Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Study: Monsanto Big Claims About GMO Food Yields Likely False!

page: 1
24

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
So, here falls one of the last remaining claims in favor of Genetically Engineered crops!

In additon to the dangerous toxins in GMO food for humans and animals; study after
study has cast a cloud of serious doubt on the claims that GMO is safe for consumption,
we now have this new study that confirms what many sustainable producers/farmers
have come to know. Peer-reviewed study has found that conventional plant breeding,
not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops.


There’s no evidence that GE crops have given us higher yields, and even further,
there is evidence that it is constraining yields in the North American agroecosystem!





A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is
responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as
genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.


So, GE crops really do not provide a greater yeild as claimed.
Not only that, they do not even reduce pesticide use!



The study compared major crop yields and pesticide use in North America, which relies
heavily on GE crops, and Western Europe, which grows conventionally bred non-GE crops.
The study’s findings are important for the future of the U.S. food supply, and therefore for the
world food supply since the U.S. is a major exporter of many staple crops.
www.alternet.org...


Wait, some say, did not The World Food Prize just give an award to two scientists, one from
Monsanto and one from Syngenta? Oh, did they forget to say that Monsanto and Syngenta
are major sponsers of....you guessed it: The World Food Prize!

Latest Study Is Here:
www.tandfonline.com...

So the answer to mans quest for improved yeilds and better stewardship
of the environment and human life is not GMO! Agroecological
farming, as opposed to GMO can increase yields up to 179%.


A stunning multi-year study in Africa by the United Nations Environment
Programme provides an answer. High external inputs of chemicals and
fertilizers are needed for conventional industrial agriculture and it is for this
kind of agriculture that GM crops are designed. UNEP found in side-by-side
trials conducted in multiple countries that farmers using agroecological
science outperformed farmers using conventional approaches by up to 179%.responsibletechnology.org...


From here on out, these large bio-tech GMO companies such as Monsanto
and Syngenta, and Bayer are going to have a tough time in the eyes of public
opinion, they already know this, and that is why they are stepping up thier efforts
of intimidation, fighting to keep GMO unlabeled.

GMO foods should be banned here in The U.S, just as other countries are
rejecting GMO. The biggest victory is in the speading of the facts that show
GMO is sum total a corporate scheme for profits! Spread the word!


Researchers Prove GMO Foods Alter Organ Function: A Very Real Health Threat To Humans
Genetically Engineered Food Alters Our Digestive Systems!
Toxin from GM crops found in human blood
Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops
edit on 27-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
This is really big news, and good news, finally!
How many times we have heard the false argument that GMO crops have
provided the farmers with an advantage, and a greater crop yeild!

Everyone knows the bees are in trouble, with this year being the worst on
record. Its time to abandon the failed practices of GMO farming, with its unbearable
load of toxic pesticides that are making us sick, and killing the bee populations of the world!


James Strange, a research entomologist and bumblebee specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, said perhaps as many as 20 percent of the 38 or 40 (depending on how you count them) species of bumblebee in the U.S. are in trouble.

Essentially, this is the story of our age, whether it’s birds, butterflies, amphibians, or small mammals. Biodiversity is taking it on the chin
www.benningtonbanner.com...


Silence Of The Bees


www.youtube.com...

Caught Red Handed! USDA Bee Extinction Study Kept Secret!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Top USDA Bee Researcher Also Found Bayer Pesticide Harmful To Honeybees

Leaked Document Shows EPA Allowed Bee-Toxic Pesticide Despite Own Scientists’ Red Flags
edit on 28-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


So, GE crops really do not provide a greater yeild as claimed.


Europe has a much small coverage than North America. Perhaps comparing the yeild in a 2000 hectare feild using conventional methods to than in a 2000 hectare field using GMOs might provide a better picture.





Not only that, they do not even reduce pesticide use!
Yes, they do. That article references a very poor study (Benbrook) which fails to mention that net pestcide use has fallen through the use of GMOs.

• Misleading use of official data: Benbrook (2012) states in several places that the pesticide impact data are based on official, government (USDA) pesticide usage data. Whilst a USDA dataset is used, its limitations (namely not covering pesticide use on some of the most recent years and not providing disaggregated breakdowns of use between conventional and GM crops) mean that the analysis presented in Benbrook (2012) relied on his own interpretations and extrapolations of usage and cannot reasonably claim to be based on official sources. In particular, the herbicide usage assumptions on conventional crops, if they replaced GM HT traited crops, are significantly understated and unreliable. It is therefore not surprising that Benbrook (2012) concluded that GM HT crop use in the US resulted in an increase in US herbicide use. This contrasts sharply with the findings of other peer reviewed analysis 5 that estimated that GM crop adoption in the US reduced pesticide spraying in the US, eg, by 542 million lbs (246 million kg: -9.6% 1996-2010) 6 relative to what might reasonably be expected if the crops were all planted to conventional varieties.

gmopundit.blogspot.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

gmopundit.blogspot.com...




