Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

page: 8
175
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
hello i am new to ats referred by my brother druid42. thanks




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Which to me says:

1/ the gene does not produce anything toxic or allergenic that we could recognise, and
2/ there might be unintended consequences to using this gene, and
3/ you can evaluate possible unintended consequences using our handy flowchart.


ATG,

Its nice that you are so sure, thank goodness your not on the E.U. panel that has decided
that things may not be safe, and they are going to re-evaluate.


There is nothing in the OP about any EU panel that has decided something needs to be re-evaluated.

That is what the OP article authors say SHOULD be done.

In their opinion.

Is such an EU panel action identified somewhere else?

If so I missed it and would appreciate a link to it.


To you it says that, well thats not saying alot.


Or yuo could make a rational comment without resorting to ad homs....try it some time.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Maybe that's why they have banned multi vitamins into the country. I guess vitamins strengthens our immune system which fights off any virus. I could be wrong and please don't hold that against me I'm not a medical person.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Its your opinion, you really have not provided much,
in the way of anything to back up your claims.

The one llink was to some odd place a blog that was 12 years old.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by Mayson
 


You kind of re-stated what I was saying, but thanks for the support.


If the FOOD itself contains anti-fungicides to keep the wheat from getting things like "rust" -- did Monsanto or ADM stop to study what it might do to Acidophillis (a common bacteria found in yogurt). The fact is; they can't figure out ALL the effects of building insecticides and fungicides inside of a plant -- so they never should try. That's what we already have to contend with; profit driven business models that mess around with things that are too expensive to test for, but have far reaching impacts that nobody can predict.


You're welcome


I remember reading somewhere that the GM corn is modified to produce a substance that is produced by a bacteria that organic farmers have been spraying on crops for years.

I can't remember if where I read it or what the specifics were. If it's true, then you're not even safe eating organic foods or you may be just as safe eating GM corn.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I am an organic farmer and I do use Bt (bacillus thuringiensis). I use it as a spray to control cabbage worm on cole crops (broccoli, cabbage, arugula, etc..) and to control tomato horn worm. When used as a spray it breaks down within hours of spraying as is non toxic to humans, other mammals, fish, soil, other beneficial insects such as ladybugs, and aquatic systems. When a leaf eating worm injests this bacteria, it will grow in the worms gut and digest it from the inside out. Kind of gruesome I know. But it is very specific to worms and basically harmless to everything else. It has no toxic or carcinogenic effects.
"In fact the EPA has found Bt safe enough that it has exempted Bt from food residue tolerances, groundwater restrictions, endangered species labeling and special review requirements. Bt is often used near lakes, rivers and dwellings, and has no known effect on wildlife such as mammals, birds, and fish." And as I stated before, once sprayed, bt breaks down in a matter of hours when exposed to sun and air.

www.bt.ucsd.edu... -check here for a full summary

When introduced into a plant as a gene it is always present in that plant. This can lead to eventual resistance in the target pest. It will also produce an extra protein in a host plant that is foreign to the plant. Every gene produces a protein. There are many proteins that are toxic to humans. Several studies suggest that the protein that is produced in GMO Bt crops is toxic to humans.
foodfreedom.wordpress.com...

Food for thought..........



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Its your opinion, you really have not provided much,
in the way of anything to back up your claims.

The one llink was to some odd place a blog that was 12 years old.



no - I gave 2 links, 1 of which was to teh article that is quoted in your OP as the source!!

And yes it is my opinion - based upon reading the source abstract listed in your OP.

the link is in the 1st sentence in the 2nd para of the OP article:


In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012).


Poidevin and du Jardin 2012

did you not check the links it provided - the very basis of it's claims??

I did - and that is why I say what I say - if you can read that abstract and point out where I am wrong then by all means do so, but to continue these petty personal attacks jsut makes it look liek you ahvent' actually read your own sources, and are not examining my claims at all.

My first post including that link is on page 1: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Monsanto's dark history:

bestmeal.info...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sk8ergrl
 


Most multi vitamins are useless because it's synthetic and uses a toxic binding agent!



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Want to know what is more dangerous?

Not eating.

The current expansion of population has been made possible by GMO foods getting back to nature can not feed 7 billion people.

Of course people can hate GMO and not eat it they should, but what is the alternative?

Think "organic" can sustain all of us?

You decide.



