Genetically Modified Crops Proven to Cause Infertility in Fourth Generation

Genetically Modified Crops Proven to Cause Infertility in Fourth Generation

"One of the great benefits of genetically modified crops is that all the bozos who eat mainstream processed foods made from them are removing their offspring from the human gene pool. That's because GM crops have been proven to cause infertility after three or four generations.

And that means the consumption of GM foods is a ticking time bomb for the genetic sustainability of gullible mainstream consumers who eat GM foods, take Big Pharma's medicines, use sunscreen products, buy antibacterial soaps and get their kids vaccinated."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000516_infertility_GM_foods_gene_pool.html#ixzz22oaOnXfR

 

hey if that happens, it happens. People will simply evolve to no longer be vulnerable to the anti-fertility affects of these things over time, if this crap you're talking about is even true.

 

I'm pretty sure the idea here is that because GM foods can cause infertility, that will somehow wipe out the human race or make it less able to replenish it's numbers. Therefore, we should ban GM foods, and make sure that mass starvation occurs due to food not having the natural genetic capacity to feed ump-teen billions of people.

"If we don't kill them..they'll DIE!!!"

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing annoying.

 

The question you're not asking is why, would they engineer them specifically to cause infertility, do you think...... And isn't it funny that Monsanto BioEngineers refuse to eat the GMO foods that they created. Very telling.

Would you choose GMO foods over non-GMO foods?

 

I'm talking on a more personal level here. I would rather not eat GMO thank you. You?

 

I'd rather grow my own food. Too bad Big Farm (aided by the government) makes that as hard as possibly can be.

 

Depends on whether non-GM food is actually affordable for someone who is..not rich, like myself and everyone else these days other than Mitt Romney and the like

 

The study certainly raises cause for concern but it does justify the hate-filled rant from the natural news hack. He sounds like he's only a couple of steps from helping mother nature along a little. This subject deserves intelligent debate, not rhetoric.

 

Missed the edit window - that should have been "but it doesn't justify" of course.

 

Many of those on the political left strongly oppose genetically modified foods, and worry that the genetically modified genes could irreversibly spread to natural strains of crops through cross-pollination. Several studies have noted the unintended spread of genetically modified crops to adjacent fields. The danger is that the inclusion of genetically modifed genes into the wider plant species may be irreversible, and the gene spreading may go on without anyone noticing. Opponents of genetically modified foods worry about unintended consequences. Despite most people being against GM foods (see note*), as of the year 2000, approximately 54% of all soybeans grown in the USA were genetically modified, compared with only 7% of soybeans in 1996. Most americans are not aware they are eating soybeans. Soybean oil is the main compenent in most american "vegetable" oils used for cooking. Most chocholates sold also contain soybean oil (read the small print ingredients). 45% of all corn grown in the USA is genetically modified.

One study found that 27% of Australians look at the labels in the grocery store to see if it contains genetically modified food. A poll by biotech and pharmaceutical giant Novartis released in February 1997 found 54% of American consumers stating that they would prefer to see chemical-intensive agriculture move toward organic production. In the same poll 93% said that genetically engineered foods should be labeled, with 73% indicating that they felt "strongly" about this. In a study done by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, 52% of americans consumers said they would choose a product labeled "does not contain genetically engineered ingredients" over a product labeled, "contains genetically engineered ingredient". Americans felt so strongly about labeling GM foods that 28% of them said they would still want all geneticall engineered products to be labeled even if it added an additional $50 per year to their family’s cost of food!

Here's another little irony...
It sure is interesting that these same people, who worry about contamination from genetically modified crops, are not concerned about the same type of phenomena in humans. But unlike with GM crops, we cannot simply recall tainted products, or burn fields that have been contaminated by cross pollination with GM crops. And if you think different races of human are a completely different thing from GM crops, you might read on...

Outbreeding depression refers to cases where offspring from crosses between two different different populations have a lower level of fitness than offspring from crosses between individuals from the same population.

One of the ways that outbreeding depression can occur is by the breakdown of biochemical or physiological compatibilities between genes in the different breeding populations. Within local, isolated breeding populations, alleles are selected for their positive, overall effects in complementary combination with other specific alleles. Due to nonadditive gene action, the same genes may have rather different effects in different genetic backgrounds--hence, the potential evolution of locally coadapted gene complexes.

