cheap superdry river island sale j crew outlet cheap vera bradley handbags jack wills uk osprey outlet dr martens outlet

 Rigged trials
 Legal Letter
 GM Crops: Risks and Risk Management Required
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

1. Key issues
 Summary and Overview
 10 main NCF concerns
 Farmers misled
 Q & A for school projects
 What is the drive for GM crops?
 Links to other issues
 Scientific concerns summary
 The future - 2020?
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Beyond the Bulldust
 *Unfair liability*
 Pressures in GM debate
 Questions regarding risk management
 Genetic engineering – a crop of hyperbole
 Agronomics and Economics of GM canola

2. GM crops banned
 Monsanto Crop Management & Resistance Management Plans
 Why Australia is not prepared for commercial trials
 Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready canola
 Bayer Cropscience's GM Invigor canola
 Where to now?
 State legislation - moratoria

3. Market issues
 Canola markets
 Zero tolerance of GM contamination is market demand
 Wheat will be impacted
 Higher prices for non-GM canola
 Contamination scare affects market
 Japanese requirements
 Consumer polls & market rejection
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 EU will not tolerate acceptance of tolerance levels
 What our marketers say
 How and when non-GM premiums started

About us
 Network Policy & Objectives
 NCF Funding
 NCF History
 NCF profile: Julie Newman
 NCF profile: Juliet McFarlane
 Early work

 What is canola?
 Statistics - yields
 GM Canola Factsheet
 Canadian farmers nervous about GM canola acceptance in Japan
 Letter from Japan

Coexistence & Segregation
 Crop Management Plans for non-GM grower
 Farmer to farmer Hypothetical
 Segregation and coexistence plans
 Seed industry allows 0.5% contamination
 Canadian grain segregation
 Zero tolerance is market demand
 European coexistence report
 Identity preservation and segregation
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Testing protocol
 Labels for GM contamination
 EU will not accept contamination
 Proposed Stewardship Program for Canola
 Contract harvester problems
 Crop management plans
 Industry avoids the truth about GM segregation

Consumer concerns
 Is GM food safe?
 Churches - 10 reasons against GM
 Scientific concerns
 Cross Kingdom Breeding
 Food safety testing inadequate
 Environmental effects
 13 Science based reasons for GM-free
 Myths about the Digestion of Proteins and DNA
 5 part series covering issues
 Health Risk
 Reason for Schools to ban GM Foods
 Monsanto's feeding studies
 FSANZ answers regarding food testing
 Scientific report on safety testing
 Trespass report
 Scientific concerns
 Consumer concerns summary
 GM food lecture
 Seeds of Concern
 Public attitudes to GM food
 Scrambling and gambling with the genome
 L-tryptophan - A Deadly Epidemic
 Protestors (photos)
 GM health concerns in brief
 Inadequate health testing for GM canola
 Russian study showing high death rates in offspring
 Pusztai debate
 Hidden uncertainties - risks of GMOs
 Study shows GM eating Americans sicker than non-GM eating English
 Scientists see spike in kids' food allergies
 Latest GMO Research: Decreased Fertility, Immunological Alterations and Allergies
 Key health papers of concern
 Do we really know what we are doing?

 Contamination is uncontrollable (photos)
 Gene transfer & cross-pollination
 GM product recalls
 Environmental contamination (photos)
 Confronting contamination & co-existence
 Invigor canola outcrossing
 Gene Stacking = Super Weed
 AOF contamination report
 History of how Bayer Cropscience caused contamination of non-GM canola in Australia
 Fighting GMO contamination around the world

Corporate control
 Corporate control
 Corporate Engineering in Public Debate
 Commercial influence on science
 In (Seed) Bed Together
 The drive behind GM Crops
 IP And Genetically Modified Organisms: A Fateful Combination
 Commercial influence on science
 Made by Monsanto

Costs and liabilities
 Costs to non-GM farmers
 Non-GM Liable for Contamination?
 Liability issues associated with GM crops - AFFA
 Supplying non-GM requires certification
 Liability questions answered
 More on liability
 *Farmer liability*
 Liability and GM crops

 No economic benefit for farmers
 Economic Recommendations
 Economic Critique
 Why has the OGTR ignored economics?
 Australian farmers can not afford GM crops
 What benefit?
 Higher plant yields better or worse for farmers?
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 Global seed industry concentration
 Canada versus Australia comparison
 No farmer economic gain for pharmaceutical crops
 NCF: Economics of GM canola ***
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

