New Study Finds GMO Soy Toxic to Kidneys, Liver, and Reproduction
Just a few of many startling findings
In North America, approximately 75 to 89% of the soy beans grown are genetically modified (GM). One may not realize it, but this is concerning news – especially because recent research found that GM soy is toxic to the kidneys, liver, and more.
There isn’t just one smoking gun anymore pointing at GMO toxicology. There is now an entire arsenal of scientific research proving that genetically modified organisms adversely affect the body. In yet another new study conducted by Egyptian researchers, rats given GM soy were found to have deadly amounts of toxicity in their kidneys, liver, testes, sperm, blood and even DNA.
Is there any question anymore about the true poisons that are biotech’s squalid wares?
The histopathological assessments made by the researchers of the rat’s bodily tissues leave no room for mistakes or misjudgments. You can’t argue over the results as some GMO-supporters have tried to do with other studies (like Seralini’s). Seralini’s study is one of the most quoted papers on the Internet, yet Monsanto gave a lengthy refutation of its findings.
Seralini stands firm in his findings, with the support of thousands of other scientists around the world. Though you’d think that he was some sort of quack with the comments that biotech makes to try to discredit him. What does Monsanto do when studies like this one, keep mounting? The evidence comes out again and again against GMOs – then what? What happens when research finds GM soy to be linked to sterility and infant mortality?
Just some of the sordid highlights of GMO-fed rats from the study’s findings include:
- DNA fragmentation increased significantly after the rats were fed GM soy, and the levels of toxicity increased at 30, 60 and 90 days.
- Glyphosate tolerant enzymes were found in the blood, and as researchers pointed out, “There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health.”
- The kidney’s bio-pathology increased. Blood creatinine and uric acid concentrations increased significantly in rats fed the GM diet for 30, 60, or 90 days.
- Chromosomal aberrations were observed. There was a “highly significant” number of abnormal cells.
Almost every organ observed, along with the blood and DNA showed damage from the GM diet. The researchers stated:
“The results of all the param-eters evaluated in our investigation were consistent and confirm that the GM diet fed to rats for 30, 60, or 90 days caused significant histopathological, biochemical, and cytogenetic changes in all examined tissues.”
No animals were tested for toxic affects after 90 days – but it didn’t take more than this to see an obvious correlation between the toxicity levels of the rats and their GM diet. The wheat-based control diet did not cause the same results.
So here’s the kicker — the largest U.S. producer of hybrid seeds for agriculture, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, created a genetically engineered soybean which was approved in 2010. Soy is also on the seven most commonly grown GM crops list.
Read: 4 Huge Reasons Why Soy Should be Avoided
Since that time, numerous food products have been processed and sold on grocery store shelves in the US contain GM soy.
Many people have soy allergies now, too, which are likely due to GM varieties. Symptoms often include:
- Hives; itching; or itchy, scaly skin (eczema)
- Swelling of lips, face, tongue and throat, or other body parts
- Asthma or wheezing, runny nose, cold symptoms
- Skin redness
- A tingling mouth
- Abdominal pains, nausea, and diarrhea
The Non-GMO Shopping Guide lists GM soy as one of the hidden ingredients that biotech has so sneakily infiltrated our food system with. Even many ‘health foods’ contain GM soy. Ironically, if you consume protein drinks and health food bars in an attempt to stay fit, you’re especially in danger of eating too much GM soy.
Soy protein isolate can be found in protein bars, meal replacement shakes, bottled fruit drinks, soups and sauces, meat analogs, baked goods, breakfast cereals, and some dietary supplements. Then there’s soy milk, tofu, and other more obvious culprits. Soy lecithin is another problem, and there’s even GM soy in baby formula! Companies that make Similac and Enfamil don’t seem to care.
This should come as no surprise to some – as biotech has even hidden GM in citric acid.
Other findings on GM soy from previous studies include these startling facts:
More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.
- Soy changes the testicle cells of rats fed a GM variety.
- Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
- Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
- GM Soy made the third generation sterile in one Russian study.
- GM proteins are continually produced inside our bodies once we eat GM products – including soy.
Millions of acres of crops are planted with GM soy every year. Let’s face it, GM soy is hard to avoid. Did Monsanto know about all these toxicity factors when they started selling GM Soy? It’s a moot point now. Monsanto frantically recalled GM canola seed in Canada once, but once its planted, is it too late?
