GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

reply to post by tigershark1988


To embed a YT video, copy & paste the code after the ' = ' sign on the URL into the YT button on the reply page.

Here is the video you posted a link to.

Originally posted by BaneOfQuo
... Our exploration of GMO foods is the next logical step to meet the modern challenges of feeding a runaway population. How many currently go without food....? Oh yea a # load ...

... At one point our population will intersect and exceed food production and I assure you that the rate of population increases exponentially with time ...

I think that the problem here isn't with the food supply but, rather, the overpopulation of our world, so yes, you are right. The only solution here is to stop exponential population growth--I mean feed the sheople GMO food--I mean end world hunger.

I do believe that it is for the best that we feed the masses this GMO food on the basis of multiple Russian independent studies devoid of involvement with the lobbying from Monsanto in the states. Therein you will find the blasphemous treason plaguing the hierarchs of our fair capitalist society, and the only reason for the endorsement and advocacy of GMO food. Know that the hierarchs enforcing the disparities of a social hierarchy is the basis of this strife!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

-♠

"If they'd rather die then perhaps they had better do so and decrease the surplus population!"-Ebenezer Scrooge

reply to post by tigershark1988


Very good movie. I hadn't seen that one. I usually read research on things. The research from Europe is very good on this subject. This movie is good, it actually is compliant with the research I read. I may not have believed this video if I had not read scientific research before, thinking it was a bunch of radicals that created it.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary

www.bbc.co.uk

GM crops are probably safer than conventional plants, according to the Environment Secretary.

Making the strongest call yet for the adoption of the technology, Mr Paterson told the BBC that that GM has significant benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment.

He said the next generation of GM crops offers the "most wonderful opportunities to improve human health."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Really? If it's that safe...let's see what his fridge is stocked with.

reply to post by DragonFire1024


There is absolutely no evidence that GM crops are better for you than natural ones There is a lot of evidence the other way though Where does that guy get his info...I hope he doesn't have a Job where he overlooks the health of people

There is absolutely no evidence that GM crops are better for you than natural ones There is a lot of evidence the other way though Where does that guy get his info...I hope he doesn't have a Job where he overlooks the health of people

This is a true statement. The burden of proof is on this guy. What are we supposed to go on his word alone? All in all, this is a bs attempt at discrediting the negative GMO research.

reply to post by Unmask The Deception

Shall we look at the full context of the statement?

The truth is that products are subject to extensive testing and development in tightly controlled conditions – progressing from laboratory, to glasshouse, to field trials only when it’s safe to do so.

After all of the pre-commercial testing, marketing applications for GM products must undergo a comprehensive case-by-case scientific risk assessment. This is undertaken by independent scientists in the European Food Safety Authority. In the UK, we also receive independent advice from committees of world-leading scientific experts.

Over the past 25 years the EU alone has funded more than 50 projects on GM safety involving more than 400 independent research groups at a cost of around £260 million. Summary reports produced by the European Commission in 2000 and in 2010 reached two powerful conclusions:

First, there was no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.

Second, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably makes GMOs even safer than conventional plants and food.

www.biofortified.org...

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Probably safer, not for sure. The problem IMHO is that GM foods have not been tested for safety, only for profit. I hate them, and hope people stop buying them. First they take the food away, then the books/education, then they will have conquered all. But, I think they might end up getting a revolution instead.

reply to post by killbot2012

The problem IMHO is that GM foods have not been tested for safety,

On what do you base your opinion?

Just check out some of the old promo videos for DDT. It's totally safe. Use it in the garden, around the house, even throw some in the fridge. Kids been out playing around skeeters, give em a spray of DDT. It's american and good for you.........Thanks and buy Monsanto......trust us....Monsanto was one of the leading producers of DDT as well as Agent orange. en.wikipedia.org...





I am also a farmer and do not think GMO crops are the answer to solving world hunger and climate related issues in growing conditions. I'm all set with the glyphosate in my diet thank you. Here is a study that shows excessive glyphosate residue in soil reduces soil microbes and reduces a plants uptake of vital nutrients as well as reduced Nitrogen fixation, etc.... www.indianacca.org...

