GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

reply to post by BaneOfQuo


It is, and it is the safer way. When you are dumping Glyphosate by the millions of pounds it tends to changes things for the worse. This is just my opinion and I know many people on ATS have differing opinions regarding GMOs.

Ironically, the introduction of GMOs in the 1990s was supposed to lower pesticide use in the United States, but it's done anything but that. In 2009 alone, farmers dumped more than 57 million pounds of glyphosate on food crops, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Just like overusing antibiotics in farm animals causes antibiotics resistant, pesticide abuse causes weed resistance, resulting in massive, hard-to-kill superweeds. Because of this, non-organic farmers are forced to use more pesticides, sometimes even reverting back to older, even more dangerous types.
LINK

ETA: Added link and added more info to the external material.

-SAP-

reply to post by BaneOfQuo


Unfortunately, yes, we would have to or risk killing the planet. I rather have a 5 billion people die than Earth get sucked dry and every thing die.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by BaneOfQuo

 

NO not at all. Cross pollination happens in nature. Adding moth DNA to wheat is not natural.

But the fact we selectively influence the genetic make up through selective breeding differs entirely from nature. The fact we can splice in ever stranger DNA sequences really has no bareing, except we have increased the level we influence the genetic makeup of the crop....

reply to post by SloAnPainful

You're supposed to provide a source for you external quote but it seems a rather simplistic claim. Answers to these questions might be a bit more meaningful.

How much glyphosphate was used in 1999?

What herbicides (instead of glyphosphate) were used?

How many more acres of land were placed in cultivation between 1999 and 200?

How did the amount of pesticides (herbicides and insecticides) applied per acre of cultivated land change between 1999 and 2009?

reply to post by Phage


Added the link, thanks for the reminder Phage.

The link doesn't really give specifics and I am sure it's pretty biased but there is info in there none the less.

-SAP-

Originally posted by BaneOfQuo

Originally posted by SloAnPainful

Originally posted by BaneOfQuo
We hav been modifying the world around us since humans first settled and form our early agrarian societies. Back then it was a matter of survival and sustainability. We face the same scenario now in a world this continually growing and struggles to find means to feed the population.

I get where you're coming from, but we haven't been modifying what goes into our bodies I.E food. Something we ingest that has the ability to kill us...

Feeding the population is important but not at the risk of also killing people. I would say that's not making much progress...

-SAP-

Not necessarily true, we crossed pollinated plants to to produce better yields etc.. Is that not a rudimentary form of genetic manipulation?

It's not the same. When we cross pollinate we are mixing similar plants together in a way that occurs naturally. With GMO's it goes much deeper. They mix genes from unlike plants and animals into plants to unnaturally produce hybrid monsters you could never find occurring in nature. They force the changes with chemicals not natural to the plant. This produces unhealthy byproducts in the GMO's that in turn greatly effect other plants and animals out in the environment. The cross pollinated plants do not have such shortcomings.

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.

reply to post by BaneOfQuo


Actually no.
How about because even when other countries ship food to starving countries, the leaders of those countries do not deliver it to the people that actually need it.
It's usually the politics that create the starving people in this day and age.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by BaneOfQuo

 

Actually no.
How about because even when other countries ship food to starving countries, the leaders of those countries do not deliver it to the people that actually need it.
It's usually the politics that create the starving people in this day and age.

Haha that's not a solution silly goose

Goodluck getting rid of politics. My hypothetical scenarios are more plausible point is natural sources of food will no longer be able to cope with demand and we should have a vested interest in the development of GMO foods....like my new genetically altered animal... The bacon vending machine.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I tell you monspanto and their cronies have billions and billions to feed the corrupted members of the US congress and I am sure that they will have more billions to feed the UK as well.

Because after all the elite do not have to eat it.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Sorry if someone has already said this here:
"The Prime Minister’s official spokesman declined to say 10 times whether Mr Cameron considers GM food to be good enough for him and his family."
I bet the secretary would only eat GM for the camera- how many corporate lobbyists are in power .
ALL of them?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

They mix genes from unlike plants and animals into plants to unnaturally produce hybrid monsters you could never find occurring in nature.

Corn is an excellent example of a hybrid you will not find in nature, GMO or otherwise.

They force the changes with chemicals not natural to the plant.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here but plants are chemical factories. They all produce their own herbicides and insecticides.

This produces unhealthy byproducts in the GMO's that in turn greatly effect other plants and animals out in the environment.

What unhealthy byproducts? How are other plants greatly affected? How are animals greatly affected?

The cross pollinated plants do not have such shortcomings.

Are you sure about that?

