GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

reply to post by dogstar23
[more

There are, or will be cases where the genetic modification itself is harmful, but we know for a fact the farming practices and chemicals enabled by GM foods are terrible for humans.

We do? Which ones?

Small note: "terminator seeds" (GURT) are not used in any GMO crops.

reply to post by Phage


Permaculture: Permaculture is a branch of ecological design, ecological engineering, and environmental design which develops sustainable architecture and self-maintained agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems.[1][2]
The core tenets of permaculture are:[3][4][5]
Care of the earth: Provision for all life systems to continue and multiply. This is the first principle, because without a healthy earth, humans cannot flourish.
Care of the people: Provision for people to access those resources necessary for their existence.
Return of Surplus: Reinvesting surpluses back into the system to provide for the first two ethics. This includes returning waste back into the system to recycle into usefulness. [6]
Permaculture design emphasizes patterns of landscape, function, and species assemblies. It asks the question, "Where does this element go? How can it be placed for the maximum benefit of the system?" To answer this question, the central concept of permaculture is maximizing useful connections between components and synergy of the final design. The focus of permaculture, therefore, is not on each separate element, but rather on the relationships created among elements by the way they are placed together; the whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts. Permaculture design therefore seeks to minimize waste, human labor, and energy input by building systems with maximal benefits between design elements to achieve a high level of synergy. Permaculture designs evolve over time by taking into account these relationships and elements and can become extremely complex systems that produce a high density of food and materials with minimal input.[7]
The design principles which are the conceptual foundation of permaculture were derived from the science of systems ecology and study of pre-industrial examples of sustainable land use. Permaculture draws from several disciplines including organic farming, agroforestry, integrated farming, sustainable development, and applied ecology.[8] Permaculture has been applied most commonly to the design of housing and landscaping, integrating techniques such as agroforestry, natural building, and rainwater harvesting within the context of permaculture design principles and theory."

You can look at MANY documentaries on you-tube on Permaculture. Agriculture on the other hand is bad for the environment. GMOS only add the the problem and not solve it, they dont fix issues with agriculture.

reply to post by Phage


"Really? Then why do you get so many of the facts wrong? Blackwater, lawsuits, productivity... " not in any of my post have I mentioned anything about Blackwater, lawsuits and such, or do you just group all NON-GMO people into one person?

reply to post by Kaone

Thank you for the wiki quote. You're supposed to provide a link and the administration of ATS frowns upon excessive external quotes (and you should also use the external "ex-text" tags).

But I don't see anything thing there about how permaculture can be applied over 10s of millions of acres and produce hundreds of millions of tons.

not in any of my post have I mentioned anything about Blackwater, lawsuits and such, or do you just group all NON-GMO people into one person?

I'm sorry. I am mistaken. I lost track of who I was replying to.

reply to post by Phage


Man you know what if you are not going to even watch the documentary then why reply? You obviously have little clue to what growing your own food actually means. Not only that you refused to watch or even do any research of your own on permaculure.

And knowing that it came from wiki did you read HOW it WILL provide food for the Billions of people across the planet or you just make ignorant remarks?

reply to post by Kaone

Man you know what if you are not going to even watch the documentary then why reply?

Maybe I will when I have the time. But I don't think there will be anything there that hasn't been repeated many times.

And knowing that it came from wiki did you read HOW it WILL provide food for the Billions of people across the planet or you just make ignorant remarks?

I read that claim, yes. I've read a lot of things about Utopia.

reply to post by Phage



Another beautiful documentary on how Permaculture can rebuild most of the if not all deserts into farm land, main point of course is that everything has to do with personal responsibility. Planet earth is our home, and we treat it as a dump.

If you actually take the time to watch the doc. then reply to me please.

reply to post by Kaone

Planet earth is our home, and we treat it as a dump.

I agree.

reply to post by Phage


Repeated by whom exactly? This is not a Anti-GMO doc. This is a view of an alternative to agriculture.

Because Mono culture = "Monocultures used in agriculture are usually single strains that have been bred for high yield and resistant to certain common diseases. Since all plants in a monoculture are genetically similar, if a disease strikes to which they have no resistance, it can destroy entire populations of crops. Polyculture, which is the mixing of different crops, has natural variation and a likelihood that one or more of the crops will be resistant to any particular pathogen. Studies have shown planting a mixture of crop strains in the same field to be effective at combating disease.[7]
Ending monocultures grown under disease conditions by introducing crop diversity has greatly increased yields. In one study in China, the planting of several varieties of rice in the same field increased yields of non-resistant strains by 89% compared to non-resistant strains grown in monoculture, largely because of a dramatic (94%) decrease in the incidence of disease, making pesticides less necessary[disambiguation needed].[8]" en.wikipedia.org...

Permaculture applies Polycutlure with more of a natural stance, having layers and also respect for the animal biodiversity.

reply to post by Kaone

Repeated by whom exactly? This is not a Anti-GMO doc. This is a view of an alternative to agriculture.

Again I must apologize. I thought you were referring to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


Yes that one is anti-GMO but it does mention Mono-culture and its negative side effects but what I like most about that doc. is that it points out the obvious, is that its not the plant problem but our ways of growing food. You have to watch permaculture doc. i have posted as they give the details better than I could.

reply to post by Kaone

is that its not the plant problem but our ways of growing food.

Again, I agree with you. Monoculture presents tremendous problems and challenges. But we started down that road long before GMOs entered the picture. Saying "GMOs are bad, ban them!" is not a solution.

reply to post by Phage


Yes we did sadly, but relying on GMOS wont fix the problem they can only do so much. The rest is up to us, to adapt and learn new means of farming.

