Horomones used in beef and milk production.

[Sir Kenyth]

I've seen a lot of discussions that include this topic, but none that address it directly. I want to impart some knowledge I have on this subject and maybe get a few facts or ideas I've missed along the way. The hype is that all these stimulating drugs (steroids) used in dairy and beef production are altering our endocrine system and causing early and excessive growth and maturity in adolescents, particularly in girls. So tell me, what do you guys know about this? This is what I know and my opinion(s) based from it.

Horomones in beef and milk are present. That's a fact. If these horomones were injected directly into the body they would have a significant impact, but they're not. They are destroyed by the digestive processes. After the stomach, the small intestine and all the enzymes involved with them, the next stop is the liver. All the blood that absorbs nutrients from the digestive tract go through the liver. The liver is especially adept at breaking down horomones, which are constantly produced by the body's glands. That's it's job. The point is, no ingested horomones survive the process. How do we know this? Drug manufacturers have been trying to get by this fact for oral steroid delivery methods for years. Oral delivered steroids have to be chemically modified to survive the liver on the first pass after the digestive tract. This is very hard on the organ and produces some toxic by-products. That's why excessive oral anabolic steroid use is so hard on the liver and can cause cirrhosis.

The last I learned from the discovery channel, the maturing process in adolescents is affected by food consumption in general. Large quantities of high energy food stimulate growth and maturing. Girls seem particularly susceptible to this. Body fat levels seem to have a strong link to growth spurts during puberty. I personally think that the rapid growth and early development are a natural reaction of the body to an abundance of food and energy to fuel it. In nature, the quicker someone is ready to reproduce, the more successful they'll be. They'll have more offspring and have them sooner. Food is an anabolic (growth) stimulant. You can't grow without it, and the more you have of it, the more you can potentially grow. Actual growth depends upon steroid levels and types, but also upon the abundance of food to fuel growth!

Another thought. Horomones are all based on cholesterol and cholesterol levels rise when food high in fat is eaten. Perhaps this is an unnatural contributing factor. I don't know.

Well, that's what I know. What do you think?

[ 06-23-2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

[Timber Loftis]

I think I'll just stick to soy milk as my main source for GM'ed Frankenfoods.

[IronDragon]

The last I learned from the discovery channel, the maturing process in adolescents is affected by food consumption in general. Large quantities of high energy food stimulate growth and maturing. Girls seem particularly susceptible to this. Body fat levels seem to have a strong link to growth spurts during puberty.

Three observations on this bit of garbage:
1) From the Vegetarian Times: Children eating an excessively organic diet enter puberty significantly later than those children eating a diet high in beef and cow’s milk treated with growth hormones.

2) Children living in countries that ban hormone laden milk and animal products also do not enter puberty at early ages despite the high quality and variety of their diet.

3) If this had any barring on the matter then obese children would be entering puberty markedly sooner than non-obese children. And in case your wondering obesity tends to retard the maturation process slightly.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: The last I learned from the discovery channel, the maturing process in adolescents is affected by food consumption in general. Large quantities of high energy food stimulate growth and maturing. Girls seem particularly susceptible to this. Body fat levels seem to have a strong link to growth spurts during puberty.

Three observations on this bit of garbage:
1) From the Vegetarian Times: Children eating an excessively organic diet enter puberty significantly later than those children eating a diet high in beef and cow’s milk treated with growth hormones.

2) Children living in countries that ban hormone laden milk and animal products also do not enter puberty at early ages despite the high quality and variety of their diet.

3) If this had any barring on the matter then obese children would be entering puberty markedly sooner than non-obese children. And in case your wondering obesity tends to retard the maturation process slightly. [/QUOTE]Finally! Someone knowledgable! Before I get into this, let me say that I'm not putting down vegan diet practices. When properly implemented, they are extremely healthy and are conducive to maintaining proper body fat and living a long life free from coronary disease. I'm trying to put across the point that I don't believe the GM hype and prove that it's wrong.

IronDragon, your reply seems to come mostly from statistics analysis in the Vegitarian Times. I personally don't like statistics much. They beg to be twisted and interpreted in various ways.

Here's an example.

1. Organic diets tend to be significantly lower in both animal protein and fat, so that data could be said to support both points. Animal proteins have been a vital part of the human diet since long before written history. Our bodies are designed to get protein primarily from animal sources, like it or not.

2. I honestly don't know. This statement is kind of general and hard to argue. What countries? Are their diets sufficiently like ours?

3. This could also be interpreted to support both points. Obese children should be consuming more milk and beef products if their obesity in not a disease or related to an abnormal metabolism, right? Therefore their increased exposure to the horomone contaminated food should make the symptoms worse, right? Obesity just isn't statistically viable. Other health problems tend to accompany it, skewing results.


