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.
There may be some confusion here. The royalty-free access was for some of the technology used in making the rice, not the rice itself. Once they had permission to use some of the technology required to make the rice, they made a new patent for the process and product, which was given away completely. You see the confusion?
Syngenta arranged royalty-free access to the patents and intellectual property, held by several biotechnology companies, for a number of key technologies used in Golden Rice. This allows IRRI and others to develop Golden Rice on a not-for-profit basis.
Well, where do you want the millions of dollars to come from? Anything they give money to is bad for the world? They've helped in producing something beneficial, preventing blindness and death. It's fully researched and governments can study it and approve it or not, however they see fit. How do the Gates, or anyone else donating money, make this evil?
Actually I disagree. Forgive my bluntness, but even MUCH, MUCH, more information will not convince you. You won't accept anything coming from any government or official source. But you are convinced by one guy who is hiding his data?
Please remember that there are two groups of studies involved. The European Union's saying the corn is safe, which is being accused of hiding data by a scientist who is being criticized by that group.
There is also Seralini's study which is being condemned by seven different bodies as not meeting scientific standards.
In the face of that I see no reason to accept Seralini's study. If there is a claim that the EU's study is false, then that should be explored, but reason demands that Seralini's be tossed, at least as it is.
Does rice cross-pollinate? Does it spread out to new lands detroying other vegetation? And if it replaces all rice in the world, you end up with rice with more Vitamin A then there is normally. A problem?
If you were to ban Golden Rice, wouldn't you still have the problem of not being able to choose GE or natural?
Excellent work, would you be surprised if I said I agree with you?
I'm a big fan of getting government out of things any time we can. I'd like to see it happen here, but where do we go for unbiased testing of foods, seeds, and the like? Who has the equipment and money to do it? I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but it may be a case of finding a corrupt institution that can be most easily checked on and held up to public scrutiny.
Golden Rice will only be released to farmers for cultivation after national regulators have determined that it is safe for the environment, in part based on studies that assess the potential impact of Golden Rice on biodiversity.
Based on six years of study so far, the genetic trait that produces beta carotene in the rice grain does not appear to make Golden Rice plants stronger than other rice varieties. Therefore Golden Rice is unlikely to harm biodiversity by becoming a weed.
Golden Rice is also unlikely to impact biodiversity by endangering wild rice through cross-pollination (outcrossing, or gene flow) for reasons that apply to all cultivated rice.
• Rice is typically self-pollinated and the frequency of cross-pollination is low.
• Cross-pollination in rice is rare if plants are separated by a short distance of a few feet or meters.
• Cross-pollination is uncommon unless the rice plants are flowering at the same time.
• This means that wild rice species won't usually cross-pollinate naturally with cultivated rice unless they are growing close together and flower at the same time.
• Compatible wild rice species may not be found growing close to cultivated rice varieties. For example, only one compatible wild rice species has been reported in the Philippines, in a single location.
More important, should cross-pollination with wild rice occur, Golden Rice is unlikely to endanger diversity in wild rice because the genetic trait would not make the plants stronger or weaker than others.
Ah, that hurts. I made a special point of including it in the clip I posted, and I mentioned it in another post. Play fair.
Again you point out that he is hiding data but neglect that your source is too... To be they are as bad as each other... So...
There have been threads and posts taking the position that Seralini had proved the corn was cancer causing. I was addressing, in my OP, a larger audience.
I have no problem with tossing seralini's work out the window, but if the eu has also hidden data then that needs throwing out too... To be honest my arguments do not hinge on his work anyway... I've never even supported it...
This isn't really about the US, Canada, UK, or Europe. This is about the millions who have no choice in their food, they eat what is there. They can't get Vitamin A capsules at the corner pharmacy, there isn't one. (There probably isn't even a corner. Lots of places don't have roads.)
Oh yes I have a big problem, you see I like to choose NOT to eat GMO foods as much as possible... It is my personal choice. I can also get vitamin A from other sources... Also I wouldn't want the worlds rice supply in the hands of a few (I know you say it isn't but I have yet to see evidence of it)...
Ooops, guess it's three posts
Golden Rice will only be released to farmers for cultivation after national regulators have determined that it is safe for the environment, in part based on studies that assess the potential impact of Golden Rice on biodiversity.
