GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Peter Brake

 

Not at all, though the insertion place and in many cases places is random.

Sure. And then they raise crops with no idea of the genetic structure of the plant that they have been working on. Use your head.

Have used my head - this is an accurate description of how the science is done. They use the plants that successfully produce the BT toxin (yum)

They haven't even tested Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, a common soil bacteria used to transfer the genes in many GMO’s to see what it is doing with these novel organisms.

Right. They just randomly throw stuff together to see what happens.

You are not making yourself look clever with stuff like this. If you do not want to talk about the science, perhaps we should move along to rumour and lies. Plenty of that around on this subject.

They do not control where in the genome the gene is implanted they do take pot shots at the organism and pick out the plants that survive and breed true. (are you arguing?)

Agrobacterium tumefaciens is the most commonly studied species in this genus. Agrobacterium is well known for its ability to transfer DNA between itself and plants, and for this reason it has become an important tool for genetic engineering.

en.wikipedia.org...

Right, no study at all:
Tumefaciens

edit on 6/23/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The study was done to choose which bacteria would be used to make the transfer - and then after it is done nothing. The safety checks done are to take a teaspoon of soil out of the areas of plantings and see if anything unexpected has happening. Again look far enough you will either start to laugh or cry, I do recommend that you do start looking at the other side. (tends to ad perspective)

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Our politicians are SOLD OUT, they no longer represent the interests of the people. They hide in the open through 'inversion', so when one says improve human health, the opposite is intended.

This is what was meant when Bush said we would be ruled by the "rule of law, rather than the rule of the jungle"

The Multi Corporate and Banking Rule of Law.

If you stand in their way, well, your are going by the rule of the jungle.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

I think you should read some more about GM foods not being safe.

I've read quite a bit actually. But I tend to stay away from sensationalistic claims and look for the science behind it. It turns out that those claims are usually gross distortions of what the science says and the studies which do indicate areas of concern do not advocate the immediate cessation of the use of GMOs. They do not indicate any terrible dangers.

I think you should look at the claims with a critical mind instead a fearful one.

edit on 6/23/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Being scientific minded, I look at the research critically and see that there are many studies outlining risks.

A lot of the internet available research on GM foods is suppressed, which further fuels the 'sensationalist' websites. None the less, whilst there are sensational reports, most have a basis in scientific research.

Knowing about the chemical industry, the political involvement of such industries and the nature of the research being done being not substantial and not pertaining to unknown potential risks in a long term comprehensive study of all aspects of potential risks, physical, bacterial, viral, to RNA, DNA, to the environment, to the ecosystem, to food mutations and many other aspects of potential risk, I feel it is far safer to halt their use until a long term feasibility study is done.

However I should add that I think there is substantial evidence that suggests they should be banned and biotech should power their means into worthwhile endeavors that actually enhance the ecosystem instead. A safe non toxic sustainable ecosystem has evolved over millions of years. Humanity should be aware that nature is greater than man and any messing around in the fundamental structures (DNA) probably won't be tolerated, seeing as DNA has evolved in such a way that allows the flourishing of the ecosystem and humanity's survival based on the interdependence of flora, fauna and species. Altering that interdependence is not advisable. The bee population is a prime example.

Obviously your belief in this matter differs, you are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine.

Originally posted by Carreau
Frankly all I care about is that anything GMO is labeled as such. Everyone should have the right to know what has been modified and what hasn't. If it is as harmless as they claim then label it and let the public decide for themselves. The fact that they hide it speaks volumes.

As each day passes, the propaganda machine that spouts about how we have a Free Market Economy, how we have a Democratic Republic that represents the will of the people and how we are the most Free Country own the earth gets exposed for the lies they are.

When it comes to our food, freedoms and rights, economy and political choices, they don't want us to decide, they want to decide for us.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Being scientific minded, I look at the research critically and see that there are many studies outlining risks.

Then why do you quote articles about the research rather than the research itself?

A safe non toxic sustainable ecosystem has evolved over millions of years.