I tend to not like statistical data as "proof" of anything. Statistics are good pointers if analyzed objectively. Unfortunately, they rarely are. I base my opinions more on the fact that if drug developers can't get horomones to survive the digestive process in high concentrations, why would they survive in the much lower concentrations found in beef and milk products? Orally delivered horomones have to be chemically altered to survive enzymes. In this state, they are not truly horomones until they contact the enzyme and are altered by it. You didn't address this at all in your response.

My question to you would be this. How do the horomones found in the beef and milk products survive the digestive process?

[WillowIX]

OK my problem with hormones isn't the effect on humans. Rather it is the effect on animals. A 2 week old chicken shouldn't weigh 4 pounds and not being able to move. It's that simple. Adding hormones to promote growth until the chickens break their legs is inhuman and awful.

As for the human body breaking down all hormones, that isn't true. The human body is not able to catabolize all the hormones it synthesizes by itself. Therefore an added amount can creat an unbalance in the human body. Several hormone are created from cholesterol which the body can't break down. So not all hormones are being catabolized.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by WillowIX: OK my problem with hormones isn't the effect on humans. Rather it is the effect on animals. A 2 week old chicken shouldn't weigh 4 pounds and not being able to move. It's that simple. Adding hormones to promote growth until the chickens break their legs is inhuman and awful. As for the human body breaking down all hormones, that isn't true. The human body is not able to catabolize all the hormones it synthesizes by itself. Therefore an added amount can creat an unbalance in the human body. Several hormone are created from cholesterol which the body can't break down. So not all hormones are being catabolized.

Interesting! Which one's? Are they growth related? Would they survive the digestive processes in significant quantities?

What about these overgrown chickens? I hadn't heard or read about that. Do you have a link or something? I know that domestic chickens haven't been able to fly properly for hundreds of years now because of the way they're bred for size. They can only fly short distances.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Interesting! Which one's? Are they growth related? Would they survive the digestive processes in significant quantities? Definitely so. Sex hormones use cholesterol as building block. I'd call them growth related wouldn't you? All steroid hormones are derived from cholesterol. Cortisol is another one and that too is related to growth. The nice part about animal hormones is that they are able to promote cancers in humans (for info try here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed you should be able to find some articles there, hopefully [img]smile.gif[/img] ). So there is definitely the possibility for hormones to pass over to humans. Noted your last question. Cholesterol can not be catabolized by the human body period. Instead we have other means to get rid off it (bile salts for instance). What about these overgrown chickens? I hadn't heard or read about that. Do you have a link or something? I know that domestic chickens haven't been able to fly properly for hundreds of years now because of the way they're bred for size. They can only fly short distances.Go to your local super market or any food store and pick up a broiler. It's not a domestic chicken. It's a chicken bread for quick and easy food. That's its sole purpose. Do a google on broilers and you should have plenty of sites with information. I'd stay away from the vegetarian ones though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry about answering within the quote. It was easier that way. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-24-2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Interesting! Which one's? Are they growth related? Would they survive the digestive processes in significant quantities? Definitely so. Sex hormones use cholesterol as building block. I'd call them growth related wouldn't you? All steroid hormones are derived from cholesterol. Cortisol is another one and that too is related to growth. The nice part about animal hormones is that they are able to promote cancers in humans (for info try here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed you should be able to find some articles there, hopefully [img]smile.gif[/img] ). So there is definitely the possibility for hormones to pass over to humans. Noted your last question. Cholesterol can not be catabolized by the human body period. Instead we have other means to get rid off it (bile salts for instance).

[/QUOTE]I have conflicting information then. The cholesterol cannot be destroyed, but the sex horomones built on cholesterol surely can. I recall an experiment where a rat liver sucessfully processed many times the natural amount of testosterone found in the male human body and was not stressed. The human liver should be able to handle any anabolic horomones found in our diet without breaking a sweat. I'm not as sure about stress horomones, such as cortisol. Dealing with dietary horomones would have to be built into any carniverous or omniverous animals digestive system. If horomones can pass the digestive tract, then why can't steroid treatments be taken orally without being chemically modified to survive the digestive system?

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: I have conflicting information then. The cholesterol cannot be destroyed, but the sex horomones built on cholesterol surely can. I recall an experiment where a rat liver sucessfully processed many times the natural amount of testosterone found in the male human body and was not stressed. The human liver should be able to handle any anabolic horomones found in our diet without breaking a sweat. I'm not as sure about stress horomones, such as cortisol. Dealing with dietary horomones would have to be built into any carniverous or omniverous animals digestive system. If horomones can pass the digestive tract, then why can't steroid treatments be taken orally without being chemically modified to survive the digestive system?

I answered your PM and hopefully the link in that will work. The reason for your lack of success in the search area is that it's called hormones not horomones. Steroid treatments are not modified for passing through the digestive tract per se. What you want is a drug that does not effect the body until it has found it's target. Therefore you can add a chemical bond that isn't broken until it has entered the blood and has encountered a certain enzyme. Very cool. Chemical modification is also used to relieve the body from side effects such as ulcers etc. Just because a drug is chemically modified doesn't mean it can't pass the digestive tract.

