The announcement by more than 100 Nobel laureates for Greenpeace to end its 15 year effort to discredit Golden Rice—a beta carotene enhanced rice that could save millions of lives each year—set off a firestorm of reactions in the media and across the web. Here is a Storify of some of the reactions.
[View the story “Nobel Award Winners ask Greenpeace to stand on scientific consensus, instead of against it” on Storify]
Greenpeace is the NRA of environmentalism.
One of the funniest responses was someone at GMWatch, who said, “All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.”
Yeah, that’s not how that works you numpty. But please, proceed, governor. Try to take Nobels away from over 100 winners. Please–I want to see the press coverage of that!
First of all, there are certainly much more than 110 Nobel prizes currently alive:
“Between 1901 and 2015, the Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences were awarded 573 times to 900 people and organizations.”
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates
If only a quarter of those people are still alive (which is obviously an understatement), then those having signed the petition are a minority among Nobel prizes. Actually there is not much doubt, given the financial interests involved, that all Nobel prizes have been solicited in that purpose. And we must also take into account that quite a few of them, mainly those lacking a clear opinion on that matter, would have feared that it would be considered unfair towards biotech colleagues not to sign the petition. As people (including Nobel prize winners) constantly make amalgams, this might be a strong incentive to sign even though the issue is about large scale open field deployment, not research.
Second, virtually all Nobel prizes nowadays are very specialized people. The petitioners are mainly from other fields, and in most cases not particularly well placed to talk about the general interest of GMO’s for the collectivity. I recognize however that the redactors of the petition seem to have some degree of expertise at making people feel guilty over allegedly humanitarian issues.
Third, I just found a very interesting page from a scientist actually involved in GMO research:
https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/gmos-and-patents-part-1-terminator-genes/
Some valuable excerpts:
1. In reality, terminator genes do exist, but they have never been commercialized.
2. There are different types of V-GURTS [= basic type of terminator OGM, my note], including some designed to prevent gene-flow or “cross-contamination” between transgenics and other crops.
Point 1 fixes a common misconception.
Point 2 shows that OGM scientists admit the possibility of unwanted gene flow since THEY DEVISE PRODUCTS TO SPECIFICALLY FIGHT AGAINST IT. This includes the passing over of terminator genes, which might be less invasive at first, but could eventually sterilize other crops or volunteer plants in the environment.
So Greenpeace is NOT mistaken in their campaigns against open field OGM, including terminator AND non-terminator.
Nonsense Alex, Greenpeace is neither green nor peaceful in their motives (except to the extent the green they stand for is the $$$$donations$$$$ they work so hard to haul in).
In fact, Greenpeace thugs are vigilantes and thoughtless environmental vandals. They damaged the ancient Nazca Lines in a breathtaking display of belligerent selfishness.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/greenpeace-irrevocably-damages-fragile-nazca-lines-peru-during-publicity-stunt/
The damned fools actually attempted to board a Russian oil rig in the Barents Sea, apparently with the intention of seizing it, imprisoning the oil workers and creating some bizarre sort of terrorist hostage-taking drama. Not surprisingly to sane people, the Russians easily crushed the juvenile attempt at piracy, arrested the trespassers and impounded the Greenpeace ship until Greenpeace activists were appropriately re-educated in the nuances of diplomacy and civilized behavior. Privilege has advantages in Russia, so the thugs all were eventually sent home to their affluent influential mommies and daddies without doing a stint in a Siberian gulag. Too bad, would have been a character building experience for the selfish whelps.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24170129
Spoiled rotten over-privileged brats behave like the world owes them everything. Greenpeace is frequently mistaken and, when they’re not they generally are just plain wrong. Just another example of “green” as BIG BIZ.
Hi Farmer with a Dell,
I had a good laugh reading your post: it’s well known that Greenpeace are making huge profit due to the donations they receive :-) That’s not so funny however because many people apparently “think” like you do. Some will even vote for Trump…
Seriously the Nazca thing might have been a communication error, (Greenpeace even apologized for it), but the title of the article you are pointing to “Greenpeace Irreparably Damage Ancient Nazca Lines” plainly stinks. How about wild animals walking there?
About the oil prospecting in the Arctic, it is amazing how people believe or condemn Russian propaganda according to their own interests and prejudices.
Cheers,
What wildlife walking over the Nazca Lines are you referring to, Alex? Are you thinking herds of bison? Migrating elk? Vast populations of lemmings en route to the sea? Wild pigs? Family groups of orangutans? The place is a high arid plateau and desert not frequented by large mammals. That is precisely how the fragile geoglyphs have survived…no help from ignorant Greenpeace thugs.
See, this is the fundamental problem with Greenpeace and its supporters and apologists — each and every one of them claims to be a uniquely dedicated environmentalist…who knows practically nothing about the environment, ecology, biology, zoology, earth science. agriculture. Just a bunch of fakers with an unearned sense of entitlement being jerked around by the hair by a handful of fat Greenpeace politicos. Damned fools, all of ’em.
There are significantly sized animals in all deserts. Some scratch or even dig the soil to build their hole and protect themselves from the sun. A rattlesnake can disturb the surface significantly more than a careful person. Anyway this whole Nazca/Greenpeace event has been blown out of all proportion for propaganda motives. Due to the manipulated reports and the level of reflection of many people today, most readers thought that Greenpeace had actually scratched the ground to write their message (see the incredible comments of misled people at http://io9.gizmodo.com/this-greenpeace-stunt-may-have-irreparably-damaged-peru-1669728616 )
The fundamental problem with anti-ecological establishment is that they fear that ecologically aware people would eventually do harm to the suicidal system they rely upon to live their parasitic lives. They are people of the past anyway. They will pass away soon, just a question of time. What aware people need to do until then is to save as much as can be saved from their abject greed.
Actually Alex, we, the anti-‘ecological wingnut’ establishment are apprehensive about the bungling collateral damage brainwashed “ecologically aware” muddlers will precipitate by forcing their simplistic fanatic dicta upon us. Even Greenpeace’s publicity stunts are tone deaf catastrophes — protesting for “change” (and renewal, I guess) by callously vandalizing and changing forever the remarkable traces of a lost civilization. ‘Renewing’ it into just another Woodstock Concert aftermath. That’s the sort of outrageous crap fanatic cults like Greenpeace and ISIS do to gin up mob hysteria and recruit more mentally unstable asswipes into their respective organizations.
Who exactly are the abjectly selfish and greedy ones, Alex? Who are the ones tearing the place up because reality sucks, boo hoo hoo, and they can’t have their own way? Who are the ones insisting on their own naive alternatives, capricious superficial ’causes’ unfounded by science or experience and poorly thought out? Who are the ones selfishly acting out, Alex?
Oh, i would make the assumption that Greenpeace certainly favors addressing real problems over imaginary ones when it suits their worldview. However, their worldview is for us to return to an early 19th century existence and creating imaginary problems, like GMO’s will destroy us all, is right up their alley, even if and, perhaps, because, it kills off people to reduce the population, to do so.
The “unwanted cross-contamination” goes both ways. I don’t think a farmer that uses RR crops would want to find out the hard way that his crops had been cross-contaminated with non-RR varieties.
You should ask for a ban on natural plants so that they dont interfere with your mutant crops :-)
BTW crop contamination is quite benign compared to genetic contamination.
Cross-contamination is genetic contamination no matter what breeding method the crops come from.
Cross-contamination is an ambiguous term. Better use gene flow.
Fine, then use gene flow. Still can happen regardless of crop breeding method.
The only difference is that natural plants have been working fine for million years. As for GMO’s nobody knows.
I hate to break it to you, but no current variety of cultivar has been around for millions of years.
“Nobody knows…” what, exactly?
I was talking about natural plants, and I could as well have written BILLION years. Now if you are talking about traditionally obtained cultivars, I’ll be sure to be understating if I say “centuries”. OGM’s on the other hand are less than 40 years old and have already caused considerable issues, among which uncontrolled weed resilience, notwithstanding social problems.
Concerning the answer to your question: Nobody knows about the inner working and interaction of the genes, let alone after some generations in the wild. You don’t need me to learn more about it, provided you are interested beyond the mere confirmation of your prejudices.
and I could as well have written BILLION years
Nope, plants with seeds evolved about 300 million years ago, flowers 160 million Y ago.
cultivars, I’ll be sure to be understating if I say “centuries”.
Nope, not even close for most food cultivars, bananas 50 years or so. Broccoli 250 years, Orange carrots 200 years, canola 30, most tomatoes are under 50 years old, Seedless watermelon 12 years, Frescada lettuce 7 years, even fancy french wine grapes were all modified about 100 years ago. there are many new crops with modified genomes that come out every year.
> Nope, plants with seeds evolved about 300 million years ago, flowers 160 million Y ago.
alga ˈalɡə/
noun
a simple, non-flowering, and typically aquatic *plant* of a large assemblage that includes the seaweeds and many single-celled forms. Algae contain chlorophyll but lack true stems, roots, leaves, and vascular tissue.
> Nope, not even close for most food cultivars,
This is contradiction for the sake of it. Of course some cultivars are more recent than the first ones ever tried! Some tropical plants have been cultivated as ornaments or for their fruits for no more than a few years. There is no risk with the traditional way of obtaining those cultivars, because that’s basically the way nature works, only the probabilities are manipulated. On the other hand, OGM’s are terra incognita.