For now, you should be vigilant about checking labels, making sure that our government upholds labeling laws, and boycott all companies who sell anything with GM Soy in it. You can also look for substitutes for soy sauce, tofu, miso soup, and other soy-obvious foods. Even committed vegans can choose non-GMO varieties of soy to protect their health.
Additional Sources:
African Journal of Biotechnology
 | Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
Welcome to good health hospital I am Doctor Dave Geoge by name. Do you want to sell your kidney or buy a kidney or any other organs contact if yes, kindly contact us with this email : [email protected]
There are so many articles that come out like this each day. Have some originality!
Does anyone know how to contact the author of this article?
Well, I was honestly curious until I saw who wrote this article. Another piece of Sarich pseudoscience and fear-mongering no doubt, but let’s dive in and have a look.
“rats given GM soy were found to have deadly amounts of toxicity in their kidneys, liver, testes, sperm, blood and even DNA.”
>>Christina, you never fail to disappoint. The concept of “toxicity” within DNA is nonsensical. Perhaps you mean mutations??? But then demonstrating that particular mutations, or even an increased rate of mutation is linked to GM feed is quite difficult. But I assume you’re referring to the DNA fragmentation results presented by the group. The ones that show a lack of exposure dependency, i.e. rats that ate the GM diet had higher DNA fragmentation at 60 days than at 90 days. Hmm….that’s odd. This lack of dose response repeats in a number of other places in the study. It’s cause to seriously question the conclusions.
“The histopathological assessments made by the researchers of the rat’s bodily tissues leave no room for mistakes or misjudgments.”
>>Well, except for the fact that according to the materials and methods presented in the paper, there is no indication that the researchers conducting histological examinations were blinded.
Oh and there’s the fact that the control (i.e. non-GM diet) was of a different composition than the GM diet, thus making it not a proper control and pretty much torpedoing the entire study.
At the end of the day, all the study concludes is that there were differences between rats fed different diets. Wow. Really shocking stuff. I guess I can’t imagine why this study didn’t make it into Nature.
“Seralini’s study is one of the most quoted papers on the Internet”
>>LOL! So what?!?! Cats are one of the most frequently displayed animals on the internet, but you can’t say that cats are the most populous animals on the planet because of that. Christina, you really are a fool.
“DNA fragmentation increased significantly after the rats were fed GM soy, and the levels of toxicity increased at 30, 60 and 90 days”
>>Christina, did you even read the study you’re referring to? Tell me, in this series of numbers, do the values consistently increase? 19, 28, 24. Are you so duplicitous that you can’t even get kindergarten math right?
“Glyphosate tolerant enzymes were found in the blood”
>>A completely meaningless statement. Lots of enzymes tolerate glyphosate. Many many many. Perhaps you should review the meaning of “enzyme”, Christina. Oh and the study didn’t test for the presence of CP4epsps in the blood of rats. So yet again, you are either blatantly lying or so incompetent that you can’t even read the very study you are writing about. Personally, I think it’s a bit of both.
“The kidney’s bio-pathology increased. Blood creatinine and uric acid concentrations increased significantly in rats fed the GM diet for 30, 60, or 90 days.”
>>So what? Only one of the values (60 days) was outside of the normal range for rats. This is particularly odd since the 90 day average was normal. Another example of a lack of exposure dependent response to the GM diet.
“Almost every organ observed, along with the blood and DNA showed damage from the GM diet. The researchers stated: “The results of all the param-eters evaluated in our investigation were consistent and confirm that the GM diet fed to rats for 30, 60, or 90 days caused significant histopathological, biochemical, and cytogenetic changes in all examined tissues.” ”
>>See Christina’s sleight of hand there? She claimed that the study showed “damage” whereas the quote she presents only states there were “changes”. The difference in wording here is important, and Christina is playing fast and loose with the facts.
“No animals were tested for toxic affects after 90 days”
>>BLATANT LIE. But by now, outright lying is exactly what I expect from Christina Sarich. Oh and here is a review of numerous long-term and multigeneration studies involving GMOs.
Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review
Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 50, Issues 3–4, March–April 2012, Pages 1134–1148
“Many people have soy allergies now, too, which are likely due to GM varieties.”
