Papantonio: Monsanto Hiding Dangers of GMOs

[GoLeft TV]

Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms have been linked to dozens of diseases, which is just another nail in the coffin for GMO’s. But the chemical giant refuses to back down, and they appear to have the full support of the US government.

Mike Papantonio discusses this with attorney Wesley Bowden.

[still_one]

1. Just because the government says it's safe doesn't mean it is. For decades they have allowed

Farmers to give antibiotics to animals, and I believe that is why we are facing the crisis we are due to resistant strains. In fact, in this country I attribute that more so than physician abuse of antibiotic, but the reason they prefer to put emphasis on physicians is because the government gave the green light to indiscriminate use of antibiotics in farm animals and they want to deflect the blame from them

[blkmusclmachine]

3. ,

,

[Kali]

5. actually the antibiotic resistance problem is because of idiot people

demanding them from idiot doctors for every virus, cold, or symptom they have rather restricting their use to actual BACTERIAL infections.

feeding antibiotics to improve growth in livestock is stupid, but it is not the cause of resistant organisms in human disease.

[cui bono]

6. Is that a fact or your opinion?

I believe feeding all those antibiotics to livestock that we eat has to affect us. How could it not?

[Kali]

9. it is both

feeding antibiotics to livestock DOES contribute to resistant organisms in livestock, but those are rarely transmitted to humans. and the practice is being phased out (antibiotics should be reserved for theraputic use against disease organisms, both in human and veterinary medicine). My particular knowledge is cattle. Most of the antibiotics fed to them are a class called ionophores. these are not used in humans.

here is some info (yes from Merck, but I think factual) -

<snip>Production-enhancing antimicrobial compounds can be classified as ionophore or nonionophore antibiotics. This distinction is important, because ionophores have no use in human medicine and do not have any link or possible effect on antimicrobial resistance to therapeutic antibiotics in either people or food animals; to group all antimicrobials together for debate about the risk to therapeutic antibiotics is ill advised and overly simplistic.
<snip>
The development of microbial resistance to antibiotics in treated animals, which can then be spread to people, is an important concern regarding the widespread use of antimicrobial feed additives in food production. There is circumstantial evidence that use of subtherapeutic doses of antimicrobials creates selective pressure for the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, which may be transmitted to the consumer from food or through contact with treated animals or animal manure. A ban on the use of antibiotics as feed additives decreased drug-resistant bacteria in a Danish study. While overall mortality rates of chickens were not affected, more feed was consumed per kg of weight. Therapeutic use of antibiotics was increased, but the total volume of antibiotic use was significantly decreased. The EU has banned bacitracin, carbodox, olaquindox, tylosin, virginiamycin, avilamycin, flavophospholipol, lasalocid sodium, monensin sodium, and salinomycin as of 2009. There has been no reported evidence of any reduction in antimicrobial resistance in human bacterial pathogens as a result of the EU ban. This is understandable given that the most important and concerning cases of antimicrobial resistance in human medicine, namely methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE), Streptococcus pneumoniae, and others, are not food-borne pathogens, are not found in food or companion animals, and the drugs of interest are not used and were not used before the ban in livestock. The issue of antimicrobial resistance is critical for the immediate and long-term future of human medicine; however, the complexity of the issue and the difficulty with which it must be assessed ensure that clear answers are not imminent and the debate over the most appropriate path forward in the USA and abroad will continue.

I do not think we should be doing this at all, but I also have an understanding of what is going on and it isn't the simplistic conclusion that is drawn and promoted by alarmists. Like most thinking that is overwrought and borders on CT, I don't feel that helps the dialog. It damages the credibility of those who are working to change the system.

[still_one]

11. 70 to 80% of antibiotic use in this country goes to livestock, and it is given to livestock that are

Not sick

[Kali]

13. that is a volume number and is not entirely relevant, though it does sound quite dramatic

see the matter of ionophores.

if some huge portion of something is "wasted" (say by feeding it to livestock) that doesn't actually mean it could be useful for treating human disease.

[still_one]

8. You are incorrect, at least in the us

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17600481/

It is all over the literature, and the link I supplied isn't the most complete


http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-antibiotics.asp

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/prescription-for-trouble.html#.VNpdi0Y76JJ

[Kali]

10. from your first link

<snip>Much consideration has been given this issue on both domestic and international fronts, and various countries have enacted or are considering tighter restrictions or bans on some types of antibiotic use in food animal production. In some cases, banning the use of growth-promoting antibiotics appears to have resulted in decreases in prevalence of some drug resistant bacteria; however, subsequent increases in animal morbidity and mortality, particularly in young animals, have sometimes resulted in higher use of therapeutic antibiotics, which often come from drug families of greater relevance to human medicine.

