GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

reply to post by Wonderer2012

The people supporting GMO should remember their children and their children's children and so on will be the ones who suffer in the future.

It's imperfect and complicated right now. But the fact is that genetic engineering is one of our best tools to address food demands and health in the context of population growth and potential climate change.

Your statement could just as easily be reversed to say the people who oppose GMO should remember the children of the future will be the ones that starve and suffer.

reply to post by AlphaHawk

Monsanto's bottom line is money and monopoly.

reply to post by BDBinc

Profit? Yup. No doubt about it. If animals and people start dying it's not really good for business though.

I don't know about the monopoly part. They do have the largest market share but there are a number of other companies selling seeds.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Ok I had a whole post written out but I'm on an iPad and it all disappeared, so you get the short version now.

The likes of Bill Gates want to interfere in controlling poorer nations populations because they clearly can't do it themselves.

The attitude there is to pop out as many kids as possible because the more kids that can be out to work, the more income for the family. What happens though is that a child is born only to starve to death any way.

Drought resistant crops could end that starvation cycle, which is why there's such a push for it.

And Phage has already described the use for terminator seeds.

Farmers have to buy seeds every season anyway, do you think there is anything left to grow once a crop of wheat or corn is harvested?

reply to post by BDBinc


My friend, any successful business is in it to make profit and to have a high market share.

It is not a reason to hate Monsanto.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Ok I had a whole post written out but I'm on an iPad and it all disappeared, so you get the short version now.

The likes of Bill Gates want to interfere in controlling poorer nations populations because they clearly can't do it themselves.

The attitude there is to pop out as many kids as possible because the more kids that can be out to work, the more income for the family. What happens though is that a child is born only to starve to death any way.

Drought resistant crops could end that starvation cycle, which is why there's such a push for it.

And Phage has already described the use for terminator seeds.

Farmers have to buy seeds every season anyway, do you think there is anything left to grow once a crop of wheat or corn is harvested?

Why do Bill Gates and Rockerfeller Foundations feel the need to interfere in Africa's population levels? But anyway, increasing their food productivity with GMO is seemingly contrary to their population control beliefs.

That is unless, they start adding sterilising genes into the GMO products, as they can add to vaccines.

I would also suggest we could end the starvation cycles in Africa if we stopped expoliting their natural resources and funding ruthless dictators to keep the people living in extreme poverty and in a constant state of conflict whilst the corporations plunder the resources of the land.

Please, please, do not say this isn't happening. Africa is the richest continent in the world, there is zero need for anyone to starve in Africa, but the constant wars and conflicts ensure farmers cannot do what they are supposed to do- grow food to survive.

He's talking about the fact that GMOs are NOT independently more carefully studied and regulated than non-GMOs.

When a system( a private corporation) is for profit and closed & does not allow independent safety testing outside of the corporation it is just ridiculous to make such a unsupported statement.

reply to post by BDBinc

When a system( a private corporation) is for profit and closed & does not allow independent safety testing outside of the corporation it is just ridiculous to make such a unsupported statement.

Then why are there so many studies?

BT corn for example:
scholar.google.com...

Environment Minister Owen Paterson said to have believed the “bedtime GM fairytale” told to him by biotechnology corporations – and by MP George Freeman?

gmandchemicalindustry9.wordpress.com... y-biotechnology-corporations-and-by-mp-george-freeman/

www.dailymail.co.uk...

At least since Dec. 2012 has he been in their pocket. I do not know how prevalent it is in UK, but in US, the lines between corporate and private, public interests have been systematically eliminated. All behind closed doors, and wholly to the interests of the corporations.

The corporations either submit huge influence to the politicians campaigns in exchange for political favor, or influence politicians to appoint the corporations' own to positions of power.

The situation is absolutely off the hook.

Paterson is obviously one and the same of these bastards.

As I said there is no proof of GM food being safer- its just a lie to try to change the minds of people in UK.

Originally posted by BDBinc
As I said there is no proof of GM food being safer- its just a lie to try to change the minds of people in UK.

Exactly, a propaganda campaign, similar in how they sell us wars. Repeat lies over and over, it can even take years, however long it takes to mold the minds of the masses.