Better up the N-P-K. wait a second, aren't GMOs designed to reduce inputs. I can see how the argument that GMO crops have less nutritional value could be linked to glyphosate, nevermind the allergen proteins that go along with splicing foreign DNA into a food crop.

Then there is the profit/production argument. While corn bushels per acre has gone up quite significantly since the 1850's so has our mechanisms of production improved. Since GMO crops were introduced to the US market in 1996 corn production has only gone up by 20-30bu/acre average. That is not really a whole lot.There were record yield of non GMO plots that yielded as much as todays GMO corn back in the early 90's. At the current price of $7/bu thats only $140-$210/ acre increase since pre GMO. According to this data soy yield/acre has not really gone up at all. www2.econ.iastate.edu...

Then you take into account higher seed cost, the loss of rights to save your own seed, the increased use of glyphosate, and the degradation of soil from excessive glyphosate, not to mention possible negative human affects from foreign genetic proteins, it just doesn't add up. Then you get a prediction like this: US corn yields predicted to be lowest since 1995, warns the USDA. wait a second, aren't GM's supposed to save us all??????? this artile is from last fall but still very GMO relavent..........I know we had a drought but still....aren't GMO's the answer to that. The easy fix all..
www.foodnavigator-usa.com...

GMO seed for farmers is the same as microwave pre-made dinner is for people. It is the easy way out. Looks like seed that grows like a plant and looks like dinner that would have taken you more labor and thought to prepare but is it going to nurture you and your family and neighbor? Make you healthy and strong. Keep you from getting sick and obese. Does it make your land a better place then when you started farming it? I don't think so....Just my opinion..........

Trust Monsanto, they haven't led us astray yet....they are honest and trustworthy,,,,they didn't buy blackwater security firm, why would they need an arsenal, they don't harass and intimidate farmers......I love monsanto and you should too. baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

reply to post by peepsfromearth

Just check out some of the old promo videos for DDT. It's totally safe.

Comparing DDT to GMOs seems to have gotten really popular recently. The trouble is, DDT is a poison (though not as horrible as some people seem to think, I was one of those kids. Used to run around behind the mosquito trucks). It's saved millions by controlling malaria, and still is in many parts of the world.

According to this data soy yield/acre has not really gone up at all.

Really? From a pre-GMO peak of 37.6 bu/ac to 42.3 in 2009? That's 12.5%. Iowa did even better than average, 18%.

Then you take into account higher seed cost, the loss of rights to save your own seed,

That started before GMOs.

it just doesn't add up

So farmers are losing money by planting GMOs. Guess they aren't very bright if they can't figure that out.

they didn't buy blackwater security firm,

They didn't. They contracted with a company (Total Intelligence Solutions) for a few years. Probably not a bad idea with ecoterrorists and whatnot.

why would they need an arsenal,

What arsenal?

they don't harass and intimidate farmers

Do they? Or are they protecting their interests from people who violate their contracts?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by peepsfromearth

 

Just check out some of the old promo videos for DDT. It's totally safe.

Comparing DDT to GMOs seems to have gotten really popular recently. The trouble is, DDT is a poison (though not as horrible as some people seem to think, I was one of those kids.). It's saved millions by controlling malaria, and still is in many parts of the world.

According to this data soy yield/acre has not really gone up at all.

Really? From a pre-GMO peak of 37.6 bu/ac to 42.3 in 2009? That's 12.5%. Iowa did even better than average, 18%.

Then you take into account higher seed cost, the loss of rights to save your own seed,

That started before GMOs.

it just doesn't add up

So farmers are losing money by planting GMOs. Guess they aren't very bright if they can't figure that out.

they didn't buy blackwater security firm,

They didn't. The contracted with a security company for a few years.

why would they need an arsenal,

What arsenal?

they don't harass and intimidate farmers

Do they? Or are they protecting their interests from people who violate their contracts?

Phage, just want to start out by saying i'm honored you responded to my debate. Seems you are some what of a legend on this site.......

My point on the DDT is that Monsanto said it was safe at the time. I'm sure it did prevent Malaria but at what cost? Seems like the negative out weighed the positive as it is banned in the US even though we are still the top exporter.

