Skip to comments.Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?
Posted on 04/10/2013 7:20:15 PM PDT by opentalk
Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it. Excluding, of course, those whove made money from it, appropriately represented in the publics mind by Monsanto.
That corporation, or at least its friends, recently managed to have an outrageous rider slipped into the 587-page funding bill Congress sent to President Obama.
The rider essentially prohibits the Department of Agriculture from stopping production of any genetically engineered crop once its in the ground, even if there is evidence that it is harmful.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Could this have anything to do with the widespread death of the bees?
Given the lock-in they've had w/ the copyright laws, they could release a GMO for a plant that's high susceptibility to some [rather uncommon] disease* on a dominant gene and let it in the wild to dominate whatever plant, then release the disease and bam -- step in with your crops that aren't susceptible.
* could also be artificial, or a two-part trigger.
Except for saving millions from starvation GMOs really benefit no one.
and net yields from applied genetic engineering in the United States are only a bit higher (and then only in monocrop systems) than net yields from seeds developed using more conventional techniques.
All of this explains why producers of genetically engineered seeds feel they need protection.
Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse
Bittman is probably my $avorite $ood writer, the most use$ul
and user-$riendly to people who cook as much as I do, and I had no idea he was as conversant with this area o$ $ood and its production as this involved article suggests.
Also, he seems to be right on in his evaluations.
Whistleblower: Monsanto Wants to Kill The Bees To Make Way For Its Super-Bee
Soon to be whistleblower who worked for Monsanto will be releasing documents detailing how Monsanto planned to kill off bee colonies in order to introduce a new and improved species of bee that will only pollinate Monsanto crops
GMO’s have been remarkably unsuccessful. The alleged “Science” has all been controlled by Monsanto, Bayer etc.
Bill and Melinda Gates think it’s ducky and shove money at this alleged technology like they do at birth control, vaccines, mosquito screens for bed ridden Africans, condoms for monkeys (that one is a joke) etc.
GMO Corn is refused by farm animals, GMO cotton is likely subject to bedbugs ( unprovable ...so far) GMO beets are filled with glyphosates, bees and monarch butterflies are dying and GMO’s are good for whom?
Ever heard of human gut bacteria? What do you think runs your health?
Yes, I am a Luddite...okay?!
If you read it in the NYT it must be so.
Thanks - will read the link when I get home tonight. With the Federal Govt. holding this company harmless, Monsanto Tools are free to taint and reduce the food supply around the country & world — food prices will skyrocket accordingly (ol’ supply and demand that we are already seeing).... The End Game is reduced population brought about by provoked Revolution and mass starvation. Not a 100% foolproof plan, but enough to cause some real CHAOS on the planet.
The advantage of GMO corn or soybeans isn't so much that they yield that much more than a more traditional variety (in an optimal year the yields wouldn't be all that different; in a year of drought or other stress the yields can be substantially greater), but that the inputs necessary to raise a good crop are dramatically reduced.
This is truly sad:
Do not confuse natural plant breeding with splicing genes from dissimilar organisms (such as fish) into the plant’s DNA (hence the moniker Genetically Modified Organism).
I am very grateful for Mr. Borlaug’s work in natural plant husbandry. He should be applauded and honored.
What he did is not hacking together frankenplants like Monsanto and others are doing.
I really think the anti-GMO movement is one of the most dangerous movements in the world. Genetically modifying organisms such as plant life offers a technological solutions to serious problems such as human hunger. Modifying plants so they can grow in environmentally difficult regions can save human lives and we know this empirically and scientifically. Here is an excerpt from the link noted above describing Bourlag’s work:
“By the late 1940s, researchers knew they could induce huge yield gains in wheat by feeding the plants chemical fertilizer that supplied them with extra nitrogen, a shortage of which was the biggest constraint on plant growth. But the strategy had a severe limitation: beyond a certain level of fertilizer, the seed heads containing wheat grains would grow so large and heavy, the plant would fall over, ruining the crop.
In 1953, Dr. Borlaug began working with a wheat strain containing an unusual gene. It had the effect of shrinking the wheat plant, creating a stubby, compact variety. Yet crucially, the seed heads did not shrink, meaning a small plant could still produce a large amount of wheat.
Dr. Borlaug and his team transferred the gene into tropical wheats. When high fertilizer levels were applied to these new semidwarf plants, the results were nothing short of astonishing.”
The idea that Monsanto is some mega agent of hate and killing is plainly ridiculous and it makes me sad to see FR trafficking this nonsense. If the worst things alleged were true (higher cancer rates), it could never justify depriving the world of alternatives that can overcome the cultivation problems that exist around the world.
I really wish the anti GMO crowd would stop with this maddening demagoguery. I think it is more fair to accus the anti-GMO crowd of wanting people to starve to death than to accuse Monsanto of wanting people to have cancer and die.
That is my honest view reading both sides of this debate. You are certainly free to buy organic food and grow your own crops if you personally believe this dangerous nonsense but it makes me sad that people have to die for your insistence that GMOs be banned from the free market.
What was average human life expectancy in the United States in 1912?
Regarding the above post... 1940’s that would be when they started messing with wheat... diabetes. ALS, MS, SIDS, Polio....ML/CFS, autism do you want me to stop mentioning proliferating diseases. 1912 was nothing compared to Woodrow Wilson’s 1919.
So life expectancy began to decline with the advent of GMOs.
More importantly its better to die of starvation than cancer later in life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.