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.

 

Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 


Really? Virtually all plants produce their own pesticides? Really?
Yes. Really. If they didn't they would not survive long.
www.fortfreedom.org...
www.hort.purdue.edu...
www.botgard.ucla.edu...
www.amnh.org...


Scientists also claimed DDT was safe
DDT is not produced by GMOs but it is classified as moderately toxic to humans so exposure to too much of it is probably not a good idea.


edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the links. I think I am looking at it differently of man-made resistance vs. natural evolution resistance. I see plants getting chewed up all the time by various insects, so certainly not all plants are producing the right kind of pesticide to protect themselves.

The issue here is trans-species genetically modified organisms. Plants that produce their own compounds for insect resistance have probably evolved / adapted out of need. With trans-species gmo products they invent, what studies have been released showing long term health effects, and long term ecology effects of their trans-species gmo?

Here we have a biotech company that is deceptive and manipulative about their products, and using whatever leverage they can to continue making money and monopolizing food for the world.

Former Monsanto employee put in charge of GMO papers at journal

Good crop, bad crop: French scientists dismiss Monsanto 'cancer corn' study

Monsanto threatens to sue EFSA over publication of maize GM data

What is that company more concerned with? Money or health?




posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by Philippines
 



All widely cultivated bananas today descend from the two wild bananas Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana. While the original wild bananas contained large seeds, diploid or polyploid cultivars (some being hybrids) with tiny seeds are preferred for human raw fruit consumption.[57] These are propagated asexually from offshoots. The plant is allowed to produce two shoots at a time; a larger one for immediate fruiting and a smaller "sucker" or "follower" to produce fruit in 6–8 months. The life of a banana plantation is 25 years or longer, during which time the individual stools or planting sites may move slightly from their original positions as lateral rhizome formation dictates


banana wiki


Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which almost always does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. The offspring will be exact genetic copies of the parent


Asexual Reproduction

Cloning—In biology and agriculture, any organism whose genetic information is identical to that of a parent organism from which it was created; natural reproductive processes producing clones include parthenogenesis and apomixis



edit on 5-6-2013 by Hijinx because: fix links and extext


Your statement was this:



Bananas are all genetic clones, but you enjoy them probably on a regular basis. They were made so you didn't have to worry about nasty banana seeds in your fruit, but no one ever complains about the bananas.


I disagree that they are genetic clones, just because they descend from 2 wild varieties does not explain the wide multitude of varieties that exist today. If that were the case, why would genetic clones look different?

Also, were these banana trees modified/altered using biotech trans-species gmo technology, or did it naturally happen through evolution and possibly selective breeding over time by farmers?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Something to be included for consideration is, is there any thing in particular about GMO crops that would imply that they pose a health risk.
As my source said, research is inconclusive. Maybe 3/4 of the corn in the US is roundup-ready and I eat my share of that, and it hasn't killed me yet, so it can't be too toxic. But I do wonder about the long term effects when I see studies like this one:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Our studies show that glyphosate acts as a disruptor of mammalian cytochrome P450 aromatase activity from concentrations 100 times lower than the recommended use in agriculture; this is noticeable on human placental cells after only 18 hr, and it can also affect aromatase gene expression. It also partially disrupts the ubiquitous reductase activity but at higher concentrations. Its effects are allowed and amplified by at least 0.02% of the adjuvants present in Roundup, known to facilitate cell penetration, and this should be carefully taken into account in pesticide evaluation. The dilution of glyphosate in Roundup formulation may multiply its endocrine effect. Roundup may be thus considered as a potential endocrine disruptor. Moreover, at higher doses still below the classical agricultural dilutions, its toxicity on placental cells could induce some reproduction problems.
It could be that long term human exposure will have no ill effects as models indicate should be the case, but so far there are no humans who have consumed roundup for a lifetime at these levels. Let's hope the models are accurate, but they aren't always accurate. The surfactants in roundup may actually have greater toxicity than the glyphosate.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


You have one of two varieties that are cultivated. Each plant is then an exact copy of the parent, if you read what I posted completely, these plants reproduce asexually this was the point of each link and finally the definition of cloning.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


You are also aware that GMO "Biotech" is a large portion of selective breeding right? They plant test crops, blast them with pesticides select those that survive the apocalypse then investigate the genomes in those plants that provided the resistance. They then take a test crop and expose them to long term pesticide levels that will cause later harm, and select offspring that are developing a resistance.

