It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The new scientific study on Genetically modified foods the truth is out....

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Long Lance
 


The genome is intact, but when cross breeding occurs often you end up with new information as it's chopped and changed around. You cannot breed a modern wheat plant with it's ancestor for example, because it is an entirely new species, with new information.



hybrid crops have their own issues, but these tend to be one-offs (and infertile) like mules and most importantly, if the genes didn't jive, the seed did not germinate and never saw daylight.

with genetic engineering techniques, it's forcible introduction

www.psrast.org...

these techniques revolve around viral or mechanical insertion of any DNA you wish to introduce, it's pathological from the get-go and is reminiscent of cancer in many ways, just think of asbestos fiber, it's essentially doing just that and it's banned for that very reason.

the results aren't comparable to breeding, they are comparable to infectious disease if anything.




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Thing is when you digest something, you don't absorb it's DNA, it's not like it implants itself into you. GM crops have bought wheat strains to dry countries and allowed the people there to farm them, get higher yields and so not starve! It's not all doom and gloom.

Look when your child is starving and someone offers you a crop that works, would you honestly say no? Would you honestly think that is wrong?

There are a few crops i disagree with, ones that massively increase the natural pesticide in the plant are wrong, or ones that are made to produce seed that will never germinate.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984


Thing is when you digest something, you don't absorb it's DNA..


i never said that, all i know is that these genes aren't stable and quality control issues aside, there's nothing natural about current mainstream GMOs, which means we'll have to look at the past decades only for experiences. all plant breeding is therefore immaterial to the discussion.


these experiences have been all but desastrous:

ask Argentina's farmers, ask Mexico or India, these crops have far too often been an unmitigated failure, their only 'virtue' is being patentable.


Source

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

The study - carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt - has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.

Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research - reported in the journal Better Crops - because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"


alternative source


on cotton production, coinciding with the spread of BT- variants (GM)

www.centerforfoodsafety.org...


+ in the last decade, cotton production has declined in the majority of countries that have adopted GM cotton like Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, South Africa and Australia, and significant drops in GM cotton production are forecasted in 2006 for South Africa and Mexico.



an old but illustrative post


more recent:

GM Crops and the Coming Famine

the title may be flashy, but it seems i wasn't far off:

Catastrophic Fall in 2009 Global Food Production

2009 Will Be Year of Global Food Crisis

2009 Farm Crisis developin



like it or not, so far, GM crops have been a resounding and stunning failure, as long as agricultural, as opposed to financial, matters are considered. the evidence is there, just got to take a look.

i posted about the tryptophan scandal, where faulty, apprently mutant GMOs produced a insiduous toxin. will it take the deaths of millions of people from either poisoning or starvation? rest assured, unless the industry is held to any minimal standard, it will happen, inevitably and right on schedule.

[edit on 2009.6.1 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Like it or not there are studies which contradict yours. Then there are those which will contradict any i bring up. Basically it's still up in the air atm. So until more decisive proof comes up, i say keep at it. Although i don't agree with certain practices as i outlined earlier.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Like it or not there are studies which contradict yours.


i don't need a study focused on the health impact of particular GMOs when ingested to know that these crops haven't delivered. this is an established fact which can be verified in the many minor to intermediate catastrophies these crops cause around the globe, while they're working close to the norm, i might add...

you do know how they test their crops? they sample the inserted strain, not more, because of time and cost, if a vector is used, it remains active in the plant. does horizontal gene transfer mean anything to you? you brought that point up in your last post - btw did ou actually read the article provided in the opening post? it would be nice if you actually adressed it.


as i said before, my personal take on the whole issue is about topsoils and if it takes another EMS debacle to bring the issue to peoples' attention then so be it. you aren't attending a TV quiz, doing wrong will have real consequences in due time and no amount of studies will change them. furthermore, i seriously question the notion that studies are treated like votes. the mere fact that contradictions exist should be considered a warning. tinkering with the food supply is a surefire way to arrive at a situation where talk no longer matters at all, as opposed to not very much, like now.

ignore the signs, rest assured these Monsanto bonds won't mean squat if this development is alowed to run its course towards its logical conclusion.

[edit on 2009.6.1 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
you do know how they test their crops? they sample the inserted strain, not more, because of time and cost, if a vector is used, it remains active in the plant. does horizontal gene transfer mean anything to you? you brought that point up in your last post - btw did ou actually read the article provided in the opening post? it would be nice if you actually adressed it.


I did read it and i simply stated that many studies are for and against the issue, beyond this i don't know what to say as we'd just get bogged down in throwing countering studies at one another.


Originally posted by Long Lance
as i said before, my personal take on the whole issue is about topsoils and if it takes another EMS debacle to bring the issue to peoples' attention then so be it. you aren't attending a TV quiz, doing wrong will have real consequences in due time and no amount of studies will change them. furthermore, i seriously question the notion that studies are treated like votes. the mere fact that contradictions exist should be considered a warning. tinkering with the food supply is a surefire way to arrive at a situation where talk no longer matters at all, as opposed to not very much, like now.