These effects can be observed in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). While actually a single species, switchgrass comes in many different varieties, with striking differences between the different types. This genetic diversity reflects the divergent evolution and adaptation to a wide range of different environments. The different varieties of switchgrass can generally be grouped into two distinct forms: the lowland cultivars and the upland cultivars.

The lowland variety tends to produce more biomass, and grow up to 2.7 meters high in favorable environments. The upland variety is generally of more northern origin, and is more cold-tolerant. Upland switchgrass types are generally shorter, less than 2.4 meters in height, and less coarse than lowland types. The upland types tend to have more vigorous rhizomes so they tend to be more sod-forming, whereas the the lowland cultivars may appear to have a bunchgrass habit. Lowland cultivars appear more plastic in their morphology, produce larger plants if stands become thin or when planted in wide rows, and they seem to be more sensitive to moisture stress than upland cultivars.

Two different studies mention potential negetive effects on native varieties on switchgrass caused by outbreeding depression, which could be a cause for concern.

"Gene flow matters in switchgrass, a potential widespread biofuel feedstock", Charles Kwit, C. Neal Stewart. Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee; and BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

"The potential for genetic pollution has been investigated in switchgrass..."
"Appropriate Use of Genetic Manipulation for the Development of Restoration Plant Materials", T. A. Jones, J. G. Robins, Progress in Botany, Volume 72, Part 5, p 249-264, 2011

If you read about the phenomena of population depression, you will realise it is the explanation for what is happening here. It can take several sucessive generations after the initial genetic pollution for the effects of population depression to be realised. As the genes get more and more mixed, there becomes more and more problems.

 

Back in 1999, a story by the UK press Independent reported:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...en-737948.html
...that Monsanto employees don't eat their very own GM (genetically modified) foods, in their High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire UK facility.

Of the 1999 article, Greenpeace locked on to the news story, reportedly exposed by Friends of the Earth, was subsequently spread by the local and international media.
(no reference found on the FoE site)

"The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize 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."
The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group......not their employers, Monsanto.
That UK facility is now closed

That was 1999...more on that later. ***

But let's look at the facts as described by the initial story.....
1) One Monsanto facility, in the UK, in 1999
2) The decision was posted by a contracted caterer, employed by Monsanto.
3) This story was never confirmed. (denied later)

Lately, the current anti-GMO activists have renewed (recycled) this story----- http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/eat-it-up-monsanto/blog/39002/

Now it is quite popular that the kindergarten school-game of "The Telephone Game", or Chinese_whispers is inadvertently played here on the net.

So now in 2012 we see the story reported as :
-- all Monsanto's facilities practice this non-GM diet
-- is a great juxtaposition of company values, exposing the real threat of GMO's
-- even the Monsanto employees won't eat GMO's


There's a story doing the rounds again, about how Monsanto, one of the world’s largest profiteers of genetically engineered (GE) food, banned GE food from its own corporate canteens!
(notice the plural, "canteens")
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread805525/pg1

Here is a rebuttal of that initial story...
http://monsantoblog.com/2012/02/10/w...os-cafeterias/

Flash forward 13 years. Greenpeace, always interested in recycling, recycles this 1999 news story. People get excited, and tweet it as a current story.
The fact is, it wasn’t true in 1999, and it’s not true today.
All foods can be found in Monsanto cafeterias – conventional and organic. None of it is singled out as conventional or organic. It’s just food served in our cafeterias, the same food that everyone else eats.

