Too much resistance against Monsanto in Europ

[questionmark]

And some natural poisons degrades in your body while you lie in the casket...

So you claim it is preferable to also poison the worm trying to eat the coffin's content, and the the bird that eats the worm and then another human that eats the bird? No wonder you are cheering and applauding poisoning soils for no real gain.

[bmk1245]

Nice, but your assault on science bullcrap- ain't impressing anyone. I am a trained scientist and I can smell out the difference between good and bad science. Science bent to the financial will of major corporations has repeatedly shown itself to be the most corruptible science.

Br Cornelius

Wait... What?! You are basing your conclusions on smell? How about employing critical thinking, and not smell, or emotions?

[bmk1245]

So you claim it is preferable to also poison the worm trying to eat the coffin's content, and the the bird that eats the worm and then another human that eats the bird? No wonder you are cheering and applauding poisoning soils for no real gain.

Well, worms will adapt.

BTW, is copper sulfate degradable? No? Why then organic farmers still cling to this atrocious substance?

And what about non-GM intensive farming? Is it better (in the sense of "bad chemicals") than GM farming?

[Guest]

BMK,

At this stage I am going to have to conclude that you have worked on a GMO crop project which was knocked back.

You haven't addressed a single one of the pertinent deep scientific issues associated with a technology which we only just barely understand, which is why I think that my fears are very justified.

Here is a list of some of the fundamental scientific issues which you have avoided addressing in all of your responses;

Section 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems

2.2 Growing GM crops using tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations

1. The process of growing plant cells into GM plants may create hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome.

2. While a change in a single base pair may have serious consequences, widespread changes in the genome can have multiple, interacting effects.

3. Most scientists working in the field are unaware of the extent of these mutations, and no studies have examined genome-wide changes in commercialized GM plants.

2.4 The promoter may accidentally switch on harmful genes

1. Promoters are switches that turn on genes.

2. The promoter used in nearly all GM crops is designed to permanently turn on the foreign gene at high output.

3. Although scientists had claimed that the promoter would only turn on the foreign gene, it can accidentally turn on other natural plant genes—permanently.

4. These genes may overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen or antinutrient, or regulators that block other genes.

2.6 The promoter might create genetic instability and mutations

1. Evidence suggests that the CaMV promoter, used in most GM foods, containsa recombination hotspot.

2. If confirmed, this might result in breakup and recombination of the gene sequence.

3. This instability of the inserted gene material might create unpredicted effects.

2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring

1. Small RNA sequences can regulate gene expression, most commonly by silencing genes.

2. RNA is stable, survives digestion and can impact gene expression in mammals that ingest it.

3. The impact can be passed on to future generations.

4. Genetic modification introduces new DNA combinations and mutations, which increase the likelihood that harmful regulatory RNA will be accidentally produced.

2.10 Changes in proteins can alter thousands of natural chemicals in plants, increasing toxins or reducing phytonutrients

1. Plants produce thousands of chemicals which, if ingested, may fight disease, influence behavior or be toxic.

2. The genome changes described in this section can alter the composition and concentration of these chemicals.

3. GM soybeans, for example, produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones.

4. Most GM-induced changes in these natural products go undetected.

2.11 GM crops have altered levels of nutrients and toxins

1. Numerous studies on GMOs reveal unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule products of metabolism.

2. These demonstrate the risks associated with unintended changes that occur due to genetic engineering.

3. Safety assessments are not adequate to guard against potential health risks associated with these changes.

http://responsiblete...th-risks/2notes

No one here has denied that traditional selective breeding can lead to some of the same issues, but to a much smaller degree, but that seems to be the only issue you want discussed.

And as Questionmark has repeatedly pointed out (and you have ignored) the crops simply do not deliver on their claimed benefits. A comprehensive report from the Union of Concerned Scientists showing how they have failed to meet expectations in increased yields;

http://www.ucsusa.or...re-to-yield.pdf

Br Cornelius

Edited June 13, 2013 by Guest

[questionmark]

Well, worms will adapt.

So, you are promoting a non-solution that will be innefective because the target organisms adapt and the poison remains? Good one

BTW, is copper sulfate degradable? No? Why then organic farmers still cling to this atrocious substance?

copper sulfate is a natural salt, and while I am not advocating using it ton-wise on crops the fact remains that it will be washed out and will cause no further damage.

And what about non-GM intensive farming? Is it better (in the sense of "bad chemicals") than GM farming?

You seem to be the only one here trying to make better worse comparisons, all that is not processable by the environment is wrong, no matter if GM or abusive use of chemicals. And that it is possible to obtain adequate harvest with neither has also been amply demonstrated. And it is not like there is only resistance against GM but there is just as much resistance against over fertilizing, pesticides and herbicides.