[still_one]

12. Most antibiotic use in this country is livestock

[appalachiablue]

17. It's not people who are to blame. Doctors have been warning patients about overuse

of antibiotics since the mid 1990s. Patients do not threaten or rob their docs for scripts, really. It's the unnecessary business use for farm animals to ward off diseases, often in filthy conditions and to fatten them up sooner for slaughter and quick profit.
I saw a pharmaceutical rep. interviewed 2012 on PBS's Frontline investigative journalism program all about the crisis in human conditions/diseases becoming AB resistant. (Serious diseases, even UTs now).

The journalist asked the Pharma rep. why companies weren't working harder on new, improved antibiotics for humans. The rep. looked very nervous but said, they had a responsibility to their stock shareholders (for more profits). Incredible, the bottom line only. Pharma cares about $ and they're making billions from all the pills people take globally from chronic long term diseases. These illnesses were not on the rise until the last 20+ years- global obesity epidemic, widespread diabetes even in the young, chronic autoimmune disorders, UC, allergies, autism, cancer- 1 in 3 people now.

I have 4 doctors in my family and 2 nurses- 1 cardiology, 2 general med., 1 oncologist. My mother remembers when there were no antibiotics; people died of infections, pneumonia, etc. In less than 50 years they've been overused and the world is at real risk, as the CDC, WHO, UN realize.

[Kali]

23. most of the "antibiotics" used on CAFO animals are fed sub-therapeutically as growth promoters

not used to treat any illness. the mechanism is not well understood but seems to allow them to gain weight/grow on less feed. it supposedly makes them more efficient.

I don't agree that we need or even should be doing it, but the practice isn't what is causing the dangerous resistance in most human infectious disease organisms.

yes, there are some illnesses that are of concern - certain food-borne pathogens - but feeding cattle ionophores is not causing MRSA, or multi drug resistant tuberculosis, for example.

One of the problems for companies developing new antibiotics is that the correct thinking about this is to NOT use them widely. To save them for when really needed, unlike what we have done in the past (giving out antibiotics for every trip to the doctor) That does not jibe with profits a company would be looking for when developing new drugs. We need to work on changing the way the research and development (and the profit "rewards&quot are set up.

I am not sure what the solutions are, but I do agree we should stop feeding, and overusing in veterinary situations (anybody can buy pretty major antibiotics w/o a prescription for veterinary use and not many people understand the purpose of withdrawal periods) as well as over-prescribing to, and improper use by humans. (don't forget that in a lot of the world these products are available over the counter for humans too!)

[panfluteman]

18. Kaliji - How Can You Say That???

How can you say that feeding antibiotics to livestock is not the cause of antibiotic resistant organisms in human disease? I believe that many of the same bacteria that are threats to livestock are the same ones that infect humans as well. And aren't antibiotic residues from the factory farmed meat we eat in our guts, and various bacteria that inhabit our guts are exposed to those residues, and can thereby mutate and develop resistance to these same antibiotics that are used in livestock.

Mitakuye Oyasin - that's Lakota for "We are all connected" and a key principle of Hindu philosophy as well, Kaliji! You can't draw artificial barriers in your mind and pretend that nothing can cross them, because they do. Heck - residues of Roundup or Glyphosate are even in the air we breathe! And from our lungs, it's not unreasonable to assume that Glyphosate can enter the bloodstream to be carried to any organ or part of the body, including the intestines, where it can harm or derange the gut bacteria.

I agree with you that antibiotics are way overprescribed by doctors to humans, but humans also are exposed to low residual levels of antibiotics in the factory farmed meat they eat - and I'm sure that exposure to these low levels gives gut bacteria the same opportunity to mutate into forms that have better resistance. Even if the low dose they're exposed to is not lethal to them, I believe that being more resistant gives them a competitive edge over other species and strains of bacteria who have not acquired this resistance.

[appalachiablue]

20. As you & wise ones say, we are all connected. Barriers erected for false purposes are just that.

The gut microbia is damaged by antibiotic recklessness, also from antibiotics in farm animals that we ingest as meat, dairy, eggs, cheese, yogurt, milk. Antibiotics also get into the soil, water & air from industrial runoff.

There are many paid Rent a Scientist types out there unfortunately.

[Kali]

22. bacteria residue in meat happens when it is used therapeutically and withholding times are not

followed. But that is not common at all. (meat has been tested since the late 60s http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/antibiotic_residue_testing_in_meat_results_in_few_positive_samples)

now it is true that if meat were to be contaminated at slaughter with resistant gut bacteria, humans can get sick from those if they in turn don't follow safe handling procedures. Most food borne illness occurs without treatment so the reality is that is not a significant medical issue most of the time.

The resistant disease organisms that are of greatest concern to humans are not the ones affected in this situation.

Not sure what Roundup really has to do with this. (other than all things are connected, which I agree with but that doesn't necessarily make for coherent conversations)

[appalachiablue]

16. The agricultural industry uses 80% percent of the ANTIBIOTICS in this country for FACTORY FARM

raised animals. In giant production centers, some with filthy conditions, antibiotics help crowded animals resist illnesses and grow faster for quicker slaughter, and higher profits. CAFOs, concentrated animal feeding operations in the US, Mexico and elsewhere consist of thousands of acres of land and immense containment PONDS to hold the WASTE PRODUCTS of millions of animals.