And man started messing around with it a long, long time ago. For better or for worse. Rather than get upset about GMOs, why not blame it on the real culprit, an agricultural system which relies on planting millions of acres and requires artificial fertilizers and pesticides? On the other hand, how do you feed an ever growing population without doing that? Send a large portion the population to work in the fields? That's what it takes to grow that much food in a ecofriendly manner.

Maybe. I don't know.

My "belief" (I prefer to say "I don't think") is that GMOs are no more harmful that large scale agriculture in general and, in fact, may prove to be less so.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

Being scientific minded, I look at the research critically and see that there are many studies outlining risks.

Then why do you quote articles about the research rather than the research itself?

A safe non toxic sustainable ecosystem has evolved over millions of years.

And man started messing around with it a long, long time ago. For better or for worse. Rather than get upset about GMOs, why not blame it on the real culprit, an agricultural system which relies on planting millions of acres and requires artificial fertilizers and pesticides? On the other hand, how do you feed an ever growing population without doing that? Send a large portion the population to work in the fields? That's what it takes to grow that much food in a ecofriendly manner.

Maybe. I don't know.

My "belief" (I prefer to say "I don't think") is that GMOs are no more harmful that large scale agriculture in general and, in fact, may prove to be less so.

Often the only way to access this research is via quotes from peer journals, or snippets from pdf's that do not link.

The very fact that GM foods require increased use of chemicals should tell you that even that should invalidate it's use.

Additionally the fact that patents to Monsanto for pollinated food etc from neighbouring fields for any resultant GM crops means the unwitting farmer paying for the un privilege of crop contamination should tell you that the ethics of GM foods is entirely suspect.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

The very fact that GM foods require increased use of chemicals should tell you that even that should invalidate it's use.

What is your source for that claim? Why do GM foods require increased chemical use?

Additionally the fact that patents to Monsanto for pollinated food etc from neighbouring fields for any resultant GM crops means the unwitting farmer paying for the un privilege of crop contamination should tell you that the ethics of GM foods is entirely suspect.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. What do farmers have to pay for?

To use the excuse of GMO foods for feeding growing populations is just not a responsible response. We are once again throwing nature under the bus for man’s poor decisions. What if there are 13 or 25 billion people? Something has to give and people need to wake up. When China, the most overpopulated country, tells it’s citizens that their birth rates are too low and please have more babies, something is wrong.

It isn’t just plants that are GMO’s, it’s fish and fowl which is even scarier. The same magic mix combination that makes the fish and fowl grow big and fat abnormally fast is what people are also eating. Is it any wonder Americans have high obesity rates? Even the children are beyond fat. When I was a kid, there no fat kids in class. And kids were just as lazy back then, watching TV, listening to records and tapes, hanging out. Now there are way too many fat children and fat adults.


As of 2009, 87% of cotton grown is BT cotton. That’s a lot of failures. From en.wikipedia.org...'_suicides_in_India:

In April 2009, the state of Chattisgarh reported 1,500 farmers committed suicide due to debt and crop failure. At least 17,368 Indian farmers killed themselves in 2009, the worst figure for farm suicides in six years, according to data of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

…snip…

More recently, in 2012 the ICAR and the CCRI stated that for the first time farmer suicides could be linked to a decline in the performance of Bt cotton, and they issued an advisory stating that “cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” As of August 2012, technical experts appointed by the India Supreme Court have recommended a 10-year moratorium on all field trials of GM food, as well as the termination of all current trials of transgenic crops.

Aquaculture is one way to produce healthy food in a small area but with a large amount of yield.



Description of video: Original Story
I came across this video of a man who has figured out a system to grow 1 million pounds of food on 3 acres each and every year. How are they doing this?
* By producing 10,000 fish
* Using 300 to 500 yards of worm compost
* By utilizing vertical space
* Having 3 acres of land in green houses
* Using 1 simple aquaponic pump
* Food is grown all year by using heat from the compost piles

And something people can do in their own backyards, I still recommend people to look into Polyculture and Permaculture because like I mentioned before we must change our methods of growing.



Video description: Over 6,000 pounds of food per year, on 1/10 acre located just 15 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. The Dervaes family grows over 400 species of plants, 4,300 pounds of vegetable food, 900 chicken and 1,000 duck eggs, 25 lbs of honey, plus seasonal fruits throughout the year.