In fact, the only time any food was removed from Monsanto cafeterias was a few years back, when a produce company announced a voluntary recall of spinach because of possible E. coli contamination. We remember it because spinach leaves suddenly disappeared from our salad bars.
...yes, that was from a Monsanto blog. I feel like employees have a right to defend themselves, and to attempt to expose the truth.
http://monsantoblog.com/2011/01/24/%...E2%80%9D-what/
http://monsantoblog.com/2011/01/24/%...E2%80%9D-what/
http://monsantoblog.com/2009/07/06/i-am-monsanto/

*** OK, back to 1999 in the UK, when the original news article was written, and the claims issued....
Yes, the GMO issue in the UK and the EU was hot then.
In fact, in 1999, the UK parliament banned GM foods from their work-supplied meals and resturants...
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/report138.pdf
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/fo171299.txt

...and the 1999 public in the UK was also very unsure of GM foods....so why wouldn't an independent catering company (who happened to also worked for Monsanto) have and share the current public outcry for "testing before serving" ?? After all, as an independent catering company (not only serving to Monsanto), their reputation is based on their actions. Those actions would surely reflect upon their other catering jobs, outside of Monsanto.
It's not too hard to imagine that they may have took a small amount of pride, in beating down the giant (GMO = Monsanto) by offering only non-GM food, to a GM giant. This is of course my own guess, and I have found no data to back-up that guess. But as a cook, and who has friends as caterers, I know their "healthy goal". Healthy is part of their business attraction, otherwise people would not hire them, they'd hire deep-fry chefs.

 

Everything we eat is genetically modified. The plants have been bred over the years for any number of characteristics. Same with animals. So you must be talking about food that was genetically modified in a laboratory rather than by selective breeding in the field.

I'm trying to get my head around the concept that a dead plant or a dead animal can cause a genetic change in a person eating it. We simply digest the stuff. The fact that corn fed mice had a decline in fertility could be due to the GM corn having less nutritional value for a lab mouse than the other corn. It isn't necessarily changing the genome of the mice nor is it necessarily applicable to humans. This reminds me of the climate change thing. Scientists have a tendency sometimes to engineer test results to suit their political biases.

 

So the farmers have to repurchase new seeds every year. God (*)(*)(*)(*) you liberals are dumb.

 

lol. You think I am a Liberal?

 

Then I would suggest you find out more on the subject, then try wrapping your head around it. I'm saying this to you will all due respect.

 

Ok, but then why is Monsanto spending millions on outlawing the simple labeling of GMO products?

 

took years and years for the south to accept that they were eating a bad diet and killing their own people, they actually attack the those from the north telling them it was their diet

.

 

same with pink slim and hot dogs, I doubt if you made em... you would be able to eat em

not all genetically modified food is bad, but some may be and future research is always needed, research not preformed by the corps selling the stuff


.

 

It's true but you can Go back to sleep if you feel otherwise.

 

does the word Organic ring a bell with you at all?

the human body is not designed to digest ANY animal products from meat to milk, but in our ignorane as mankind, we eat it anyway, then create an aftermarket of butchershops and med labs to feed us concocted concoctions in hopes that will cure what is killing us. when all we have to do is realize that it's the FOOD that's killing us.

Time to go back being Vegan like were created to be, like Adam and Eve were

class dismissed people.

 

Don't ge me wrong, I love a good Rib-Eye!!! I would just prefer it if the mad scientists would stop feeding the cows brain matter and steroids.

 

Of course. Different thing. "organic" means free of harmful chemicals. That is not genetics. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

That's an opinion. The medical community would describe us as omnivores. If you wish to describe us as herbivores, you can do so but don't try to make the opinion sound like fact. It isn't fact.

 

I do not understand how eating a GMO can have an effect on my genetics. I understand that chemicals such as 2-4-D and other pesticides and herbicides could have an effect but not GMO's. I may need to be schooled.

And when it comes to livestock, out breeding is usually prefered. Line breeding causes the genetic "weaknesses" to concentrate. Hybrid vigor is the result of breeding non related livestock. It is also used for plants to improve heat resistance, drought tolerance, and other things.


I grow a lot of my own food. I raise pigs, cattle, and chickens mostly. I also raise my own vegetables and i am begining to raise my own feed for my livestock.

I am seriously considering flint corn for feed next year. I have just begun to raise sweet sorghum. It takes floods and drought real well.


I hate Monsanto...and I am not real fond of Purina either.

 

Will you be growing food with GMO seeds?

 

No, i don't think so.

That is why i am considering flint corn. GM corn does not put weight on pigs as fast as non GM corn.

I raise cowpeas instead of soy.

I have found that if you get away from the stuff they sell for animal feed you get much better flavor in the meat.

But don't get me wrong I do not grow organic....those stinkin little fire ants!!!!!