[Timber Loftis]

On Willow's animal cruelty point, I'd offer to send you a copy of my "Eggribusiness" video, but you'd hate me for it. This thread sent me scouring for a good summary of the issues with GM foods. I found this information, for what it's worth. The way in which these hormones can affect us is addressed, but more importantly other side effects (such as the fact rBGH cows require more antibiotics to keep udder infection away) are also addressed. It goes on to deal with Environmental, Farming, and Market Control (e.g. terminator gene) issues. Regarding the GM animals, do a text search of the info for "superpig." One of my favorite bones is also mentioned -- Roundup-Ready Weeds and Superweeds (do a text search for BT endotoxin). Hope this helps.

The source looks okay, but is apparently linked to this alternative health consultant. So, to the extent the article states facts that are useful, enjoy. But, don't go waving the source in my face, because I have fully disclosed all. [img]graemlins/deal.gif[/img]
__________________________________________________ __________
HEALTH

Deaths and Near-Deaths

Recorded Deaths from GM In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement – L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japan’s third largest chemical company. (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).
Near-deaths from Allergic Reactions In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they go into apoplectic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Animal tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. "The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate," writes Marion Nestle, head of the Nutrition Department of NYU in an editorial to the New England Journal of Medicine. About 25% of Americans have adverse reactions to foods. 8% of children and 2% of adults have food allergies as tested by blood immunoglobins.

Cancer and Other Degenerative Ailments

Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows – even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1, a
potent chemical hormone, is linked to 400-500% higher risks of human breast, prostrate, and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, it "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Rat studies confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage with rBGH ingestion. In fact, the FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 46% - a sign of developing leukemia. The contention was that the hormone was killed by pasteurization. But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continues to market this product in the US. Part of the reason may be that the policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine…. and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk - and by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent. Michael Taylor, Esq. was the executive assistant to the director of the FDA. He drafted the Delaney Amendment that allowed for the minimizing of cancer risk and was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently again became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA. Several other GM approved products involve herbicides that are commonly known carcinogens - bromoxynil used on transgenic cotton and Monsanto's Roundup or glufonsinate used on GM soybeans, corn, and canola. Furthermore and according to researcher Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops.


Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates The twentieth century saw an incremental lowering of infectious disease rates – especially where a single bacteria was overcome by an antibiotic– but a simultaneous rise in systemic, whole body or immune system breakdowns - such as with cancer. Cancer is affected by the overall polluted state of our environment - including in the air, water, and food we take in. There are unimaginably many combinations for the 100,000 or so chemicals released into the environment. The real impact cannot be revealed by a handful of stringent experiments that isolate just a few controlled factors or chemicals at a time. Rather all of nature is a testing ground. Scientists a few years ago were startled that a random combination of chemicals (mostly pesticides) caused a 1000 times more cancer than the sum of the individual chemicals indicated in separate tests. More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves. Similarly, there is the potential, with entirely new ways of rearranging the natural order - with genetic mutations - that such non-traceable influences can also cause cancer. We definitively know X-rays and chemicals cause genetic mutations, and mutagenic changes are behind many higher cancer rates - where cells duplicate out of control. If nothing else, this should make us extremely cautious. In the US in the year 1900 cancer affected approximately 1 out 11 individuals. It now inflicts 1 out of 2 men, and 1 out of 3 women in their lifetime. These rates relentlessly shot upward throughout the twentieth century.


Viral and Bacterial Illness

Superviruses Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruses – and at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just 8 weeks (Kleiner, 1997). This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering - in Round Up ready soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola. It is a kind of "pararetrovirus" or what multiplies by making DNA from RNA. It is somewhat similar to Hepatitis B and HIV viruses and can pose immense dangers. In a Canadian study, a plant was infected with a crippled cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene needed for movement between plant cells. Within less than two weeks, the crippled plant found what it needed from neighboring genes - as evidence of gene mixing. This is significant because genes that cause diseases are often crippled to make the end product "safe." Results of this kind led the US Department of Agriculture to hold a meeting in October of 1997 to discuss the risks and dangers of gene mixing and superviruses, but no regulatory action was taken.


Antibiotic Threat – Via Milk Cows injected with rBGH have a much higher level of udder infections and require more antibiotics. This leaves unacceptable levels of antibiotic residues in the milk. Scientists have warned of public health hazards due to growing antibiotic resistance.


Antibiotic Threat – Via Plants Much of genetic implantation uses a marker to track where the gene goes into the cell. GM maize plants use an ampicillin resistant gene. In 1998, the British Royal Society called for the banning of
this marker as it threatens a vital antibiotic’s use. The resistant qualities of GM bacteria in food can be transferred to other bacteria in the environment and throughout the human body.