GMO pundit blogspot? I dont know how reliable that source is.
Its likely its not reliable at all, I have never heard of it.

I have found a reliable source, here:

Says Pesticide use has increased from GMO crops!

Pesticide Use Rises as Herbicide-resistant Weeds Undermine Performance of Major
GE Crops, New WSU Study Shows


news.cahnrs.wsu.edu...

edit on 28-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
According to the GMO Pundit his name is David Tribe, he has a Google plus account here it is:

David Tribe

He has a quote posted on that site:



A good reason not to support mandatory GM labelling: "Any label would connote something negative, when in fact there is no scientific basis for this. The government shouldn't force companies to do something that could potentially hurt their brand and has no scientific basis simply to indulge people's ignorant beliefs about an issue. "


That quote comes from this article:
GMO Truthers Need To Be Kicked Out Of The Progressive Movement

What I find interesting about the quote above is the fact that the government forces companies to label the fact that there is WATER in their products and nobody questions the unfairness of that AT ALL.

Sorry...label it.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Octave
 


Great find, thank you for that!
And I say very good point about the water!

It does make one wonder....what is the agenda with GMO....



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


There are two types of GMO crops: those suggested by the Green Revolution and those designed to make money. Things like Golden Rice, banana vaccines, even the disease-resistant papaya, these crops are designed with the intent to help humanity. Bt crops, Round-up Ready crops, other pest- or herbicide-resistant crops are designed to help farmers and control agriculture.

GMO crops for salt-resistance, drought-resistance, flood-resistant, increased yield, or higher-protein content could save the world. Or they could control new agriculture in other markets. It's all about intent. Most scientists are trying to help humanity.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
If the government forces all food and beverage companies to comply and declare on their labels that there is WATER in their products, then clearly there should be no problem to force food companies to comply and declare GMO's in there products.

Why is there so much resistance to this simple request? Of course it will not happen over night, of course it will be a logistical nightmare...so what.

Most people in this country want GMO's labeled in this country, why is our government not listening to it's people and siding with the biotech giants instead?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lincolnparadox
Things like Golden Rice, banana vaccines, even the disease-resistant papaya, these crops are designed with the intent to help humanity.


Perhaps it is that someone had an idea to help humanity, however you would imagine that
with all of the money and research that has gone into GE foods, especially staples,
they would have known what they were "creating".

Bill Gates donated 20 million dollars to further develop a "new" GMO rice, teamed up with MONSANTO who constantly works to monopolize the world's food supply with expensive GM seeds that have to be purchased each year and require expensive chemical fertilizers.

Not to mention that the fertilizers, and the Round Up needed to maintain these crops have
been strongly linked to cause birth defects, soil and plant disease.

Even if this rice otherwise could be found to be safe? a person would have to eat 16 pounds a day to gain the Viatmain A from it thats needed from the GMO rice.


In fact, it has been suggested that malnourished people might not convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, which blows the usefulness of golden rice clearly out of the water, as its intended recipients are virtually guaranteed to be malnourished.

Further, a person would need to eat an unrealistic amount of rice each day -- upwards of 16 pounds a day-- to get the recommended amount of vitamin A


There is a reason the GMO rice is illegal - its BT rice, a transgenic strain that has not been approved for commercial growing and should not be in human food, which contains a poison that kills butterflies and moths, and bees not to mention that it is a trigger in humans for severe allergic reactions.

And the scary part is they claim they want to help poor undernourished people in "third world" countires!

www.foodconsumer.org



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 


So, GE crops really do not provide a greater yeild as claimed.


Europe has a much small coverage than North America. Perhaps comparing the yeild in a 2000 hectare feild using conventional methods to than in a 2000 hectare field using GMOs might provide a better picture.



Agreed, more studies are needed, especially before this food is approved for human consumption. If the science is there, why won't large companies like Monsanto release their science? After all, science should know the long term outcomes across the spectrum with every organism involved (and their dependencies) around the transgenic crops.

I still don't know of any full spectrum study, nor any scientific study released by monsanto.






Not only that, they do not even reduce pesticide use!
Yes, they do. That article references a very poor study (Benbrook) which fails to mention that net pestcide use has fallen through the use of GMOs.

gmopundit.blogspot.com...



Sure, pesticide use may have reduced, which is what Bt toxin is supposed to address. How about the use of herbicides and other chemicals like fertilizer etc. Increase or decrease?
edit on 30-6-2013 by Philippines because: formatting



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
All GMO seeds need to be destroyed and also, the misconduct of the leaders, and the criminal behavior including of judges by installing injustice, fascism and corruption needs to be dealt with. It all needs to be dealt with ASAP. We can't let things slide.

Its a crime against humanity to even plant one of those seeds in any soil or water based system.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
politicalblindspot.org...

I found this article very informative. Plenty of links to other stories at the bottom of the article involving Monsanto and GMOs.









 
24

log in

join