Farmer attitudes
 Australian farmer surveys
 Farm lobby group policies
 Victorian ALP policy
 GCA farm lobby group policies

GM / Non-GM difference
 What is GM / Non-GM?
 GM plant breeding not faster
 Will the industry be in crisis without GM?
 Why GM is different
 Non-GM biotech is the future

GM canola
 Will GM canola yield more in Australia?
 Comparison between Canadian and Australian canola conditions
 Are GM chemicals safer, cheaper or more efficient?
 How much GM canola is grown in Canada?
 Canadian and Australian canola statistics
 Economics of GM canola

GM crops
 Public good or corporate control?
 Misleading claims over GM
 ISAAA GM crop areas misleading
 Use of GM crops
 GM crops and chemical use
 Multiple spray applications vs yield penalty
 Yield problems - links
 GM cotton failures
 Global yields
 Pharmaceutical crops
 Global Trends in GM Crops
 Who benefits from GM crops?

GM crops experience
 Canadian Farmers viewpoint
 American farmers viewpoint
 American Corn Growers experience
 Argentina faces serious problems
 Report on North American Experience
 Canadian organic farmers
 Argentina & GM soy - success at what cost?
 How is industry managing non-GM now?
 India, Bulgaria, Indonesia
 Monsanto vs US farmers
 Global GM adoption
 US farmers warned of GM Liability
 Farming news links
 GM-growing US faces agricultural trade deficit
 GM soy in US not considered food grade
 Monsanto in Argentina
 GM soy war in Paraguay
 Violence in Brazil
 12 Years of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment

GM wheat
 Learn more about GM wheat
 Marketing systems for GM wheat
 GM Wheat submission - food health
 Report - Farmers lose with GM wheat
 What our marketers say
 Canadian Wheat Board position
 GM Wheat impossible to segregate

Honey issues
 Apiarist briefing
 The impact of GM contamination
 SA Apiarists briefing
 Map SA & Vic
 Honey tests reveal GM contamination

How trustworthy is decision-making?
 Vested interests revealed
 Why trust the regulatory process?
 Sue Meek profile
 Federal government pro-GM
 Scientists influenced
 Liability, GCA and legal action
 Research manipulated
 OGTR does not assess economics, segregation, chemical resistance, food testing etc.
 Three faces of science fraud
 Misleading GM language

 Insurance Council submission
 Insurance avoid GM risk

International Protocols
 World Trade Organisation
 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
 Free Trade Agreement
 Farmers right to replant seeds
 International agreements
 GM labelling
 WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning GMOs
 Biotechnology Policy Documents of FAO Members

Legal Issues
 Copy of Technology User Agreement
 2003 Monsanto contract
 GM Patents
 Monsanto shoot themselves in the foot (cartoon)
 Will law protect us from contamination?
 Summary of Supreme Court hearing of Percy Schmeiser
 NSW Minister guarantees farmers are protected
 AFFA-liability issues
 US farmers sued
 US farmers warned of GM liability issues
 GM Crops and farmers Liability
 Why is the non-GM grower liable for contamination?
 Innocent farmer sued
 Federal judge's opinion shows understanding of patented gene spread
 Liability for non-GM farmers
 More on liability:
 Liability and GM crops
 Farmers prepare for legal fight over GM
 Legal letter from non-GM to GM
 Liability issues - Duncan Currie

Legislation & Regulation
 Trials vs Commercial Release
 Bayer Cropscience Invigor Canola approved by OGTR
 States impose moratoriums in role to protect economics
 OGTR role
 Gene Technology Act
 GM canola trial locations
 Victorian Moratorium
 Australian GM status by States
 Federal candidate views
 OGTR unapproved GM canola trials
 Gene Technology Act Critique
 South Australian Act
 WA proudly GM-free
 *State moratoria legislation*
 Gene Tech Act reviews denies compensation
 National Biotechnology Strategy
 Chronology of genetic engineering regulation in Australia: 1953–2008

 Genome Scrambling Links
 Top 10 books on GM
 Religious links

Network action
 Invigor canola submission OGTR
 GM Zone proposal submissions
 GTGC submission summary
 NCF Newsletters
 NCF Media releases
 GTGC full submission
 Roundup Ready Submission OGTR
 Network tours
 pro-GM lobbyists attack NCF
 Pro-GM tantrums
 Victorian farmer survey
 NCF banner & flyer
 Field day survey
 Community monitoring of GM Crop Trials
 Letters to farmers
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt1
 Gene Tech Act Reveiw Pt 2
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt3
 Bayer Protest
 Bayers Response to NCF
 NCF submission released

 Canadian organic standard
 American organic standards

 Victorian maps
 Victorian sites - photos
 SA trial photos
 Trials summary
 Topas 19/2 contamination
 South Australia 2006 GM Trials


28 November 2008

Latest GMO Research: Decreased Fertility, Immunological Alterations and Allergies

From: Dr. Gregory Damato PhD. W.A.