>>BS. There’s absolutely no evidence to support that claim. But then evidence isn’t what Christina is interested in anyway. She’s interested in drumming up fear and angry like any good propagandist.
I think I’ve made my point by now. I’m done.
How much do you get paid by Monsanto to write so much useless garbage ?
My advice : drink your Roundup-Glyphosate and you are really done very soon with no further prove needed.
Complete garbage. People who believe this might just as well believe in Santa Claus. It’s that childish…
Another Paid Monsanto-troll with a Zio Zombi background and a mind poisoned, bio-accumulated and controlled by Monsanto’s Glyphosate. Look for the deadly GMO-garbage in your food before your Alzheimer gets serious.
The control group and the experimental groups have totally different diets. Adding wheat to the diet is not a non-GMO equivalent. They didn’t even ever identify what kind of GM traits were in the test group or how much of the food was actually genetically modified. They undernourished all of the rats in the study by feeding them only soy beans and grains with no supplementation, which was unnecessarily cruel and yielded no useful data. The first sentence of the conclusion actually makes no sense. Overall, this study is almost as poorly constructed as the Seralini study and certainly unethical in a similar way.
Also, this article makes ridiculous claims that cannot be called anything other than dishonest. There aren’t thousands of scientists that support Seralini. It’s not biotech that is smearing his name; he has done that just fine on his own. At my university, we actually have used his rat study as an example of how not to design and report animal studies. I really just don’t understand the point of lying to your readers.
Noticed that too about the “control” group, eh? Pretty much torpedos the entire study. Pretty amateurish science.
Paid Monsanto-trolls everywhere.
What did Doug and Guest say that wasn’t true?
Seralini’s study was a duplicate of the study that Monsanto did. Except, his study was longer. He used the same rats. He faced accusations of cruelty but since when have researchers really cared about lab animals’ wellbeing? Seralini was also accused of having small groups of test animals that are statistically insignificant but in the end Monsanto only analyzed half of its lab animals. Seralini’s study was retracted after an ex-Monsanto executive was hired as editor for the journal. And it was retracted for reasons that are not valid. It was not retracted because it was fraudulent or for plagiarism but for being inconclusive. That is no valid reason and it is not even inconclusive. If that would be the case then many studies including Monsanto’s should be retracted. In the meanwhile Seralini’s study has been accepted by another journal.
You are just a troll as so many who have commented here. Biotech companies are using agents to troll and ‘respond’ to articles that are critical of GMO.
Seralini’s study was a duplicate of the study that Monsanto did.
No it wasn’t. The differences were enormous both in the type of feed given, the number of animals used, the measurements made,and the statistical analyses.
Except, his study was longer. He used the same rats.
Bingo. This is one of the major problems with Seralini’s study. He used a type of rat known to develop these tumors at high frequencies if allowed to live for 2 years. Getting large numbers of tumors was a certainty. Then Seralini used a slight of hand to try and hide the fact that the control animals also got large numbers of tumors.
And it was retracted for reasons that are not valid. It was not retracted because it was fraudulent or for plagiarism but for being inconclusive.
It was mainly retracted because it was junk science. None of the conclusions made by Seralini were actually supported by the data. In that sense it was “inconclusive”.
In the meanwhile Seralini’s study has been accepted by another journal.
Indeed it has. And without further peer review. So a journal has accepted a paper for publication that is known to be junk science and the only check was that the paper had not changed from the retracted version. I think that shows you how good that journal and its editors are.
Bingo.
This is one of the major problems with Seralini’s study. He used a type
of rat known to develop these tumors at high frequencies if allowed to
live for 2 years. Getting large numbers of tumors was a certainty. Then
Seralini used a slight of hand to try and hide the fact that the control
animals also got large numbers of tumors.
Joe A: That is funny because it is a rat that is commonly used in many studies. Also funny is that you don’t go into the fact that Monsanto eventually only analyzed half of its labanimals which amount to the same amount of animals that Seralini used.
It
was mainly retracted because it was junk science. None of the
conclusions made by Seralini were actually supported by the data. In
that sense it was “inconclusive”.
Joe A: Even the EFSA said there was nothing wrong with how the study was designed and conducted. Still inconclusiveness is not a reason for retraction. Perhaps the authors made the wrong conclusion. It is then for the scientific community to counter that. But retracting something for the wrong reason is bad scientific practice and in this case with an ex Monsanto man as editor one could reason for ill intent.
