Xbanker, here is the report in English. It doesn't look good, and that's just a small facet of it.

Farmers in the U.S. and Canadian have had problems with hogs not conceiving after they started feeding GM feeds since 2005 or so. When they went back to conventionally-grown feeds, the problems disappeared. Maybe Monsanto wants to use the stuff for population control.

Monsanto has squashed all American testing of their GM foods. France, the country Americans tend to joke about, is the only one with the cajones to publish a report. The ag colleges in the great U.S.A. tremble in fear that Monsanto will withdraw their large financial donations. Any reports that have been produced here are pro-Monsanto because they are written by Monsanto, and then they get some high-up professor at an ag college to sign it.

Ain't American government wonderful?

Sue

Thanks Sue.

"Maybe Monsanto wants to use the stuff for population control." Maybe you're on to something.

"...tremble in fear that Monsanto will withdraw their large financial donations." The same dollars, perhaps, that the article characterizes as 'bribes.' In these times of tight budgets and funding, particularly in education sector, one has to believe that corporate subsidies are zealously protected ... and influence decisions.

Unlocked.

One cannot assume bias in "Any reports that have been produced here" unless one can return the theme and point out that the study cited was financed by Greenpeace and published in one of the least well established journals.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/13/gm-corn-leads-to-organ-failure-not-so-fast/

It also has to be noted that the conclusions drawn by the study authors is that:



Clearly even the authors do not consider their own study to be conclusive or definitive.

Of course, in the typical rush to provide simple, easy to understand, and actionable conclusions the trend is to characterize GM foods as either good or bad. As if we might stop growing roses because they have thorns or stop cultivation of potatoes because when green they can be toxic if eaten uncooked.

GM crops are not so simply understood or characterized. In the end, even if the GM corn was shown to be in some way and to some extent toxic (one study does not amount to a firm conclusion) the question would be to characterize degree and aggregate effect. It is well known and understood that the pesticides, herbicides and fungicides that GM crops seek to avoid the use of are not without toxicity, even if properly used.

The statement that GM corn may be toxic may not be reason enough to avoid them. GM crops may be the more favorable choice if the alleged toxicity turned out to be less than the known and well established results of the use of chemical products typically used to bring non-GM crop to harvest.

The main problem is that all the GM seed was sent forth in the world WITHOUT UNBIASED TESTING. Even Monsanto doesn't know what it will or will not do, or what the long-term effects will be.

89% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. is GM.
83% of the cotton grown is GM.
75% of rapeseed (source of canola oil) is GM.
61% of the corn (about 87% livestock feed, the rest is food corn) is GM.
50% of the mango crop is GM.

Maybe the stuff will cure the common cold and cancer, but why was it allowed by OUR USDA and OUR FDA to be put into production without testing?

Sorry, I know this is political, but it also concerns worldwide survival. Many people think GM seed is just another type of hybrid, and it's not.

Sue

Feudal Serfdom down on the farm in the USA comes to mind. The byproduct of patenting life itself for profit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX1P8_pqrrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJAb94Tr0lo

Abhorrent, let alone the unacceptable risk probability of the environmental and health catastrophe that could result from excessive industrial monoculture.



You don't have a choice in the matter though. That choice is not yours to make in all practical reality. Thats why these companies do not want to be forced legally to label their food products as GMO or even cloned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE

Soylent green labelling was somewhat lacking in raw ingredient information .

Monsanto's Roundup-Ready seeds were not created to reduce or eliminate the use of chemical products, they were genetically engineered to allow farmers to drench the crops with even higher levels of Roundup herbicide than they were already using. The seeds were designed to tolerate the use of Monsanto's Roundup, not just any herbicide. Monsanto wants to corner not only the herbicide market, but the food seed market.

Not only have farmers sprayed so much Roundup that the weeds have naturally developed resistance to it, scientists have discovered that this engineered resistance is being transferred (by way of horizontal gene transfer via pollen) to related weed plants. Now some weeds are resistant to many times the normal dose of Roundup. It can be compared to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics contributing to drug-resistant supergerms like MRSA.

In addition, our food crops contain far higher loads of the herbicide than they used to, as it is absorbed by the foliage and moved throughout the plant. Soybeans, in particular, are highly dependent on Roundup, so there is more Roundup in soy products than even the other Roundup-Ready crops.

"Putting the matter plainly", says Craig Holdrege of The Nature Institute, "when foreign genes are introduced into an organism, creating a transgenic organism ... the results for the organism and its environment are almost always unpredictable. The intended result may or may not be achieved in any given case, but the one almost sure thing is that unintended results - nontarget effects - will also be achieved." From Unintended Effects of Genetic Manipulation

Monsanto has been fighting to prevent/eliminate the labeling of GM produce and the use of GM products in your foods.

Sue

"...farmers sprayed so much Roundup that the weeds have naturally developed resistance to it..."

Plants do not develop resistance against anything.
They either carry the ability to cope against pests, diseases or herbicides within their genome or they don't.
Those that can withstand, say Roundup, will live when sprayed, those that do not, don't survive.

So, no development of resistance, only survival of the fittest.

"... no development of resistance, only survival of the fittest."

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Sue

Monsanto should stick to what they do best-Carpet,Agent orange,& Napalm,Still have a use for All 3 in this Millenium! I will be the 1st one to APOLOGIZE to ETS from this thread!I believe Martin hinted at it's closure,some posts back,but someone kept testing the perimeter,&poked thru,I guess.LETS BE AWARE PEOPLE !