0415 946 727

Latest GMO Research: Decreased Fertility, Immunological Alterations and Allergies


Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are created through an inexact science of shooting genes spliced from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or humans with a .22 caliber pistol into the DNA of plants or animals laced with a metal such a tungsten. This arrogant and unsafe science ostensibly supplants millions of years of evolution with little or no scientific justification. In fact, recent research on GMO crops have reported yields to be between 4 to 20 percent less than conventional crops [1-6].
In the 1970's when genetic engineered was pioneered, scientists believed the genome was static and genes could be altered in a uniform manner with the organism only expressing the one intended modification. As research progressed in the 1980's, scientists scrapped the idea of the static genome and moved towards a dynamic genomic belief model. This came about from the realization that by inserting a new gene into a plant, a cascade of unintended consequences arose. Scientists found that there was no possible way to introduce a new gene into an organism and only get one intended result. The genes quickly changed based on a myriad of unknown circumstances that sometimes could not be repeated in the lab even though the exact same procedures were used. The levels of instability from these newly created organisms were overwhelming, but many scientists were silenced.
Safety has always been the number one priority of consumers when it comes to GMOs; antithetically, the seed companies' only priority has been to increase profits at any expense. Therefore, it is no surprise that objective and unbiased researchers have recently added to the growing knowledge of the realities of the increased instability and unintended consequences regarding the long-term safety of GMOs. These researchers recently found clear links among the consumption of GM-corn and decreased fertility, immunological alterations in the gut and the exacerbation and creation of allergies.

Fertility in GM-Fed Mice

Scientists in Austria recently conducted the first ever long-term multi-generational feeding study of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn (NK 603 x MON 810) in mice [7]. The study consisted of two groups: an experimental group, which was fed a 33% GM corn (maize) feed, and a control group, which was fed an equivalent non-GM corn feed. The mice were allowed to live a natural life and were monitored for four generations. Scientists recorded organ weight, gene expression, body mass, metabolism, life span and number of offspring of both groups of mice. The scientists found that mice fed GM corn had significantly less pups per litter than the control group on the third and fourth generation. Furthermore, pups whose parents were fed GM-feed weighed less at birth and at weaning and experienced significantly higher mortality rates than those fed non-GM corn. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek reported that there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet and mice fed non-GM corn reproduced more efficiently.


Gene Expression in GM-Fed Mice

Using a microarray analysis, the scientists reported that 1016 genes had been differentially expressed in the mice fed GM corn with most being up-regulated. Essentially, the GM-fed mice had hundreds of their proteins, which are encoded by genes, expressed in an increased or decreased quantity, which as a corollary altered certain biological processes in their bodies. For example, sensory perception, ion transport and the ability to breakdown proteins (proteolysis) were down-regulated or under-expressed, while the ability of the mice to regulate T-cells (a primary immunological response especially in fighting cancer), circadian rhythm regulation and the FAS signalling pathway (which is a major pathway for cell apoptosis and is important in the elimination of cancers) were over-expressed. This study elucidates the fact that biologic damage from GMOs may not manifest until the third generation and details strong evidence for the mandatory labelling, and even more so for the mass extinction, of these highly dangerous and unnecessary foods.