And why do you think the gene flow from Gmo/o gm plants is any different than from mutant plants or plant cultivars obtained through selective breeding?
The problem is not that the gene flow is different, but that it exists.
And we seem to manage it just fine — otherwise today there would be only one frumpy varietal of tomato, only one mediocre varietal of sweet corn, only one knobby varietal of potato, only one universal varietal of grape…
So i am glad that we agree that gene flow is not a GMO issue , but natural phenomenon that has to be Taken into consideration regardless of the breeding methods used.
Natural plants? There are no “natural plants” in agriculture. Anywhere.
That does not mean that gene flow cannot occur between natural plants and cultivated ones.
I didn’t say it did. Of course gene flow happens. It’s not easy, though, because most of our large crops do not have close wild counterparts.
It does not need to be a close counterpart. See the Roundup resilience acquired by amaranth weeds.
Roundup resistance in amaranth was not aquired through gene flow. That existed in a tiny population of amaranth already. Heavy use of roundup just selected for that variation until it was predominant. It’s evolution on steroids.
So it would be just the same old story as over-prescription of antibiotics? Some people apparently never (want to) learn. Thanks for catching my mistake.
My remark that gene flow does not need close counterpart however still holds:
Two types of gene flow exist: horizontal gene flow, when genes are transferred by processes other than reproduction between unrelated species, and vertical gene flow, which is the transfer of genetic materials between different populations of a species through reproductive processes (Lu, 2008, p. 74).
Source: http://sites.middlebury.edu/politicalecologyofgmos/project/jessie/
Thought you were running about flailing your arms and crying ‘the sky is falling’ about gene flow, but now here you are, stalled and whimpering about naturally acquired resistance, Alex. Do you have ADD? What is wrong with you? Are you having a stroke, should someone dial 911 for you? You’ve been defeated in the debate, Alex, and maybe you should sit down and rest quietly to see if you can recover a lucid moment, or two.
The gene flow issue is not fixed by the simple fact that there are many other plagues in the system you enthusiastically support. Nor by you taking your dreams for a reality.
So you’re working sort of a big tent paranoia, then Alex? Sort of an equal opportunity scare mongering? Well, whatever floats your boat. Troll on Alex, troll on!
“two types of gene flow exist: horizontal gene flow, when genes are transferred by processes other than reproduction between unrelated species, and vertical gene flow, which is the transfer of genetic materials between different populations of a species through reproductive processes”
The problem with using HGT as your argument is that it has only been documented in plants where there is a host/parasite plant relationships (and I know of only 2 where this happens within that group). There is no mechanism for HGT from corn to ragweed (or whatever “natural” plant you want to choose). HGT requires very specific mechanisms in order to occur. Bacteria and viruses regularly employ it. Last time I looked, plants are neither of those. And before you say it, yes plants are susceptible to bacteria and viruses. There is, however, no mechanism for them to uptake genes from the plant they infect, only for them to insert genes into the host plant.
Thanks Michael for your instructive reply, Can we then safely assume that no gene transfer is possible between plants which are not direct relatives? Or is it that we just don’t know them?
The transfer of artificially inserted genes at least is considered possible between related plants:
The appearance of herbicide resistant weeds due to the movement of genes from transgenic rapeseed is considered possible. Whether or not herbicide resistance genes become established in wild relatives depends on whether or not these genes offer an advantage to the plant within a certain ecosystem.
Source: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/environmental_safety/171.environmental_safety_which_crops_could_spread_genes.html
” Can we then safely assume that no gene transfer is possible between plants which are not direct relatives?”
Within 99.9% surety except in the parasite/host relationship mentioned.
“The appearance of herbicide resistant weeds due to the movement of genes from transgenic rapeseed is considered possible. Whether or not herbicide resistance genes become established in wild relatives depends on whether or not these genes offer an advantage to the plant within a certain ecosystem.”
Between wild relatives. Of which there is 1 GM plant, according to your source. Does roundup resistance offer its relatives some benefit outside of a farmers field? No.
However, resistance to insects or other pests can be a significant advantage for a volunteer plant and have an impact on the ecosystem in which it grows.
But there is no insect resistance built into Canola, only glyphosate tolerance.
Yes, but don’t you see the bigger picture? This means that resilience capabilities of open field non Terminator GMO can only be aimed at ARTIFICIAL toxics. In other words GMO MUST keep on going hand in hand with the chemical agricultural (aka “Green Revolution”) paradigm and continue polluting our soil, rivers and air.
As far as I can see, the only possibly long term viable alternative to organic/bio would be Terminator (provided that its impact on natural organisms in the wild has been independently and repeatedly confirmed as negligible). Personally I just CAN’T understand why the firms accepted to renounce so quickly on subsistence agriculture grounds only. If the developing countries did not want it, all right, nobody is obliged to buy them. That should not have prevented the Terminator technology to sell in the USA, Canada or even maybe Russia, and eventually Europa if the Europeans had finally been reassured through on the field independent studies and intelligent information campaigns that don’t take them for plain morons as usual. One explanation I can imagine to this climb down is that there is a HUGE BUG with existing Terminator plants and this issue has managed to remain largely unknown to the general public and activists until today. Then of course the opposition would have been taken as a pretext. The other alternative I can imagine is simply bad management at the highest level of those corporations. Stupid decisions at the top are nothing new.
You need to get out into the real world more often Alex. And you need to study up on the sciences of genetics and ecology instead of droning on and on with your personal imagination of how genetics works and what ecology means to you. Michael is absolutely correct in the basic information he is imparting to you.
As for your imaginative “bigger picture”, well, someday when we introduce insect resistance into a domesticated plant that has a “wild” relative with that 1 in a trillion chance of swapping DNA segments, and when that DNA sequence coding for insect resistance gets transferred and switched on (against all odds, once again) the result may, as a remote possibility, be a feeble resistance to selected insects. If, Alex, you had any experience with development of plant varieties with specialized traits, whether by selective breeding or biotech, you would understand the extreme difficulty of singling out and establishing with perfection any trait, desired or otherwise, even with the most intense focus by skilled expert plant breeders. It isn’t simply a case of wham, bam, thank you ma’am.
Besides, if your hypothetical insect resistance was remarkably conferred to a “wild” plant a small but temporary advantage in the local ecosystem may go to the new plant variety but also a small temporary advantage would go to competitors of the insect that is coded against. A minor disturbance of the sort healthy ecosystems routinely deal with. Precisely the sort of thing that has made ecology and evolution and life, itself, so successful on this planet for so long. It is beyond narcissistic for you, Alex, to believe you or I or Michael could, with a simple genetic gesture, undo the vast complexity and time-tested redundancies built into natural ecosystems. Shame on you Alex.
And as for these grossly over-hyped “terminator genes” not being commercialized, the most simple and factual explanation is that there is no market demand for it — transaction agreements and patent protections have been sufficient to support successful commercialization. What is truly amazing is the preposterous fog of evil science conspiracy some of you ignorant dolts can spin around the trumped up terminology of “terminator” technology. The technology exists only in a most rudimentary form but the potential is real.
And the very fact that wackos like you, Alex, eagerly embrace the infinitesimally small potential for terminator genes to successfully terminate everything in sight, while rejecting any notion that genetic engineering can and does offer benefits,including improved crop yield and quality and reduction in use of potent pesticides, well, that incongruity is likely a symptom of bipolar disorder, Alex. We must conclude all this angst is a figment of your unabashedly biased imagination. It certainly has no basis in theoretical science or workaday experience.
“This means that resilience capabilities of open field non Terminator GMO can only be aimed at ARTIFICIAL toxics. “
Huh? Cry proteins are as natural as they come.
“Personally I just CAN’T understand why the firms accepted to renounce so quickly on subsistence agriculture grounds only”
The same group in the US that cries about cross pollination “infecting” their fields is the same group that lobbied against implementation of the terminator gene.
I meant of course “can only be SAFELY aimed at artificial toxics”. It looks like safety is not a big concern to you.
http://naturalsociety.com/phd-says-monsanto-has-been-lying-about-safety-of-cry-proteins-in-gm-bt-crops/
Concerning you second remark, fanaticism is seldom to be found on one side of the debate only.
I might suggest not getting your information from that website. I can’t even begin to deconstruct everything that is wrong with what is written there in a comment section. As far as safety goes, you are aware, of course, that Bt is subject to allergenic testing before approval. This is why Cry9C was never approved for human consumption.
http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31
What is great about the article you cited is that their proof of allergenic effect is from aerial Bt spray, the same one used forever in both organic and non-GM crops, which results in inhalation (quite different from digestion).
This is one of my favorite sentences, “Conversely, eating Bt toxins can “turn your gut into a living pesticide.” Nope, Cry proteins are denatured in stomach acid.
I’ll admit, to someone who has little understanding, she writes a compelling story. Unfortunately, that is all it is, a story.
There are no “terminator” GE seeds.
THERE ARE terminator genetically engineered GE seeds, though not currently commercialized. Please read my post and the links I gave before losing your time and other’s with uninformed comments:
In reality, terminator genes do exist, but they have never been commercialized.
https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/gmos-and-patents-part-1-terminator-genes/
Yout point 2 comments above relate to terminator seeds. You can backtrack on your comments, but the fact is they do not exist commercially.
Several more or less advanced/tested technologies for several types of terminator seeds exist. None is currently commercialized. I never said otherwise.
Well it sort of exists now and it is commercialized, seedless watermelons.