"WMD, nuclear weapons, got to stop Saddam, he's dangerous, WMD that can reach us in 45 minutes, no doubt Saddam is creating nuclear weapons to use against us, WMD, WMD, weapons of MASS destruction"...years this went on before the Iraq war started.

Can you expand further on what you mean by how GMO makes others profit? Do you mean the farmers who use their products?

Yield=profit the more yield more money.

From 1860 low yield 25 bushells compared to the modern day equivalent of over 300 bushels made possible by GMO products.'

With the ever increasing population yield has to either keep up or outpace population growth.

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.

Originally posted by neo96

Can you expand further on what you mean by how GMO makes others profit? Do you mean the farmers who use their products?

Yield=profit the more yield more money.

From 1860 low yield 25 bushells compared to the modern day equivalent of over 300 bushels made possible by GMO products.'

With the ever increasing population yield has to either keep up or outpace population growth.

Given the amazing yields (and profits) of GMO, will it eventually replace conventially grown crops?

Is this not the danger? That the world accepts something we don't even know the long term effects of?

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Is this not the danger? That the world accepts something we don't even know the long term effects of?

That is the fear. Fear based on the idea that there is something inherently dangerous about GMO crops, that there is some hidden...something...that won't reveal itself until too late.

The trouble is there isn't much of a reason for fearing that if you have some understanding of what GMOs are and how they work. Some GMOs produce proteins that they wouldn't ordinarily produce. Proteins that are produced by other organisms and have been shown to not be any more harmful than anything else in the environment. Some GMOs produce more of some proteins that the plants produce anyway.

Then there's the dreaded fish tomato. Never mind that it, like the sterile seed producing varieties was never marketed, what is it that is so terrifying about it? Do you think that the tomatoes are going to start invading lakes and streams?

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Given the amazing yields (and profits) of GMO, will it eventually replace conventially grown crops?

There is not much profit today in farming, less land is being used, and other alternatives exist right along side 'conventional'.

Because most is taken up by real estate costs,fertilizer,pesticids,herbicides,mico nutrients, payroll, and machinery and fuel costs.

Is this not the danger? That the world accepts something we don't even know the long term effects of?

Only danger I see is people creating a boogieman that is currently feeding 7 billion and climbing people.

Well Neo and Phage, one hopes your guys are right.

Humanity depends on it because one thing we can all agree on, the UK and remaining countries not using GMO face intense propaganda to accept GMO in the coming months/years. The GMO companies are not going to go away with their endless lobbying and pressure for the world to accept their products.

I'm pretty sure conventional foods don't cause digestive issues at best and cancerous tumors at worst.

Unless you consider conventional food to be cigarettes.

reply to post by Carreau


Every crop has been genetically modified by humans.

Have you seen what wild-type potatoes and corn(maize) look like? The original source plants from 10,000 years ago? What do wild-type chickens taste like? (much less meat, more bone).

If one were honest, every thing in the market should say "genetically modified" except the water.

Dogs are very genetically modified.

It is completely foolish, ignorant and unscientific to categorize all genetically modified organisms which have been modified by more modern technology as 'evil' or 'harmful' and assume that previously modified organisms are benign.

The actual questions are "what specific modifications have been made in what circumstance and what are their consequences?"

Procedures which encourage heavy use of neurotoxic pesticides are undesriable, but modifications which reduce such uses are welcome.

It's time to Deny Ignorance.

It's not edgy, or cool, or alternative to be "Against Genetically Modified Organisms" just because of the use of technique Y to accomplish the goal compared to technique X previously used. It's like being against cars whose steel has been formed by some press of a new type versus an old type which is A-OK.

Originally posted by mbkennel


The actual questions are "what specific modifications have been made in what circumstance and what are their consequences?"

Procedures which encourage heavy use of neurotoxic pesticides are undesriable, but modifications which reduce such uses are welcome.

It's time to Deny Ignorance.

It's not edgy, or cool, or alternative to be "Against Genetically Modified Organisms" just because of the use of technique Y to accomplish the goal compared to technique X previously used.

Until the questions have answers it is very cool to be against GM(not alternative or edgy as we all watch insects numbers being decimated) . You admit you don't have answers and I ask you what if the unknown consequences( on peoples health) are ones that we can't live with.
Right now the GM industry with its lack of transparency and wildly false statements is not looking cool at all.