Based on six years of study so far, the genetic trait that produces beta carotene in the rice grain does not appear to make Golden Rice plants stronger than other rice varieties. Therefore Golden Rice is unlikely to harm biodiversity by becoming a weed.
But, hey, cut me a litttle slack, I'd never heard of Golden Rice before this afternoon. May I suggest that you follow that link to their FAQ page, so that I can stop cutting and pasting?
Ah, that hurts. I made a special point of including it in the clip I posted, and I mentioned it in another post. Play fair.
There have been threads and posts taking the position that Seralini had proved the corn was cancer causing. I was addressing, in my OP, a larger audience.
This isn't really about the US, Canada, UK, or Europe. This is about the millions who have no choice in their food, they eat what is there. They can't get Vitamin A capsules at the corner pharmacy, there isn't one. (There probably isn't even a corner. Lots of places don't have roads.)
If I were a parent in an impoverished country, only able to feed my children rice, what could I say if I were offered a choice between two bowls, one ordinary rice, and the other, rice which would increase my child's chance of keeping her vision and reducing diseases? I would throw "nature's rice" aside, and so would any parent.
Ha, yes... But on this one I will side with nature, it has got us this far so...
"Force?" What force? Governments have to approve it, farmers have to want to buy it, people have to want to eat it. Because of it's color, every grain of Golden Rice is labelled as genetically engineered. Did you think 100% of the rice growers would automatically, and instantaneously switch to Golden Rice?
I mean why should someone be able to come around and force change in the food supply onto people? I am quite happy with the way it is, lol... As are billions of others...
What controlling the food are you talking about? If people don't want to plant Golden Rice, they don't have to. They can plant regular rice, or anything else.
Do you not see how it could be a power grab? What more power can you have? If you control the food you control who lives and who dies... I don't want that, ever! Of course though they will justify it with protecting people. It is the same old double speak...
In the case of Golden Rice, as I said, each grain is labelled. They are promoting it. The vitamin A enrichment was their original goal and purpose. That's why people are interested in it. If they didn't promote the vitamin A, it would be just another variety of rice, ho-hum.
Oh another thing is just look at the labeling issues... They have fought HARD to keep gmo off the labels! This just shows to me that they have something to hide... If gmo was so good and the rice contained more vitamin A etc then why wouldn't they promote that? Why hide it? Hiding stuff is bad remember...
That's not your strongest argument, or, rather, it's too strong. It kills everything. What environmental group is going to say, "well, this GE product looks Ok, maybe the others are as well?" It seems that this issue would only be honest if IRRI said Golden Rice was dangerous, and environmental groups said it must be planted to save the children.
Golden Rice will only be released to farmers for cultivation after national regulators have determined that it is safe for the environment, in part based on studies that assess the potential impact of Golden Rice on biodiversity
I mean of course they are going to say things like this! They aren't exactly going to say "well we don't really give a damn as long as we control the food in the end", are they? But you need to read between the lines...
Medicines may take longer than six years to develop and test, produce and market, but all they're saying is that after six years of growing and testing the stuff, it isn't changing into a "super weed." I think that very well may be enough.
Based on six years of study so far, the genetic trait that produces beta carotene in the rice grain does not appear to make Golden Rice plants stronger than other rice varieties. Therefore Golden Rice is unlikely to harm biodiversity by becoming a weed.
Firstly when dealing with the eco sytstem and the food supply do you really think 6 years is enough? Some medicines take much longer than that... Secondly, notice the rather vague wording such as "does not appear" and "unlikely"...
Any life science is filled with words like that. Medicine never claims a guaranteed 100% cure for anything, for example.
As for the rest, again it is all vague with "won't usually" and "unlikely" all over the place... Btw would bees not have a hand in pollinating rice?
Have we misunderstood each other as completely as this? Are you just playing? This has never been about the amount of food people have. And, of course, rice isn't in the top ten foods for vitamin A, that's the whole point. Billions of people have rice as the staple of their diets. Normal rice doesn't have much vitamin A or other micronutrients. The lack of vitamin A in their diets causes excessive blindness, and other diseases. Half a million children go blind each year. IRRI wanted to find a way to get more vitamin A into people who mainly eat rice. Golden Rice does that.