In the meanwhile Seralini’s study has been accepted by another journal.
Indeed
it has. And without further peer review. So a journal has accepted a
paper for publication that is known to be junk science and the only
check was that the paper had not changed from the retracted version. I
think that shows you how good that journal and its editors are.
Joe A: If It was junk science then Monsanto also produces junk science. Actually Monsanto produces junk science did because Monsanto chose to discard half of its lab animals. Monsanto first of all conducts short studies and does not test for cross over genetic contamination and mutations, and cherry picks its result cause after all approval of GM by the FDA is based on data provided by biotech companies themselves. FDA does not test since it has been ‘deregulated’.
Seralini’s study was retracted after an ex Monsanto executive was made editor at the journal. Curious no? You don’t go into that either. The study has been reviewed and many scientists have supported it, that why it has been republished.
That is funny because it is a rat that is commonly used in many studies.
The rat is fine for a 90 day study, because tumors do not usually develop in that time, only after 12 months. This makes the breed good for short term studies. If tumors turn up in 90 days, there is high probability the chemical is carcinogenic.
Even the EFSA said there was nothing wrong with how the study was designed and conducted.
This is completely untrue. Allow me to quote from EFSA: “The Authority’s final review reaffirmed its initial assessment that the authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of the study as outlined in the paper.”
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
Seralini’s study was retracted after an ex Monsanto executive was made editor at the journal. Curious no?
Not really. Seralini specifically asked the editor of the journal to exclude Goodman from any involvement in decisions around the paper. The editor Hayes did so. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514000076
It is the percentage of tumours in a group in any period of time that counts, not whether some of the control got tumours or not. In the Seralini test, the results clearly showed MORE tumours in the GMO and Roundup group. Stop your misrepresentations.
Yes, I don’t think it can be emphasized enough that in feeding studies if the feed is not identical, except for the molecule(s) of interest, it is impossible to have any confidence that any changes were due to the feed.
So all these studies that don’t control diets adequately just kill animals for no benefit.
I am not a Physician, but was given Medical Power Of Attorney of an individual this past year. I asked only one question to first Dr. That I was introduced too, “Does he or any other Practicioner associated, employed or contracted with the hospital system and addressing the CAUSE of the Patient I am RESPONSIBLE FOR, Involve themselves with ” DETOXIFICATION OF THE PATIENTS BLOOD STREAM? RESPONSE: “WE CAN’T DO THAT.” MY RESPONSE: CAN’T IS NOT IN MY VOCABULARY, YOU WILL NOTIFY ALL LEGAL, MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL, EMPLOYEES, & ANY SUBSTITUTE, SITIN, OR REPLACEMENT, THAT ALL WILL LOSE THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE, BE SUED FOR MAL-PRACTICE, RESULTING IN A FELONY RECORD, AND NEVER PRACTICE IN ANY 50 PUBLIC STATES FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!” RESULTING IN MY DIRECTIVES BEING FOLLOWED, THAT FOUND METABOLIC ACIDOSIS IN KIDNEYS/LIVER CAUSING THE CO2 TO DROP 50% THE NORMAL RANGE AND THE PH LEVEL TO DROP 45% THE NORMAL RANGE DUE TOO MISDIAGNOSING, MISTREATING, AND FINDING ALLERGY TO GLUTEN. I SAVED THE INDIVIDUALS LIFE FROM THEMSELF AND ANY/ALL DOCTORS THAT COMMITTED MAL-PRACTICE FOR THEIR OWN FINANCIAL GREED.
What exactly does “detoxification of the patient’s blood” mean? What specifically is the toxin(s) that require removal by medical intervention? Is the patient in the hospital for acute poisoning? The doctor you spoke with is right, you can’t “detoxify” something when you have no idea of what the “toxins” are.
It is proven by independent (= not paid by Monsanto) scientist that:
1. the Glyphosate in Roudup by itself is extremely toxic as correctly said in this article,
2. other toxic chemicals around Glyphosate in Roundup make this garbage over 1000 times more toxic,
3. because the toxic particles are at nano-dimensions they pass the brain barrier, comes in the bloodstream and bioaccumulate in the fat tissue in the brain and organs by a first factor of 49,000 times (Curtis C.Travis and Holly Hattemer-Frey) and will continue this till your body is finished and killed. Read the well informing book about truth and lies about a perfect poison from Robert Allen named “The Dioxin War” and this will answer your questions and open your eyes,
4. intentionally poisoning and mass murdering people is still a crime and those who are doing this as well there accomplices should be at least in jail,
5. as a result Roundup and Agent Orange must be seen as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in our environment and especially in our food chain and should be handled by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Den Hague on the same way as for the war criminals in Nuremberg.