Resurgence of Infectious Diseases The Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease journal reported in 1998 that gene technology may be implicated in the resurgence of infectious diseases. This occurs in multiple ways. There is growing resistance to antibiotics misused in bioengineering, the formation of new and unknown viral strains, and the lowering of immunity through diets of processed and altered foods. There is also the horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA among bacteria. Several studies have shown bacteria of the mouth, pharynx and intestines can take up the transgenic DNA in the feed of animals, which in turn can be passed on to humans. This threatens the hallmark accomplishment of the twentieth century - the reduction in infectious diseases that critically helped the doubling of life expectancy.


Allergies

Increased Food Allergies The loss of biodiversity in our food supply has grown in parallel with the increase in food allergies. This can be explained as follows. The human body is not a machine-like "something" that can be fed
assembly line, carbon copy foods. We eat for nourishment and vitality. What is alive interacts or changes with its environment. Unnatural sameness - required

for patenting of genetic foods - are "dead" qualities. Frequently foods we eat and crave are precisely those testing positive for food allergies. Cells in our body recognize this lack of vitality, producing antibodies and white cells in response. This is analogous to our brain's cells recognizing and rejecting mechanically repeated thoughts - or thinking "like a broken record." Intuitively our body cells and the overall immune system seems to reject excess homogeneity.


Birth Defects, Toxicity, and Lowered Nutrition

Birth Defects and Shorter Life Spans As we ingest transgenic human/ animal products there is no real telling of the impact on human evolution. We know that rBGh in cows causes a rapid increase in birth defects and shorter life spans.

Interior Toxins "Pesticidal foods" have genes that produce a toxic pesticide inside the food’s cells. This represents the first time "cell-interior toxicity" is being sold for human consumption. There is little knowledge of the potential long-term health impacts.
Lowered Nutrition A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food (Dr. Marc Lappe, 1999) showed that certain GM foods have lower levels of vital nutrients – especially phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect the body from heart disease and cancer. In another study of GM Vica Faba, a bean in the same family as soy, there was also an increase in estrogen levels, what raises health issues - especially in infant soy formulas. Milk from cows with rBGH contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat. Monsanto's analysis of glyphosate-resistant soya showed the GM-line contained 28% more Kunitz-trypsin inhibitor, a known anti-nutrient and allergen.


General

No Regulated Health Safety Testing The FDA only requests of firms that they conduct their own tests of new GM products in what Vice President Quale back in 1992 referred to as a "regulatory relief program." The FDA makes no review of those tests unless voluntarily requested by the company producing the product. Companies present their internal company records of tests showing a product is safe - essentially having the "fox oversee the chicken coup." As Louis J. Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist explained, companies tailor tests to get the results they need. They further relinquish responsibility as Pjil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications expressed it "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech foods. Our interest is in selling…Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." But the FDA has not assumed the responsibility. Essentially it is "like playing Russian roulette with public health," says Philip J. Regal, a biologist at the University of Minnesota. In his contacts with the FDA, he noted that in the policy of helping the biotech industry grow "government scientist after scientist acknowledged there was no way to assure the health safety of genetically engineered food… [yet] society was going to have to bear an unavoidable measure of risk." The situation was summarized by Richard Steinbrecher, a geneticist working for the Women's Environmental Network "To use genetic engineering to manipulate plants, release them into the environment and introduce them into our food chains is scientifically premature, unsafe and irresponsible."


Unnatural Foods Recently, Monsanto announced it had found "unexpected gene fragments in their Roundup Ready soybeans. It is well known that modified proteins exist in GE foods, new proteins never before eaten by
humanity. In 1992, Dr. Louis J. Pribyl of the FDA’s Microbiology Group warned (in an internal memo uncovered in a lawsuit filed) that there is " a profound difference between the types of expected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering." He also addressed industry claims of no "pleiotropic" (unintended and/or uncontrolled) effects. This was the basis for the industry position that GM foods are "equivalent" to regular foods, thus requiring no testing or regulation. "Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically
engineered plants…at frequencies of 30%…increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g. pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations in the level of nutrients may escape breeders' attention unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes." Other scientists within the FDA echoed this view - and in contrast to the agency's official position. For example, James Marayanski, manager of the FDA’s Biotechnology Working Group warned that there was a lack of consensus among the FDA’s scientists as to the so-called "sameness" of GM foods

compared to non-GM foods. The reason why this is such an important issue is that Congress mandated the FDA to require labeling when there is "something tangibly different about the food that is material with respect to the consequences which may result from the use of the food."

