Azienda Agricola La Torricella

GM

Government-Funded Institutions Have Been Hiding GMO Information for Years, but Who Is Lying to Who?

For related articles and far more data, please pay a visit to OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto web page.

Whilst Monsanto and other Huge Ag and Big Pharma giants have been telling us GMO meals is secure, quoting numerous industry-backed research on the efficacy of their food production by way of biotech science model, the lies they have been telling us are reaching epic proportions. In the meantime, they continue to accuse anti-GM activists of performing the identical.

Take for instance, the allegations of Piero Morandini of the University of Milan, who, way back in 2005, identified that GM maize contained one hundred occasions significantly less fumonisin per kilogram than in standard crops, supposedly far much less than its makers had been telling government agencies. In his findings, GM maize contained much less of this fungal toxin notorious for causing Spina Bifida. These field trials would have been a favorable overview of GM crops. Had been they suppressed?

Fumonisins (FB) are mycotxoins which currently infect corn and other grains in the world, but which are used by biotech businesses to attempt to make crops impervious to pests. The food and agricultural industries already lose millions due to mycotoxins annually, but they have now been bred into our food supply with Bt crops – and Round Up Ready Chemicals.

“Due to the fact FB might have acute and chronic effects, we hypothesize that even in the absence of debilitating acutely toxic amounts of FB in the swine diet program, sustained exposure to little concentrations may possibly negatively have an effect on herd wellness and production efficiency.” (JournalofAnimalScience.org)

The institute which was supposed to conduct unbiased research on the GM maize crop was none other than the government-funded National Institute for Investigation on Food, a component of the National Agriculture and Food Study Organization. This exact same organization is accountable for an anti-GMO report published at EarthOpenSource.org that really clearly explains many problems with GM food.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp

How is the Bt gene introduced into the genetic code of plants?

Question by ☆♥Angelic Voice♥☆: How is the Bt gene introduced into the genetic code of plants?
My friend at a diverse college was curious. Sorry about the extended question-also if you can answer this: How is Bt used differently for organic farming than in GM corn?
PLEASE Support! A Great ANSWER WILL GET ten POINTS! POSSIBLY EVEN THE First ANSWER!

Very best answer:

Answer by john h
1st, scientists recognize a strain of Bt that kills the targeted insect. Then they isolate the gene that produces the lethal protein. That gene is removed from the Bt bacterium and a gene conferring resistance to a chemical (generally antibiotic or herbicide) is attached that will prove useful in a later step.
The Bt gene with the resistance gene attached is inserted into plant cells. At this point, scientists must figure out which plant cells have effectively received the Bt gene and are now transformed. Any plant cell that has the Bt gene must also have the resistance gene that was attached to it. Researchers grow the plant cells in the presence of the antibiotic or herbicide and pick the plant cells that are unaffected by it. These genetically transformed plant cells are then grown into entire plants by a procedure known as tissue culture. The modified plants generate the very same lethal Bt protein created by Bt bacteria due to the fact the plants now have the very same gene.
Organic farming use the Bt Bacteria to manage insects use precisely the very same the same lethal Bt protein as the genetically modified plants because they have the exact same gene.
http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/bio9.html

Know much better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Monsanto Faces Opposition in Puerto Rico

For related articles and a lot more data, please check out OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto web page.

Agricultural biotech corporate giant Monsanto fairly a lot has had its way in Puerto Rico because it first set up seed breeding operations in the island in 1983. But the last few months have seen a hailstorm of negative publicity and protests against the corporation’s local activities.

On June 11, Monsanto Caribe, the company’s nearby affiliate, refused to testify at a Puerto Rico Senate hearing on proposed seed legislation, bill PS 624.

“Monsanto does not produce, sell [or] provide…standard or certified seed with the purpose of planting in Puerto Rico,” argued business representative Eric Torres-Collazo in a letter to the Senate agriculture committee explaining the selection not to testify. Technically accurate, considering that all the seed this and other biotech organizations make in Puerto Rico is for export. But committee chair Ramón Ruiz-Nieves has not accepted Monsanto’s argument, pointing out that the firm receives substantial subsidies from the regional agriculture division and it is registered with the PR government as a bona fide farmer. Ruiz-Nieves informed the press that he intends to summon Monsanto once more.

This certain story has received international coverage following a Corpwatch piece I wrote, which is actually a common story on Monsanto’s woes in the island, not just the seed hearing blow-off. Each Russia’s RT and TruthOut followed up on it, stating that the Senate hearing was about legislation to regulate and rein in the planting of genetically modified (GM) seeds in the island. TruthOut even portrayed the Senate as a formidable adversary, with the headline “Puerto Rico Senate Fights Back Against Monsanto.”

To set the record straight, PS 624 has nothing to say about GM seed. The Puerto Rico Senate has by no means attempted to regulate or constrain the regional activities of biotech corporations in any way, shape or form, much significantly less ever stood up to the likes of Monsanto. In addition, the text of PS 624 reads like one thing that could have been written by a Monsanto attorney.

Not only that, but the biotech seed industry faces a potentially far more essential and contentious battle in the PR Senate wellness committee, as we’ll see later.

The bill’s exposition of motives states that Puerto Rico has a actual quality handle difficulty with locally made seeds and proposes to remedy this with legislation to regulate their production and sale. The bill does not address two main issues of organic farmers and progressive organizations: contamination of seed stocks with GM varieties, and the patenting of standard and heirloom varieties of seed by transnational corporations.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp

How lengthy can an organic farm truly remain organic with the owners have zero control more than …?

Query by Goldar: How long can an organic farm really stay organic with the owners have zero control more than …?
– the surrounding land
– the atmosphere
– external waterways that influence the organic farm

With factors like GM crops currently in the wild and widespread monoculture, how does a tiny farm fight this off?

By the way, I am asking for actual farming techniques, not legislative wishes. Hoping for legislation is a bit as well pie-in-the-sky and does not support me nowadays.

Very best answer:

Answer by campbelp2002
It depends on how you define organic. If the farmer just plants natural seed and does not use chemical fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides, then I say it is nevertheless organic even if pollution encroaches on the Farm.

What do you believe? Answer below!

French Study Finds Tumours in Rats Fed GM Corn

For connected articles and more info, please pay a visit to OCA’s Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto web page and our Health Concerns page.

Rats fed a lifetime diet regime of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to its best-selling weedkiller Roundup suffered tumours and a number of organ harm, according to a French study published on Wednesday.

Even though the lead researcher’s past record as a critic of the sector could make other specialists wary of drawing hasty conclusions, the finding will stoke controversy about the safety of GM crops.

In an unusual move, the study group did not enable reporters to seek outdoors comment on their paper prior to its publication in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presentation at a news conference in London.

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said rats fed on a diet regime containing NK603 – a seed variety produced tolerant to dousings of Roundup – or offered water containing Roundup at levels permitted in the United States died earlier than those on a normal diet plan.

The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumours, as well as severe liver and kidney damage.

The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.