Pertinent remark. We also have had clementines (seedless mandarins) for long. OGM aren’t necessary to do smart – and safe – things.
clementines are not true seedless hybrids, They are only seedless if they are pollinated by other clementines, that is why you cant grow them near any other citrus trees.
Seedless watermelons are a chemically mutated tetraploid that cant reproduce at all, hence no seeds.
Thanks for your instructive comment. What happens if other citrus get pollinated by clementines?
Nothing. Just a Clementine/orange hybrid seed.
Clementines are sort of like mules, of the orange world.
There are other seedless varieties of oranges but they are mostly radiation created cultivars (natural or man made)
The terminator genes were designed to prevent the transgenes from escaping into the wild. However, activists were adamant that such genes would prevent growers from saving seed and would typify seed tyranny. So, the terminator genes were left on the shelf, and now these same activists complain about the risk of escaping genes. It’s really not about seed access or contamination. It is all about fear of a technology that is poorly understood by activists, and which must therefore be shut down.
Correct, but incomplete: the technology (and its consequences) are poorly understood by its instigators as well. Can you prove that there is no way that terminator plants could transmit their genes?
What do you mean that the technology is “poorly understood by its instigators as well”? On what basis are you making that statement?
I don’t need to prove that there is no way that terminator genes prevented gene transfer. They were never deployed in the field because of activist backlash. Whether they do or not is moot. But any transformed plant that fails to carry the gene in pollen (such as a plastome transformation) cannot transfer genes to other flowering plants. And those technologies are currently in the pipeline.
My previous statement came from the fact that the technology’s instigators don’t seem to have much control on the behavior of other plants (e.g. amaranth becoming Roundup resistant to the general astonishment).
The mechanisms of gene transmission/activation/inhibition don’t seem to be elucidated at the theoretical level either:
When you tweak one thing in a genome, such as giving rice the ability to generate beta-carotene, you risk changing other things, like its speed of growth.
Source: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready
Now your answer is very interesting: when one day such types of “terminator” plants like the ones “in the pipeline” will guarantee the absence of gene flow, I will personally (at least to my present knowledge) have no strong objection to them. If such a scenario occurs, don’t you think it will have been worth waiting a bit?
For quite a few people gene flow is indeed the key issue with GMO. Then of course artificial pesticides and fertilizers are another debate.
From current commercialised gmo crops gene flow is an issue only in rapeseed/ canola. Other common crops are either selfpollinating or do not have sexually compatible Wild relatives in most of the world. It is ironic that the Selling point of gmo seeds to farmers iscto reduces their use of pesticides, yet these NGOs create their paerallel reality where most of the population believes that gmo seeds are more expensive, need more pesticides, yield less and yet Monsanto makes tonnes of money Selling them. So much money that they can bribe all politicians and pretty much all scientists including considerable part of all living nobelists. Their campaigning is definitely very successfull.
So Greenpeace is afraid sterility will outbreed fertility?
That’s a concern, until you can prove it’s not.
Brazil is set to break a global moratorium on genetically-modified “terminator” seeds, which are said to threaten the livelihoods of
millions of small farmers around the world.
The proposed measure has been approved by the legislature’s agricultural commission…
The technology was developed by the US Department of Agriculture and the world’s largest seed and agrochemical firms. Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont together control more than 60% of the global commercial seed market and 76% of the agrochemical market. All are believed to hold patents on the technology, but none are thought to have developed the seeds for commercial use (really?).
Massive protests in the 1990s by Indian, Latin American and south-east Asian peasant farmers, indigenous groups and their supporters put the companies on the back foot, and they were reluctantly forced to
shelve the technology after the UN called for a de-facto moratorium in
2000.
Now, while denying that they intend to use terminator seeds, the companies argue that the urgent need to combat climate change makes it imperative to use the technology. In addition, they say that the technology could protect conventional and organic farmers by stopping GM plants spreading their genes to wild relatives – an increasing problem in the US, Argentina and other countries where GM crops are grown on a large scale.
SOURCE: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/12/brazil-gm-terminator-seed-technology-farmers
Brazil is set to break a global moratorium on genetically-modified “terminator” seeds, which are said to threaten the livelihoods of
millions of small farmers around the world.
How can seeds that cant reproduce threaten small farmers around the world, seems even less plausible than the “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”.
RE: “How can seeds that cant reproduce threaten small farmers around the world…”
Seems a common ‘mindset’ that fits the narrative of all DroneFarmerBS.
The GMO apologists will rather wait, wait until China owns one of the largest GE (Genetically Engineered) seed manufacturers – then eventually we will see that there will be the singular ownership (Patents) of seeds for growing our food – and from that, will come the rise of the “Terminator Seeds” – there will then be no more ‘freedom of choice’.
RE: “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”.
Such DroneFarmerBS naive retoric and facetiousness.
That’s an imaginative science fiction theory, BobbleheadPC. Who planted that terminator seed of an idea in your big infertile mulch-for-brains paper mache bobblehead?
Yeah, scare us with the specter of evil Chinamen, the new one-size-fits-all boogieman. Do you think any of us Americans will be any more respectful of Chinese patents than the Chinese are of our U.S. patents? ‘Course you do, ’cause you are a hopeless bobblehead.
Its scary for most people and, I suspect more so for someone such as yourself.
Its particularly evident by the manner in you’ve been constructing your comments, especially this latest one.
I’m sure that It becomes particularly scary, simply making the attempt to get off of your ‘Path of Least Resistance’ – and its exacerbated by someone whom may cause your little boat to rock from its calm and mundane state of rest – it creates a scary and frustratingly disturbing environment, that’s your little cozy comfort zone – casting shadows of doubt on your lame and programmed brain.
Your expected recourse is usually anticipated, whereby you will continue to spew more of the typical diatribe balderdash DroneFarmerBS.
You are blathering incoherently just to hear yourself talk, BobbleheadPC. Give it a rest.
Do you understand how international business works? You are still required to operate within the laws of the country in which you are operating and selling. The rest is just fear mongering.
I know how the TPP is designed to work, and the power that it inherently will give the international businesses; enabling ‘them’ to sue our governments and thus, the pants off of American taxpayers.
RE: “The rest is just fear mongering.”
More DroneFarmerBS, and retoric from someone who is scared to leave ‘their’ Path of Least Resistance’.
Wow. You calling everything that you can’t refute “DroneFarmerBS” has completely changed my opinion on biotechnology. It is clearly evil, because blah blah DroneFarmerBS.
Don’t be an idiot. I’m not a farmer. I have no dog in this race. Oh wait, yes I do. I EAT FOOD TOO! So dismiss anything someone says that disagrees with your irrational narrative, and call it whatever you want. It’s obvious that’s all it is.
all the other seeds somehow magically disappear?
Please educate yourself. Seeds have been patented since 1930. Where have you been?
The GMO apologists will rather wait, wait until China owns one of the largest GE (Genetically Engineered) seed manufacturers
What are you some kind of racist? What is the difference if a Eu company owns a seed supplier or the Chinese own it? Do you think the Chinese are more evil than Europeans.
Patents expire and with plants, if a farmers does not want to grow patented plants he can grow non patented plants. This is the lamest “Take Over The World Scenario” . Even if China bought all the seed suppliers, we can start a new seed supplier and breed better plants. FU Chinese.
Why are you so opposed to other people making decisions for themselves?
What an uncanny ability you have to write exactly what I’m thinking.
RE: “Why are you so opposed to other people making decisions for themselves?”
That works both ways eh.
Seems to me that’s exactly what the Biotechnology (GMO) industry, and, the agro-toxins corporations that produce the agrochemicals that seriously contaminate our foods, are doing. ‘They’ spend scores of millions of dollars to oppose ‘the people’ who would have decisions made; not for themselves, but for the benefit of all.
Knowledge is power – and Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta; soon to be owned by ChemChina are trying to do; rob us all of the power to know, to know what’s being put into the foods we must consume.
That’s what I’m opposed to, and I find it darn strange, that you and others like you, don’t get or comprehend.
Wow.. what a bunch of utter propaganda & nonsense!
Please explain how voluntary labeling prohibits anyone from making a choice for themselves. While you’re at it… explain how removing a choice from the market place enables any more choices than were already available.
Do you realize, that keeping your head buried in the sand, simply leaves your butt exposed?
Like I’ve said before; you can take the human to the information but you can’t make them think.
Brilliant refutation, Necktop. That perfectly answers Jason’s question.
Thing is: Jason and the other GMO apologist (cohorts) tend to ask the same questions, over and over, and from one story (forum) to the next.
I have better things to do, like providing information which may give some visitors to forums such as the ones you too find yourself visiting, a reason to think.
It does take a lot (several hours) of reading, and these people, the Jasons et al,. just cause an obvious distraction.
Ah, so you’re not actually interested in defending any of the things you say. That’s… telling.
All of a sudden you show up on this thread, surely not having read all of the comments here, especially mine – or perhaps you have. But that’s my point, I now have to go over all the past answers I’ve given to all of the past questions that you are now asking John.
It becomes the perfect distraction, especially for the GMO apologists.
But you really aren’t answering anything, you’re just dismissing it as “DroneFarmerBS” as if whatever that is is enough to refute anything.
That’s just more of the same old DroneFarmerBS.
Oh my… you are just priceless. You source information from nothing but activist, agenda driven websites that already support your preconceptions. You ignore the overwhelming majority of the evidence and the consensus opinions of every major scientific organization on the planet….