Radical Change in Diet Humanity has evolved for thousands of years by adapting gradually to its natural environment - including nature's foods. Within just three years a fundamental transformation of the human diet has occurred. This was made possible by massive consolidations among agri-business. Ten companies now own about 40% of all US seed production and sales. The Biotech industry especially targeted two of the most commonly eaten and lucrative ingredients in processed foods - corn and soy. Monsanto and Novaris, through consolidations, became the second and third largest seed companies in the world. They also purchased related agricultural businesses to
further monopolize soy and corn production. Again within three years, the majority of soybeans and one third of all corn in the US are now grown with seeds mandated by the biotech firms. Also 60% of all hard cheeses in the US are processed with a GM enzyme. A percentage of baking and brewery products are GM modified as well. Most all of US cotton production (where cotton oil is used in foods) is bioengineered. Wheat and rice are next in line. In 2002, Monsanto plans to introduce a "Roundup" (the name of its leading herbicide) resistant wheat strain. The current result is that approximately two-thirds of all processed foods in the US already contain GM ingredients – and this is projected to rise to 90% within four years according to industry claims. In short, the human diet, from almost every front, is being radically changed - with little or no knowledge of the long-term health or environmental impacts.


ENVIRONMENT

"Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers."

David Ehrenfield: Professor of Biology, Rutgers University


ENVIRONMENT

General Soil Impact

Toxicity to Soil The industry marketing pitch to the public is that bioengineered seeds and plants will help the environment by reducing toxic herbicide/pesticide use. Isolated examples are given, but the overall reality is exactly opposite. The majority of GM agricultural products are developed specifically for toxin-resistance - namely for higher doses of herbicides/ pesticides sold by the largest producer companies – Monsanto, Dupont Novaris, Dow, Bayer, Ciba-Geigy, Hoescht, AgroEvo, and Rhone-Poulenc. Also the majority of research for future products involves transgenic strains for increased chemical resistance. Not to be fooled, the primary intent is to sell more, not less of their products and to circumvent patent laws. According to an article by R.J. Goldburg scientists predict herbicide use will triple as a result of GM products. As an example of the feverish attempt to expand herbicide use, Monsanto's patent for Roundup was scheduled to expire. Not to lose their market share, Monsanto came up with the idea of creating "Roundup Ready" seeds. It bought out seed companies to monopolize the terrain - then licensing the seeds to farmers with the requirement that they continue buying Roundup past the expiration of the patent. These contracts had stiff financial penalties if farmers used any other herbicide. As early as 1996, the investment report of Dain Boswell on changes in the seed industry reported that Monsanto's billion dollar plus acquisition of Holden Seeds ( about 1/3rd of US corn seeds) had "very little to do with Holden as a seed company and a lot to do with the battle between the chemical giants for future sales of herbicides and insecticides." Also as revealed in corporate interviews conducted by Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey (authors of Against the Grain - Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of your Food), the explicit aim was to control 100% of US soy seeds by the year 2000 only to continue to sell Roundup - or to beat their patent's expiration. In fact in 1996, about 5000 acres were planted with Roundup Ready soy seeds when Roundup sales accounted for 17% of Monsanto's $9 billion in annual sales. Not to lose this share but to expand it, Monsanto saw to it that by 1999, 5000 acres grew to
approximately 40 million acres out of a total of 60 million - or the majority of all soy plantings in the United States. Furthermore, Roundup could now be spayed over an entire field, not just sparingly over certain weeds. However, the problem with evolving only genetically cloned and thus carbon-copy seeds and plants is that historically, extreme monoculture (high levels of sameness in crop planting) has led to a loss of adaptive survival means - or where deadly plant infections have spread like wildfire. As a separate issue, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Monsanto’s Roundout already threatens 74 endangered species in the United States. It attacks photosynthesis in plants non-specifically - their quintessential, life-giving way to process sunlight. Farmers sowing Roundup Ready seeds can also use more of this herbicide than with conventional weed management. Since the genetically modified plants have alternative ways to create photosynthesis, they are hyper-tolerant, and can thus be sprayed repeatedly without killing the crop. Though decaying in the soil, Roundup residues are left on the plant en route to the consumer. Malcolm Kane, (former head of food safety for Sainsbury’s chain of supermarkets) revealed that the government, to accommodate Monsanto, raised pesticide residue limits on soy products about 300-fold from 6 parts per million to 20 parts. Lastly Roundup is a human as well as environmental poison. According to a study at the University of California, glyphosphate (the active ingredient of Roundup) was the third leading cause of farm worker illnesses. At least fourteen persons have died from ingesting Roundup. These cases involved mostly individuals intentionally taking this poison to commit suicide in Japan and Taiwan. From this we know that the killing dose is so small it can be put on a finger tip (0.4 cubic centimeters). Monsanto, however, proposes a universal distribution of this lethal substance in our food chain. All of this is not shocking, given Monsanto's history - being the company that first distributed PCBs and vouched for their safety.

Soil Sterility and Pollution In Oregon, scientists found GM bacterium
(klebsiella planticola) meant to break down wood chips, corn stalks and lumber wastes to produce ethanol - with the post-process waste to be used as compost - rendered the soil sterile. It killed essential soil nutrients, robbing the soil of nitrogen and killed nitrogen capturing fungi. A similar result was found in 1997 with the GM bacteria Rhizobium melitoli. Professor Guenther Stotzky of

New York University conducted research showing the toxins that were lethal to Monarch butterfly are also released by the roots to produce soil pollution. The pollution was found to last up to 8 months with depressed microbial activity. An Oregon study showed that GM soil microbes in the lab killed wheat plants when added to the soil.

