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.

 

U.S. approves Monsanto drought-tolerant GM corn

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

U.S. approves Monsanto drought-tolerant GM corn


www.newsdaily.com

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22, 2011 (Reuters) — Monsanto's genetically engineered, drought resistant corn is deregulated, the U.S. Agriculture Department said Thursday, clearing the variety for sale.

USDA approved the variety after reviewing environmental and risk assessments, public comments and research data from Monsanto.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
France Tells Monsanto to Get Lost
Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Maize/Corn Fields
Merry Christmas From MonSanto Claus!
Monsanto GM Corn In Peril: Beetle Develops BT Resistance




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Happy holidays?

Although it seems many are aware of the notorious and infamous behavior of the enterprise and global corporate behemoth Monsanto.... It appears the USDA (which I am starting to think is an American internship program for corporate lobbyists) has found that MON 87460 no longer needs to be treated as an engineered crop..... Of course, they haven't been so lucky elsewhere.... one has to wonder why?


In its 2009 petition for approval of its GM variety, Monsanto said 40 percent of crop losses in North America are due to sub-optimal moisture.

In a statement, Monsanto said it planned farm trials in the western U.S. Plains in 2012 to demonstrate the variety for growers and to generate data that will help guide Monsanto's commercial decisions.

"Our drought system is designed to help farmers mitigate the risk of yield loss when experiencing drought stress, primarily in areas of annual drought stress," said Hobart Beeghly, U.S. product management leader.

The drought-tolerant trait was part of a collaboration with the German chemical company BASF.


I'm not sure I need say much more....


USDA announced the variety, known as MON 87460, "is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms."


www.newsdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 24-12-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Sure they are trying to monopolize the cropped food industry, but it seems like a good idea, a corn that grows even in a drought. Whats the harm in that



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I eat no corn unless it is labeled "organic." In that way I ensure I am eating no GMO. Animals that eat it get sick! Not ME!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

USDA approved the variety after reviewing environmental and risk assessments, public comments and research data from Monsanto.


I've always said that results of scientific research these days is dictated by those who fund it.

I wonder if the "public comments" came from Monsanto too. It's hard to tell the way they've worded this sentence.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Just as well animals aren't getting sick from it either then!


Sadly it is symptomatic of the conspiracy industry that facts do not matter - just the headline and the belief - in this case it is Monsanto and GMO, and the believe that both are inherently evil - regardless of any benefits that may actually accrue.

Drought resistant crops does seem like a fairly logical improvement!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


You may have to go down a few rabbit holes as to why farmers in Pakistan are committing suicide.
After seeing some more and investigating, you may have a change of heart.
Please make sure your kids also drink milk from cows that have the hormone enhancements.
Happy holidays!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Just as well animals aren't getting sick from it either then!


Sadly it is symptomatic of the conspiracy industry that facts do not matter - just the headline and the belief - in this case it is Monsanto and GMO, and the believe that both are inherently evil - regardless of any benefits that may actually accrue.

Drought resistant crops does seem like a fairly logical improvement!


The issue is that when We GM an O, We have no way of knowing what all else is changed besides the factor We are aiming for. Usually, bits of DNA are shot at seeds and then they are planted. What manages to grow is evaluated for the aspect being sought. But many things are changed...

Do You really think that evolution failed to get the best compromises?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

USDA approved the variety after reviewing environmental and risk assessments, public comments and research data from Monsanto.


I've always said that results of scientific research these days is dictated by those who fund it.

I wonder if the "public comments" came from Monsanto too. It's hard to tell the way they've worded this sentence.


Yes. It's all about the money. Let's get rid of the need for money (and the profit motive!) by adding what money represents: energy (meaningful and expended). Free electrogravitics from black ops.

More: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12/24/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I am with you there, I am now completely off anything that have GMOs in it, that means a very limited eating, but hey is healthier and better for us anyway.

I actually don't eat corn anymore, like you said only if is organic and not just any organic brand.

I read labels very carefully I already know how to fish for GMOs as they are on anything that is processed in the US, but then again fresh is always better when it comes to organic.