But I’m the one with his head buried in the sand. Awesome!
RE: ” the consensus opinions of every major scientific organization on the planet….”
Seems like you’re trying real hard to pad your little comfort zone. But you’re only fooling yourself.
Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
Oh look! You found another whack-o organization who agrees with your nut-bag views! Isn’t that cute?
ESSNER dug up a few hundred activists to sign their petition full of lies but here’s a list of 275 of the world’s scientific bodies who disagree. Enjoy.
http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/
Oh look! The only thing you could find, is some whack-o organization: Sí Quiero Transgénicos (I Do Want GMO´s) “A CITIZEN INITIATIVE TO INFORM ABOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs ) WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON BIOTECH CROPS”.
Would you not agree; ‘they’ may be just a little bit bias?
But rather; you simply parrot ‘their’ lies of consensus.
Not much different to this website; in fact its probably just a spin off, or franchise site.
You could at least have given some credit to this site, for having carried the same, or similar spin story.
One says: “More than 275 organizations and scientific institutions” – and the other says: “240 global science organizations”
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/16/240-global-science-organizations-affirm-consensus-for-gmo-food-and-crop-safety/
So one must wonder; what ORGANIZATIONS are they talking about? Ones like this, and ones like Daniel Norero’s Sí Quiero Transgénicos?
What “scientific institutions” are they talking about? Are they different, or the same as the so-called “global science organizations”?
But at least you can definitely say; you do all agree (consensus) and, have the same nut-brain views. Citizen cohorts that follow each other around spewing diatribe balderdash DroneFarmerBS. Strength in numbers eh?
Its the opinions of Sí Quiero Transgénicos and Genetic Literacy Project et al., that have drawn the conclusion of consensus. Matter settled; nothing more to see here folks; move along now, and OBEY.
Get real; that ain’t happening.
“We strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is “over”.
BobbleheadPC whines plaintively: “So one has to wonder; what ORGANIZATIONS are they talking about?”
Well, BobbleheadPC, if you had troubled yourself to scroll down on the webpage you would have seen, clearly listed and linked, more than 100 of those “ORGANIZATIONS”; from FDA and NAS in the US, to HealthCanada, to French Academy of Sciences, to Royal Society of London, to Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities, Chinese Academy of Sciences, to Indian Academy of Sciences, to the Academy of Science South Africa, to the Australian Academy of Science…and the list goes on, and on; Just open the webpage and scroll down, you ridiculous bobblehead.
Nah, it’s just DroneFarmerBS. Because obviously whatever that is is enough to refute anything at all.
I don’t think its appropriate for moderators to have opinions – especially on the site for which they work. Its not ethical and its simply bias.
Not nice John.
John?
JP (Guest)?
Yes?
RE: “…more than 100 of those “ORGANIZATIONS”; from FDA and NAS in the US, to HealthCanada…”
I laugh when I receive sentiments (yours) on the accolades of such Governmental Organizations.
“FDA does not itself test whether genetically engineered foods are safe.
The FDA has repeatedly made this clear. As Jason Dietz, a policy analyst at FDA explains about genetically engineered food: “It’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure that the product is safe.”
“FDA does not require independent pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food. As a matter of practice, the agrichemical companies submit their own studies to the FDA as part of a voluntary “consultation.”
SOURCE: http://usrtk.org/the-fda-does-not-test-whether-gmos-are-safe/
“In December 1999, the government announced the establishment of a scientific committee of experts to advise the ministers concerned on the scientific aspects of the regulatory system and the scientific capabilities needed to ensure the safety of new foods. This Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel released its reportin February 2001 and put forward 53 recommendations. According to the report, transgenic plants and foods should be more rigorously tested, the testing should be independently reviewed, and a moratorium should be placed on rearing GM fish in farms off Canada’s coasts.”
“At the international level, the Protocol on Biosafety – the text of which was drawn up in Montréal by more than 130 countries in January 2000 – regulates the transboundary movement of GMOs in order to protect biodiversity. (For further information,
see Tim Williams and Bronwyn Pavey, The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, PRB03-03E, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, 7 July 2003.) The Protocol came into force on 11 September 2003. Following consultations
on how it would affect the country, Canada signed the Protocol in April 2001, but has yet to ratify it.”
“The long-term effects of foods derived from GMOs on human health have not been sufficiently examined, and the concepts used
in their assessment are inadequate.”
“Transgenes derived from modified crops or animals could enter the environment and affect other plants and animals Animals feeding on affected plants could suffer harmful effects and, ultimately, biodiversity could be diminished.”
SOURCE: http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/ResearchPublications/tips/tip2-e.htm
“Lack of transparency has repeatedly been identified as a problem in the Canadian GM crop regulatory system. In its 2001 report, the Royal Society Panel emphasized that; the lack of transparency in the current approvalprocess, leading as it does
to an inability to evaluate the scientific rigor of the assessment process, seriously compromises the confidence that society
can place in the current regulatory framework used to assess potential risks to human, animal and environmental safety posed by GMOs.”
“In a 2002 report, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee identified significant shortfalls in the way the government
communicates with and involves the public in the regulatory process for GM foods. The federal government has not provided clear information about how these products are regulated and decisions [are] made, the roles of the various regulatory bodies,
and the data that are considered during the safety assessment process.”
“In a 2004 report on CFIA’s regulatory activities regarding plants with novel traits, the Auditor General of Canada “found that the Agency did not have complete documentary evidence and, therefore, was not transparent about how it was evaluating the long-term effects on the environment before authorizing unconfined release of plants with novel traits.”
“A recent review of GM crop regulation in Canada observes that the use of case-by-case assessments [by CFIA] has resulted in a
situation in which there is no identifiable regulatory template for seed developers to follow. This has created a scenario in
which no seed developer submitting an application package for regulatory approval of a new PNT [plant with novel trait] knows what or how much scientific data are required.”
SOURCE: http://www.uoltj.ca/articles/vol6.1-2/2009.6.1-2.uoltj.Moran%20.1-23.pdf
“Canada is the third largest producer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the world. As the cultivation of GMO crops intensifies and expands, ecological risks are emerging, such as superweeds, pest resistance, and adverse effects on non-target organisms. GMO animals such as fish are also being developed, raising additional concerns about potential environmental risks. As yet, there is little information available on the potential adverse effects of GMOs on aquatic ecosystems.”
SOURCE: https://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/default.asp?lang=En&n=E8A9C49D-1
“OTTAWA – Africa’s leading expert on genetically modified foods has been refused a visa to attend a meeting in Montreal at the Secretariat for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.”
“Ethiopia’s chief scientist, Dr. Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher (Africa’s chief negotiator for the Cartagena Protocol), is critical of genetically modified foods, and his opinions often run counter to those of the Canadian government.”
SOURCE: http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2005/umay05a.html
“Dr. Shiv Chopra must be fire-proof. As a vaccine and drug regulator for Health Canada for nearly forty years, he evaluated every red-hot topic in public health and tried to prevent harm from unsafe drugs, vaccines, and agricultural practices. He has survived to tell the tale and is now ready to raise more hell [in] his upcoming book on his forty-year experience as a Health Canada regulator.”
“Despite research and recommendations from their own scientists, Health Canada refused to ban harmful growth hormones that were used to stimulate extra yields of beef and milk (MONSANTO’S BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE) production, and antibiotics that had already been banned in Europe. The hormones Health Canada was deeming safe were, in fact, recognized to cause cancer, reproductive disorders and other ailments in people.”
SOURCE: Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower – https://www.amazon.ca/Corrupt-Core-Memoirs-Health-Whistleblower/dp/097319457X
Wouldn’t you know it, none of those things at all suggest that GMO crops are harmful. More sheer brilliance, Necktop.
RE: “none of those things at all suggest that GMO crops are harmful.”
More so; it definitely cast some serious doubts on the integrity and or credibility of the regulatory systems, whose duty it is, to ensure its (GMO) safety.
More willful ignorance JP (Guest).
Unfortunately for you, that argument hurts you more than it helps you. More regulation is applied to GM crops than literally any other type of crop. If you don’t trust that regulation, then how could you possibly trust the far less stringent regulation on other crops?
Well with having all the right information, why don’t you provide something which can substantiate your claim.
Its not so much the regulation that is the problem, but the reliable and independent information, and or scientific data, which the regulations do not adequately access, control or mandate. Not to mention that the Government Agencies are full of private corporate members who walk back and forth through the proverbial “Revolving Door”.
Many people know fully well the effect that that has on the products (fast tracked) approved by such AGENCIES.
As I’ve said before; you can take a human to the information, but you can’t make them think.
And that’s just DroneTinfoilConspiracyTheoryBS.
;)
Drone(GLP)ModeratorBS is all you’ve got.
That’s an interesting theory you have there, Necktop. Be a shame if you’d have to prove it.
The shame’s on you, JP (GUEST).
Not sure how. You’re the one accusing me of being something I’m not.
No; You’re the one who accused me: “DroneTinfoilConspiracyTheoryBS” – just an hour ago.
Ah, conspiracy theorist. Don’t trust them, then. Trust the activist sites. Your prerogative. What you read indicates how you think. But do not for one second think that your own personal evangelistic paranoia about oversight agencies lessens their regulatory scrutiny.
The phrase “conspiracy theorist” was invented and or formulated, simply to bolster unfettered activities of ORGANIZATIONS such as MONSANTO, DOW, SYNGENTA, BAYER et al., anot to mention the FDA, NAS and HealthCanada.