Thank you for sharing the truth. Anyone who feeds GMO to themselves or to their families are experimenting on their health. I do not wish to experiment. I will eat organic.
Truth? That’s funny. Have a look at the actual study that Christina is talking about and you’ll see that truth is not something she is interested in.
As said, paid Monsanto-trolls everywhere..
If this is all true, why don’t we hear something from some of the excellent agricultural based universities in our country?
Because the Universities and the Government are for sale. Look up Arpad Pusztai, the Euro researcher who TONY BLAIR, the Priminister of Britain called his University directly on the phone when Pusztai released preliminary data showing GMO tomatoes and potatoes were dangerous. That scandal rocked the public and forced multiple governments in Europe to force GMO labeling. Funny though, I was an adult during those years in the late 1990’s and I never heard a single ‘peep’ from our corporate owned media about that scandal in Europe.
The bottom line is that Global Corporations effect Governments in the Western World and those Governments indeed effect how Universities research and release findings. If you don’t believe that, then you’ve got your head buried in the sand. If you read enough alternative media, you can find many, many examples on how Universities are ‘leaned on’ by Government to produce unscientific results that benefit those in power or global corporations. Global Warming is such a topic. Governments around the world have been virtually 100% responsible for the “science” that the IPCC has been releasing for 2 decades now. If you’re a professional or a scientist you aren’t allowed to question Global Warming, despite no predictive model ever made on the “science” has EVER been accurate at predicting the warming or the climate.
Sweetie, you need to take your paranoïa pills…
I suggest to try it for your Alzheimer caused by your Roundup drunk.
Christina must be tell the truth with so much Monsanto-trolls desperate trying with lies and garbage to cover their crimes.
If I was you Christina I would not allow those trolls to drop there waste on your website. As the Mass Media do always I would censure such useless garbage too because they never comes with facts and the truth.
No, you clearly know nothing about how public research and publication work. Nobody tells me what to research or publish. That’s a weak retreat for the clueless.
Furthermore, there is huge incentive to find something wrong with GM crops. If I found something in my lab I’d publish it in Science or Nature (not the Turkish J. Biology) and then would wait for my Nobel Prize. Real evidence would be a tremendous finding.
And if Pusztai’s results were real someone might have replicated them in the last 18 years. The fact that two decades have gone by and NOBODY even showed similar results is a reasonable beacon that the first results were junk.
Everybody knows how scientific research is in the hands of the Zio Rockefellers being in the same Zio Matrix as the Banksters (see also David Duke at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zw9EhjyU3JU ) and also owning Monsanto and the Zio Governments.
They decides who gets money for research as well the Nobel prices because everything is corrupted.
The few Independent research-institutions have problems to find funds and researchers who tell the truth take big risks to loose their job. Same way as in the paid for Mass Media.
We know all exactly how the Zio Matrix works. Kiss the Zio Matrix of the Rockefellers & Co their arses and you get money and a Nobel price even for your pseudo-science. Criticize them and you will be fired. This means a lot of people called themselves scientists are no more then ordinary public whores which sold their soul and integrity for 30 pieces of silver.
If you have the capacity and the balls to publish truth findings of the toxicity of Roundup and Agent Orange you would be jobless. That’s why you as others prefer to lie and get money and we the people trust and respect more the honest scientists in France, Egypt and Russia as well this website for telling the truth.
First, I never have received money, and would not change a scientific interpretation even if I did. And I have the balls to publish anti glyphosate/2,4-D results– if they existed. I’d be the most famous scientist on the planet. There’s no conspiracy.
Are you suggesting there aren’t many scientists who receive money from big business? Are you suggesting there aren’t many scientific publications that receive money from big business? Are you suggesting that these scientists and publications who receive money from big business aren’t influenced by that money?