I have never said that people going without food isn't a problem, but it is a problem that can be solved WITHOUT genetically modifying anything... That is my point... Also you kind of insinuate that the choice is rice or pills from the corner shop... Below I have provided a link for the top ten sources for vitimin A in foods, rice isn't on it...
I don't have numbers because I haven't gone looking for them. From my second linked source
Btw since golden rice has been introduced do you have any figures for health benefits? Like how much has it reduced the diseases you mentioned before?
To test the Golden Rice, in 2008, researchers from Zehjiang Academy of Medical Sciences, in cooperation with Tufts University, undertook clinical trials in children. These researchers had received approval from the appropriate ethics and institutional-review boards of the respective institutions. As reported in their published paper on the clinical trials, children who ate the Golden Rice had higher levels of vitamin A than if they had consumed traditional rice or other food sources of the vitamin.
The reasons I haven't spoken about Bill Gates are three-fold: I don't know much about it, any enforced plans to reduce the population are abhorrent, and I didn't want to go into another topic. Maybe in another thread.
What? No mention of the beloved bill gates and his population control agenda? I was REALLY interested on hearing your thoughts on that one... No mention of why he said co2 needs to come down to ZERO? He even made a joke that the population could have to come down to ZERO... That was hilarious, don't you think? (please note I am being very sarcastic here)
Mosquito release From reading the article, I get the feeling (It's no more than that.) that this release will be delayed quite some time and may never happen. It also seemed to indicate they don't really have much of a solution for it.
Hundreds of thousands of genetically modified mosquitoes are awaiting federal approval for release into the Florida Keys as part of an experiment aimed at reducing the risk of dengue fever.
Officials are targeting the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes because they can spread dengue fever, a disease health officials thought had been eradicated in the U.S. until 93 cases originated in the Keys in 2009 and 2010.
'The science of it, I think, looks fine. It's straight from setting up experiments and collecting data,' said Michael Doyle, pointing to research Oxitec has had published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He inherited the project when he took the lead at the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District in mid-2011.
Real estate agent Mila de Mier has collected more than 117,700 signatures on a petition she posted on Change.org against the trial. Most come from outside the Keys, which de Mier says shows that tourists don't support the mosquito control district.
Phil Lounibos of the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory also said it would take repeated releases of modified mosquitoes for the program to work, and the public outcry against genetically modified organisms, even when it's irrational, may be insurmountable.
Species live on average for 2 million years.
...A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance,[3] although some species, called living fossils, survive virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Most extinctions have occurred naturally, prior to Homo sapiens walking on Earth: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.[3][4]
Mass extinctions are relatively rare events; however, isolated extinctions are quite common. Only recently have extinctions been recorded and scientists have become alarmed at the high rates of recent extinctions.[5] Most species that become extinct are never scientifically documented. Some scientists estimate that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100.[6]
SPECIES EXTINCTION
Modern science has shown that nature is not always “red in tooth and claw”, but rather that cooperation is often the norm. Human beings often act as if we are in direct competition with every other form of life, when in truth our very survival depends on a myriad of species from simple bacteria to complex mammals.
Today, human activities are causing a massive extinction of species, the full implications of which are barely understood. Rising ocean temperatures reduce the ability of plankton to reproduce, thereby undermining the entire oceanic ecosystem. Commercial fishing’s increasing size and scope threaten to empty of the ocean of fish within several decades.
Modern agricultural practices strip the Earth of its thin layer of topsoil through water and wind erosion, destroying this precious micro ecosystem that takes centuries to form and supports all life on land. Furthermore, bee populations are plummeting as a result of mite infestations and a mysterious problem called Colony Collapse Disorder. Over 70% of our food is pollinated by bees; if bee populations fall too far, our food supplies will be seriously threatened. . .
...One of the things I was hoping to find out from you is whether you think Genetic Engineering (or Modification, I don't know which term is preferred) has any acceptable role at all? Is it too dangerous to allow any experimentation and use, or are there some situations in which the benefits are large and the risks can be sufficiently controlled?