They use to call the conspiracy theorists communists.
You have eloquently proved my point.
Hey, idlot…. Scroll to the bottom & you’ll see all of the organizations. It was 240 when the article was written and has since grown. Do you know what that means? It means that as more information continues to come out, more of the scientific world agrees, despite what your fringe, anti science zealots keep harping about.
Here’s the bottom line. You can deny there’s a consensus. You can scream about corporate & govt cover up conspiracies. But until you can produce any legitimate evidence that there is any harm at all from growing & consuming GMO crops then conspiracy theories about cover ups don’t make an ounce of sense. Why would there be a cover up if there’s nothing to cover up??
So…. Where’s your evidence?
Until you can produce any legitimate evidence, that there is any good, or no harm at all from growing & consuming GMO crops; theories regarding scientific consensus don’t make an ounce of sense.
FDA does not itself test whether genetically engineered foods are safe. The FDA has repeatedly made this clear.
The FDA does not mandate or require independent pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food. As a matter of practice, the agrichemical companies submit their own studies to the FDA as part of a voluntary “consultation.”
Where’s your evidence?
The studies which the agrichemical companies submit?
Can you provide legitimate evidence that there is any good or no harm at all from growing and consuming crops from any plant breeding method?
Can you provide legitimate (key word) evidence that there is any good or no harm at
all, from growing and consuming crops from any Genetically Modified (laboratory) plant breeding method?
You obviously don’t get my point. If you cannot produce evidence for crops from any plant breeding method being safe, then you’re being inconsistent either knowingly or unknowingly by arbitrarily holding the products of one set of plant breeding methods to a higher standard of evidence than products of any other plant breeding methods.
There is absolutely no reason to suspect that such arbitrarily selected plant breeding methods would inherently introduce any greater amount of risk.
So JP (Guest) has an opinion.
Man, that’s a brilliant refutation there. I mean, those 6 words completely destroyed my argument. So effective.
Well at least you felt that you had an (new) argument.
Still waiting on something substantive from you; rather that the very old questions and previous positions having already been posed.
Same old, same old from the GMO apologists/activists
You know why the same kind of stuff is presented by those that refute you? Because you haven’t been able to come up with any kind of response to it. Arguments don’t need to be novel to be right.
The psychology 101 is very obvious in your style of writing.
Dance, Necktop, dance!
Life isn’t about waiting for the storm to pass,
it’s about learning how to dance in the rain
The science is done, friend. The debate is settled. If you disagree with the overwhelming amount of evidence and all the world’s science & regulatory agencies, it’s up to you to prove why. The people that know a hell of a lot more about this than you seem to be satisfied. How do you explain that? Do they all just know less about science than you? Have they all Ben bought off for 3 decades??
And if you don’t want your response to look like obvious copy / paste, you should consider reformatting it. The longer you deny, the more like a loon you look.
I’m not sure if the “Ben” apparently typo was intentional in bringing to mind Chuck Benbrook or merely an internet Freudian slip, but either way it’s fantastic.
Lol… Got bit by the iPhone auto correct! Maybe I’ll just leave it.
RE: “The science is done…The debate is settled.”
Far from it.
Deny… Deny… Deny. Good luck with all that!
Propagandize… Propagandize… Propagandize. You’re definitely depending on luck, with that!
I don’t need propeganda nor luck. I have the entire world’s scientific community on my side.
It’s been a rough year for your camp. First the NAS report, then the UK report affirming safety. Then a labeling law that pretty much castrated your whole crusade!
Ouch.
RE: “I have the entire world’s scientific community on my side.”
Embellish a little bit why don’t you.
Oh; and by the way; its not about what’s on your side that matters either. That’s selfishly too personal.
National Academy Of Sciences’ ‘GMO’ Report Does Science No Favors – http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/05/24/national-academy-of-sciences-gmo-data-dump-leaves-over-regulation-intact/#2232cf87a0ba
How the National Academy of Sciences Misled the Public over GMO Food Safety – http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/05/27/how-the-national-academy-of-sciences-misled-the-public-over-gmo-food-safety/
Ouch!
Your citations, and your misinterpretations of them, shows how desperate you are to cherry-pick.
“Sustainable pulse” – you serious?? You are desperate.
Doubt Necktop has even bothered to read the report. Why read something that may challenge your already held beliefs when you can stay in your echo chamber?
No need for embellishment. I gave you all the evidence to prove what I say.
The legal definition of Evidence is Proof of fact(s).
There has been no irrefutable proof or fact(s) which has ever proven, that there is no harm to humans and or animals, and the environment – rather; there is a great deal of doubt, amongst even the scientists, whom are working for the very Governmental Agencies that regulate GMOs.
In the same way, there has been no irrefutable proof or fact that there is no harm to humans, animals or the environment from any type of food. So… do you eat anything at all?
RE: …do you eat anything at all?”
To date, there are 35,000 food products
from 2000 brands that are Non-GMO Project verified – http://non-gmoreport.com/articles/new-non-gmo-certification-programs-emerging/
And is there any irrefutable proof or fact that there is no harm to humans, animals or the environment from those types of foods?
What types of foods?
Are you referring to natural foods which were have been around for millennia?
Were these foods created in a laboratory?
Who created these foods, Biotech scientists?
If you eat rhubarb leaves, you can become ill, and possibly die.
Does being “natural” exempt a product from your standard of evidence for safety? Why? What exactly is your definition of “natural?” Why have you decided on that definition?
RE: “Does being “natural” exempt a product from your standard of evidence for safety?”
My standard?
Full Text of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm247548.htm
“Natural” foods were once safe to eat. In other words; for the most part; a person could have slaughtered an animal (cattle, pig, poultry, etc) and not have to worry about contamination from steroids, antibiotics, and or other exotic Big Pharma drugs having been pumped into or fed to such animals. Now, if one wants their meat free of those contaminants, one has to visit a specialty outlet that serves drug free meats.
Its the same with produce; fruits and vegetables are dowsed with pesticides and, the fields are saturated with herbicides and phosphate fertilizers.
So the new natural is now “Certified Organic” and the organic farmers, instead of receiving the same degree of subsidies as the conventional (agrichemical) farmers, must instead pay huge fees to register for organic farming.
Do you truly believe that I have some sort of a unique definition of natural. It goes without saying. But suffice to say; it means product of the earth, as per the FDA. Therefore; not a product of the laboratory…the original source.
Take honey for instance. I quite often have an issue with companies whose labels purport that the honey is natural – and these companies have pasteurized (processed) the honey, destroying all the beneficial enzymes. According to the FDA; once it is processed, it is no longer a product of the earth. But the FDA allows this type of deceptive marketing; shame on them.
What is the meaning of ‘natural’ on the label of food?
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214868.htm
“The FDA and other federal agencies are too open to crony influence from industry to be trusted to create a definition of “natural” that has public health—rather than industry profits—as its motivating force. We can imagine the flood of comments from Big Food companies looking for exemptions for their products. Therefore, we agree with Consumers Union
that the “natural” label should be banned outright.”
http://www.anh-usa.org/are-gmos-a-natural-food/
“But suffice to say; it means product of the earth, as per the FDA.”
Oh, good, so you agree that crops bred using modern molecular biotechnology are natural as well. What’s the issue then?
RE: “Oh, good, so you agree that crops bred using modern molecular biotechnology are natural as well. What’s the issue then?”
I’m at least satisfied, that you phrased your statement in the form of a question. It verifies for me, that you have a comprehension short fall.
“Therefore; not a product of the laboratory…the original source.”
So, basically, your gripe is that the original development of a GM (not to mention mutagenic, or wide cross hybrid, or really any modern variety) cultivar is done in a controlled environment, and as such, should be held to a higher standard of evidence for safety than a variety which is not?
You seem very confused.
Do you know the definition, what actually constitutes GMO, other than Genetically Modified Organism, especially as it pertains to plants?
By the way; I’m not sure what you mean by “wide cross hybrid” – that is a term that I am not familiar with.
I can only assume, that by you using the words, “controlled environment”, that you mean ‘scientific laboratory’.
Indeed, that is what I meant by “controlled environment.”
“A laboratory (/ləˈbɒrətəri/ or /ˈlæbərətɔːri/; informally, lab) is a facility that provides controlled conditions in which scientific or technological research, experiments, and measurement may be performed.” What of that definition is disagreeable to you for being used for plant breeding?
And wide-cross hybridization:
http://olomouc.ueb.cas.cz/system/files/users/public/kopecky_30/Wide_hybridization_in_plant_breeding.pdf
The link you provided for your term; “wide-cross hybridization” – that term is not mentioned at all.
Wide hybridization I know of, but your addition of the word “cross” made me wonder if this was something new, which I had not come across before.
RE: “So, basically, your gripe is that the original development of a GM (not
to mention mutagenic, or wide cross hybrid, or really any modern
variety) cultivar is done in a controlled environment, and as such,
should be held to a higher standard of evidence for safety than a
variety which is not?”
No that is something that you have misconstrued.
Being ‘held to a higher standard’ is not the point. It should not be remotely considered “natural”, at anytime.
Just the obvious fact, that ‘the’ plant (GMO) variety has been created by man/woman in a laboratory, leaves the door wide open for unknown circumstances arising, which may very well create an issue of safety…it being compromised.
“Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM (Bt 176) Corn”
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Livestock_Deaths_from_GM_Corn.php
“Just the obvious fact, that ‘the’ plant (GMO) variety has been created by man/woman in a laboratory, leaves the door wide open for unknown circumstances arising”
I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to conclude that inserting one or several heavily-studies genes into a plant has more potential for “unknown circumstances” than breeding two plants together and seeing what comes out.
RE: “I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to
conclude that inserting one or several heavily-studies genes into a
plant has more potential for “unknown circumstances” than breeding two
plants together and seeing what comes out.”
But that has been done, and for scores of years too, and without any adverse effects or events.
GMO Flavr Savr Tomato
Dr. Arpad Pusztai revealed on British television that several test rats developed gut lesions and died after consuming GMO potatoes, public opinion turned and sales plummeted. Government and industry painted Pusztai a fraud, but Flavr Savr was defeated.
GMO NewLeaf Potato
Proctor & Gamble, McDonald’s, Frito-Lay, and others told suppliers that they preferred non-GMO potatoes – By 2001, sales and marketing of NewLeaf was suspended.
GMO Starlink Corn
Starlink corn was designed to rupture the
stomach cells of pesky caterpillars – it showed a potential for allergic reaction in humans – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Starlink, but restricted it exclusively to animal feed and fuel – Despite precautions, Starlink wormed its way into the food supply. In just a few years, Starlink DNA was found in several corn varieties, and its widespread contamination was responsible for the recall of dozens of products – In 2003, Aventis CropScience paid a group of U.S. farmers $110 million in a class-action lawsuit for the drop in corn prices associated with the Starlink contamination. The EPA later granted Starlink temporary approval for human consumption, but Aventis withdrew the registration.
GMO LibertyLink Rice
In another case of genetic contamination, Bayer AG paid $750 million to thousands of U.S. farmers in 2011 after regulators determined that the company’s experimental LibertyLink rice had infested conventional long grain. The LibertyLink contamination not only caused a substantial drop in rice futures, but an entire strain of rice was lost for good.
GMO Wheat
In 2002, biotechnology giant Monsanto submitted an application for a wheat strain engineered with the same herbicide-resistant signature found in its other successful seed crops. But wheat growers backed away because foreign buyers were not interested and instead feared possible
contamination with GMO varieties.
SOURCE: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/255547-top-5-gmo-failures/
What a ‘novel’ idea of success, which you’ve found yourself wrapped up in.
Problems with logical thinking?
Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence
If you’ll read the exchange carefully, Alexandre, you’ll see that Necktop is the one asking for proof of nonexistence of something, namely, the nonexistence of harm from GM crops.
Proof may to a certain extent be replaced by experience, especially when it is multi-millenial, which GMO are not.
The large, large majority of cultivars grown today are not multi-millennial regardless of which plant breeding method they came from. In fact, many cultivars haven’t even existed for a full century.
Ahhh… The ol’ “no proof of no harm” bit. A Fear & Doubt classic!
The standard of “proving no harm” for anything on this planet is something all of us would love to see. He needs to go back to high school science and review statistics and evidence. I think if he is so scared of GE crops, he should just avoid them. What is the problem with him? It’s like he’s not happy unless he can spread his corporate conspiracy anti-science anti-GE fear mongering around to everyone else rather than just keeping it to himself and making his own adult choices. I wonder if he’s getting paid; he certainly doggedly proselytizes hard enough. I have had enough of his quasi-religious fanaticism on this topic.
No kidding. This clown is a class A tool.
Science kept secret by the private labs does not deserve to be called science.
Secret? Private labs? Please elucidate. Although a lot of discoveries are indeed made by private corporations, many as well are made in research universities. They do get shared with the public. Just like the technology you are using right now to post your own thoughts. Patents? Yes. (various types of plants have been patented since 1930.) Available to the public? Yes. Secret? No.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0131+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
http://www.iatp.org/tradesecrets/food-safety.html
Oh, a propaganda website to make your point? Seriously?! Well, only the paranoid need apply. Obviously you have. Happy reading.
That’s your literate scientific answer?
Yes. Corporate conspiracy and paranoia is trumped by science every single time.
Harm has begun long ago and is proved:
https://www.britannica.com/event/green-revolution
(not an “activist” web site)
Herbicide resistant GMO’s are just a way to make it last more.
Uuumm.. that was a link to an encyclopedia page on the Green Revolution. Is your position that feeding people is “harm”?
Good luck with that.
Um, no. Herbicide resistant GMOs are a way to reduce the heavy use of herbicides by allowing the use of one more effective herbicide with less toxic off-target effects to replace the use of many more off-target toxic herbicides as was previously used.
It has worked for 15 years. It doesn’t any more.
in the last 15 years (1998–2013), glyphosate resistance in 24 species on six continents has been documented.8,9
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260172/
Well, sure. Pesticide resistance will happen with any single pest elimination solution. Even hand pulling weeds will drive natural selection to hardier root stock. That’s not an indictment of the technology, that’s an indictment of overall pest management practices.
If all ends up to be the same, then why adopt the most expensive and most harmful techniques? (even if not GMO per se, at least for sure their chemical accomplices).
Ponder this for a second: If current methods were really the most expensive and most harmful, why would farmers continue to use them en masse? And why would products produced using schemes that disallow these methods be more expensive to produce and cost more to buy?
Because their eyes have been shut to the other side of the coin, e.g. the damage inflicted to the Earth. You always end up paying more than the price if you have deluded yourself into believing in Easter Bunny.
What about Non GMO herbicide resistant crops?
“As a matter of practice, the agrichemical companies
submit their own studies to the FDA as part of a voluntary
“consultation.””
Gosh, medical equipment manufacturers submit their own studies to the FDA too. Think about that the next time you need an ultrasound, CT scan, MRI, PET scan, etc. Oh, that would also include things like pacemakers and insulin pumps. Pray you never need one because the safety data came from the manufacturer.
RE: “Gosh, medical equipment manufacturers submit their own studies to the FDA too.”
Geez, that’s why the scientists working at Government Agencies like the FDA(s), and at corporations like the Monsanto(s) must be applauded, when they blow the whistle ((Jonathan R. Latham, PhD)) on stuff like GMOs or Bovine Growth Homone (Dr. Shiv Chopra – HEALTH CANADA), etc.
It they did not; chances are your pacemaker would corrode and quit on you.
Oh god is that hilarious. Have you actually read Lathams nonsense? Anyone with a remedial college education in biology can see through his fluff story. And rBGH was extensively studied in Europe and rejected for what reason? Because cows treated with it had a higher incidence of mastitis, they could not find a single ill effect for humans.
As far as your whole whistleblowing theory goes, apparently they failed. Maybe you can find a whistleblower with medical devices. They have been under FDA jurisdiction about 30 years longer than we have had GM plants, there are thousands more of them, yet I have never heard of a single one. In fact, the failure rate on medical devices is so low, only the scummiest of lawyers even take up class action lawsuits against them.
“It they did not; chances are your pacemaker would corrode and quit on you.”
This is classic. In case you didn’t know it, it is in the best interest of a manufacturer to do the most extensive testing possible because lawsuits are more expensive in the end. Just ask J&J about talcum powder.
RE: “Oh god is that hilarious.”
The sick jokes are on you.
Nah. That is your face in the mirror.
So child like.
RE: “rBGH was extensively studied in Europe and rejected for what reason?”
I’m not sure that you know or may be even be willing to admit either.
I would much rather trust the scientists who sound out (whistle blowers) on drugs like Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) and (rbST). They are the brave and conscientious ones who won’t sit silent, simply collecting their paychecks, even at the risk of being fired and slandered by the Government Agencies that they work(ed) for.
What I won’t listen to, and or accept, is the contrived/twisted logic (diatripe balderdash) designed propaganda statements of our industry owned Governments.
Case in point:
Why is rBST not approved for use in Canada?
rBST was reviewed by Health Canada in the 1990’s. Although it was determined that it did not pose a health risk to humans, there were animal health concerns, and therefore it was never approved for sale in Canada – Date Modified: 2012-09-25
SOURCE: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/faq/growth_hormones_promoters_croissance_hormonaux_stimulateurs-eng.php
No mention was made of any concerns regarding IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1) in the above 2012 Health Canada statement.
However, this was mentioned in the Canadian Parliamentary Research Branch report, prepared by its Science and Technology Division in October 1998
According to the 1992 conference of the Joint FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, the higher concentration of IGF-1 in milk after rbST treatment is still within the range of concentrations among a test group of cows. However, according to the 1993 Monsanto submission in the United Kingdom, IGF-1 concentrations in the milk of rbST-treated cows could be five times higher than concentrations in the milk of untreated cows. Although IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization, heating milk for the production of baby foods reduces its concentration by 50%; rbST and IGF-1 are both destroyed during yogurt production.
SOURCE: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/modules/prb98-1-rbST/impactonhealth.htm
Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)/Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST)
State of the Evidence on rBGH and rBST
Despite opposition from physicians, scientists and consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993 approved Monsanto’s genetically engineered hormone product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), for injection in dairy cows to increase milk production (Eaton, 2004). This hormone quickly found its way (without labeling) into the U.S. milk supply and from there into ice cream, buttermilk, cheese, yogurt and other dairy products. Since its introduction, rBGH (subsequently renamed recombinant bovine somatotrophin, rBST) has proven controversial because of its potentially carcinogenic effects.
