GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

Originally posted by neo96
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!

If that was really the case, I would applaud them and encourage their efforts.

BUT, and it is a pretty large BUT, can we really trust a handful of corporations with incredible influence over governments to really try and better mankind?

Corporations driven by profit margins and supported by the Rockerfeller Foundations and Bill Gates Foundation? Through AGRA, African nations are having GMO forced on them, for those who on the one hand support population control, how can they then support AGRA and provide food for Africa? How does one make logical sense of this?

How can we trust corporations that have already created TERMINATOR seeds?-

Genetic use restriction technology, colloquially known as "terminator technology", produces plants that have sterile seeds. If put into use, it would prevent the spread of those seeds into the wild. It also would prevent farmers from planting seeds they harvest, requiring them to repurchase seed for every planting, although they also need to do this for hybrid seeds, because second-generation seeds are inferior, and in cases of patented transgenic seeds, where patent-holders like Monsanto enter into contracts with farmers who agree not to plant harvested seeds as a condition of purchase.

Terminator technology has been developed by governmental labs, university researchers, and companies, sometimes in collaboration and sometimes independently.[113][114][115] The technology has never been known to have been used commercially.[116][117] Rumors that Monsanto and other companies intended to introduce terminator technology have caused protests, for example in India.[118][119]

In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize terminator technology, and has kept that pledge on its website to the present day.

You trust these folks? Those who have created plants that have sterile seeds that cannot be used again? You seriously think they created this with no intention of using it to control entire nations in the future?

Seriously...

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Our politicians are SOLD OUT, they no longer represent the interests of the people.

Have politicians “sold out” when they hold a contrary world view to you? Is your problem that other people’s opinions and views don’t matter? Is it problematic to be challenged?

I think that there is a decent and healthy debate going on about GM in the UK. However, the Minister has a point because there is no evidence that GMOs are bad for people and his logic is sound, especially if GMOs lead to reduced herbicides and pesticides.

Personally, I have an open mind and welcome the debate and the presentation of the evidence. As I live in a very rural part of the UK and enjoy the countryside, I feel have more of an interest than Townies and so called “environmentalists” who would not know hogweed from feverfew or a meadow pipet from a guillemot.

Regards

reply to post by Wonderer2012

You seriously think they created this with no intention of using it to control entire nations in the future?

Yes.
How can they control entire nations if they don't distribute the seeds?

Excellent scientific presentation... regarding GMOs.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Phage

And human genes were being patented, just because something is done(for a long time) it doesn't make it beneficial to mankind and its always open to being changed supreme court ruling on genes was a door opening to stop the madness of patenting segments of nature. Then messing up the sequence to do something it was not designed by nature to do.

Where is the independent safety testing?

reply to post by BDBinc

supreme court ruling on genes was a door opening to stop the madness of patenting segments of nature.

And could also be a great hinderance in genetic research. But I suppose that genetic research is a bad thing too.

Then messing up the sequence to do something it was not designed by nature to do.

Nature does a lot of stupid stuff. For example, it didn't make corn. Corn was not designed by nature. Corn cannot survive in nature.

Where is the independent safety testing?

It's all over the place. The trouble is that those who are bent on proving that GMOs are dangerous don't seem to be able to design very good experiments.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

You seriously think they created this with no intention of using it to control entire nations in the future?

Yes.
How can they control entire nations if they don't distribute the seeds?

edit on 6/20/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Please enlighten me on the purpose of Monsanto investing the time and effort creating 'terminator' technology, crops with sterile seeds that cannot be used again?

How could you not be able to equate this technology to control? If crop cannot be replanted hence you need to purchase more to eat. That is the ultimate form of control.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Please enlighten me on the purpose of Monsanto investing the time and effort creating 'terminator' technology, crops with sterile seeds that cannot be used again?

Perhaps one reason would be the clamor about GMOs spreading wildly across the landscape, an out of control monster. Sterile seed sort of makes that not happen.

If crop cannot be replanted hence you need to purchase more to eat. That is the ultimate form of control.

So don't buy them if they are ever actually put into production (they aren't). Believe it or not, Monsanto is sort of at the mercy of market forces and is not the only source of seed. But apparently a lot of farmers like their products.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Please enlighten me on the purpose of Monsanto investing the time and effort creating 'terminator' technology, crops with sterile seeds that cannot be used again?

Perhaps one reason would be the clamor about GMOs spreading wildly across the landscape, an out of control monster. Sterile seed sort of makes that not happen.

If crop cannot be replanted hence you need to purchase more to eat. That is the ultimate form of control.

So don't buy them if they are ever actually put into production (they aren't). Believe it or not, Monsanto is sort of at the mercy of market forces and is not the only source of seed. But apparently a lot of farmers like their products.

edit on 6/20/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

For now, you are correct.

What about the future? What if GMO contaminates the world's soil so only GMO can be grown?

What if conventional farmers are forced out of business as GMO is more widely accepted?

In the future, I find the idea of 'terminator' technology very scary. I am completely 100% unfounded to say this? Are you 100% sure there is no conspiracy and GMO is created for the betterment of mankind?

Originally posted by Phage
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?

Link
nz.news.yahoo.com...

University of Canterbury (UC) researchers have found that the biotechnologies used in north American staple crop production are lowering yields and increasing pesticide use compared to western Europe.

Seems you are interested in this topic

reply to post by Wonderer2012

What about the future? What if GMO contaminates the world's soil so only GMO can be grown?

How would that happen? In general monoculture is not good for soil but that happens whether or not GMO crops are involved.