This is my healthy way to protest the incredible war against nature by Monspanto.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


That and who is sleeping with who in congress, after all I don't call congress whores for the fun of it, is very well documented that our political rats are very well fattening their pockets with interest money.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Good for You! I'm glad I'm not the only "label reader." (I got teased in the shelter about being penniless, homeless and picky - but just because I relied on a shelter should not follow that I should not care about what I put in My body.) I agree that it is good to be picky about sources, too. Not just any "organic" product. I tend to trust Trader Joes. Little else, really.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


You have to be very careful of what you eat, after all it will affect your healthy depending what you eat, people can laugh anything they want, but we only got one body and we better make it last healthy and able, not live longer and disable.

In this days and times we are what we eat after all.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Whenever possible I grow my own food using open pollinated cultivars.When not I try to buy local during the growing season and preserve it.

I asked one of the growers at a local farmers market what variety he grew of green beans. He told me he did not know just numbers on a bag of seed.

One farmer bragged to me of his Bt corn. I asked him if it was GMO and he swore it wasn't which of course it is.

Its just numbers on a bag unless you grow your own from heirloom stock.

Just because your at the local farmers market don't be so sure you are not getting gmo.

Though there is trend to promote non-gmo products at local markets.

Not all farmers/consumers are as educated as need be.

Numbers on a bag don't tell much if one doesn't dig deeper whose to say.

In the age of Big Ag small farmers are just trying to survive too.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Indeed. Even in poverty, We should do what We can to ensure that the evils of processed foods and the clever name changes (high fructose corn syrup - which caused 100% obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease in rats is now being called "corn sugar," with the lie, "sugar is sugar" being allowed) are turned away.

We must not enrich the liars to Our detriment!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
GM food is like sawing a donkey and a fish in half, combining the 2 pieces together, chanting a Satanic prayer inside a Pentagram at midnight while the full moon enters an eclipse on Friday the 13th. It's creepy, nasty, wrong, stupid, arrogant and pure poison. Drought resistant crops? What next? Magic beans?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



I eat no corn unless it is labeled "organic." In that way I ensure I am eating no GMO. Animals that eat it get sick! Not ME!


Weren't you homeless in one of your threads?

Honestly, the "organic" label is merely that - a label used to justify a 60% mark-up or more.

Your preaching rights are revoked unless you have a garden out back that you get your produce from.

reply to post by Amaterasu
 



The issue is that when We GM an O, We have no way of knowing what all else is changed besides the factor We are aiming for.


No, that's not really how it works at all.

agbiosafety.unl.edu...

More often than not, genes fail to express when introduced to a new organism. The trick is figuring out how to get the gene expressed properly in the tissues.


Usually, bits of DNA are shot at seeds and then they are planted.


..... do what?

You've been reading too many comics.


What manages to grow is evaluated for the aspect being sought. But many things are changed...


No. Just no.

What changes is the introduction of a new protein. In more complex instances, we take the complete genetic sequences for the synthesis of enzymes and insert them into a new organism.

Exactly what changes is highly dependent upon what the end goal is intended to be. It's not a hap-hazard system. Interestingly enough, organisms that exist today tend to 'resist' attempts to modify their genetic code. They'll completely ignore inserted genes or self-terminate.


Do You really think that evolution failed to get the best compromises?


I wasn't aware the process ended.

"Evolution" doesn't stop. It is a continually advancing process in more ways than one. The environment is always changing - this leads to an ever-changing criteria for the "perfect" adaptations. Further, as a species adapts and continues to multiply, the process of "evolution" increases at an exponential pace.

Humans are a great example, as the database of genetic code continues to grow. Caucasians and Asians are two completely separate evolutions of lighter skin - the changes in the melanin are due to two completely separate genetic mutations (well, several - but that's more than we need to get into). The enzymes necessary to digest lactose into adult-hood are far less common among asians than other ethnic groups with a history of long-standing dairy industry. The same goes for the amylase enzyme presence in human saliva (the enzyme that will turn many starches into sugars) - while it is present in the lower GI tract - expression in the salivary glands is limited to those who inherited a relatively recent genetic adaptation.

These are things we've noticed in sampling only a few thousand individuals. What other, more recent instances will we find when we sample a few million, and begin to catch more obscure mutations and their effects?

The issue I take with Monsanto is their effective monopoly.