If you look at national soy yields from 1994 compared to 2009, there is a difference of 0.9 bu/acre... You could pick other years and the difference is greater but there were no GMO's on the market in 1994 and national soy yields were comparable to 2009 which was almost all GMO seed. If you look at another 15 yr increment from 1980 to 1965, national soy bean yield/acre increased by almost 100% from 34bu/acre to 67bu/acre.

There was no law preventing a farmer from saving their own seeds before GMO marker genes.

If GMO pollen pollinates a conventional farm Monsanto has gone after those farmers for patent infringement. That's not right....If my pig gets loose and causes damage on your property I am liable as Monsanto should be instead of harassing farmers......Are they protecting their interests or just using their corporate power to intimidate. A giant company like monsanto has much more legal leverage then an average farmer which makes that battle not worth fighting even if you are in the right.

I heard they flat out bought blackwater.....Even if they just hired them i'm still scratching my head. I thought monsanto was here to benefit humanity.

Arsenal.....I was referring to blackwater........

I wouldn't call these farmers dumb but as one farmer mentioned earlier on this thread, they aren't making a whole lot of profit. After real estate taxes/costs labor and machinery they are lucky to break even. They do it because they probably have done it for some time and every now and then they get a stellar year where everything lines up and they do make a small profit. This gives them hope to farm another year. I think a lot of them choose GMO because for one their neighbor is doing it and second they feel they have too to stay with the times. Will this pan out.....time will tell.......

reply to post by Phage




Please watch this in full.

Btw do you work for the government?

"Brawndo's gots eclectrolytes. It gots what plants crave"
Everytime I watch "Idiocracy" it gets less funny and more scary! Im wondering if Mike Judge is a time traveler or just a genius.And we are a lot closer to that reality than the date they give.When that movie came out it made less sense then than it does now. If you havent seen this film, GO WATCH IT! If you dare

reply to post by peepsfromearth

If you look at another 15 yr increment from 1980 to 1965, national soy bean yield/acre increased by almost 100% from 34bu/acre to 67bu/acre.

I think you are looking at the wrong column. I see yield increase of 8% over that time span.

There was no law preventing a farmer from saving their own seeds before GMO marker genes

Well if you consider it illegal to violate patent laws it was.

The 1970 PVPA, subsequent amend-
ments and rulings, and other actions strengthened
property rights by providing proprietary rights over
sexually- and tuber-propagated new plant varieties,
creating an incentive for private firms to enter the
seed market.

www.ers.usda.gov...

If GMO pollen pollinates a conventional farm Monsanto has gone after those farmers for patent infringement.

Can you provide a single case where Monsanto has filed such a claim? I'll help:

Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." The ruling also found that the plaintiffs had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement." Monsanto brings an average of 13 patent-enforcement lawsuits per year, which, the judge said, "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million."

www.npr.org...

I heard they flat out bought blackwater.....Even if they just hired them i'm still scratching my head.

You heard wrong, not unsual. Monsanto hired Total Intelligence Solutions, a private investigator to look into possible threats against the company and its employees. TIS is not Blackwater.

Arsenal.....I was referring to blackwater........

No arsenal.

I wouldn't call these farmers dumb but as one farmer mentioned earlier on this thread, they aren't making a whole lot of profit.

Correct. Farming profit margins are not great. Anything that increases production at reduced costs, even a small amount, will be of interest in farming.

Please watch this in full.

No thanks. I've seen pretty much all the anti-GMO propaganda already. On the other hand, instead of just believing that it is all true why not check out some of the claims yourself. The disinfo about lawsuits, and Blackwater are just a small part of it.

Btw do you work for the government?

No. But I tend to look at more than one side of an argument to try to separate the wheat from the chaff...so to speak.

reply to post by Phage


Anti-GMO propaganda? So anything that is pro gmo is NOT propaganda because it is what you personally support?
And I have checked the information on GMO myself, and I know from my own experience growing food that GMO crops are less efficient and lack the nutritional value for the soil that natural seeds do.

Search up PERMACULTURE and tell me what you think of it.

GMOS might not be harmful to humans but they ARE harmful to animals and the environment, one thing we humans love to do, is f**k with nature.