Seeds

Extinction of Seed Varieties A few years ago Time magazine referred to the massive trend by large corporations to buy up small seed companies,
destroying any competing stock, and replacing it with their patented or controlled brands as "the Death of Birth." Monsanto additionally has had farmers sign contracts not to save their seeds - forfeiting what has long been a farmer's birthright to remain guardians of the blueprints of successive life.


Plants

Superweeds It has been shown that genetically modified Bt endotoxin remains in the soil at least 18 months (according to Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey) and can be transported to wild plants creating superweeds - resistant to butterfly, moth, and beetle pests – potentially disturbing the balance of nature. A study in Denmark (Mikkelsen, 1996) and in the UK (National Institute of Agricultural Botany) showed superweeds growing nearby in just one generation. A US study showed the superweed resistant to glufosinate to be just as fertile as non-polluted weeds. Another study showed 20 times more genetic leakage with GM plants – or a dramatic increase in the flow of genes to outside species. Also in a UK study by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, it was confirmed that superweeds could grow nearby in just one generation. Scientists suspect that Monsanto’s wheat will hybridize with goat
grass, creating an invulnerable superweed. The National Academy of Science's study stated that " concern surrounds the possibility of genes for resisting pests being passed from cultivated plants to their weedy relatives, potentially making the weed problem worse. This could pose a high cost to farmers and threaten the ecosystem." (quoting Perry Adkisson, chancellor emeritus of Texas A&M University, who chaired the National Academy of Science study panel). An experiment in France showed a GM canola plant could transfer genes to wild radishes, what persisted in four generations. Similarly, and according to New Scientists, an Alberta Canada farmer began planting three fields of different GM canola seeds in 1997 and by 1999 produced not one, but three different mutant weeds - respectively resistant to three common herbicides (Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty). In effect genetic materials migrated to the weeds they were meant to control. Now the Alberta farmer is forced to use a potent 2,4-D what GM crops promised to avoid use of. Finally Stuart Laidlaw reported in the Toronto Star that the Ontario government study indicated herbicide use was on the rise primarily largely due to the introduction of GM crops.

Plant Invasions We can anticipate classic bio-invasions as a result of new GM strains, just as with the invasions of the kutzu vine or purple loosestrife in the plant world.

Trees

Destruction of Forest Life GM trees or "supertrees" are being developed which can be sprayed from the air to kill literally all of surrounding life, except
the GM trees. There is an attempt underway to transform international forestry by introducing multiple species of such trees. The trees themselves are often sterile and flowerless. This is in contrast to rainforests teaming with life, or where a single tree can host thousands of unique species of insects, fungi, mammals and birds in an interconnected ecosphere. This kind of development has been called "death-engineering" rather than "life-" or "bio-engineering." More ominously pollen from such trees, because of their height, has traveled as much as 400 miles or 600 kilometers - roughly 1/5 of the distance across the United States.

Terminator Trees Monsanto has developed plans with the New Zealand Forest Research Agency to create still more lethal tree plantations. These super
deadly trees are non-flowering, herbicide-resistant and with leaves exuding toxic chemicals to kill caterpillars and other surrounding insects – destroying the wholesale ecology of forest life. As George McGavin, curator of entomology Oxford University noted, "If you replace vast tracts of natural forest with flowerless trees, there will be a serious effect on the richness and abundance of insects…If you put insect resistance in the leaves as well you will end up with nothing but booklice and earwigs. We are talking about vast tracts of land covered with plants that do not support animal life as a sterile means to cultivate wood tissue. That is a pretty unattractive vision of the future and I for one want no part of it."


Insects and Larger Animals

Superpests Lab tests indicate that common plant pests such as cottonboll worms, will evolve into superpests immune from the Bt sprays used by organic farmers. The recent "stink bug" epidemic in North Carolina and Georgia seems linked to bioengineered plants that the bugs love. Monsanto, on their Farmsource website, recommended spraying them with methyl parathion, one of the deadliest chemicals. So much for the notion of Bt cotton getting US farmers off the toxic treadmill. Pests the transgenic cotton was meant to kill - cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, and budworms - were once "secondary
pests." Toxic chemicals killed off their predators, unbalanced nature, and thus made them "major pests."

Animal Bio-invasions Fish and marine life are threatened by accidental release of GM fish currently under development in several countries – trout,
carp, and salmon several times the normal size and growing up to 6x times as fast. One such accident has already occurred in the Philippines – threatening local fish supplies.