I'm starting to wonder if the movie Idiocracy isn't becoming reality.

When the protagonist attempts to argue that the fields should be irrigated with water instead, the following argument ensues (not quoted word for word - I tried to break it down for better reading):

'...But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. You want us to put water on the crops instead?'

'Yes.'

'Like, the water that comes from the toilet?'

'Well, it doesn't have to come from the toilet, but yes. We should put water on the crops instead of Brawndo.'

'But Brawndo has what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!'

'Well, let's look at the situation. The plants aren't growing, so I'm pretty sure that the Brawndo isn't working. We should just try the water out instead and see if that works.'

'Yeah? Well, I've never seen plants grow out of a toilet.'

Originally posted by Phage
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...

Thanks, great list.

In just the first two pages of this SER alone, almost half the studies herein cite a deleterious impact of BT corn on a species, extended uptake of toxins into non-target species, extrapolatibility to order from species, risks imparted by toxin transfer from target animal into associated predator, increased risk from toxin durability in soils and unintended durability in plow under stalks transferred to successive crops, economic negative side effects, dangers imparted to species affected by the pollen, deaths of beneficial insects, and dangers to higher order feed animals.

AND yet.....

Not one study in that entire list was hypothesized, programmed nor executed prior to the release of BT corn onto the market for human consumption. I find that odd don't you?

But "there is no reason to think that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMO's" is both a red herring, deflecting attention from the true issue, and sounds like we are doing science by how brilliant we are, rather than by sufficient rigor of competing hypothesis development, objective gathering of evidence, deductive conclusivity, and peer review.

Of the studies in the SER which showed negative impacts and risks - Where are the abstracts showing that those hypotheses were competed, or even thought of, prior to 1996?????????? The claim was made that this release was safe. Where is the substantiation of that claim, reflecting the accountability implied inside these competing and validated hypotheses, ranging from 1999 to 2010 on average?

All this science was done after the fact. 7 years AFTER ....we had on average, already been eating the corn, and the animals fed by the corn.

The onus was on the original claim and claimant (Monsanto) to prove their CLAIM - BT CORN IS SAFE TO ENTER INTO THE FOOD CHAIN as is. The onus is not upon us, or anyone in this forum to prove that the corn or GMO's is/are dangerous. That is not how science works.

The public challenge is this, and it is a valid public challenge to the sponsors. They failed to do sufficient science on this release of technology, substantiated by the FACT, that the industry is playing catchup science now.

The mountain of 'catch-up science' is nothing short of alarming. And when this lack of diligence is the basis of foisting an untested food on a population, no manner of pseudo-scientific rhetoric and memorized one-liners can excuse it. There was no excuse for this.

And when the population raises its hand, and expresses concern - spinning rhetoric and calling them ignorant or dismissing them as mindlessly 'anti-GMO' as a result of a religion or stupidity of some kind, as is being done in this thread, is not a satisfactory answer.

Wrong answer. Bad ethics. Bad science.

reply to post by Phage


GMO does change our DNA and also it cannot be broken down in our bodies. That's why people are getting fat very quickly. I know that you have your own opinion and so do I. Please explain to me why people are getting fat and we all know that McDonald's uses gmo along with other fast food restaurants. Why are we eating foods that won't break down in our systems, causing cancer and stomach problems.

reply to post by Sk8ergrl


Oh dear me. People get fat because they:

- eat too much and / or
- eat too much fatty food and / or
- don't get enough exercise

The anti-GM lobby is showing how it can instil silliness into the debate. GMOs don't change your DNA and they don't make you fat directly. Eating organic beefburgers and processed organic flabber bread will make you fat.

Regards

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

Not one study in that entire list was hypothesized, programmed nor executed prior to the release of BT corn onto the market for human consumption. I find that odd don't you?

What makes you think it is a complete list? Did you try other keywords? Do you really think that the EPA and USDA just said, "OK, sounds good. Go for it"?

The onus was on the original claim and claimant (Monsanto) to prove their CLAIM - BT CORN IS SAFE TO ENTER INTO THE FOOD CHAIN as is. The onus is not upon us, or anyone in this forum to prove that the corn or GMO's is/are dangerous. That is not how science works.

Actually, that is exactly how science works. Science operates on the priciple of falsification. The hypothesis that GMOs are not safe is not falsifiable. In other words it cannot be proven experimentally that they are perfectly safe no matter how much testing is done. On the other hand the hypothesis that GMOs are safe is falsifiable, if they are not safe it can be experimentally demonstrated.

How does this apply to Bt corn? Well you could ask "is Bt corn safe?". That's not really testable so what hypothesis could be tested? Well, what makes Bt corn different from hybrid corn? Oh, it produces Bt toxin. Ok, so maybe the Bt toxin produced by the plant is dangerous. That is testable and guess what? There is a ton of prior research on Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. Has that research "proven" that the toxin is safe. Not really but it has not shown that it is dangerous. It's "safe" enough that it's approved for organic farming. So what next? What do you want to test for to "prove" that Bt corn is safe? How do you want to go about it...scientifically?

It's "safe" enough that it's approved for organic farming. So what next? What do you want to test for to "prove" that Bt corn is safe? How do you want to go about it...scientifically

\

When used in organic farming as a Spray BT breaks down very quickly when exposed to UV light.....pmep.cce.cornell.edu...

By the way i was reading the wrong column in the soy production chart comparing 1965 to 1980.....I was looking at acres rather then yields. Sorry it was late and I had already put in a 12hour day on the farm.......