They then begin the " Bio-tech" as you call it, and take the genomes from all the choice plants, and produce a sequence they feel is best suited for the application. They then have as many seeds as they want with the exact properties desirable to resist herbicides that would otherwise destroy a crop. For instance Glyphosate(round up), round up kills almost anything green. How ever through selective breeding and their genetics program they have products that do not die in the presence of Glyphosate.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by Philippines
 


You have one of two varieties that are cultivated. Each plant is then an exact copy of the parent, if you read what I posted completely, these plants reproduce asexually this was the point of each link and finally the definition of cloning.



There are many more varieties than 2 which are cultivated and edible. I agree the plants do reproduce asexually, I've seen it, but you can also plant their seeds.

What do banana trees have to do with trans-species gmo that biotech companies are producing / selling?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by Philippines
 


You are also aware that GMO "Biotech" is a large portion of selective breeding right? They plant test crops, blast them with pesticides select those that survive the apocalypse then investigate the genomes in those plants that provided the resistance. They then take a test crop and expose them to long term pesticide levels that will cause later harm, and select offspring that are developing a resistance.

They then begin the " Bio-tech" as you call it, and take the genomes from all the choice plants, and produce a sequence they feel is best suited for the application. They then have as many seeds as they want with the exact properties desirable to resist herbicides that would otherwise destroy a crop. For instance Glyphosate(round up), round up kills almost anything green. How ever through selective breeding and their genetics program they have products that do not die in the presence of Glyphosate.


Funny, that's the same kind of logic used in this article


He cited thoroughbred horses, show dogs and crops as examples of genetically engineered plants and animals dating back centuries. "When Farmer Jones did it in his cornfield to try to get a better crop, it didn't bother people," Schaffner said. "When scientist Jones did the same thing in a much more sophisticated fashion in a lab, that does bother people."


ABC News - Genetically Engineered Salmon Nears FDA Approval

This is a trans-species GMO salmon they want on the market, mixed with some eel genes.

What genes are mixed with these crops? Arabidopsis? And?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But I do wonder about the long term effects when I see studies like this one:
Interesting experiment, examining the effect of Roundup and/vs glyphosate. In vitro studies are important but they sort of ignore how it is survives the digestive and metabolic processes. This would have to be considered as well. The experiment exposed cells to "straight" (2%, the concentration used in the field) Roundup and glyphosate.

The experiment showed a greater deleterious effect with Roundup than with its active ingredient. Hmm.

I wonder if Roundup ready crops are resistant to the effect of glyphosate or only of Roundup.

In any case the concern is indirect. If the use of Roundup ready crops increases human exposure to Roundup it may not be a good thing (I use Roundup in my yard. Seem to be ok so far). But in that case it is not the crop that is dangerous but the increased herbicide use.

edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 

Regardless of whether or not GMO products are safe for human consumption or for animal feed there is the environmental impact to consider. For example using roundup resistant crops uses more chemicals than traditional crops. How does that affect the soil, water and surrounding ecosystems?

How about the effects on local economies like the Pacific Northwest’s wheat export? How much damage will occur from Monsanto’s contamination of traditional wheat in Oregon and Washington State? This problem alone is an outrage! How many other cases of GMO contamination can be found around the world?

One of the reasons why Monsanto did not pursue production of GMO wheat in Oregon was the possible negative effect on the local wheat export since some countries that buy this wheat will not import GMOs.

Something else to consider is GMO labeling, or lack thereof. GMO products have been heralded as the technological savior that will help feed the world. If this is true why not flaunt it and be proud of their accomplishments? Instead large amounts of money have been spent campaigning against labeling measures in several states as well as the Federal Government. The goal is to hide GMOs and keep the public ignorant of their existence. I think the case for labeling has been made for Washington State’s GMO labeling initiative (I-522). In this case it is clear that the State is being harmed by the production of Monsanto’s genetically modified crops.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


For example using roundup resistant crops uses more chemicals than traditional crops
Can you provide some more information on this?


How about the effects on local economies like the Pacific Northwest’s wheat export?
This incident will have some effect. No doubt. There are places which will not accept GMO crops in any form.