SOURCE: http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/radiation-chemicals-and-breast-cancer/bovine-growth-hormone.html
The Endocrine System
Hormone Function and Breast Development
Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), as its name suggests, is a hormone that is very similar in structure to insulin and mediates the effects of growth hormone (GH) on the development and growth of cells and organs of the body, including the mammary gland. During development of the branching structure of the maturing mammary system, IGF-1 increases cell proliferation and ductal formation (Kleinberg and Ryan, 2008). An increased risk for pre-menopausal breast cancer has been found in women with higher blood levels of IGF-1 (Hankinson et al., 1998).
SOURCE: http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/biology-of-breast-cancer/endocrine-system/#growth
I assume from your name, that you do not have breast, but rather testicles – there are many studies of male humans being born with smaller ones and, having low sperm counts through their early adult life. There several endocrine disruptors present in our food and water, not to mention the environment (Earth) where we exist, than I’m willing to shake a stick at.
“I’m not sure that you know or may be even be willing to admit either.”
Whatever this means?
“rBST was reviewed by Health Canada in the 1990’s. Although it was determined that it did not pose a health risk to humans, there were animal health concerns, and therefore it was never approved for sale in Canada “
OMG, Canada had the same objection as Europe. And the same findings, amazing.
“No mention was made of any concerns regarding IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1) in the above 2012 Health Canada statement.”
Ah, but it WAS mentioned in the EU review. Know what they found?? Nothing. So, the remainder of your wall of text is moot.
“I assume from your name, that you do not have breast, but rather testicles – there are many studies of male humans being born with smaller ones and, having low sperm counts through their early adult life. There several endocrine disruptors present in our food and water, not to mention the environment (Earth) where we exist, than I’m willing to shake a stick at.”
Another goalpost mover. Hooray!
Believe whatever you want. I’ll stick with the opinions of a consensus of experts, not one offers.
RE: “Ah, but it WAS mentioned in the EU review. Know what they found?? Nothing.”
Perhaps you can provide your reference?
*See paragraph titled: “The European Commission raises health concerns about rBST.”
The Commission indicated that a link could exist between Insulin Growth Factor 1 (IGF-I) and cancers in man.
SOURCE: http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a15-brinckman.htm
Since 1984, most of the nation’s milk supply has been contaminated with excess IGF levels resulting from the injection of cows with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to increase milk yields (3). Moreover, a substantial proportion of IGF in milk from rBGH-injected cows is in a more bioactive, unbound, protein-free form than is IGF in milk from untreated cows (4). In short-term oral administration experiments in rodents (5,6), IGF resists pasteurization and digestion, is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and has growth-promoting effects. Furthermore, converging lines of experimental and epidemiologic evidence (6) have incriminated excess IGF levels in rBGH milk as risk factors for breast and colon cancers. Confirmation of these concerns by an international expert committee prompted the January 2000 European ban on the marketing and sale of rBGH milk (7).
SOURCE: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/3/238.1.full
Like I said; you probably don’t have breasts, because your name is Michael – and I’m also wondering whether your have testicles, or a prostate gland, or even a colon.
I notice that you are consistently receiving zombie up votes…misery loves company.
Take your time; I’m on the night shift.
Oh no. Someone gave me upvotes, how horrible.
I’m not sure what your point is, other that you’re just another Monsanto (GMO) apologist, but one thing is for sure; with a mindset like yours; you are your own worst enemy.
The Food and Drug Administration has been found to have launched a massive surveillance campaign targeting its own scientists for writing letters to journalists, members of Congress and President Obama.
The New York Times has revealed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration conducted an extensive spying campaign against its own scientists. The spying began after the scientists warned the FDA had faultily approved medical imaging devices for colonoscopies and mammograms that endangered patients with high levels of radiation.
SOURCE: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/17/spying_on_scientists_how_the_fda
“I’m not sure what your point is, other that you’re just another Monsanto (GMO) apologist, but one thing is for sure; with a mindset like yours; you are your own worst enemy.”
My point is don’t get sick, I guess, since you can’t trust information provided by a manufacturer to the FDA. But hey, if I am apologist, so be it. I live content in knowing I am smart enough not to be fooled by hucksters.
“The New York Times has revealed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration conducted an extensive spying campaign against its own scientists. The spying began after the scientists warned the FDA had faultily approved medical imaging devices for colonoscopies and mammograms that endangered patients with high levels of radiation.”
More hilarity. No proof of a whistleblower actually exposing harm caused by a medical device, only the implication of harm. Can you please tell me if there was any evidence of harm from these devices? Were they pulled from the market? I know well of the GE CT scanner in question, so this should be good.
RE: “Were they pulled from the market? I know well of the GE CT scanner in question, so this should be good.”
But can you read?
Scores of internal agency documents made available to The New York Times show that agency managers sought to approve an application by General Electric to allow the use of CT scans for colon cancer screenings over the repeated objections of agency scientists, who wanted the application rejected. It is still under review.
After an agency official recommended approving G.E.’s application, Dr. Julian Nicholas, a gastroenterologist who trained at Oxford University and the Mayo Clinic and worked under contract with the agency, responded by e-mail that he felt strongly that approving the application could “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer.”
Dr. Robert Smith, a former professor of radiology at both Yale and Cornell and an F.D.A. medical officer, wrote that he agreed with Dr. Nicholas because “the increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue,” documents show.
Alberto Gutierrez, deputy director of the F.D.A. office with responsibility over radiological devices, said in an interview that the right course on CT colonography was far from clear.
“This device that you’ve mentioned has not been cleared or approved at this time (and you may wonder why), and that should tell you that the process we go through is not done,” Dr. Gutierrez said.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29fda.html?_r=0
(brackets mine)
“But can you read?”
Yep. And I know for a fact that the machines were operating within approved guidelines. I also know that the reason they used a higher dosage of radiation was because GE’s imaging software was terrible. I also know that GE had a breakthrough in imaging software which allowed for them to lower the dosage on their machines. I also know that the FDA did a full investigation, on both GE and Toshiba, and found no fault with the machines or the parameters. But, you know, that is what happens when you cite sources that are 6 or 7 years old.
But do you comprehend what you’re reading, even the stuff which you yourself are typing?
RE: “I also know that GE had a breakthrough in imaging software which allowed for them to lower the dosage on their machines.”
Key word ‘lower’.
You make claims about ‘facts’, and that you ‘know’ this, and ‘know’ that, but where are the references to what you say?
The important thing here is:
“…agency managers sought to approve an application by General Electric to
allow the use of CT scans for colon cancer screenings over the repeated
objections of agency scientists.”
Why?
Well, simply because many patients are being over radiated and dying.
“An estimated 70 million CT (for computed tomography) scans are performed in the United States every year – and as many as 14,000 people may die every year of radiation-induced cancers as a result, researchers estimate.”
“…agency scientists who are concerned about the risks of CT scans say they
will testify at the Tuesday meeting that F.D.A. managers ignored or
suppressed their concerns, and that the resulting delay in making these
concerns public may have led hundreds of patients to be endangered
needlessly.”
RE: “I also know that GE had a breakthrough in imaging software which allowed for them to lower the dosage on their machines.”
What dose (millisieverts) did they lower it to?
RE: “…the FDA did a full investigation, on both GE and Toshiba, and found no
fault with the machines or the parameters. But, you know, that is what
happens when you cite sources that are 6 or 7 years old.”
Please provide a link to your more recent source of information.
“Dr. Julian Nicholas, a gastroenterologist who trained at Oxford University and the Mayo Clinic and worked under contract with the agency, responded by e-mail that he felt strongly that approving the application could “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer.”
“As the fight over the G.E. application escalated, Dr. Nicholas, who lives in San Diego, expressed growing concerns in internal e-mails messages that his contract would be allowed to expire — which it did in October.”
“The day after that expiration, an agency manager, after five months of inaction, began processing the G.E. application by deciding to give G.E. another chance to explain why its application should be approved, documents show.”
Speaking for myself here; I see a trend, and its nothing new either. These agencies are beholding to various industries, and in more ways than one…biotech industry.
NOTE: All excerpts in quotations are from the following source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29fda.html?_r=1
Jeffrey Wigand became famous in the 1990s when he took public his knowledge that cigarette companies had tried to conceal the dangers of smoking.
GMO science is simply more tobacco science, and it will end up hurting much more of us than the tobacco science did.
Monsanto’s Tobacco Files: University Scientists Caught Conspiring With Biotech Industry to Manipulate Public Opinion on GMOs – http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2015/sep/14
Think about it; the worlds food supplies may be at risk because of GMO science.
can you please move the goalposts?
Its usually the goalie that moves?
You seem to be firmly planted, and or ‘comedically’ distracted.
Put on that thinking cap. If you can’t get your shot into the goal, simply move the goalposts so you can. Interjecting a new, unrelated argument, as you did, would fall under that category.
I think your helmet is too tight, and restricting blood flow to your brain.
When one is rock-headed about one’s own perspective, one doesn’t need any stinkin’ evidence. Cherry picking and misinterpretation of the science, combined with anticorporate anti-GE activism, is all he needs. I wonder why he is so desperate to try to make points here when he keeps digging his own hole deeper.
Sounds like you are not supportive of these organizations. Fine. Eat nonGMO certified and organic. Lots of stuff for you to eat. You can keep your rigid views and still not starve. You can cherry pick woomonger and organic activist sites to bow down to. Whatever. Yawn. The farmers who grow GE, however, will sell to the rest of us who appreciate the science, and their good food.