[bmk1245]

BMK,

At this stage I am going to have to conclude that you have worked on a GMO crop project which was knocked back.

[...]

Your "smell" failed you again. I'm bastardizing non-organic matter...

[...]You haven't addressed a single one of the pertinent deep scientific issues associated with a technology which we only just barely understand, which is why I think that my fears are very justified.

[...]

What scientific issues?! Half baked scare mongering?

[...]

Here is a list of some of the fundamental scientific issues which you have avoided addressing in all of your responses;

[...]

Thats neat... Again, "natural" breeding don't have same issues on what points exactly?

[...]

No one here has denied that traditional selective breeding can lead to some of the same issues, but to a much smaller degree, but that seems to be the only issue you want discussed.

[...]

Actual poisoning is a much smaller degree? Heck, US should be wasteland (dead people lying on every corner, etc) by now. Is it?

[...]

And as Questionmark has repeatedly pointed out (and you have ignored) the crops simply do not deliver on their claimed benefits. A comprehensive report from the Union of Concerned Scientists showing how they have failed to meet expectations in increased yields;

http://www.ucsusa.or...re-to-yield.pdf

[...]

Ok, let me ask you: overall yield goes up, percentage of GM crop fields goes up, what part of conventional/organic farming yield takes in?

BTW, if you noticed, "article" does not point references in text, kinda smells "shitwemadeup", go figure where we got numbers.

[bmk1245]

So, you are promoting a non-solution that will be innefective because the target organisms adapt and the poison remains? Good one

[...]

I'm not promoting a thing. But just ask yourself: where you would be now, if not destructive farming?

[...]

copper sulfate is a natural salt, and while I am not advocating using it ton-wise on crops the fact remains that it will be washed out and will cause no further damage.

[...]

Think again. All fertilizers/pesticides are getting washed out. And copper sulfate is not "friendly".

[...]

You seem to be the only one here trying to make better worse comparisons, all that is not processable by the environment is wrong, no matter if GM or abusive use of chemicals. And that it is possible to obtain adequate harvest with neither has also been amply demonstrated. And it is not like there is only resistance against GM but there is just as much resistance against over fertilizing, pesticides and herbicides.

Ok, lets look, for example, at Bt crops. Who are using more pesticides? Conventional/organic farmers, or GM growers?

[questionmark]

I'm not promoting a thing. But just ask yourself: where you would be now, if not destructive farming?

Think again. All fertilizers/pesticides are getting washed out. And copper sulfate is not "friendly".

Ok, lets look, for example, at Bt crops. Who are using more pesticides? Conventional/organic farmers, or GM growers?

What part of "both are wrong" does not enter in that piece of wood you have where others have a head?

And organic farmers do not use pesticides other than what can be distilled from plants, like nettle tea. Totally biodegradable. Inform yourself before throwing terms around.

[Guest]

Your "smell" failed you again. I'm bastardizing non-organic matter...

What scientific issues?! Half baked scare mongering?

Thats neat... Again, "natural" breeding don't have same issues on what points exactly?

Actual poisoning is a much smaller degree? Heck, US should be wasteland (dead people lying on every corner, etc) by now. Is it?

Ok, let me ask you: overall yield goes up, percentage of GM crop fields goes up, what part of conventional/organic farming yield takes in?

BTW, if you noticed, "article" does not point references in text, kinda smells "shitwemadeup", go figure where we got numbers.

Don't think the union of concerned scientists is a legitimate alternative scientific voice in this debate ?

Thats a lot of scientists you've just insulted there. I suspect you only like industry funded research

Br Cornelius

[bmk1245]

What part of "both are wrong" does not enter in that piece of wood you have where others have a head?

[...]

What "both are wrong"? Conventional farming?

[...]

And organic farmers do not use pesticides other than what can be distilled from plants, like nettle tea. Totally biodegradable. Inform yourself before throwing terms around.

Totally degradable like like copper sulfate? Or "less" harmful "natural" substances? Tones of it?

[bmk1245]

Don't think the union of concerned scientists is a legitimate alternative scientific voice in this debate ?

Thats a lot of scientists you've just insulted there. I suspect you only like industry funded research

Br Cornelius

I'm starting to doubt it.

But hey, just look at that report more closely.

[questionmark]

What "both are wrong"? Conventional farming?

Totally degradable like like copper sulfate? Or "less" harmful "natural" substances? Tones of it?

I will continue this discussion if you quit drawing arguments by the hair, while that, have a nice day... and don't forget to cash your check from Monsanto.

[shrooma]

organic farmers do not use pesticides other than what can be distilled from plants, like nettle tea. Totally biodegradable.

.

the clue's kind of in the name isn't it....?

