# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment > Over the edge >  Interesting reports on GM pollen and GM soya  feeding trials on mammals

## Eric McArthur

The report from Australia pasted below, relating to GM pollen entering the human food chain, while certainly disturbing from the moral ethical and commercial view point pales into insignificance when related to the recently reported Russian research carried out on hamsters, which coincides with similar work carried out in France and Austria,.  The effects found on the fertility of mammals is quite terrifying; H.sapiens springs to mind!  Who do we believe  big business, politicians or good science, which has nothing to gain but integrity? 
Follow the link below!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Russia says genetically modified foods are harmful 
The Voice of Russia, April 16 2010 
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html 

Russia has started the annual Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards from the 15th of April to the 5th of June with the announcement of sensational results of an independent work of research. 

Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce. Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans, which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GM organisms. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya, which was found with great difficulty in Serbia because 95 percent of soya in the world is transgenic. 

Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov has this to say. "We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always," says Alexei Surov. "We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behaviour and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs," Dr. Alexei Surov said. 

Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment. It's unclear why this happened. The researchers cannot understand why a programme of destruction is launched when animals take GMO foodstuffs. They say that this can be neutralized only by stopping to eat these foods. Consequently, scientists suggest imposing a ban on the use of GM foods until they are tested for their bio-security. 

The results of Russian scientists coincide with those of their colleagues from France and Austria. For one, when scientist proved that GM maize was harmful for mammals, France banned immediately its production and sale. The scientists who carried out the experiment say that it's too early to make far-reaching conclusions about the health hazards of the GMO. They insist that there is a need to carry out comprehensive research. They suggest implementing the project, "Safety Gene Technology" at the innovation centre, "Skolkovo" which is being set up near Moscow. 

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

http://www.theage.com.au/national/up...001-gerk.html_ (http://www.theage.com.au/national/up...1001-gerk.html)    

Uproar as GM canola 'contaminates' beehive in Australia 

ADAM MORTON 
October 2, 2009 
A Greenpeace activist takes  samples in a genetically modified canola field near Teesdale, east of Geelong.  Photo: Jason Souith 
GENETICALLY modified canola has jumped containment lines and "contaminated" a commercial beehive in western Victoria, prompting claims that people are not  being told enough about what they eat. 

Scientific testing on behalf of Greenpeace Australia found Monsanto's  "Roundup Ready" canola strain, which is resistant to some herbicides, had  contaminated hives near Bannockburn owned by Edmonds Honey. 

Victoria lifted a moratorium on growing GM canola in November 2007 after  being advised it could be kept separate from non-GM crops. 

Greenpeace spokeswoman Louise Sales said the contamination meant people  were being denied choice: anyone buying honey from the affected hive could be  eating GM food without knowing it. 

She said it showed GM canola was "uncontrollable". "We're calling on the  Federal Government to keep its election promise  basically not to release GM canola into the environment unless it was produced safe 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We don't believe it stands up to that test," Ms Sales said. 

The health effects of GM canola remains contentious, though it is regarded  as safe for consumption by the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology  Regulator and the Australian Academy of Science. 

Local farmers and Melbourne restaurateur Dure Dara joined a protest against the spread of GM material into neighbouring crops. The beekeeper affected by the  contamination, John Edmonds, was less worried. He was concerned it could affect  sales and said labelling should be improved. But he said beekeepers had been  using GM cotton for years without negative health impacts. 

A spokeswoman for the Federal Government said the health risks of GM canola had been extensively investigated and found not to differ from non-GM canola. GM  labelling standards were being reviewed, with a report due mid-next year. 

The State Government said the potential impact of GM canola on bee-keepers  was considered in a review before the state moratorium was lifted. 

Mr Edmonds said he would report the campaigners to police for removing and  testing his honey frames.