You don't need GMO's to feed the world. The rodale institiute has been recording organic yields on several participating farms since the 1980's and compared them to equal conventional and conventional GMO farms. "in every single category, organic farming systems proved to be far more viable and sustainable than any conventional or GM system.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

Every year you farm a GMO crop weeds become more resistant to roundup requiring a greater amount of spray each year. = more $ and more roundup in your food(what a second!!!! Monsanto owns roundup). As a result more beneficial soil organisms and beneficial insects die off requiring more fertility inputs and pesticides. It becomes an endless game of catch up. Farmers are promised a worry free, less expensive, higher yielding farming model but what they end up with is a bigger problem then they started out with. You are eventually left with a barren plot of land. Good thing the people of Peru have banned monsanto in their country.
Besides the health and environmental concerns and the genetic pollution that is occurring, look at the politics companies like monsanto use. They are ruining farmers in this country and around the world by trickery. They promise a better product, gain control of what used to be freely traded plant species and seeds, and then stomp out farmers like they are ants if they disobey their new slave position to monsanto.
One thing i've never understood is the lack of accountability these companies have. If my pig breaks loose and ruins my neighbors property, i am responsible for damage. If Monsanto genes get loose and pollinate an organic farms crops, the farmer can't sue for damage and monsanto will come after him for allowing their genes to blow over and pollinate his crops. That's just crazy.
edit on 22-1-2013 by peepsfromearth because: additional thought



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Its your opinion, you really have not provided much,
in the way of anything to back up your claims.

The one llink was to some odd place a blog that was 12 years old.



no - I gave 2 links, 1 of which was to teh article that is quoted in your OP as the source!!



Ok, two sources, one 12 years old, and one is my OP source.

I still have no idea why you would link to something 12 years old, aside from that,
you have an opinion that GMO is not harmful.

Ok, we agree to disagree then.

I would encourage you to keep an open mind, maybe GMO is harmful to you too ATG.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by peepsfromearth
 





You don't need GMO's to feed the world. The rodale institiute has been recording organic yields on several participating farms since the 1980's and compared them to equal conventional and conventional GMO farms. "in every single category, organic farming systems proved to be far more viable and sustainable than any conventional or GM system.


Really?

Everyone has links like this one:


n particular, organic agriculture delivers just 5 percent less yield in rain-watered legume crops, such as alfalfa or beans, and in perennial crops, such as fruit trees. But when it comes to major cereal crops, such as corn or wheat, and vegetables, such as broccoli, conventional methods delivered more than 25 percent more yield.


www.scientificamerican.com...
So organic produces 25% less compound that by a) burning food for fuel as in ethanol that is what?

25% 40% of all production right now b) the population increases take over farmland that was once used.

Farm land acreage decreases every single year and has for decades;.

Organic alone can not keep pace with population increases and if people want to go down the organic path they are going to have to end ethanol and they need to prepare for higher food prices.

And please weed resistance why do people act like farmers never utilize crop rotation all do.
edit on 22-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Want to know what is more dangerous?

Not eating.

The current expansion of population has been made possible by GMO foods getting back to nature can not feed 7 billion people.

Of course people can hate GMO and not eat it they should, but what is the alternative?

Think "organic" can sustain all of us?

You decide.



A 1998 study by the USDA Economic Research Service showed that genetically
modified corn, soybeans, and cotton did not have significant increases in yields when
compared with conventional crops. Soybeans, tested in over 8,000 field trials actually
produced less bushels per acre than their conventionally grown counterparts.

www.worc.org...

ummm..
ok. i've decided


The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

www.dailymail.co.uk...

well, that's one way to solve over population
edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by peepsfromearth
Bt is often used near lakes, rivers and dwellings, and has no known effect on wildlife such as mammals, birds, and fish." And as I stated before, once sprayed, bt breaks down in a matter of hours when exposed to sun and air.

www.bt.ucsd.edu... -check here for a full summary

When introduced into a plant as a gene it is always present in that plant. This can lead to eventual resistance in the target pest. It will also produce an extra protein in a host plant that is foreign to the plant. Every gene produces a protein. There are many proteins that are toxic to humans. Several studies suggest that the protein that is produced in GMO Bt crops is toxic to humans.
foodfreedom.wordpress.com...

Food for thought..........


And very good info, thank you for sharing your knowlege, and welcome to ATS!
I appreciate the links, and it is crucial to the matter at heart to understand the difference
between naturally occuring bt sprayed upon crops, to it being transgenically injected
into seed to alter it with the bt, creating toxins in the plant.




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


It is 2013 have something newer than a 15 year old study?

Something like this?



There was not 350 bushell corn in the late 90s.
edit on 22-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
do we know it wasn't climate change or other factors?

eta

"Every 30 minutes a farmer in India kills himself ...The only seeds available in India now are GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which require farmers to pay an annual royalty each time they are replanted. The GMOs need additional fertilizers, and as the seasons move forward, more insecticides and pesticides. The soil in which these seeds are planted requires more water. All of which means more and more money for the farmer to lay out.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
that's 2012

edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Farmers questioning the value of GMO traits in corn


Interest and demand for non-GMO corn seed among US farmers is growing, according to seed suppliers who say that higher yields and returns, less cost, dissatisfaction with genetically modified traits, and better animal health are driving the demand.