I’m not suggesting, I’m telling you the facts. There are very few with Big Ag money, maybe a percent or two at best. You can go through every one of my 80 published papers and look in the Acknowledgement section to find out who funded the work. See how many are supported by Big Ag. I’ll save you the time. Zero. That’s the case for most of us, almost all of us. And I know that in your world people can be paid off to lie, but don’t translate that to public scientists. We’re in this for service, integrity is strong and treasured here. If anyone were to show publication of false information, especially for financial reasons, it is a career ender.
Kevin,
Perhaps you are operating with integrity but that is not the case at all with an extraordinary number of scientists, especially in the field of BioTech.
You are not telling me “the facts” at all. Either you are quite naive about this or are unwilling to look further into it or have a vested interest in protecting the perceived integrity of the science itself. The reality is quite different than what you are describing. Take a minute to stop with all the self-promotion and examine the entirety of the system itself.
There is an entire ocean of corrupt corporate science in Academia for example. Entire departments (and particularly in BioTech) are betrothed to grant monies that come from big business. I could walk you through this in excruciating detail as to how this works at Cornell- one of the “premier” Ag schools in the country. The entire avenue of scientific inquiry is determined by the grants they receive. And where is that avenue going? In short follow the money.
Who is funding? What is the social context? The political context? Science as unbiased is laughable.
Companies invest in endowing chairs, sponsoring research programs, hire professors for out-of-hours “research” that produce payoffs in generating reports, articles, reviews and books, which may not be in the public interest but certainly benefit corporate bottom lines. This is commonplace.
Universities see the donor as a potential source of funds and try to ensure nothing is said or done which might jeopardise big new cash possibilities. Academics raising questions such as who is paying for the lab; how independent is the peer review; who profits from the research; is the university’s integrity compromised etc., learn that keeping their heads down is the best way not to risk their career, let alone future research funding.
Combine that with the reality that scientists staffing the official advisory committees and Government regulatory bodies in a significant number of cases have financial links with the industry they are supposed to be independently advising on and regulating. A recent study found that of the five scientific committees advising ministers on food and safety, 40% of committee members had links with the biotechnology industry. That is not an accident.
I work with hundreds of scientists, interact with thousands. You are absolutely, 100% wrong.
You know nothing about how this works. Companies fund independent research to get independent expertise. Nobody cares what outcomes they want. They get what they get, what the data say. Period.
Thank goodness companies sponsor positions and buildings. You know who we can thank for that? You. When you smear public scientists working in the best interest for the public good, the public does not want to invest in these areas.
And anyone that lies about data, science, or falstifies results finds the end of their career and future irrelevance. Just ask Wakefield, Huber, Seralini, Pusztai and the rest. Laughable.
Nice of you to smear an entire sector of professionals that have dedicated their lives to helping your farmers and teaching your students. Take the last word. I’m not wasting my time with you.
So you think the public determines the direction of science? You are not just a simpleton as some might think.
You are a con artist.
Dr. Folta, are you familiar with the controversy associated with the introduction of the “Minieska” apple variety from the University of Minnesota’s breeding program, marketed under the brand name “SweeTango”?
If so, what is your position on the issues involved?
From what I know about this it is Managed Release… specifically contracting certain germplasm to specific growers. It’s a tough call. Public institutions are in a pinch between releasing materials into the public domain and staying solvent, and at the same time aiding state industries. UM contracts with specific growers that pay a fee to grow the product. Those fees and royalties do help maintain a breeding program. It costs millions to produce a new apple tree. Think of the dedicated land and labor that goes to plant thousands of trees that never can be used in commercial production. It is a needle in a haystack. Breeding programs are not getting rich, they get funds that allow them to keep breeding plants. One other place where these managed releases are helpful is if the germplasm is used to compete against the state’s growers.
I am aware of what is involved in developing new fruit varieties, yes. Of course breeding programs are not “getting rich.” Since when is that relevant? Public institutions “remain solvent,” not to mention public, through public funding.
You say that it is a “tough call.” What makes it a tough call? Financial pressures? Do you support compromises on the core mission of public institutions for financial reasons? does this not open the door to corruption? A researcher may not be paid directly by a commercial interest, for example, but I cannot imagine any situation where making decisions based on taking money from private sources would have no effect on policy.
The legal purpose of the Land Grant colleges is to release materials into the public domain, is it not?