If this is true why not flaunt it and be proud of their accomplishments? Instead large amounts of money have been spent campaigning against labeling measures in several states as well as the Federal Government.
It's mostly because it is a problematic thing to do. The ingredients for processed foods come from a variety of sources. In order to "certify" that a particular loaf of bread or bag of tortillas is non-GMO can become very difficult. This additional effort will, undoubtedly, add to costs (for the manufacturer as well as the consumer). Don't misunderstand, I am not against labeling. But I do understand the difficulties involved.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Bananas are all genetic clones
You are confusing cloning with hybridization while commenting about genetic modification. The three are not the same.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
AH so we can see what side of the fence you are on
The whole world is marching against them and you ask for proof as to why they are bad? LMAO

Hope they pay you well!!



Originally posted by Grimpachi
Can someone explain what is so bad about Monsanto or GMOs? I have searched the internet and seen some claims but I haven’t seen the evidence to back them up. Modifying foods to grow disease and drought resistant doesn’t sound like a bad thing to me or being able to grow crops in otherwise unsuitable soil sounds good to me.

If they are like poison as some sites say where is the evidence to back it up. This is pretty new topic to me. I have seen several posts throughout ATS in the past berating Monsanto but until today I have never bothered to look into it without any success at finding substance.

If someone would be kind enough to post some links to what convinced you on the evils of this new subject matter I would appreciate it.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

A quick search reveals this article,

The situation, according to a report published last Friday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, has driven growers to use larger quantities of Roundup, more often and in conjunction with a broader arsenal of other weed-killing chemicals.
Huffington Post

And this from their source,

Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011,
www.enveurope.com...

And this interesting story,

'Agent Orange Corn' Debate Rages As Dow Seeks Approval Of New Genetically Modified Seed
www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's mostly because it is a problematic thing to do. The ingredients for processed foods come from a variety of sources. In order to "certify" that a particular loaf of bread or bag of tortillas is non-GMO can become very difficult.
This is why I strongly feel we need a federal GMO labeling requirement. If GMOs are labeled starting from their source then it will not be difficult to label manufactured products. I understand there will be difficulties but I think the benefits will far outweigh the costs.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 

Well yes. I mentioned the increased use of Roundup in my first post.

I misunderstood your point. I read it as if you meant that the soil is depleted by the use of GMOs. My apologies for that. It's getting late.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


I know exactly what's in meat ,and its probably more than you even know .
Also,for all you know I'm vegan ,and buy only from a co op I've belonged to since 2004 ..And meats have different issues ,because its not the same for poultry ,livestock and fish .


I stopped eating chicken and beef,years ago .
I wont touch turkey under pain of death .

I unfortunately like pork ,and its the last ,albeit the worst meat ,I eat.
I usually only buy that when I drive to Pa and get it from organic Amish farmers.
Same for lamb ,but I think I've eaten lamb three times in the last five years .

I only eat co op eggs and dairy .Raw dairy .

I stopped eating sushi,which I love,just because of the overfishing the poor animals to extinction .
Even farmed fish is poison . I eat no shellfish .
If I'm out ,and all they have on the menu is something like tilapia ,its what I get .
So thanks for the pep talk ,but I know exactly what's in everything ,including our water ,as that's just as contaminated as everything else .



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 


Right... Because as we all know, truth and facts are determined by how many people agree with it.
There is no evidence of harm from GMO food but a lot of ignorance of how genetics works.
Having a fit over natural pesticides, when all plants produce pesticides shows a very huge gap in a lot of peoples education. I wish someone could explain how drought resistance is bad or roundup resistance is bad in and of itself.

Monsanto bullying and strongarming people is pure evil. Realizing they have such a huge hold on food sources scares me, but ng the products they produce don't.
edit on 5-6-2013 by demongoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Hope you like this -as much as I do.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
It's evident that they did not destroy all the seeds. I doubt if this is the only field either. When you create a monster, you are responsible to get rid of the monster. Another thing, I think there was something found wrong with the wheat, I don't think that it was abandoned just because of people's skepticism, they didn't abandon the corn or Soy did they?


My savings account says they realized that the wheat cross-pollinates like mad, so they tried eliminating it. But turns out, their suspicions may have been correct. This is just my early theory, but the fact that Monsanto abandoned something that apparently won't just die really concerns me. Is it radioactive or something? Something isn't right about this...



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Our bodies can handle a little GMOs on occasion. The problem is that they are putting Soy and corn into everything. Just think if all the wheat also contained the GMO.

Here is one thing that I do not understand. Bt corn is considered organic but it was genetically modified a long time ago to contain the Bt gene. This shows me that Certified organic and non-GMO are not the same. Certified organic is a little white lie...or yellow in the case of corn



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join