----------


## Jon

Hi Eric.
I think there are two main areas of concern over GM crops, imho, but the Frankenfoods line much loved by the tabloids is not one of them.
They are (a) the possibility of GM genes conferring herbicide resistance getting into weeds such as charlock and (b) the loss of, or restriction of use of, heritage or traditional seeds often planted by sharecroppers in developing countries.
In Mexico the poorest farmers do not own land but they often enter into a scheme knows as _ir a medias_ which roughly translated means to go 50:50.
The typical arrangement involves a landowner supplying and preparing the land for the sowing of seed owned by the sharecropper and his family. The sharecropper is responsible for sowing the seed as well as tending and harvesting the crop. Profits are split 50:50.
I honestly wouldn't worry about the possibility of growing hairs in my mouth, even on a diet of pure GM soya.
I would like to see that Russian paper rather than read speculative press comment. I am sure at a minimum the abstract is available in English.

You know what they say - the first sign of madness is hairs growing on the palms of your hands -  and the second sign is looking for them!

----------


## Eric McArthur

Hi Jon
Hairy mouthed and happy to be so!  That is a first!  Not eating the stuff would be a better option - but not such a good option as not growing it in the first instance.  We now know what GM food can do to wee mammals - nobody really knows what it can do for big mammals like us guys, in the longer term.  Since no scientific feed trials on GM foods has been done since Pusztai blew the proverbial whistle on the dangers of the stuff!  
I note that damage to insects, (bees?) is mentioned in the report below!
The Precautionary Principle springs to mind!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;  ;;;;;;;;;;;

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Friends and colleagues,

RE: Submission from Norway on the Risks of GMOs to Biodiversity and Human Health

At its fourth meeting in 2008, Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety established an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. The AHTEG is considering, among other things, the framework to identify GMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, including risks to human health.  The Precautionary Principle spring to mind!

Governments and relevant organizations were invited to submit scientifically sound information on the types of GMOs or traits that may have adverse effects on biological diversity and human health that would be compiled and included in a synthesis report for consideration by the AHTEG and Parties.

In its submission, Norway highlighted information from scientific studies which raise "early warning" signs on the effects of GMOs on biological environments and on human health.

It noted that GMOs harbouring Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry endotoxins may cause unintended direct adverse effects on biological diversity including but not limited to insects, aquatic life, soil microbes, and their food web dynamics, as well as on the sustainable use of biological diversity related to crop plants and their progenitors important for sustainable agricultural production and food security. Similar caution was expressed towards GMOs with genes that confer herbicide tolerance as well as GM plants with tolerance to abiotic stresses such as tolerance to drought and cold and GMOs with stacked events.

In addition, Norway recommended caution with regard to GM fish with traits such as cold tolerance, increased growth rate or high tolerance to environmental pollutants. It also noted that GM trees with long life-spans would be a challenge for risk assessment. Norway also expressed caution with regard to GM viruses with altered traits and host specificity and was concerned about GM pharmplants entering the food chain.

Given the broad uncertainties surrounding the current scientific knowledge on the impacts of novel organisms into complex environments, Norway called for the adoption of the precautionary approach as well as for further studies, especially long term studies, to be conducted.

----------


## Jon

Should this thread not be in the Beekeeping and the environment section - Habitat loss, agrochemicals, GM crops, climate change?
Although you have to admit a post cannot possibly be misplaced in a section called 'Everything and Anything'
I was thinking of posting my holiday snaps..

----------


## Eric McArthur

If  keeping bees is considered holistically- beekeeping requires beekeepers - beekeepers like everyone else require to eat to live - to keep bees!  If our food supply is compromised for whatever reason - the result will be a debilitated human population, possibly with very low energy levels and poor health - this situation will encompass beekeepers,  who due to poor nutrition and low energy levels could be incapable of working with bees.  Bearing in mind that beekeeping is one of the most labour intensive forms of animal husbandry bar none.  Considering that GM food is presently being heavily promoted by the British Government and many scientists in food related disciplines and simultaneously being heavily criticised by independent scientific bodies world wide, there are grounds for a balanced debate on whether GM pollen in honey is acceptable and more -  is the presence of unlabelled products in the human food chain ethical?  
Next to the importance of the sun for life on th planet - food is the only thing that keeps us alive!  
There are folk out there tampering with our sustenance of life. For what? - for profit!  See below!  Is the subject worthy of comment/debate?