How is “germplasm used to compete against the state’s growers?” Are you saying that when someone in say, Michigan, grows a variety developed in Minnesota that the Michigan growers are therefore competing against (and presumably harming) the growers in Minnesota?
“Managed release” is an euphemism for “restricted release,” wouldn’t you say? Who benefits by a restricted release? The public? The growers? I think that is clearly not the case in the example I cited that the public or the growers benefit. Yes, UM charges growers for the use of germplasm. Is that not privatization if a life form? What is your position on that? Historically, new crop varieties were freely and universally available, with a few exceptions. The straight of agriculture rests upon that open-source model, in my opinion. What say you?
You say that “it costs millions to produce a new apple tree.” That is not quite correct. It doesn’t cost anything to produce an apple tree. Selecting a desirable variety from various crosses is what is resource intensive – relatively speaking. The general public, is, of course, largely ignorant about that process. Mostly what is involved is observation and record keeping. New varieties are not being created, or invented. Many of the most successful varieties originated as pippins, as chance seedlings with no intention or work involved, for example the apple varieties McIntosh, Northern Spy, Golden Delicious, and so forth.
The ruling ethic of the Land Grant colleges has always been that agricultural research and the development of new crop varieties does not cost society, rather it pays. Do you agree with that? Do you suggest abandoning that?
Thanks for a thoughtful response. The big mistake in your analysis is that public breeding programs do not get funding from states, at least not sufficient funding. Our breeders must write grants that are almost impossible to get. It absolutely costs a fortune to breed a new variety, as labor, land, and inputs are expensive– especially in tree crops where we there are years of management costs for trees that may never produce anything close to a marketable fruit. Land charges on the U Florida citrus program are in the hundreds of thousands.
It costs money, and so breeders get a small royalty on the sale of the germplasm, and those funds go back into the program. That allows them to keep the lights on. Small percentages also go to administration in most places.
The “competition” aspect is becoming a huge issue. When Mexico can plant a US public variety and then flood the US market with cheap fruit that can be grown with lower labor costs and inputs we can’t use here, it kills prices for American farmers. Growers here want restrictions, they are happy in many cases to pay for exclusivity.
The bottom line is that the costs are not restrictive and only help breeding programs producing new varieties.
The bottom line is that we just don’t have the funding in public institutions to fuel breeding programs that our industries need. We don’t even have sufficient positions and are losing whole breeding programs.
They UM model is likely to come up more and more going forward. With new genomics techniques we can generate improved plants faster, and so we’ll see a more regular stream of new releases, especially targeted to specific regions and growing windows.
You are describing the current state of affairs, at least from one particular point of view. I asked you what your position on these issues was.
You mention inadequate public finding, and that certainly is a problem. But merely stating the problem does not justify any particular course of action in response. You mention the costs associated with land. The growers, too, have such costs, and much of the field testing of new varieties is done by the growers. That is most certainly true with deciduous fruits, and I would imagine the same thing is true with citrus. If not, one would have to ask why not. You then say that it “costs a fortune” to breed a new variety and that a risk is run of never producing “anything close to a marketable fruit.” In other words, you are saying that the goal is to produce a “marketable fruit,” and that you see the breeding program as an investment in the hopes of a financial return. That is an admission that there is a climate of corruption, that research is being driven by private interests for their benefit, and not for the public benefit.
“Marketable fruit” has always been a function of a cooperative effort between the Land Grant colleges and the growers. There is no predicting which fruit might become popular. There are many many examples of wrong guesses, varieties that were thought to be winners but which failed tn gain public acceptance, and many examples of surprises, varieties that “came from nowhere” and became wildly successful, such as the Ginger Gold apple variety. It is the thousands of growers who took a chance on Ginger Gold, who bore the costs, and who introduced it to the public. That is the traditional process for getting food to market, and it has been wildly successful again and again. Putting effort into coming up with a “marketable” product, as though we were selling Iphones or something, really means working to develop something that will benefit the few, and doing that on the public dollar. That is privatization, and that is a threat to agriculture as well as to the public agricultural infrastructure. Had the introduction of Ginger Gold been restricted, as in the model you are proposing and promoting, it is likely that it never would have become available to the public.
