<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Long-term study: GMOs lower fertility in mice]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Avelhingst http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/ Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:31:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/1 Well, duh.

Prez-elect Obama will have his work cut out for him if he is to choose folk to head these agencies that have not been co-opted by corporations plumping GMOs.  After all, as the article points out, funding for research in agriculture has been choked off, leaving academia to whore itself to the GMO dream.  Public-policy folk, too, live in a world that relies on corporate largesse, and the folks with the money are the folks with the patented seeds that can survive when exposed to their patented chemicals.
  I guess I'll stick with my tried and true motto: Local and wholesome makes you love longer.

]]> Well, duh.

Prez-elect Obama will have his work cut out for him if he is to choose folk to head these agencies that have not been co-opted by corporations plumping GMOs.  After all, as the article points out, funding for research in agriculture has been choked off, leaving academia to whore itself to the GMO dream.  Public-policy folk, too, live in a world that relies on corporate largesse, and the folks with the money are the folks with the patented seeds that can survive when exposed to their patented chemicals.
  I guess I'll stick with my tried and true motto: Local and wholesome makes you love longer.

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/ Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:13:22 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/2 Hmmm

GMO birth control?  An evil way to reduce human population?  It's a conspiracy!  

Of course the conspirators will only eat organic food. Corporate eugenics?

Mwhahaha.. hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Hmmm

GMO birth control?  An evil way to reduce human population?  It's a conspiracy!  

Of course the conspirators will only eat organic food. Corporate eugenics?

Mwhahaha.. hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #3 by bailsout http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/ Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:23:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/3 gmo-yes

Good technological news! At last a way to reduce the population. And I thought all technology was trying to keep people alive and create fertility drugs in efforts to keep us off the endangered species list.

]]> gmo-yes

Good technological news! At last a way to reduce the population. And I thought all technology was trying to keep people alive and create fertility drugs in efforts to keep us off the endangered species list.

]]> Comment #4 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/ Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:07:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/4 At Last!

Something good about genetic engineering.  Almost makes me want to stop opposing it.

]]> At Last!

Something good about genetic engineering.  Almost makes me want to stop opposing it.

]]> Comment #5 by Tom Philpott http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/ Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:54:43 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/5 Joking ... right?

I don't want to play the irony-challenged dolt; I assume Wolverine is joking here. But I'll add something anyway.

If GMOs lower birth rates, they probably don't achieve that effect in isolation. The human reproductive system links all manner of systems within our bodies; if GMOs harm the reproductive system, they're quite likely causing serious, undetected harm to the people who eat them. Moreover, since GMO plants -- currently covering tens of millions of acres in the midwest -- interact with ecoystems in numerous ways, the birth-rate evidence also presents a strong possibility that GMOs are harming ecosystems in as-yet detected ways. One can't help but think of bee-colony collapse.

So the birth-rate study should be seen as a proxy for how GMOs are affecting ecosytems -- in this case, the human one -- and not (and I don't think anyone here sees it that way) a clever way to reduce human population.

Victual Reality

]]> Joking ... right?

I don't want to play the irony-challenged dolt; I assume Wolverine is joking here. But I'll add something anyway.

If GMOs lower birth rates, they probably don't achieve that effect in isolation. The human reproductive system links all manner of systems within our bodies; if GMOs harm the reproductive system, they're quite likely causing serious, undetected harm to the people who eat them. Moreover, since GMO plants -- currently covering tens of millions of acres in the midwest -- interact with ecoystems in numerous ways, the birth-rate evidence also presents a strong possibility that GMOs are harming ecosystems in as-yet detected ways. One can't help but think of bee-colony collapse.

So the birth-rate study should be seen as a proxy for how GMOs are affecting ecosytems -- in this case, the human one -- and not (and I don't think anyone here sees it that way) a clever way to reduce human population.

Victual Reality

]]> Comment #6 by Tom Philpott http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/ Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:00:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/6 ... and southeast

I should have added that GMOs cover millions of acres in the southeast, too, mostly in the form of Roundup Ready cotton (which as been shown repeatedly to generate Roundup-resistant "superweeds": http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/14/9630/00762
).

Victual Reality


]]> ... and southeast

I should have added that GMOs cover millions of acres in the southeast, too, mostly in the form of Roundup Ready cotton (which as been shown repeatedly to generate Roundup-resistant "superweeds": http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/14/9630/00762
).

Victual Reality


]]> Comment #7 by cmello http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/ Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:52:02 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no/7 just as I suspected

The US really needs to stop accepting studies of drugs, pesticides, and GMOs from the companies that created them in the first place.  Before government approval of a new product is given,  studies need to be done by some independent agent.  Companies requesting approval should be required to fork up the money for the independent agent (selected by the government and with no ties to the requesting company) to study the product.  

Every milk carton I buy says "does not contain rBST" but also "rBST is safe."  Yet studies, not those done by the rBST company nor by the dairy industry, have proved rBST is not safe for either treated cows or people who drink milk from treated cows.

We have to stop the fox from guarding the chicken house.

cmello

]]> just as I suspected

The US really needs to stop accepting studies of drugs, pesticides, and GMOs from the companies that created them in the first place.  Before government approval of a new product is given,  studies need to be done by some independent agent.  Companies requesting approval should be required to fork up the money for the independent agent (selected by the government and with no ties to the requesting company) to study the product.  

Every milk carton I buy says "does not contain rBST" but also "rBST is safe."  Yet studies, not those done by the rBST company nor by the dairy industry, have proved rBST is not safe for either treated cows or people who drink milk from treated cows.

We have to stop the fox from guarding the chicken house.

cmello

]]>