Emphasis mine.

Contradications will always exist with everything. Until someone manages to prove a very serious problem then they'll be allowed to continue. The studies against GM are interesting, they are not however conclusive. That is what science does, waits until their is a majority. Studies are therefore sort of votes, when the evidence mounts it's taken notice of. At the moment they have a mole hill, not a mountain.

On the upside as least we have that nice big seed vault in Europe in case it all goes wrong. I often wonder if this is the exact reason they made it, so that Monsanto and others can experiment, running riot and if it goes wrong they'll be bailed out. Ahh but that's just my little tin foil hat idea




Originally posted by Long Lance
ignore the signs, rest assured these Monsanto bonds won't mean squat if this development is alowed to run its course towards its logical conclusion.

[edit on 2009.6.1 by Long Lance]


Monsanto bonds? I hate Monsanto.

Monsanto can be summed up in one product name for me - Roundup.That stuff is absolutely terrible.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
so, you suppose that yields of GM crops are better and everything i posted was basically invented, that the issue of resistant weeds and pests does not exist or is a minor detail and that all people who were bankrupted by these things were just handling them wrong.

there are genuine merits and there is wishful thinking. i'm certain GMOs have been put to good use in bioreactors and laboratories, in the field, so to speak, GM crops simply haven't delivered on their promises. either that or all of my sources are flat out lying.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
so, you suppose that yields of GM crops are better and everything i posted was basically invented, that the issue of resistant weeds and pests does not exist or is a minor detail and that all people who were bankrupted by these things were just handling them wrong.


No i'm saying there are opposing studies and as such i don't know which to believe.


Originally posted by Long Lance
there are genuine merits and there is wishful thinking. i'm certain GMOs have been put to good use in bioreactors and laboratories, in the field, so to speak, GM crops simply haven't delivered on their promises. either that or all of my sources are flat out lying.


Lying no, possibly mistaken due to bad research metholodology or simple variance in results due to the enviroment is very possible.

As i said more testing is needed because for every study you have linked an opposing one can be found, unless you are saying all opposing studies are lying? See how that works?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
A very important little video -
GMO 3 parts
www.organicconsumers.org...

a little more information
www.organicconsumers.org...
www.organicconsumers.org...

TRY to know what you are eating.
Many products are now labeling with NON-GMO.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Thankyou for that info spinkyboo.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


you can remain focused on studies forever, there is experience by GM farmers everywhere around the world.


The FDA banned an amino acid an essential nutrient from supplementation just to cover up a fubar in a GMO using factory in Japan, overseas for crying out loud, and the only palatable reason is that they were trying to protect biotech from public scrutiny.


i still got my head on my shoulders, i don't need anyone filtering my news and views, what is happening in this field is criminal and no matter how insolent and shameless they go about it, there are consequences. inevitable ones, as i previously said, so go ahead with your current stance and, please, don't avoid GM derived products. we need every tester we can get to establish a case.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
In my opinion, it all boils down to one very simple concept:

Mother Nature has carefully engineered these crops over the course of millions of years. They exist as part of a tenuous balancing act that is their localized ecosystem, which in turn, exists as part of the even more tenuous balancing act that is the global ecosystem.

Just who the hell do we think we are, that we just jump into these balancing acts, and start moving things around on the scales? The negative effects of doing so have already been noticed (and we tend not to notice very much), enough at least for this thread to be born.

Sure, eating a cob of GM corn will not induce acute renal failure and kill you within hours. But the fact of the matter is we have no idea how introducing these non-native crops to the ecosystem will affect the global ecosystem over the long term.

Crops that are "super resistant" to bugs, bacteria and fungal infections could give rise to "super bugs", "super bacteria", and "super fungi". We all know how quickly bacteria can mutate and evolve. Next thing you know, all of these "safe" crops are infected with the new super bacteria, which gets ingested by a bird, the bacteria then causes a mutation of the West Nile virus, which the bird happened to be carrying. A mosquito picks up this new super Nile virus and transmits to a person with the common flu. The two viruses get together and have a grand ol' party before combining their genetic structures and unleashing a global super pandemic killing off 95% of all animal life on the planet. All because we had a better way to keep the bugs out of the corn fields...



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Unit541 that is pretty scary thought about the super mutations. We are already seeing the rise of allergies in people from eating GM fruit. The gov wont tell people that the rise in allergies never before seen is from gm. So this makes people stop eating healthful giving fruit.
We are turning into robots for these big companies spewing disaster allover the planet. Then we have to die for their diseases which they blame our way of life. Its sickening its evil. I dont want that future for my children. They perfectly planned that people go against the universal "Law of resistence" the more we resist the longer it persists. Its painstakingly aching.
For thsoe who believe in reincarnation why would you want to come back into this. Would you not want to first help restore the planet before you do come back.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join