Killing Beneficial Insects Studies have shown that GM products can kill beneficial insects – most notably the monarch butterfly larvae (Cornell, 1999). Swiss government researchers found Bt crops killed lacewings that ate the
cottonworms which the Bt targeted. A study reported in 1997 by New Scientist indicates honeybees may be harmed by feeding on proteins found in GM canola flowers. Other studies relate to the death of bees (40% died during a contained trial with Monsanto's Bt cotton), springtails (Novartis' Bt corn data submitted to the EPA) and ladybird beetles .

Poisonous to Mammals In a study with GM potatoes, spliced with DNA from the snowdrop plant and a viral promoter (CaMV), the resulting plant was poisonous to mammals (rats) – damaging vital organs, the stomach lining and immune system. CaMV is a pararetrovirus. It can reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses - as some presume have occurred with the AIDES epidemic. CaMV is promiscuous, why biologist Mae Wan-Ho concluded that "all transgenic crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic should be immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field trials. All products derived from such crops containing transgenic DNA should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and from use for human consumption or animal feed."

Animal Abuse Pig number 6706 was supposed to be a "superpig." It was implanted with a gene to become a technological wonder. But it eventually became a "supercripple" full of arthritis, cross-eyed, and could barely stand up with its mutated body. Some of these mutations seem to come right out of Greek mythology - such as a sheep-goat with faces and horns of a goat and the lower body of a sheep. Two US biotech companies are producing genetically modified birds as carriers for human drug delivery – without little concern for animal suffering. Gene Works of Ann Arbor, Michigan has up to 60 birds
under "development." GM products, in general, allow companies to own the rights to create, direct, and orchestrate the evolution of animals.

Support of Animal Factory Farming Rather than using the best of scientific minds to end animal factory farming - rapid efforts are underway to
develop gene-modified animals that better thrive in disease-promoting conditions of animal factory farms.


Genetic Uncertainties

Genetic Pollution Carrying GM pollen by wind, rain, birds, bees, insects, fungus, bacteria – the entire chain of life becomes involved. Once released, unlike chemical pollution, there is no cleanup or recall possible. As mentioned, pollen from a single GM tree has been shown to travel 1/5th of the length of the United States. Thus there is no containing such genetic pollution. Experiments in Germany have shown that engineered oilseed rape can have its pollen move over 200 meters. As a result German farmers have sued to stop field trials in Berlin. In Thailand, the government stopped field tests for Monsanto's Bt cotton when it was discovered by the Institute of Traditional Thai Medicine that 16 nearby plants of the cotton family, used by traditional healers, were being genetically polluted. US research showed that more than 50% of wild strawberries growing inside of 50 meters of a GM strawberry field assumed GM gene markers. Another showed that 25-38% of wild sunflowers growing near GM crops had GM gene markers. A recent study in England showed that despite the tiny amount of GM plantings there (33,750 acres over two years compared to 70-80 million acres per year in the US) wild honey was found to be contaminated. This means that bees are likely to pollinate organic plants and trees with transgenic elements. Many other insects transport the by-products of GM plants throughout our environment, and even falling leaves can dramatically affect the genetic heritage of soil bacteria. The major difference between chemical pollution and genetic pollution is that the former
eventually is dismantled or decays, while the later can reproduce itself forever in the wild. As the National Academy of Science's report indicated -"the containment of crop genes is not considered to be feasible when seeds are
distributed and grown on a commercial scale." Bioengineering firms are also developing fast growing salmon, trout, and catfish as part of the "blue revolution" in aquaculture. They often grow several times faster ( 6x faster for salmon) and larger in size (up to 39X) so as to potentially wipe out their competitors in the wild. There are no regulations for their safe containment to avoid ecological disasters. They frequently grow in "net pens," renown for being torn by waves, so that some will escape into the wild. If so, commercial wild fish could be devastated according to computer models in a study of the National Academy of Sciences by two Purdue University scientists ( William Muir and Richard Howard). All of organic farming - and farming per se - may eventually be either threatened or polluted by this technology.


Disturbance of Nature’s Boundaries Genetic engineers argue that their creations are no different than crossbreeding. However, natural boundaries are violated – crossing animals with plants, strawberries with fish, grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes with bacteria, viruses, and fungi; or like human genes with swine.
Unpredictable Consequences of a Gunshot Approach DNA fragments are blasted past a cell’s membrane with a "gene gun" shooting in foreign genetic materials in a random, unpredictable way. According to Dr. Richard
Lacey, a medical microbiologist at the University of Leeds, who predicted mad cow disease, "wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random
manner…causes some degree of disruption…It is impossible to predict what specific problems could result." This view is echoed by many other scientists, including Michael Hansen, Ph.D., who states that "Genetic engineering, despite the precise sound of the name, is actually a very messy process."



IMPACT ON FARMING

"The decline in the number of farms is likely to accelerate in the coming years…gene-splicing technologies… change the way plants and animals are produced."