Koerth-Baker goes on to use the Lenape as an interesting example of food modification, and points out that this potato isn't just a prop in a cautionary tale against selective breeding. Classic breeding techniques can produce unforeseen, potentially dangerous or unhealthy results, too. Nevertheless, food modification has created a lot of controversy. The Lenape isn't exactly a poster spud for the merits of engineering better foods, but at least it's not as bad as New Zealand's (organic) killer zucchini.

www.tested.com...

Because of its toxicity, the potato variety Lenape was withdrawn from the market. Celery, parsley, and parsnips contain the linear furanocoumarin phytoalexins psoralen, bergapten, and xanthotoxin that can cause photosensitization and also are photomutagenic and photocarcinogenic. Celery field workers and handlers continually have photosensitization problems as a result of these indigenous celery furanocoumarins. A new celery cultivar (a result of plant breeding to produce a more pest-resistant variety) was responsible for significant incidences of phytophotodermatitis of grocery employees. Since there is no regulatory agency or body designated to oversee potential toxicological issues associated with naturally occurring toxicants, photodermatitis continues to occur from celery exposure. Sweet potatoes contain phytoalexins that can cause lung edema and are hepatotoxic to mice. At least one of these, 4-ipomeanol, can cause extensive lung clara cell necrosis and can increase the severity of pneumonia in mice. Some phytoalexins in sweet potatoes are hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic to mice.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I tell you monspanto and their cronies have billions and billions to feed the corrupted members of the US congress and I am sure that they will have more billions to feed the UK as well.

Because after all the elite do not have to eat it.

Exactly, they will be eating organic and will continue to do so.

The worst thing is, GMO in the right hands has the ability to help the world, we do indeed have an increasing population that is going to put stress on our resources in the future.

But it is in the wrong hands, the top of these corporations are the elite, they want population reduction, can we trust them not to put sterlising genes into GMO, these lunatics running the world are capable of all kinds of evil once they have an agenda.

To put the future of the world's food into the hands of these 'elite' is the end game for humanity, I'm convinced of it.

Someone ask the secretary for the independent testing done that proves it is safe?
There is no independent testing.No safety testing.


Since natural human gene patents are now voided by the court what about taking Monsanto's claimed ownership of plant genes to the supreme court on the same points used to win this battle?
Monsanto used( and use) genes that they did not and do not have a patent on.If you mix and mutate a fish with a strawberry you are using genes you do not hold a patent on (nature).

reply to post by Carreau


Additional problem, the GMO (crap) Feed that is given to livestock that in turn we eat.. chicken, turkey, beef etc.

Thus, we eat free range no antibiotic chicken and still consume GMO DNA. I never (rarely) get sick and would like to stay that way as long as possible. My kids rarely get ill either. People eat this GMO crap along with artificial sweeteners and are on consequently on anti depressants, addicted to smoke, drinking their lives away and feel ill for most of their lifetime. Something is off way off with general health.

BAN GMO would be a good start. Food prices would remain the same. Plenty of profit in real food and the government can always subsidize and give money away as discriminately as it always has.

reply to post by BDBinc

Since natural human gene patents are now voided by the court what about taking Monsanto's claimed ownership of plant genes to the supreme court on the same points used to win this battle?

Does Monsanto have patents on natural genes? I know they have patents on modified genes. I know they have plant patents. Plants have been patented since long before there were GMOs.
www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com...

reply to post by GoldenVoyager

People eat this GMO crap along with artificial sweeteners and are on consequently on anti depressants, addicted to smoke, drinking their lives away and feel ill for most of their lifetime. Something is off way off with general health.

People were not addicted to anything before GMOs? People didn't get sick?

I don't pay a lot of attention to whether or not I'm eating GMOs (but I do keep an eye on other things). I'm pretty healthy and happy, all things considered.

Yes people how dare they!

How dare they create a stable food source that is drought or pest tolerant, and adaptable to the 'ever changing climate' that can feed billions!!

Really what nerve!

At least some countries are fighting this junk.

Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar.

www.whydontyoutrythis.com...

Anyone who thinks using e-coli to break the dna then inserting such things as fish dna into a tomato is insane.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Our politicians are SOLD OUT, they no longer represent the interests of the people. They hide in the open through 'inversion', so when one says improve human health, the opposite is intended.

This is the beginning now, of an ongoing propaganda campaign to make the UK and countries in Europe accept GMO and allow the food supply of the world to come under the control of corporations.

Whether GMO is safe or not, which it most likely isn't, it is about control of our food.

This is key to the NWO agenda. We are one of the last few generations who have an opportunity to stop what is happening, but collectively, we will let them win. Why? Because most people won't care until it is too late.



www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 20-6-2013 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)

most people dont care...AND

many look to profit or benefit at anothers expense. it is ingrained into us because psychologically we understand that the elites do it to us through stocks..