in people without family histories of cancer and that they are not hereditary.( For example, haemophilia is an example of a hereditary disease.)

He goes on to say that people often say 'I don't have a family history of cancer so I can't get cancer, this is false.' (of course, we can't put everything in the trailer, but the power points)

There's a very comprehensive study (on 45,000 sets of twins) that was done in Sweden to find out what role "genetic" influences (in other words, the hereditary nature, or your genetic predisposition to becoming ill) played in cancer. Here's the link: http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=9600&l=en

This is a quick summary about the study:

"Genetic and environmental influences for cancer have been studied using different information from the Swedish Twin Registry and the Multigenerational Register. We have shown that inherited genetic factors are less important than environmental factors for the susceptibility to most types of cancer."

Here's another study done by Dr. Devra Davis, who also appears in the trailer:

Association between biomarkers of environmental exposure and increased risk of breast cancer

Donovan M, Miles T, Latimer J, Grant S, Talbott E, Sasco A, et al. Association between biomarkers of environmental exposure and increased risk of breast cancer. Nature Review Cancer. 6(8), Correspondence.

The article was a response to: Winn, D. The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project. Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 986-994 (2005).

The original author replied: Winn, D. Association between biomarkers of environmental exposure and increased risk of breast cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 6(8), Correspondence.

We will go into detail about cancer incidence rates on the site.

 

4) GMOs. What are they, pesticides, etc.

People confuse selective breeding and genetic modification/genetic engineering (or as it's called in Canada 'Novel Foods'). Selective breeding occurs within the same species. Genetically modifying an organism means that it was industrially modified, in other words, a gene (containing a desired trait) from one organism is transfered in the DNA of another organism, by industrial means. The technique that has been used widely is the gene gun method.

Insect resistant, or herbicide resistant crops basically contain a gene (that has shown to be resistant to the herbicide for example) that has been industrially transfered (through genetic modification) into the plant. So that is why it's called "herbicide resistant," because you can spray the crop without the crop dying. The plant expresses that herbicide gene.

Monsanto's round up patent was about to expire about the same time they developed round up ready crops, giving them extended life line on their product.

No government in the world has done long term testing on any GM crops. 

On the Technology Agreement that Monsanto has farmers sign (who buy Monsanto seeds), it says that the seeds can not be transfered, sold or given to any third party, including researchers. Not a conspiracy, but not very democratic or open to having their product peer reviewed.

Most GM crops are geared towards being "herbicide resistant," but many animals are now being genetically modified (like the Enviro Pig in Canada, that used a mouse gene to produce a pig that would *defecate* less), salmon in BC (so it can grow faster), pigs in 1985 (a human growth hormone was injected, so they could grow faster). There are a number of others.

The top scientists who have studied genetic modification are worried about 1) the technique used to genetically modifiy things, is it safe, what are the consequences of this method 2) and the lack of transparency and testing - that neither the technique nor what the actual plant or animal will become or what will happen to us if we eat it over an extended period.

We deal with the health issues of GMOs in the film. And no, we did not interview Jeffery Smith for this film, just doctors and researchers.

 

5) The six companies, who are they?

 

You'll have to watch the film

There are six companies that have been (some still are) notorious dioxin polluters and have intentionally hidden and downplayed the dangers of their synthetic chemicals, and have shares, develop and make cancer treatments, and are also the major players in GM seed development. Again, not a conspiracy, but there are enourmous interests that don't want their products independently tested for the public. 

But the public is paying heavily, in taxpayer money and with their health. 

 A lot more information will be on the film's site in the summer. We'll have comprehensive information, and the accumulation of our 3 years of research. Thanks for watching the trailer, and hope your group comes to see the film and gives it a chance before making a final judgement. We're open to criticism and peer review

Kind regards,

JPS Films 

 

 

 

 

Guys - (how the hell does she manage.....) I don't have a microwave coz I just don't feel sure, and if you don't eat grub from boxes, they aren't much use.  (TA DAH!!! Smug Cow of the Year award!).  Courtney, I'll read those articles with interest.  Asbestos is a very old product you now.  I think even in Victoria times it was used for some thinggs.  And thus, it came into use at a time nobody had any knowledge of these things.  Qutie a lot of rather noxious products are very old ones.   Lead pipes for instance.  We've got rid of them now, but another good example. 

Not that it's noxious,  but who invented concrete?    Our friends the Romans!!!

 Beesie raises many interesting points.  Out of my peer group, I am the first one to be sick. (n.b. I never state my age anywhere.  But I still like Frank Zappa, Roxy Music and the B52s.  Figure it out yerself gels!)   It has quite upset me to think that statistically, that means someone else in my group is due to be ill.

I was born very late in my family who tend in any case to have very stretched out generations, so there is no one much left.  My granny on mummy's side lived to 98.  (n.b. vegetarian for about 30 years.)   Daddy was 86 and probably would be arguing the toss over anything you like right now but died of MRSA.  His siblings all made it into their 80s.  And think about it, they were the war generation (WW2)  and here in England every single one of them was involved in the war, either servig at sea, or being bombed in London .  Pretty bloody stressful huh?

So yes, if the stats who that serious illness has so much increased, there must be some reason.

 And above all - we simply cannot keep pouring crap into the oceans and into the air. There are no easy solutions but time is running out.  Will our generation (boomers) be the somewhat unwitting and unwilling one that ruined the Earth?   And at this point we can indeed point the finger at commercial concerns, because for instance the car industry  has been slow to produce really efficient least polluting cars.

The thing is, we can all do something.  None of us is just the fly on the elephant's arse.  Even if it is just one time you raise caine, write to compalin, get into an issue where people lobby (in my viewthis needs to come from a diversity of people as well as special interrest groups) - far to often people have a go at me  because I do fuss, I do complain - that is not considered ok in England.  When we decided to become mice I don't know.

Phew!

Next complainant please.....!