From 1/10th of an acre, four people manage to get over 90% of their daily food and the family reports earnings of $20,000 per year (AFTER they eat from what is produced). This is done without the use of the expensive & destructive synthetic chemicals associated with industrial mono-cropping, while simultaneously improving the fertility and overall condition of the land being used to grow this food on. Scaled up to an acre, that would equal $200,000 per year!

Monsanto patents

www.salon.com...

The group of more than 50 organic farmers and seed dealers sued Monsanto in March 2011 seeking to prohibit Monsanto from suing them if their seed and crops become contaminated.

Monsanto officials specifically refused to sign a covenant stating it would not sue the growers, but the court said the website statement was sufficient and would be binding.

Andrew Kimbrell, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety, which joined as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the decision made no sense.
reuters

todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com...

Monsanto isn’t just the defendant in many lawsuits. Part of its business is being the plaintiff as well.

For example, Genetically Modified alfalfa is expected to easily contaminate old-school alfalfa crops, which could result in Monsanto lawsuits against farmers for royalties if traces of its own patented Genetically Modified alfalfa get into such farmers’ crops even by accident.

Alfalfa is easily cross-pollinated by bees and the wind. That seems not only an ethical issue, but an antitrust issue as well.

Many farmers and environmentalists contend that Monsanto is gearing up to have an agricultural monopoly, and they’ve filed suits related to antitrust issues.

Increased use of chemicals
earthopensource.org...

“GE crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the US over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996–2008). This dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides applied swamps the decrease in insecticide use attributable to GE corn and cotton, making the overall chemical footprint of today’s GE crops decidedly negative… The primary cause of the increase [is] the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds.”
– Dr Charles Benbrook, agronomist9 - See more at: earthopensource.org...

5.2.3. GM industry “solution” to superweeds: More herbicides

The industry’s solution to the glyphosate-tolerant superweeds crisis has been first, to aggressively market pre-mix herbicide products to farmers, and second, to develop “stacked trait” crop varieties resistant to multiple herbicides. These stacked trait crops enable farmers to spray mixtures of weedkillers freely, instead of having to apply them carefully in order to spare crops.26 Simple arithmetic indicates that this will double or triple the amount of herbicide applied to a given field.

Dow has applied to release a multi-herbicide-tolerant soybean, engineered to tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate, glufosinate, and 2,4-D34 – an ingredient of the defoliant Agent Orange. In 2012 Dow sparked public outrage when it applied to the US Department of Agriculture to commercialise its 2,4-D-tolerant corn.35

Weed scientists warn that such multi-herbicide-tolerant crops will cause an increase in 2,4-D use, trigger an outbreak of still more intractable weeds resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D, and undermine sustainable approaches to weed management.33

In fact, weed species that are resistant to dicamba,36 to 2,4-D,37 and to multiple herbicides38 already exist.

Most stacked-trait superweeds emerge through what is known as selection pressure, where only those weeds that can tolerate herbicide survive to pass on their genes.

But there is another route through which superweeds can emerge: cross-pollination of GM herbicide-tolerant crops within the crop species or with wild relatives. “Stacked trait” multi-herbicide-resistant oilseed rape (canola) plants have already appeared as a result of accidental cross-pollination between GM crops engineered to tolerate different herbicides. As early as 1998, oilseed rape plants were found that tolerated up to three different herbicides.39

A Canadian government study showed that after just 4–5 years of commercial growing, GM oilseed rape engineered to tolerate different single herbicides had cross-pollinated to create stacked trait plants resistant to up to three broad-spectrum herbicides, posing a serious problem for farmers.22,23,24

5.2.4. Conclusion

GM herbicide-tolerant crops have led to massive increases in herbicide use and a resulting spread of herbicide-resistant weeds. Farmers have to resort to spraying more herbicide, or mixtures of herbicides, to try to control weeds. This “chemical treadmill” model of farming is especially impractical for farmers in the Global South, who cannot afford to buy more or different herbicides in an effort to control resistant weeds.