This is from the www.ucsusa.org... website, I will not post government sites because I believe they have vast interest in the financial gain from said Corporations.
www.ucsusa.org...

The American experience with genetically modified food crops, while encouraging, does not justify complacency about potential risks for several reasons. First, our experience is quite limited in important ways. Only two traits, herbicide and insect resistance, have been significant commercial successes. Crops with other traits have failed to achieve commercial success, have been held back by companies, or never made it through the research and development pipeline.

Second, the U.S. government provides very little post-market oversight of biotech foods. A recent report by the U.S.-based Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (cited above) questions the ability of the government's weak monitoring and enforcement systems to detect unexpected human health and environmental problems and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.59 In fact, the current "don't look, don't find" approach to monitoring is likely to detect only the most dramatic, highly visible effects.

This is from the www.ucsusa.org... site, I am not posting government agencies because I believe they have financial interests in bio-engineering.

"

Also in 2002, NAS published Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns, the academy's first report devoted solely to animals produced through modern biotechnology methods.63 That report found that the federal government's regulatory efforts have not kept pace with the advances in animal biotechnology research. As a result, they concluded that the current framework might be inadequate to oversee new animal biotech products as they move from laboratories towards commercialization.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

reply to post by Wonderer2012
With Mother Nature at present changing her course - Globally- regarding sudden massive floods etc. Imagine the result if wide farm areas --each using Monsanto so called GM seeds - were hit by monster floods. Imagine (Fingers crossed) that Monsanto lost its product to such floods....End of Wheat etc. Yet had such Farms been using Natural seeds, then 10:1 some seeds would survive and eventual crops would naturally return.

No one is thinking along those lines, all they wish to do is guarantee one sided growth in futuristic Profits.... Terrible things have to happen on this so called planet and then our said experts are always heard to say, "Yes a serious mistake or maybe oversight allowed this to occur. We must learn something from this to prevent such happening again". Yet within a year or two the same thing happens again and again.

reply to post by Kaone

Anti-GMO propaganda? So anything that is pro gmo is NOT propaganda because it is what you personally support?

No. Propaganda comes from all sides. It's our job to dig the facts out of it.

And I have checked the information on GMO myself,

Really? Then why do you get so many of the facts wrong? Blackwater, lawsuits, productivity...

and I know from my own experience growing food that GMO crops are less efficient and lack the nutritional value for the soil that natural seeds do.

You've raised both? You've analyzed the nutrional content?

Search up PERMACULTURE and tell me what you think of it.

It's a great idea. Now, how does it scale up for production of hundreds of millions of tons?

GMOS might not be harmful to humans but they ARE harmful to animals and the environment, one thing we humans love to do, is f**k with nature.

Which animals? What aspects of the environment? But yeah, humans have been messing with nature for a very long time. That's what agriculture is, actually.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


They're all (various sides, studies, etc.) comparing different things.does "safe" mean "less likely to end up as an e-coli vector because of farming near where pigs are rooting and pooping uphill from the crops", or does safe mean "less likely to cause cancer and/or birth defects in future generations from long-term ingestion of chemical fertilizers and known DNA mutagen glyphosphate (Roundup - not sure I have the chemical name correct.)

I lean toward the stuff I can rinse off (errant poo particles), rather than toward the stuff that becomes extremely toxic and tragic to humans upon absorption into the plant itself and consumption by humans. There are, or will be cases where the genetic modification itself is harmful, but we know for a fact the farming practices and chemicals enabled by GM foods are terrible for humans.

The other big one - terminator seeds: A GM plant, which can easily infect neighboring plants' offspring through cross-pollination (sp??!?) with "conventional crops", and which turns sterile within 3 generations, is more likely to wipe out humanity than nuclear war. A world full of plants fully RoundUp ready, inflicting their zterility weakness on all of the other plants, eventually leading to worldwide famine and ecological collapse as food crops go extinct (oh, unless, of course, Monsanto chooses to continue producing their seeds.) GMO crops, especially with the infantile knowledge level in the industry currently, are essentially the Pandora's box Pandora herself wouldn't even consider opening.