Otherwise - I don't fear the produce at the store. Hunger will kill me before it will.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 





Do not want!
edit on 25/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA Another vid explaining how nasty it is

ETA2 Comparing 2 races of the same organism (humans) only compounds the epic fail in your "argument". You say "we" I noticed. I take it you work for one of these God-playing corporations or in some vaguely related field to the subject of discussion? Bias, perhaps?
edit on 25/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Do people read, anymore?

Seriously... it would save a lot on bandwidth that is going to all of these damned youtube videos.


ETA2 Comparing 2 races of the same organism (humans) only compounds the epic fail in your "argument".


Does it, now?

There exist people who do not possess the ability to metabolize caffeine. It is rare - but these people will die in a few days if they assume the habits of an average coffee drinker.

Let's compare to other organisms, such as the "Nightshade" family of plants. Humans have long had a very love-hate relationship with this family (the Solanaceae family). From it come some of the most potent tropane alkaloids known to man (along with other non-tropane alkaloids). Atropine is one of the most potent and useful drugs in treating a wide range of shock and arrest symptoms.

You're more familiar with this family from the ones you eat - potatoes, tomatoes, tobacco, eggplant, and just about every pepper species. Green potatoes will kill you. Tomatoes are a more difficult method of suicide - but any portion of the plant containing chlorophyll is toxic (though you'd have to eat an impractical amount over an extended period of time to cause yourself any problems).

The point, however - is that all of these plants are related and contain some very potent chemicals by virtue. Any random mutation can lead to a species of tomato that suddenly expresses atropine in its fruits. That results in dead tomato connoisseurs.

Genetic engineering is no more or less risky than the natural goings-on of the world. I would even go so far as to weight it as being less risky - but you've already demonstrated an unwillingness to understand the engineering process.


You say "we" I noticed. I take it you work for one of these God-playing corporations or in some vaguely related field to the subject of discussion? Bias, perhaps?


Yes. I work for a corporation doing genetic engineering and come to spread the Gospel of Genetic Engineering with a trivial little board of paranoid schizophrenics. We are making so much money that we have nothing better to do, anyway.

- If you managed to read past my satire.....

I use "we" to describe the 'human endeavor.' I have an affinity for learning anything I come across with a single glance - so it's only natural I diversify my knowledge to a degree that can only be described as "inhuman." As a result, I treat my own knowledge of issues as being more of a representative of the collective whole.

I tend to shy away from "they" in discussions, such as this. One - it implies that I am incapable of such feats (which is the epitome of blasphemous and heretical thought), and Two, it also serves as an ambiguous label to append paranoia to.

I do applaud you for your attention to detail, however.

What you are talking about in your videos, however, is the use of a toxin produced by a bacteria in corn. In a nutshell, all that is done is the gene sequence for creating the toxin is added to corn - which results in it being present in the corn. The toxin is inert to the human body (and most all mammals), and is really only effective against certain species of insects.

In a cost-effective analysis, that particular line of corn is not really all that cost-effective in regions of the globe like the United States - where pest control measures are in effect across the nation and have been for many, many years. Thus - the use of "BT-corn" is not cost-effective in the United States and many other developed nations.

However, in developing nations, where pest control is sporadic, at best, the story is different. It will not prevent losses to pests - but substantially reduce them by comparison to non-BT crop offerings. There is considerable difference in regions where pests run rampant and pest control measures are simply not in effect (because there is little infrastructure to support it).

Similarly, in areas with plenty of irrigation systems in place and few droughts... it's not going to be cost-effective to purchase drought-resistant strains of corn (GM, Hybrid, or Selectively Bred - doesn't matter). In areas where water costs for irrigation are high and crop loss to drought is frequent, it is cost-effective.

www.cfr.org...

An interesting comparison and history of British and American laws regarding Genetically Engineered Crops.

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk...


The human insulin used to treat diabetes, for example, is genetically engineered: the human gene that codes for insulin has been transferred into bacteria and yeast, a process that involves crossing the species barrier.


Interesting little factoid.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 

Concerned for youtube's bandwidth but not the health of the planet? That's uh..quite rich. Maybe we have better access to more balanced information via youtube than just your opinion?


You can see which side of the fence I am on and therefore totally disinterested in your misinformation. I think the video's sum it up much better than you but I guess you didn't take the time to watch the facts presented in them either. Cell invasion, virus, poison. Sounds quite tasty, no?

Oh, and before GM got into the market, insulin came from pigs. I pray for genetic modification to genetic modificists this Xmas.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join