Originally posted by neo96
If people don't like GMO buy organic at the supermarket pretty much everyone can these days, and millions of Americans still have gardens.

Don't take the GMO 'debate' too seriously because there are other options available.

edit on 20-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

what this displayes is an attitude of either Ingorance or Arrogance.

Ill go with ignorance. These "options" are not as easily acquired. Plus your simpleton approach belies the understanding of HOW MANY items these gmo products are included in.

I DARE you t go to research where all this GMO wheat/corn only are.

Forget ANY fastfood bread/buns/pasta. And tortilla/tacoshell/etc..

OH, and EINSTEIN what about the ramifications of the ANIMALS that eat it..
OH DUH Huh?

Cheese, milk, other dairy..

Workout powders, protein shakes, energh drinks,..

IGNORANCE...pure and simple

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Monsanto patents

Oh I see. It costs farmers money when they sue Monsanto. Yes, I guess they have to pay their lawyers to try to keep Monsanto from doing something they have never done and have quite plainly said they won't. It's was an idiotic case. No wonder the judge said get out of my courtroom.

Increased use of chemicals

You said that GMOs require increased chemical use. They don't. And that "study" by Benbrook ignores the fact that planted acerage increased by 14% between 1996 and 2008. He also did not point out that his own figures showed a net decrease in the pesticides applied per acre, even though he had to make some numbers up. www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you're interested in a more informative and better researched look at the situation you can look here:

Since 1996, the use of pesticides on the biotech crop area was reduced by 443 million kg of active ingredient (9.1% reduction), and the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops, as measured by the EIQ indicator, fell by 17.9%.

www.landesbioscience.com...

reply to post by HanzHenry

what this displayes is an attitude of either Ingorance or Arrogance.

I agree the displays of attitude of ignorance and arrogance by the anti GMO crowd is astounding.

Not surprising because some sure do love to shoot the messengers who don't buy in to the GMO dogma.

So people can't still grow their own food or walk into supermarket and buy 'organic' these days?

I had no idea thanks for 'showing me the light' really I had no idear that GMO was so evil I really want to extend my thanks to all those keyboard 'Geneticist's ' trying to Proselytize us infidels.

More reports on increased use of chemicals from 20 nations that tried GM foods.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds", according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people.

The so-called miracle crops, which were first sold in the US about 20 years ago and which are now grown in 29 countries on about 1.5bn hectares (3.7bn acres) of land, have been billed as potential solutions to food crises, climate change and soil erosion, but the assessment finds that they have not lived up to their promises.

The report claims that hunger has reached "epic proportions" since the technology was developed. Besides this, only two GM "traits" have been developed on any significant scale, despite investments of tens of billions of dollars, and benefits such as drought resistance and salt tolerance have yet to materialise on any scale.

Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies' justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.

In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.

Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.


The report, which draws on empirical research and companies' own statements, also says weeds are now developing resistance to the GM firms' herbicides and pesticides that are designed to be used with their crops, and that this has led to growing infestations of "superweeds", especially in the US.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

More reports on increased use of chemicals from 20 nations that tried GM foods.

Too bad that "report" is nothing but a collection of distortions. It doesn't help that its cover is a cartoon, but I guess they know their target audience. Too bad there isn't any science in it.

I wonder why they fail to mention that insect and weed resistance is not a problem exclusive to GMOs and began being seen long before GMOs existed. I guess they aren't interested in science at all.

A really stupid piece of work

reply to post by Phage


The farmers that committed suicide, the Indians, Africans, Chinese etc that found it didn't work, ruined their businesses and cost them their livelihoods obviously disagreed, but hey, it's easy to say ''WTH how would they know?'' from an armchair scientist POV somewhere in the good ole US of A where freedom seems to equate to irony.

Nature cannot be patented and the developing nations increasingly cannot be bought nor made guinea pigs in some aggressive agro economy monopolisation attempt.