A VIDEO posted here last month showed the aerial view from a drone, of a huge PIG FARM in North Carolina. The waste area that was adjacent to the dozens of large animal building pens was the size of a large lake or river. The factory farm smells permeate neighbors in low income communities so much that they can't go outside of their homes some days. Unrecognizable 25 or 30 years ago, the current GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM is highly industrialized and mechanized to meet the demands of the 7 billion world population, growing every decade and a half by a billion. Corporate GMO food crops designed to feed the world are banned in Europe, blocked from labelling in the US and understudied for suspected detrimental effects on human health.

GERM KILLERS from antiseptics and antibiotics to pesticides like triclosan are unnecessarily used as additives in common household and personal products including soaps, toothpaste, mouthwash, shampoo, bandaides, sneakers and sportsware. After consumer pressure a couple years ago, J & J removed their Baby Shampoo which contained triclosan.
Large amounts of toxins from business and agricultural use like herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides and fertilizers contaminate the soil, air and water, and plant and animal life through industrial runoff and pollution. Residences and commercial facilities add to the distribution including medicine disposal from sinks, dishwashers, showers and sewage.

International health organizations are managing chronic diseases unseen in previous generations and antibiotic and pesticide resistant superbugs from deadly infections to once manageable infestations of bed bugs and lice that are proving more difficult to treat.
Government agencies like the FDA, EPA, USDA and others were created to protect our air, soil, water, food and consumer products. For 35 years their power has been reduced by economic ideology that eliminates regulation and oversight in favor of higher profits for transnational corporations.
The impact of deregulation and growth policies on life on the planet is the ultimate challenge of our time.

[Archae]

2. "Linked to dozens of diseases?"

So has di-hydrogen monoxide, BTW.

Ban it!

[djean111]

4. Oh, I think water is not really in the same league as GMOs.

Unless polluted by Roundup.

[rhett o rick]

7. k&r. Thanks for posting. nm

[bbgrunt]

14. big k and r.

[Silent3]

15. "Linked to" is a very abused idea.

When the links turn out to be so very weak and indirect as many of these supposed links turn out to be (when they turn out to be vaguely true at all), then there's a big, big difference between these two possible responses:

1) Lumping all GMO together as if GMO were a monolithic thing that would have any common properties or common risks from one GMO to the next. Not at all justified, but if you're into gross oversimplification as a form of caution, what can I say?

2) Deciding, out of a GREAT abundance of caution that you're worried so you're going to steer clear of any and all GMO, just in case.

And this response:

POISON!11!!11!!!1 IMAGES OF DEATHLY SCARY SKULLS!11!!!!1! TEH EVUL CORPORATIONS R TRYING TO KILLZ US!!!1!!!!

[panfluteman]

19. Joke: You Know What GMO Stands For? God Move Over!!!

Here's my quasi-religious spiel on God and GMOs: In the book of Genesis in the Bible, at each stage of creation, God looks at what He has created and sees that it is good. That's good - period, without any further qualifications. That means good for everybody and everything, good for the whole. Not just good for Monsanto's bottom line - at the expense of everyone else. The mad scientists at Monsanto are playing genetic roulette, they're playing around with Nature, or God's creation, but they don't have nearly the same level of wisdom or moral character as God does - or as Nature and natural selection does, if you're not religious. And that's putting it mildly! Yet Monsanto believes that it can play around with the laws of Nature just to suit their self serving, greedy and avaricious ends. Their bad karma will surely come back to them, but the only problem is that, in the process, they just might screw up not only our health, but the delicate ecological balance of the entire planet. And that's just as serious of a threat to our survival as global warming and climate change, IMO.

There is a ton of epidemiological evidence implicating the dangers of GMOs. Look as all the intestinal disorders that are so prevalent these days, like food allergies and gluten intolerance - and GMOs and Glyphosate seriously impair the functioning of beneficial and necessary probiotic bacteria in our gut. And look at the soaring rate of human infertility these days, which was also comparatively rare before the introduction of GMOs - I believe that genetic and reproductive problems have been observed in laboratory animals fed GMOs. And then there are the strange kidney diseases occurring in farm workers exposed to high levels of Glyphosate.

Glyphosate, which is the main active ingredient of Roundup herbicide, is basically a chelating agent that impairs weeds' ability to absorb vital nutrients by chelating or binding them. Problem is, although it does not interact negatively in this way with human cells, it does have the same kind of adverse effect on the beneficial probiotic bacteria in our gut, which are big contributors to our overall state of health, nutrition and immunity.

[appalachiablue]

21. +1000 Tell it!

[GreatGazoo]

24. GMO = Give Me Organic