[bmk1245]

I will continue this discussion if you quit drawing arguments by the hair, while that, have a nice day...[...]

Have a nice day too....

But I see anti-GMO crowd splitting hairs here...

[...]. and don't forget to cash your check from Monsanto.

Already did it. And got some $ from CIA/KGB/MI6 and whatever NK agency call themselves...

[Guest]

I'm starting to doubt it.

But hey, just look at that report more closely.

Its a summery report - not a scientific paper.

Br Cornelius

[bmk1245]

Its a summery report - not a scientific paper.

Br Cornelius

I don't give a rats munch about summery (wintery) report. Cold numbers say in favor of GM.

[Guest]

I don't give a rats munch about summery (wintery) report. Cold numbers say in favor of GM.

****, do they.

No productivity advantages to report, so whats the point ???

So many intrinsic issues with both industrialized farming and GMO, but GMO just amplifies the problems.

Br Cornelius

[bmk1245]

****, do they.

No productivity advantages to report, so whats the point ???

[...]

Well, then, this leads us to a very disturbing conclusion: US farmers are very very VERY bad at math (super duper expensive seeds/chemicals, and no advantages in yield, yet relative acreage increased from year to year)...

[...]

So many intrinsic issues with both industrialized farming and GMO, but GMO just amplifies the problems.

[...]

Exactly how?

[Guest]

Concentration of genetic diversity into fewer and fewer strains means a crisis of disease is all but inevitable.

Nature tells us that the most diverse systems are also the most robust since there is always a variant which is resistant to any given disease strain. As I have said repeatedly - conventional farming is bad because it reduces genetic crop diversity - GMO's just takes the process another step further. Both are ticking time bombs waiting to go off.

Since you don't seem to be able to understand this simple point when I make it, heres what Wiki says in plain and simple terms;

When humans initially started farming, they used selective breeding to pass on desirable traits of the crops while omitting the undesirable ones. Selective breeding leads to monocultures: entire farms of nearly genetically identical plants. Little to no genetic diversity makes crops extremely susceptible to widespread disease. Bacteria morph and change constantly. When a disease causing bacterium changes to attack a specific genetic variation, it can easily wipe out vast quantities of the species. If the genetic variation that the bacterium is best at attacking happens to be that which humans have selectively bred to use for harvest, the entire crop will be wiped out.^[9]

A very similar occurrence is the cause of the infamous Potato Famine in Ireland. Since new potato plants do not come as a result of reproduction but rather from pieces of the parent plant, no genetic diversity is developed, and the entire crop is essentially a clone of one potato, it is especially susceptible to an epidemic. In the 1840s, much of Ireland’s population depended on potatoes for food. They planted namely the “lumper” variety of potato, which was susceptible to a rot-causing oomycete called Phytophthora infestans.^[10] This oomycete destroyed the vast majority of the potato crop, and left one million people to starve to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity

Its seems to me that the American farmers have been suckered and are in to deep to back out at this stage. Fortunately the rest of the world has not been so short sighted.

That says nothing about the hidden dangers of messing with a code you barely understand. How about you volunteer for genetic experiments on your offspring to see how appealing an idea is and how confident you really feel in the technology.

The future is in small scale organic which doesn't fight natural systems, and increases yields in the long term over industrial agriculture and GMO;

The Farming Systems Trial (FST)® at Rodale Institute is America’s longest running, side-by-side comparison of organic and chemical agriculture. Started in 1981 to study what happens during the transition from chemical to organic agriculture, the FST surprised a food community that still scoffed at organic practices. After an initial decline in yields during the first few years of transition, the organic system soon rebounded to match or surpass the conventional system. Over time, FST became a comparison between the long term potential of the two systems.

As we face uncertain and extreme weather patterns, growing scarcity and expense of oil, lack of water, and a growing population, we will require farming systems that can adapt, withstand or even mitigate these problems while producing healthy, nourishing food. After more than 30 years of side-by-side research in our Farming Systems Trial (FST), Rodale Institute has demonstrated that organic farming is better equipped to feed us now and well into the ever changing future.

http://66.147.244.12...ookletFINAL.pdf

Similar results have been achieved in India where Organic systems have produced superior yields;

The benefits of SRI have been demonstrated in over 45 countries (see map). They include: 50%-100% or more increased yields, up to a 90% reduction in required seed, and up to 50% water savings. For additional information, visit the Africare/Oxfam/WWF report, More Rice for People. SRI principles and practices have been adapted for rainfed rice as well as for other crops (such as wheat, sugarcane and teff, among others), with yield increases and associated economic benefits.

http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/

Show me a GMO which has come close to achieving these results !

Br Cornelius

Edited July 4, 2013 by Guest