Is the Montmorency variety of tart cherry a “marketable fruit?” No, not in the sense you are saying “marketable fruit.” It is a fruit with certain qualities that is being successfully marketed by the growers themselves. Much of the challenge for the grower lies in public education, and successfully marketing what they are already growing. The idea that new and better varieties are desperately needed is false. New and “better” varieties are needed for the marketers, and that does not necessarily benefit the growers, the public nor the public infrastructure. It is marketers to whom the Minieska variety I mentioned earlier was given, and that crippled the testing and marketing on the variety, obviously. If it is the model of the future, as you say, and as I fear you are correct, we are in big trouble.
You said that “public institutions are in a pinch between releasing materials into the public domain and staying solvent,” applying a set of private industry standards to public institutions. This is the same rationale being used to destroy public education and the postal service. I don’t disagree with you that it is happening, I asked you about your position on that.
You say that breeders are trying to come up with what we could call a “winner,” and you admit that there is a financial incentive for the breeder doing so. Cozy deals are becoming the rule, and of course the university gets a kick back in these set ups. That means that a researcher is motivated by personal financial gain – while drawing a salary and benefits from the public institution, while making use of public resources and facilities – and that this is encouraged and promoted within the institution. One’s position in the institution, then, is dependent upon bringing in bucks to the university and not necessarily on the quality or social value of their work. As you know, in fruit breeding, when you select for one quality it is likely to come at the expense of de-selecting for other qualities. That is analogous to the situation in the institutions. If we are going for “winners,” if there are immense amounts of money to be made through these privatizations schemes, if we are selecting for “marketable,” then we are unlikely to be also selecting for the public good or for the good of the infrastructure or the growers.
You mention one possible benefit to domestic growers of “managed release” programs, along with copyright and trademark protections, might be the protection from the market being flooded by imports. That is a red herring. That problem is a political issue, and has nothing to do with so-called “intellectual property rights.” If you want to talk about NAFTA, fine. But that is a distraction from the issue of the privatization of crop varieties and the public institutions.
You claim in many of your posts online that you are defending and promoting science, and that it is science that is under attack by your opponents. That is not true. You are defending and promoting privatization. After all, are not all GMO crops privately owned? That is the real issue. That is why the corporations are funneling money into the Land Grant colleges, for the purpose of gaining monopolies and controlling the market. That means that there are serious issues about the integrity of the breeders and the institutions, as well as your integrity, since you, in a position of public trust and drawing from the public treasury, are spending an inordinate amount of time running around the Internet defending and promoting the privatization of the public agriculture infrastructure.
The article we are commenting on here, and the research it cites, are both nonsense, of course. So much so, that I often wonder if this sort of thing is not actually being funded by the biotech industry, since it functions so exceedingly well as a “straw man” that can be easily knocked down by those promoting privatization. The opponents of GMO are woefully ill-informed and misguided, yes. The various non-profits behind the movement know that support and funding for their operations are dependent upon fear campaigns, sadly. But are you helping people understand the science? You are engaging in a political advocacy. You are giving a sales pitch. You are marketing. That is not science.
So you are saying that Global warming is a complete scam and vaccines are harmful?
I’ll chime in on that, as a public, independent scientist. The reason is, because we are expected to publish real science in higher-impact journals. Feeding rats two completely different diets, one containing 30% soybeans (that we know contain phytoestrogens and other bioactives) for 90 days and then showing that the mice are different than those eating wheat, is no big surprise. It is in an irrelevant journal that only Sarich would consider meaningful, as she never met a bad study she didn’t like.
You can. Just go to Google Scholar and enter search terms relevant to the issue you want to know more about. Then look for articles in credible journals (preferably with in impact factor of 2 or higher).
Why do people make this stuff up? It is all lies. What is the nature of the “toxicity”? Is it a “chemical” or is it just a fabrication?
Moore paid Monsanto-trolls everywhere. They must pay a lot of money to trolls to get people poisoned and murdered with their Roundup-Glyphosate and as In Vietnam with their Agent Orange. No moore prove necessary, look to the many long time human disasters In Vietnam created by those criminals.
You cannot make such stuff up, look to the hundreds of thousands very longtime disasters there and Google Vietnam-Agent Orange-disaster. You will find also this Agent Orange toxic stuff soon in your food beside this extremely toxic Roundup-Glyphosate because it is now also allowed by the Monsanto-and Zio Controlled FDA and Government to kill as much people as possible with such toxic garbage in our food.
Speaking of abberrations, how’bout that control group!
Sounds like it’s working as intended.