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Quote: "Bayer was not only negligent in its handling of Liberty Link
rice, but acted with malicious intent by not announcing the
contamination of the commercial rice-seed pool as soon as the company
learned of it...."

===========================
JURY TELLS BAYER TO PAY ARK. RICE FARMERS $48m
Previous judgements -- $4.5 million
==================================

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...kNMfQD9F3RJBG2

16.04.2010

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.  German conglomerate Bayer CropScience should pay a
dozen Arkansas farmers nearly $50 million for allowing a genetically
altered strain of rice to escape into the commercial market, damaging
rice prices in 2006, a jury ruled Thursday.

An attorney for the farmers, Scott Powell, said the jury decided on
the judgment after less than two hours of deliberations Thursday
afternoon in Lonoke County.

The farmers claimed an experimental rice strain developed by Bayer
called Liberty Link was allowed to make its way into the stream of
commercially marketed rice. Liberty Link was developed to withstand a
popular herbicide that kills weeds in the fields.

The suit claimed that rice prices fell after the U.S. Department of
Agriculture announced in August 2006 that trace amounts of Liberty
Link rice were found in U.S. long-grain rice stocks.

Bayer argued that any damages farmers may have suffered were minimal,
and didnt last long.

The case was the fourth to go to trial among dozens filed by rice-belt
farmers against Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the German chemical
giant that makes aspirin. Bayer faced judgments of $4.5 million so far
in the three cases it had lost before Thursday.

The amount awarded Thursday far exceeds a $1 million judgment returned
against Bayer by a Woodruff County jury in March.

Powell said he had asked jurors for $55.9 million. The jurys award
for compensatory damages matched the $5.9 million the legal team had
sought, Powell said. Jurors decided on $42 million in punitive
damages, rather than the $50 million Powells team had asked for.

Considering the overwhelming evidence of recklessness and negligence,
it was a fair and just verdict, Powell said.

The lead lawyer for Bayer, Dick Ellis, could not be reached for
comment Thursday evening after business hours.

Liberty Link rice was developed so farmers could apply Liberty
herbicide without fear that it would damage their crops.

No nation has approved genetically modified rice for the marketplace.
Rice futures plummeted by $150 million immediately after the
contamination announcement. European nations quit accepting shipments
of rice from the U.S. that hadnt been extensively tested to show they
werent contaminated. Japan banned all American rice.

Growers in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and
Texas filed lawsuits against Bayer.

The Lonoke County farmers argued that Bayer was not only negligent in
its handling of Liberty Link rice, but acted with malicious intent by
not announcing the contamination of the commercial rice-seed pool as
soon as the company learned of it.

The suit claimed Bayer knew of the contamination as early as January
2006, before that years crops were sowed. Powell said farmers didnt
learn of the contamination until the USDAs announcement, when it was
almost time to harvest crops.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;  ;;;

SmartStax Corn: Corporate War on Bees

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SmartStaxCor...eWarOnBees.php

Extract ....

Smartstax is a genetically modified (GM) corn that has eight GM traits combined or stacked together, six for insect resistance (Bt) and two for herbicide tolerance

These contain a combination of fungicides including ipconazole, metalaxyl and trifloxystrobin for protection against primary seed-borne and soil-borne diseases, along with clothianidin, an insecticide, to reduce damage caused by secondary pests [2]. Clothianidin is a systemic insecticide that may be carried to all parts of the corn plant including the pollen-producing tassel and pollen visited by bees

----------


## gavin

Guys

I hope that you don't mind but the idea of this area of the forum was that it is specifically for these sometimes high-volume posts on contentious issues in the broad area of the environment.  Not everyone wants to read a lot of cut-and-paste stuff of this type, so I think that it is fair that we do use this area. 