Perhaps you should call Friends of the Earth and the other ''stupid research scientists'' that dared spill the beans on the idiocracy that is GM food and tell them your opinion of their educated POV and research.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

The farmers that committed suicide, the Indians, Africans, Chinese etc that found it didn't work, ruined their businesses and cost them their livelihoods obviously disagreed, but hey, it's easy to say ''WTH how would they know?'' from an armchair scientist POV somewhere in the good ole US of A where freedom seems to equate to irony.

The farmers that committed suicide because of GMO failures? GMO cotton was introduced in India in 2002.

But in 2008, the International Food Policy Research Institute, an alliance of 64 governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations that aims to end hunger in the developing world, reached an entirely different conclusion.

“It is not only inaccurate, but simply wrong to blame the use of Bt cotton as the primary cause of farmer suicides in India,” said the report, stating that the introduction of Bt cotton in India had actually been effective in producing higher yields and decreasing pesticide usage by nearly 40%.

The number of farmer deaths in India is much less than the general population. According to the report, the rate of suicide deaths among agricultural workers is around seven deaths per 100,000 people, whereas the overall suicide rate in India is close to 15 deaths per 100,000.

And while the number of farm suicides rose sharply between 1995 and 2002, the trend of late has been downward or flat.

news.nationalpost.com...

Perhaps you should call Friends of the Earth and the other ''stupid research scientists'' that dared spill the beans on the idiocracy that is GM food and tell them your opinion of their educated POV and research.

Or maybe tell them they are lying.

reply to post by Phage


Who said just BT cotton, again try seeing the bigger picture.

This report is from 2008.

So who is telling the truth? To find out, I travelled to the 'suicide belt' in Maharashtra state.
What I found was deeply disturbing - and has profound implications for countries, including Britain, debating whether to allow the planting of seeds manipulated by scientists to circumvent the laws of nature.
For official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month.
Simple, rural people, they are dying slow, agonising deaths. Most swallow insecticide - a pricey substance they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.
It seems that many are massively in debt to local money-lenders, having over-borrowed to purchase GM seed.
Pro-GM experts claim that it is rural poverty, alcoholism, drought and 'agrarian distress' that is the real reason for the horrific toll.
But, as I discovered during a four-day journey through the epicentre of the disaster, that is not the full story.

In one small village I visited, 18 farmers had committed suicide after being sucked into GM debts. In some cases, women have taken over farms from their dead husbands - only to kill themselves as well.
Latta Ramesh, 38, drank insecticide after her crops failed - two years after her husband disappeared when the GM debts became too much.
She left her ten-year-old son, Rashan, in the care of relatives. 'He cries when he thinks of his mother,' said the dead woman's aunt, sitting listlessly in shade near the fields.
Village after village, families told how they had fallen into debt after being persuaded to buy GM seeds instead of traditional cotton seeds.
The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds.
But GM salesmen and government officials had promised farmers that these were 'magic seeds' - with better crops that would be free from parasites and insects.
Indeed, in a bid to promote the uptake of GM seeds, traditional varieties were banned from many government seed banks.
The authorities had a vested interest in promoting this new biotechnology. Desperate to escape the grinding poverty of the post-independence years, the Indian government had agreed to allow new bio-tech giants, such as the U.S. market-leader Monsanto, to sell their new seed creations.
In return for allowing western companies access to the second most populated country in the world, with more than one billion people, India was granted International Monetary Fund loans in the Eighties and Nineties, helping to launch an economic revolution.
But while cities such as Mumbai and Delhi have boomed, the farmers' lives have slid back into the dark ages.
Though areas of India planted with GM seeds have doubled in two years - up to 17 million acres - many famers have found there is a terrible price to be paid.
Far from being 'magic seeds', GM pest-proof 'breeds' of cotton have been devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite.
Nor were the farmers told that these seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and death.
With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.
Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.
When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.
But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.
As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... 2XBsAMlJb

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Who said just BT cotton, again try seeing the bigger picture.

This report is from 2008.

And it is about cotton.
The suicides increased before there were GMO crops in India. The suicide rate has leveled or declined since the advent of GMOs.

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.
But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

Nice claim. The trouble is that there are no "terminator" seeds on the market.

reply to post by Phage


It is unethical, simple.