Tim Schneider, a sales representative for Tom Eischen Sales (515-320-3431) in Algona, Iowa, said he is selling 20 times as much conventional, non-GMO corn seed as GM this year. “Demand has been steadily going up,” he says. ..Higher yields, less cost
One reason for the increased interest in non-GMO corn seed is higher yields. “Yields of non-GMO are comparable if not better (than GM),” Eischen says.”

“The market is growing, and farmers are beginning to realize they can get the same yield levels as they would with GM corn in many situations and increase their profitability,” says Ben Benson, President, B&M Seed (www.bigcob.com).

George Naylor, a corn and soybean farmer in Churdan, Iowa, says his non-GMO corn yielded 141 bushels per acre in last year’s drought conditions compared with a neighbor whose GM corn yielded 100 bushels. Naylor also earned a $.50 premium above commodity price for his corn. “My neighbor told me he might as well grow non-GMO corn,” Naylor says.

www.non-gmoreport.com...

2013


edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: added data and fixed quote box...ooops!
edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
why is it that these gmo companies have to get legal sanctions against heritage seeds like they have in Iraq or as it looks like they have done in India?

I hope my above post explains why



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Well, it speaks for itself to learn that the beekeepers have won the right to
sue the pants off these GMO companies now...if they find GMO in the honey.

Go beekeepers!



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


GMOs in Honey Banned in Europe
(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2011) A ruling last week by the European Court of Justice states that honey produced though cross-pollination with a genetically modified (GM) crop must be authorized as a GM product before being sold. The ruling means that the European Union (EU) will have to ban imported honey containing traces of pollen from GM crops that have not been approved for entry. Honey exports from the United States, Canada, Argentina or Brazil, countries with no regulations on the subject, will now be virtually impossible
...
Events leading up to this new ruling began in Germany in 2005 after a dispute arose between Karl Heinz Bablok, an amateur beekeeper, and a neighboring farm cultivating a number of plots of GM maize. Mr. Bablok brought legal proceedings against the farm before the German courts, in which four other amateur beekeepers joined. GM maize DNA and other GM proteins were detected in the maize pollen harvested by Mr. Bablok in beehives situated 500 meters from the plots of land under GM cultivation. Very small amounts of GM maize DNA were also detected in a number of samples of Mr Bablok’s honey.

www.beyondpesticides.org...

I has a funny feeling the courts, if not bought off, are going to have some bizy days ahead
edit on 22-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
[q


Really?

Everyone has links like this one:


n particular, organic agriculture delivers just 5 percent less yield in rain-watered legume crops, such as alfalfa or beans, and in perennial crops, such as fruit trees. But when it comes to major cereal crops, such as corn or wheat, and vegetables, such as broccoli, conventional methods delivered more than 25 percent more yield.


www.scientificamerican.com...


OK, so I read this article. I think they printed a very similar article a couple years back. I haven't had time to look into the actual research but my first question would be who funded this study. Certain comments like this one make it sound contradicting.
"But, this yield difference varies across different conditions. When farmers apply best management practices, organic systems, for example, perform relatively better." From the same article

Also it states that the main reason organic crops such as broccoli could not compete is because nitrogen is released slower in organic models then synthetic N. But with conventional ag the crop is harvested and the field is left barren for the rest of the season and excess water soluble synthetic N is washed out of the soil. Another quote from the article
"Of course, the cost of using 171 million metric tons of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is paid in dead zones at the mouths of many of the world's rivers. These anoxic zones result from nitrogen-rich runoff promoting algal blooms that then die and, in decomposing, suck all the oxygen out of surrounding waters. "
So here you get a litle more production in a broccoli crop but you are destroying a fishery down the river.
Organic farmers will often plant secondary crops because there is a slower/longer release of N in organic systems thus allowing for two harvests on the same field. Or it may go into cover crop to benefit soil and nutrients for future crops.

What I was getting at with roundup ready GMO's and weed resistance is this. Purdue university recently did a study that suggests weeds become resistant to glyphosate (roundup) when there are no soil microrganisms in the soil. They found that weeds grown in sterile soil have much more resistance to glyphosate then weeds grown in soil that contained beneficial plant organisms.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Another study by the university of missouri also suggests that glyphosates are leaching into and remaining in the soil for 12+years thus decreasing beneficial microorganisms (sterilizing the soil) and ultimately effecting plant health and uptake/metabolism of nutrients. Most plants rely on a healthy soil microrganism community for optimal metabolization and plant growth. Studies show nitrogen fixation down as well as Mg uptake, decreased photosythesis and a number of other metabolic issues related to lack of soil microorganisms due to glyphosate. I beleive they were using RRsoy for their study.
www.indianacca.org...

If this is the case, then the more roundup you use, the less micro organisms you have the soil, the greater the weed pressure is, the more round up you need to spray, plants productivity decreases due to lack of soil organisms, the more synthetic N and P you would need to add to counter balance. Seems like an endless cycle of inefficiency.
I will look into some more yield statistics when i get a chance.









 
175
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join