Greenpeace warns EU of herbicide-tolerant GM crops

Greenpeace warns EU of herbicide-tolerant GM crops

phys.org

Global environmental watchdog Greenpeace launched a new report Monday warning the European Union against authorising herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered (HTGE) crops, saying they would lead to herbicide-resistant super-weeds.

(visit the link for the full news article)

There is also this documentary released by greenpeace.
Super weeds?
And not the kind some of us would want to be 'super'.
Sounds like a bad horror film. Monsanto just keeps racking up the complaints. Does MSM not talk about this at all?
"The launch of the report in Warsaw, Poland comes as the 27-member EU considers authorising 26 genetically engineered crops, including 19 that are tolerant to herbicides, Greenpeace said"


phys.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

From source;

"When herbicide-tolerant crops are relied on heavily, they trigger the spread and emergence of resistant weeds, which has now happened throughout the United States," said Oregon-based agricultural economist Charles Benbrook, who was commissioned by Greenpeace to study the issue.

"Then farmers have to spray much more heavily, turning to older, higher-risk herbicides which increases risk to both their cost of production as well as the public health problems associated with herbicide use," Benbrook told AFP, adding: "We're solidly in that phase in the US."

The potential side effects of GM foods are worrying enough as it is especially when it comes to genetically engineering in pesticides but get a load of this..

Benbrook has predicted EU farmers risk using up to 15 times more glyphosate-type herbicides on HTGE corn, soy and sugar beet crops to stem the growth of super-weeds over a 14-year period (2012-2025), as well as inflated prices for genetically modified seeds, should Brussels allow them.

The bar repeatedly gets lowered.. I hope the EU listens but with all the corporate lobbyists in the world I wouldn't hold my breath.

Whats is scary is if weeds become herbicide resistant, more powerful (likely more toxic/dangerous) chemicals will be used to destroy them. Harming things worse than they already do.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
...

Sounds like a bad horror film. Monsanto just keeps racking up the complaints. Does MSM not talk about this at all?

...

You make me Why would the MSM talk about this? Not even in their most vivid nightmares would they touch something like this: It would displease their gods.

But you know that....

reply to post by ubeenhad


how can GMO crop patents be given because they are substantially different,
while safety studies are not required because they are not substantially different?

ask monsatan

xploder

reply to post by ubeenhad

All the fearmongering about GM crops is getting environmentalists nowhere.

The are NO documented human illnesses caused by GM crops. Even other envirnmentalists are criticizing Greenpeace's hypocritical and un scientific knee-jerk over-reaction to the use of GM crops around the world:

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?

On issues ranging from genetically modified crops to nuclear power, environmentalists are increasingly refusing to listen to scientific arguments that challenge standard green positions. This approach risks weakening the environmental movement and empowering climate contrarians.

Most major environmental groups — from Friends of the Earth to Greenpeace to the Sierra Club — want a ban or moratorium on GM crops, especially for food. They fear the toxicity of these “Frankenfoods,” are concerned the introduced genes will pollute wild strains of the crops, and worry that GM seeds are a weapon in the takeover of the world’s food supply by agribusiness.

For myself, I am deeply concerned about the power of business over the world’s seeds and food supply. But GM crops are an insignificant part of that control, which is based on money and control of trading networks. Clearly there are issues about gene pollution, though research suggesting there is a problem is still very thin. Let’s do the research, rather than trash the test fields, which has been the default response of groups such as Greenpeace, particularly in my home country of Britain.

As for the Frankenfoods argument, the evidence is just not there. As the British former campaigner against GMs, Mark Lynas, points out: “Hundreds of millions of people have eaten GM-originated food without a single substantiated case of any harm done whatsoever.”

Stewart Brand wrote in his 2009 book Whole Earth Discipline: “I dare say the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than any other thing we’ve been wrong about.” He will see nods of ascent from members of a nascent “green genes” movement — among them environmentalist scientists, such as Pamela Ronald of the University of California at Davis — who say GM crops can advance the cause of sustainable agriculture by improving resilience to changing climate and reducing applications of agrochemicals.

Yet such people are routinely condemned as apologists for an industrial conspiracy to poison the world. Thus, Greenpeace in East Asia claims that children eating nutrient-fortified GM “golden rice” are being used as “guinea pigs.” And its UK Web site’s introduction to its global campaigns says, “The introduction of genetically modified food and crops has been a disaster, posing a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health.” Where, ask their critics, is the evidence for such claims?

e360.yale.edu...

If you intend to cite the flawed "rat study" in Food and Chemical toxicology, forget it. It has been thoroughly debunked, and is more a criticism of "Roundup," than an indictment of GM foods.

A Luddite philosophy will not win the day; and baseless claims/fears serve only to harm the credibility of otherwise sincere concerns for the environment.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


My argument is there is not enough studies to prove that GMO is actually good for you.

There's no reason that the largest manufacturer or deadly chemicals should also be the largest manufacturer of GMO crops.

Just like The Food & Drug Administration should be two seperate entities.

I'm sorry but I want GMO labeling and I want studies to show me that GMO crops are BETTER for us and the environment. Because if they are just on par, then it's a giant waste of money and time.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jdub297

 

My argument is there is not enough studies to prove that GMO is actually good for you.
There's no reason that the largest manufacturer or deadly chemicals should also be the largest manufacturer of GMO crops.
~Tenth

You do not want studies that show GM crops are better; you want studies that show they are poisonous!

There are dozens of breeders other than Dow and Monsanto who've developed highly successful and beneficial GM crops over the years. Google: "Castor bean" and "Agriculture Department" to see some of what the US involvement is.
Top Ten Genetically Modified Crops
If you wanted evidence that GM crops are better, then you'd know that the Hawaiian papaya crop was saved 30 years ago by GMO, and has been so sustained, ever since.

You'd know that more than 90% of U.S. canola, soybeans, corn, cotton and sugar beets are GM; and have been for decades!

You'd know that GM rice is grown around the world.

You'd know that GM crops have been bred for pest resistance, flood and drought resistance, pesticide and herbicide resistance, increased nutritional value and as biofuels since the mid-to-late 20th Century.
If you've consumed vegetable oil during the last 20 years, you've consumed GM food.

An enlightened public doesn't fall for pseudoscience, illogic, fear and ignorance. It relies upon facts.

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


GM foods need to be marked. I don't want to eat anything genetically modified by man. I'll rely on God for this one. Not ... man.

Or I guess products who do not use GM substances could mark it saying no GM in this product or whatever.