Immunological Reactions in GM Fed Mice

Italian researchers at the National Institute of Nutrition in Rome, Italy, recently published a study examining the effects of a 50 percent GM-corn (maize) diet on the intestinal immune response of mice [8]. The GM-corn was known as Monsanto's transgenic MON810 and was created using an inserted foreign DNA sequence from the bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) designed to protect against a fungus known as the Fusarium species. The study was conducted over 30 and 90-day periods respectively, with mice from two groups, weaning age (mean of 21 days) and old age (mean of 15 months). The study evaluated the peripheral and intestinal immune response to long-term GM-corn and non-GM corn consumption of each group across the two periods. The young and old mice were used because of the lack of research on these subsets as well as their potential susceptibility to immunological changes, more so than non-aged adult animals.
The results of the long-term study revealed significant changes in the immunophenotype of the gut, spleen, circulating lymphocytes and the level of serum cytokines of the mice fed GM-corn. Immunophenotyping essentially determines the expression of proteins by the cells. Any differences in the expression of proteins between the control and the experimental groups would be attributable to the GM diet. Specifically, the researchers found an increased presence of several cytokines in the GM fed mice, which are specifically involved in inflammatory and allergic responses by the body. The researchers also found an increase in the protein expression of lymphocytes (TCRγδ+ population). Within this population, the γδT cells reside in the gut and are associated with regulatory elements of the immune response, specific to infectious agents [9-11]. Elevated amounts γδT cells have been found in asthmatics, children suffering from food allergies, gastrointestinal symptoms and juvenile arthritis [12]. The GM-fed mice also exhibited significant alterations in the number of T and B cells, indicating a significantly abnormal immune response to the genetically altered feed. Furthermore, other researchers have found a newly expressed protein from the consumption of GM corn (50 kDa γ-zein), which is a widely known allergenic protein [13]. In conclusion, from the newly presented research it is apparent that ingesting genetically engineered BT corn not only invokes an anaphylaxis (allergenic) response within the body, it also deregulates several proteins, inhibits fertility and alters the overall immunological response by the body. Clearly, Monsanto whose sole goal is to control the world through food, has a lot of explaining to do.



1. Benbrook, C.M. (1999) ‘Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998’, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1,
2. University of Nebraska (2000) ‘Research shows Roundup Ready soybeans yield less’, IANR News Service,
3. Griffiths, M. (1999) ‘The emperor’s transgenic clothes’, Are GMO lemmings in the US leading all of us over the biotechnology cliff?
5. Oplinger, E.S., M.J. Martinka, and K.A. Schmitz (1999) ‘Performance of transgenetic soybeans - Northern US’, presented to the ASTA Meetings, Chicago.
6. Reported in Farmers Weekly (UK), 4th December 1998.
Clark, E.A. (1999) ‘10 reasons why farmers should think twice before growing GE crops’,
7. Cyran, N. Gully, S., Handl, G., Hofstatter, F. Meyer, Skalicky, M., & Steinborn, R. (November 11, 2008). Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Unpublished report: Institute fur Ernahrung, Austria.
8. Finamore, A., Roselli, M., Britti, S., Monastra, G., AMbra, R., & Mengheri, E. (In Press). Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry.

9. Tsuchiya, T.; Fukuda, S.; Hamada, H.; Nakamura, A.; Kohama, Y.; Ishikawa, H.; Tsujikawa, K.; Yamamoto, H. Role of γδ T cells in the inflammatory response of experimental colitis mice. Journal of Immunology. 2003, 171, 5507–5513.

10. Groh, V.; Steinle, A.; Bauer, S.; Spies, T. (1998). Recognition of stress induced

MHC molecules by intestinal epithelial γδ T cells. Science, 279, 1737–1740.

11. Mombaerts, P., Arnoldi, J., Russ, F., Tonegawa, S., & Kaufmann, S. H. (1993). Different roles of R and γδ T cells in immunity against an intracellular bacterial pathogen. Nature, 365, 53–56.

12. Kokkonen, J., Arvonen, M., Va¨ha¨salo, P., & Karttunen, T. J. (2007). Intestinal immune activation in juvenile idiopathic arthritis and connective tissue disease. Scandanavian Journal of Rheumatology, 36, 386–389.

13. Pasini, G., Simonato, B., Curioni, A., Vincenzi, S., Cristaudo, A., Santucci, B., Peruffo, A. D.; Giannattasio, M. (2002). IgE-mediated allergy to corn: a 50 kDa protein, belonging to the reduced soluble proteins, is a major allergen. Allergy, 57, 98–106.

Print Version polo ralph lauren

Seach the archive:  
or by date  

09 November 2009
Industry avoid the truth about GM segregation problems

11 June 2009
Dupont alleges anti-competitive conduct by Monsanto

24 February 2009
Non-GM Farmers to pay for unwanted GM contamination

02 February 2009
Made by Monsanto

01 February 2009
Top 10 Seed and Pesticide companies

29 January 2009
Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

29 January 2009
Non-GM biotech is the future

26 January 2009
12 Yrs of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment

19 January 2009
Non-GM seed preferred by farmers but difficult to obtain

16 January 2009
GM Canola a flop

News archive