It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by crankyoldman
If it wasn't a good product, it wouldn't be in such widespread use.
No, no "terminator" seeds are currently sold. But the seeds they buy are licensed. Legally farmers cannot save seeds in order to plant crops for sale. This practice began before there were any GM crops.
Do GMO companies produce plants whose seeds do not germinate, forcing farmers to buy new seeds from said companies?
Since there are no "terminator" seeds in use the question is moot. But think about that idea for a moment.
Also, is there any danger of plants with non-germinating seeds taking over an ecosystem and forcing the non-GMO plants into extinction?
Malnutrition is said to be high in rice-eating populations. But these nutritional problems are not caused directly by the consumption of rice. They reflect an overall impact of multiple causative factors similar to those of other developing countries where rice is not a major staple.8 Various deficiencies including zinc, vitamin C and D, folate, riboflavin, selenium and calcium occur in the context of poverty, environmental degradation, lack of public health systems and sanitation, lack of proper education and social disparity. Poverty and lack of purchasing power is identified as a major cause of malnutrition.9 These underlying issues that can never be addressed by golden rice.
Although animal sources are expensive, inexpensive plant food sources are widely available. It only takes two tablespoonfuls of yellow sweet potatoes, half a cup of dark green leafy vegetables or two-thirds of a medium-sized mango in a day to meet the vitamin A requirement of a pre-school child.11 This way, not only is the vitamin A requirement being addressed, but a whole range of other micronutrients as well.
With what has been shown so far, 300 grams of golden rice can only provide at most 20% of an adult’s daily vitamin A requirement (see graph). A child would have a lower requirement of 450 Âµg retinol as against 500-600 Âµg retinol for adults.12 But 300 g of rice a day is way too much for a child. In the Philippines, pre-school children consume less than 150 grams of rice a day. In principle then, golden rice will only supply a little over 10% of the daily vitamin A needed by pre-school children. And children are the target population in this case.
Some reports claim that the conversion rate is less than one-quarter of what has been assumed up to now. Should this be the case, the amount of vitamin A made available from golden rice would be almost negligible.
According to Dr. Mae Wan Ho, vitamin A poisoning has been known to result from excessive beta-carotene intake in food. Allergenicity has also been raised as a possible issue. Daffodil, which is the source of the genes for the beta-carotene rice, is responsible for an allergic reaction which manifests as "daffodil picker’s rash" in some people.
While many doubt the ability of golden rice to eliminate vitamin A deficiency, the machinery is being set in motion to promote a GE strategy at the expense of more relevant approaches. The best chance of success in fighting vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition is to better use the inexpensive and nutritious foods already available, and in diversifying food production systems in the fields and in the household.
These results show the potential for a much more advantageous bioconversion rate than achieved from any other known crop-based source of -carotene. Furthermore, they imply that Golden Rice could probably supply 50% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of vitamin A from a very modest amount—perhaps a cup—of rice, if consumed daily. This amount is well within the consumption habits of most young children and their mothers.
We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
Can you provide statistics which support this claim?
GMOs often have an initial higher yield on their acreage but that yield dwindles over time as the glysophate in the soil begins locking up more and more of the micronutrients the plants need until at last the yields are not as good.
Are you sure?
When compared to organic or traditional crops, the increase in yields has been less with GMO crops.
No. That is not how glyphosate functions. It inhibits the activity of an enzyme in the plant and prevents the plant from producing certain amino acids. The plant "starves".
Glysophate is no pussycat. It binds the immune system of plants so they can't resist typical soil bacteria and fungi. Those then kill the plant.
Just like what causes inflammation in humans?
Just like they cause inflammation in humans that appears to accumulate over time
I'm sure you are referring to the "study" by Benbrook. His own figures actually show that per acre usage of pesticides has decreased with the use of GM crops.
Studies show pesticide use rises with GMOs.
Not ignored. Discounted because the "studies" were poorly designed with inadequate controls and poor statistical analysis.
Busted Myth #3 is where you ignore research done outside of the United States. Deformed rats, deformed uteruses in pigs, depression of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in the human body
Really? Are you sure? Have you reviewed all 1,700+ of those studies?
but not usually in 90 days which is the time frame of all the tests your quote is referencing.
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations).
Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance.
Oh, I pay attention. I haven't heard it claimed that GM is no different from hybridization. What I have heard is that when the "GM isn't natural" argument is used by the anti-GM crowd, the response that hybridization is not natural either. Which is true. GM would not exist without the intervention of people, neither would corn and other hybrids. Busted Myth #2 is a strawman.
Busted Myth #2 is repeated in almost every conversation I hear from GMO proponents whether it is on the web or on tv. If you haven't heard it, then you aren't paying attention.
How does a label that says "may contain GM material" help? It doesn't tell you if it has GM material or not.
Busted Myth #1 is obvious. If it's a good thing, people will buy it, if it isn't, they won't. Let the market speak.
No. The concern is that such labeling will create the impression that there is something inherently wrong with GM products. "If they have to label it, there must be something dangerous about it."
If you are so afraid people won't like your product then something must be wrong with the product.
By repeating that bit of disinformation (and your lack of understanding of how glyphosate functions) you cast into doubt your statement that you had anything to do with any gene splicing experiments. It sounds like you are just repeating the disinfo you've heard about GM crops.
The problem is, it isn't gene splicing even, it is shotgunning and the unintended results are ugly.
reply to post by Grimpachi
If peeps want to eat GM food then so be it.. I just request we have the choice. They should be labelled...
Or better yet, non-GM food can be labeled as such. More effective than "may contain GM".
Since a label saying "may contain GM material" along with the rest of the ingredients listed on a majority of products doesn't actually tell the consumer whether the product actually does contain GM material, yes.
reply to post by Grimpachi
If you think that GMO will stop world hunger and nutrient deficiency you are wrong. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone already. The problems we have are related to food distribution and economic wealth. So if that is the bases for your defence of GMOs you may as well walk away now.
GMOs are known to alter our DNA when digested. If you want to eat them that is fine it is your choice but they should be labelled so we have the choice. Not force fed to us and not listed on the ingredients..
As far as you saying GMOs alter human DNA that is pure pseudo science BS there is no evidence for you claim
Foreign genes disrupt the DNA at the insertion site
1. When genes are inserted at random in the DNA, their location can influence their function, as well as the function of natural genes.
2. "Insertion mutations" can scramble, delete or relocate the genetic code near the insertion site.
3. Evaluation of insertion sites have shown relocations of up to 40,000 DNA base pairs, mixing together of foreign and host DNA, large scale deletions of more than a dozen genes and multiple random insertions of foreign DNA fragments.