So this has been moved from the area at the top of the main Forum page to somewhere more appropriate.  All posts welcome here - you might even tempt me to add something!

all the best

Gavin

----------


## Eric McArthur

Hi Gavin
Current thread is more like a needle in a haystack - for a rank beginner like myself trying to finding this thread after your "Tidying Up"seems more like " Sweeping under the Carpet"!


The latest Bayer admissiom pasted below is a hum dinger!

Bayer admits GMO contamination out of control
-------------------------------------

Damage from LL rice contamination could be over $1 billion


Thursday, April 15, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
http://www.naturalnews.com/028585_GMOs_Bayer.html

(NaturalNews) Drug and chemical giant Bayer AG has admitted that there
is no way to stop the uncontrolled spread of its genetically modified
crops.

"Even the best practices can't guarantee perfection," said Mark
Ferguson, the company's defense lawyer in a recent trial.

Two Missouri farmers sued Bayer for contaminating their crop with
modified genes from an experimental strain of rice engineered to be
resistant to the company's Liberty-brand herbicide. The contamination
occurred in 2006, during an open field test of the new rice, which was
not approved for human consumption. According to the plaintiffs'
lawyer, Don Downing, genetic material from the unapproved rice
contaminated more than 30 percent of all rice cropland in the United
States.

"Bayer was supposed to be careful," Downing said. "Bayer was not
careful and that rice did escape into our commercial rice supplies."

The plaintiffs alleged that in addition to contaminating their fields,
Bayer further harmed them financially by undermining their export
market. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the
widespread rice contamination, important export markets were closed to
U.S. producers. A report from Greenpeace International estimates the
financial damage of the contamination at between $741 million and $1.3
billion.

Bayer claimed that there was no possible way it could have prevented
the contamination, insisting that it followed not only the law but
also the best industry practices. The jury disagreed, finding Bayer
guilty of carelessness in handling the genetically modified crops. The
company was ordered to pay farmers Kenneth Bell and Johnny Hunter $2
million.

"This is a huge victory, not only for Kenny and me, but for every
farmer in America who was harmed by Bayer's LibertyLink rice
contamination," Hunter said.

According to Hunter, the company got "the wake-up call they deserved."

Bayer is still being sued by more than 1,000 other farmers from
Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Sources for this story include: www.organicconsumers.org ; www.bloomberg.com

----------


## Trog

Hi, Eric!  You'll soon find your way around!  Just takes a bit of practice (is this why I spend far too much time in here?)  This is now under the right heading - GM, environment, etc - so it'll be easier for others to find, too.

----------


## Eric McArthur

Hi Trog

Many thanks for your assistance - Right on the button!  An index for items in a particular thread would be ideal - but that is outside my meagre ken!!

Eric

----------


## Trog

At the top of the page, in the blue bit marked 'home', 'blogs', etc, there's a white rectangle with a magnifying glass to the right of it.  I'm reliably informed this is for searching the forum, though I haven't tried it myself.  If you type in a keyword (such as varroa) it should take you to relevant threads like an index would.  If you've more time than I have just now, you could try playing with it!

----------


## gavin

It works well.  Just put in the box one of the words you think will be in the discussion.  I just tried 'Bayer' and it found these posts.  (Now if you use that it will find this one as well!)

Once the season wears on the search facility should be a very useful way of getting to discussions that covered something in the past.  The other day I was using the search on Bee-L to find stuff I'd written years ago.

But most people just browse through the recent posts in areas that interest them, which is why I put the threads here under the heading that covers this topic.

In general we (me included, or perhaps me especially!) have been drifting around in these discussions, but I think that a degree of informality is better than being too rigid.

----------


## POPZ

> In general we (me included, or perhaps me especially!) have been drifting around in these discussions, but I think that a degree of informality is better than being too rigid.


Likewise Gavin. It is most interesting 'drifting around' the forum and suprising how many titbits I have picked up on the way. And observing the vagaries of beekeeping as seen by different beekeepers.  Please keep it informal, and it will prevent you getting your knickers in a complete twist in trying to keep everything correct and orderly. Let us just be like the ladies we look after - totally unpredictable and sometimes quite unfathomable.

----------