Jemery Rifkin

IMPACT ON FARMING

Small Farm Livelihood and Survival

Decline and Destruction of Self-Sufficient Family Farms In 1850, 60% of the working population in the US was engaged in agriculture. By the year 1950 it was 4%. Today it is 2% (CIA World Factbook 1999 – USA). From a peak of 7 million farms in 1935, there are now less than one-third or 2 million left. In many urban areas, the situation is more stark or where family farms are becoming largely extinct. For example, Rockland Country, New York (1/2 hour from New York City) had 600 family farms in 1929. Exactly seventy years later only 6 remained. Similar declines have occurred throughout the US and abroad. Of the one-third remaining US farms, 100,000 or 5% produce most of our foods. Agri-corporations have taken economic and legislative power away from the small, self-sufficient family farms – sometimes via cutthroat competition (such as legal product dumping below production costs to gain market share - what was legalized by GATT regulations). The marketing of GM foods augments this centralizing and small-farm-declining trend in the US - as well as on an international level. For example, two bioengineering firms have announced a GM vanilla plant where vanilla can be grown in vats at a lower cost – and which could eliminate the livelihood of the world’s 100,000 vanilla farmers – most of whom are on the islands of Madagascar, Reunion and Comoros. Other firms are developing bioengineered fructose, besides chemical sugar substitutes, that threatens, according to a Dutch study, a million farmers in the Third World. In 1986, the Sudan lost its export of gum arabic when a New York company discovered a bioengineering process for producing the same. Synthetic cocoa substitutes are also threatening farmers. It is estimated that the biotech industry will find at least $14 billion dollars of substitutes for Third World farming products. Far beyond hydroponics, scientists are developing processes to grow foods in solely laboratory environments – eliminating the need for seeds, shrubs, trees, soil and ultimately the farmer.


General Economic Harm to Small Family Farms GM seeds sell at a premium, unless purchased in large quantities, which creates a financial burden for small farmers. To add to this financial injury, Archer Daniels Midland has instituted a two-tier price system where it offers less to farmers per bushels for GM soybeans because they are not selling well overseas. Many GM products, such
as rBGH, seem to offer a boom for dairy farmers - helping their cows produce considerably more milk. But the end result has been a lowering of prices, again putting the smaller farmers out of business. We can find similar trends with other GM techniques – as in pig and hen raising made more efficient. The University of Wisconsin’s GM brooding hens lack the gene that produces prolactin proteins. The new hens no longer sit on their eggs as long, and produce more. Higher production leads to lower prices in the market place. The end result is that the average small farmer's income plummeted while a few large-scale, hyper-productive operations survived along with their "input providers" (companies selling seeds, soil amendments, and so on). In an on-going trend, the self-sufficient family farmer is shoved to the very lowest rung of the economic ladder. In 1910 the labor portion of agriculture accounted for 41% of the value of the finally sold produce. Now the figure has been estimated at between 6-9% in North America. The balance gets channeled to agri-input and distribution firms - and more recently to biotech firms. Kristin Dawkins in Gene Wars: The Politics of Biotechnology, points out that between 1981 and 1987, food prices rose 36%, while the percentage of the pie earned by farmers continued to shrink dramatically.



Organic Farming

Losing Purity At the present rate of proliferation of GM foods, within 50-100 years, the majority of organic foods may no longer be organic.

Mixing A Texas organic corn chip maker, Terra Prima, suffered a substantial economic loss when their corn chips were contaminated with GM corn and had to be destroyed.

Losing Natural Pesticides Organic farmers have long used "Bt" (a naturally occurring pesticidal bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis) as an invaluable farming aide. It is administered at only certain times, and then sparingly, in a diluted form. This harms only the target insects that bite the plant. Also in that diluted form, it quickly degrades in the soil. By contrast, genetically engineered Bt corn, potatoes and cotton - together making up roughly a third of
US GM crops - all exude this natural pesticide. It is present in every single cell, and pervasively impacts entire fields over the entire life span of crops. This probably increases Bt use at least a million fold in US agriculture. According to a study conducted at NYU, BT residues remained in the soil for as much as 243 days. As an overall result, agricultural biologists predict this will lead to the destruction of one of organic farming's most important tools. It will make it essentially useless. A computer model developed at the University of Illinois predicted that if all US Farmers grew Bt resistant corn, resistance would occur within 12 months. Scientists at the University of North Carolina have already discovered Bt resistance among moth pests that feed on corn. The EPA now requires GM planting farmers to set aside 20-50% of acres with non-BT corn to attempt to control the risk and to help monarch butterflies survive.


Control and Dependency

Terminator Technology Plants are being genetically produced with no annual replenishing of perennial seeds so farmers will become wholly dependent on the seed provider. In the past Monsanto had farmers sign agreements that they would not collect seeds, and even sent out field detectives to check on farmers.


Traitor Technology Traitor technologies control the stages or life cycles of plants – when a plant will leaf, flower, and bear fruit. This forces the farmer to use certain triggering chemicals if he is to yield a harvest - again causing much deeper levels of economic dependence. These technologies are being developed and patented at a furious pace.