What if conventional farmers are forced out of business as GMO is more widely accepted?

You mean because GMOs are more productive and profitable? Sounds like the problem is agribusiness, not GMOs.

Are you 100% sure there is no conspiracy and GMO is created for the betterment of mankind?

I'm 100% sure that Monsanto and others are creating GMOs in order to make a profit. The fact that their products improve productivity also helps others make a profit. I'm 99.999% sure that Monsanto does not want to take over the world.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

What about the future? What if GMO contaminates the world's soil so only GMO can be grown?

How would that happen? In general monoculture is not good for soil but that happens whether or not GMO crops are involved.

What if conventional farmers are forced out of business as GMO is more widely accepted?

You mean because GMOs are more productive and profitable? Sounds like the problem is agribusiness, not GMOs.

Are you 100% sure there is no conspiracy and GMO is created for the betterment of mankind?

I'm 100% sure that Monsanto and others are creating GMOs in order to make a profit. The fact that their products improve productivity also helps others make a profit. I'm 99.999% sure that Monsanto does not want to take over the world.

Can you expand further on what you mean by how GMO makes others profit? Do you mean the farmers who use their products?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Greetings.

Do you actually know anything about farming?

It really sounds like you don't.

Perhaps, instead of sounding like a narrow minded fool that blindly believes whatever anti GMO or anti Monsanto story that comes your way, you'd actually attempt to understand it better.

No one forces farmers to use GM seeds but many choose to.

Have you wondered why?

Have you bothered to see it from the farmers perspective?

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Greetings.

Do you actually know anything about farming?

It really sounds like you don't.

Perhaps, instead of sounding like a narrow minded fool that blindly believes whatever anti GMO or anti Monsanto story that comes your way, you'd actually attempt to understand it better.

No one forces farmers to use GM seeds but many choose to.

Have you wondered why?

Have you bothered to see it from the farmers perspective?

Why do they chose to, is it cheaper for them? Is it easier? More profitable? More productive?

You are right, I know little about farming, you sound like you can help me understand this topic a lot more though

There's a thread about this here

The research suggests it is an unwise decision. The current status of GM food is not good for people, animals, the environment, or world solutions.

www.globalresearch.ca...

reply to post by Wonderer2012


What do you want to know, friend?

I think Phage has spelt it out well so far.

Why would the likes of Monsanto want to kill or poison people or animals with their GMO products?

It is counter productive to their bottom line.

And farmers will use the product that they think will make them the best profit as well, so if a GMO seed can produce a better yield, have better pest resistance, then it's a no brainer to the farmer, especially if its competitively priced.

reply to post by Peter Brake

Seems you are interested in this topic

I am. But that summary you quoted is inaccurate. Yields are not declining and pesticide use on a per acre basis is not increasing.

While comparison of per hectare productivity is made between North America and Europe (both showing increases), I wonder if the relative sizes of the crops may be a factor in the rate of increase. I have a feeling that a 500 hectare field would be easier to manage than a 2,000 hectare field so productivity in the large field may not be as great as that in a smaller field. Perhaps the fact that North America with it's greater acreage is still keeping pace with the productivity of smaller farms is an indication that GMOs are indeed effective. There is certainly a lot more corn coming out of North America than there is coming out of Europe. Is North American agriculture too big? Maybe, but does that have anything to to with GMOs?

Regarding pesticide use, the article cites Benbrook and points out the increase in total pesticide use from 1996 to 2011 but fails to take into account the 14% increase in acreage. The fact is that Benbrook's data shows that combined use of herbicides and pesticides decreased on a per acre basis over that period of time. Neither Benbrook or Heinemann seem to find that significant enough to mention.


www.tandfonline.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BDBinc

 

supreme court ruling on genes was a door opening to stop the madness of patenting segments of nature.

And could also be a great hinderance in genetic research. But I suppose that genetic research is a bad thing too.

Then messing up the sequence to do something it was not designed by nature to do.

Nature does a lot of stupid stuff. For example, it didn't make corn. Corn was not designed by nature. Corn cannot survive in nature.

Where is the independent safety testing?

It's all over the place. The trouble is that those who are bent on proving that GMOs are dangerous don't seem to be able to design very good experiments.

edit on 6/20/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Just site the independent test that would make the secretary make up " GM is safer than non GM foods"?
There is a lack in independent GM researching.
Maize/corn was designed by nature not by GM corporations.
Nature is not stupid,Man is stupid .

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

What do you want to know, friend?

I think Phage has spelt it out well so far.

Why would the likes of Monsanto want to kill or poison people or animals with their GMO products?

It is counter productive to their bottom line.

And farmers will use the product that they think will make them the best profit as well, so if a GMO seed can produce a better yield, have better pest resistance, then it's a no brainer to the farmer, especially if its competitively priced.

But the major foundations (Rockerfeller and Bill Gates) behind AGRA support population control. I'm trying to make sense of it all.

If it is about the bottom line, then wouldn't it be more if even more people lived on the planet? More people= more profit for GMO companies.

What are YOUR thoughts on 'terminator' technology, crops that produce sterile seeds, engineered to produce seeds that cannot be used, hence you have to buy the product over and over?

reply to post by BDBinc

Just site the independent test that would make the secretary make up " GM is safer than non GM foods"?

Shall we look at the entire statement? It might help understanding.

"The use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make GMOs even safer than than conventional plants and food," he said.

www.bbc.co.uk...
He's talking about the fact that GMOs are more carefully studied and regulated than non-GMOs. And he said "probably".