RE: “The farmers who grow GE, however, will sell to the rest of us who appreciate the science, and their good food.”
U.S. Corn Exports to China Dry Up Over GMO Concerns – Cargill, ADM Split With Seed Makers Over Stalled Shipments of Genetically Modified Grain – http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579493790405023808
EU under pressure to allow GM food imports from US and Canada – Large businesses lobbying intensely to undermine safety regime in new trade deal, campaigners warn.
The UK could have to open the National Health Service further to private companies, and complaints against large companies could be treated in secret without proper legal recourse.
The potential impacts on food safety are less apparent as the negotiations are being conducted without public consultation.
Documents from various US and Canadian government agencies and business trade bodies suggest strong pressure is being brought to bear from US industries to allow GM products and other foods into EU markets that would violate the EU’s current standards, in the name of free trade.
The European commission says that the EU would not be forced to allow imports of GM foods under the TTIP deal. “Will the EU be forced to change its laws on GMOs? No, it will not. Basic laws, like those relating to GMOs or which are there to protect human life and health, animal health and welfare, or environment and consumer interests will not be part of the negotiations.
SOURCE: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/05/eu-gm-food-imports-us-canada
This might help to explain why sterility is very unlikely to outbreed fertility. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F376&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
I can see you are very up to date on biotech issues.
Yep, “Survival of the Fittest” continues to play to a packed house. A lot like the “law of gravity”, neither will be revoked any time soon. Not by genetic engineering and not by two-bit anti-GMO cranks like you. But it’s also still a free country, Alex, so keep on crankin’ if that’s what seems to put the lead in your pencil.
It was you who asked for evidence that a trait that severely reduces the ability to reproduce will not spread on the wilderness. Such a scenario is highly unlikely since traits like that are szrongly selected against.
I personally thought at first that terminator genes could indeed offer a solution to the gene flow from GMO fields. But then I considered arguments like the following:
Groups like ETC and the Environmental Defense Fund, however, oppose the terminator system. In addition to their concerns about subsistence farmers, environmentalists worry that the terminator gene could castrate wild relatives of cultivated plants by spreading through pollen. Oliver points out that contaminated plants wouldn’t survive past a single generation, so the problem would be nipped in the bud. But to environmentalists, the prospect of even a single generation of terminator victims is noxious, and with repeated plantings, they fear, the cycle of thwarted propagation would continue, with unknown consequences.
Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes
Also, in accidentally affected plants, a terminator gene could possibly become recessive, dormant or interact with other genes in unforeseen ways. My opinion is that such complex problems need the application of the precautionary principle. Europe is more and more growing and buying organic/bio, with production rates now roughly equal to those of chemistry based agriculture (except for cereals), so many people here don’t really understand the hype about GMO in open fields in America, which mainly serves to cling on this obsolete model with its blatant damages and ever increasing problems.
Worry not, the terminator gene (GURT technology) has not and will not be used.
You are right, GURT was never deployed, but I think it should have been deployed. If it had, there wouldn’t be all this gnashing of teeth over how biotech traits might proliferate into the natural environment.
Thank you for the link. It can best be used as an illustration how deep is the “understanding” of mentioned NGOs to the natural world. I am just hoping that they have updated their position since 2003.
It’s pretty safe to say that terminator technology wouldn’t spread far. Seeds that don’t germinate don’t tend to produce many seeds.
I cant believe that you have to explain this concept,,,
“If your parents didn’t have any children, chances are neither will you.”
291 Nobel laureates were alive in 2012. 110 represents more than a third, which you outwardly consider insignificant. Yet then you feel compelled to explain away their responses, as well as those who failed to sign on, so apparently the number of signers is indeed a concern for you. Otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to ascribe intent and justification to them, with absolutely no evidence to support your mind reading. Or else you have a very intimate access to the inward workings of the Nobel laureate fraternity, which I rather highly doubt.
You can find evidence of group/community behavior in the psychological literature.
Congratulations for your finding of 291 Nobel laureates alive in 2012 (there are probably some more in 2016.). It is not insignificant, only it is NOT the majority. Mr Golden Rice would NOT have been elected by Nobel prizes.
I’m familiar with group psychology. I just find it rather pretentious when an outsider applies herd mentality to a group of people simply because they happen to disagree with the observer.
Obama wasn’t elected with a simple majority. Is he, therefore, not president? Regardless, 1/3 of Nobel laureates agreeing on something is a significant statement, no matter how hard you attempt to undercut their authority to do so. And it was easy to find the number of living laureates. Google is a wonderful thing.
Reducing group/community traits like solidarity to herd mentality is a caricature.
Perhaps, but that is functionally what you did.
“You can find evidence of group/community behavior in the psychological literature.”
And of course we can trust that the activists from Greenpeace would never succumb to herding while Nobel Laureate scientists are inherently prone.
What field their Nobel was in is relevant, too; most of the signatories are scientists, and most of the non-signatories are not.
Right, a Nobel Laureate scientist is just too “specialized” to have any merit. Better to trust activists from Greenpeace, or you instead.
Dr. Patrick Moore is a Phd ecologist, award-winning scientist, author
and educator. He believes the opponents of Golden Rice have no evidence to justify a ban on researching and developing it, as it is a food that could end untold human suffering and the death of millions of people.
SOURCE: http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/
Trends and mortality effects of vitamin A deficiency in children in 138 low-income and middle-income countries between 1991 and 2013
Vitamin A deficiency remains prevalent in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Deaths attributable to this deficiency have decreased over time worldwide, and have been almost eliminated in regions other than south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
SOURCE: http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/
Political instability, lack of transparency, corruption and weak political parties and leaders continue to hamper democratic governance and the overall economic development of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Freedom House reports that top performers in the Sub-Saharan region have been “backsliding” as lack of adherence to rule of law, limited freedom of expression, and gender discrimination remain serious issues in all 48 countries.
The increasing strength of terrorist (Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, Janjaweed) groups may also be explained by high rates of unemployment and conditions of desperation and hopelessness, which stem from chronic poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. More than 48 percent of Sub-Saharan Africans live in poverty, and 60
percent of Africa’s unemployed are youth.
SOURCE: http://www.borgenmagazine.com/rise-terrorist-groups-sub-saharan-africa/
Glenn Stone-Washington University’s anthropologist and longtime golden rice observer notes: vitamin A deficiency often affects people whose diets are also deficient in other vital nutrients. Vitamin A is fat soluble, meaning it can’t be taken up by the body unless it’s accompanied by sufficient dietary fat, which isn’t delivered in significant quantities by rice, golden or otherwise.
According to Stone, only one feeding study (PDF) has ever showed a powerful uptake of vitamin A by subjects eating golden rice. The paper was much cited by golden rice proponents, but Stone says it had a major flaw: The subjects were “well-nourished individuals” who already took in sufficient fat in their diets.The study “demonstrated only that Golden Rice worked in children who did not need it,” he writes. (The study has since been retracted on claims that the author failed to obtain proper consent from the parents of the participants).
The technology’s (GMO) hardly the slam-dunk panacea its advocates insist it is.
SOURCE: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready
(brackets mine)
They should have it grow the fat along with the beta-carotene. And maybe the ketchup too…
RE: “So what is you solution? Do nothing?”
Such typical DroneFarmerBS.
They paint only in black or white.
There are so many other foods (green vegetables and unpolished colored rice, especially black and purple varieties which would also add essential vitamins and minerals) available in the regions where impoverished people are lacking in essential nutrition…Vitamin A et al,.
Golden Rice is enhanced in b-carotene, which on ingestion, is cleaved in half to generate retinal for use in the visual cycle. Retinal is also reduced to retinol, or oxidized to retinoic acid (RA), which interacts with highly specific nuclear receptors.
RA is required for the development of the nervous system, both by directly controlling nerve differentiation and by generating concentration gradients that direct cell migration, embryonic segmentation, and development. Therefore, RA and synthetic derivative of RA are teratogenic (able to cause birth defects).
They can accumulate in fat and plasma, becoming a risk factor for pregnancy for up to 2 years following ingestion, and multiple low doses of retinoids have greater toxicity than a single high dose.
SOURCE: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/goldenRiceScandal.php
I just LOVE the elitist attitude that you knuckle heads take. Like starving people in 3rd world nations had never thought of the possibility of just eating something else. I bet that just never crossed their mind…. right? Such a simple solution if they would just listen to you!
So what is you solution? Do nothing?
Even if very little beta carotene is absorbed, it is far better than nothing.
GMO opponents have not been the problem,” said lead author Glenn Stone,
professor of anthropology and environmental studies in Arts & Sciences.
In a recent article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values, Stone and co-author Dominic Glover, a rice researcher at the Institute
for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, find little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rice’s unfulfilled promises.
As Stone and Glover point out, it is still unknown if the beta carotene in Golden Rice can even be converted to Vitamin A in the bodies of badly undernourished children.
Meanwhile, as the development of Golden Rice creeps along, the Philippines has managed to slash the incidence of Vitamin A deficiency by non-GMO methods, Stone said.
SOURCE: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160602220711.htm
RE: “So what is you solution? Do nothing?”
Your doom and gloom; black or white tactics is simply just another example of DroneFarmerBS.
it has been also discussed ad nauseam. These “let them eat cake” type solutions are exactly what the impoverished people in South Asia and parts of Africe are waiting for. Get real. Did it ever occur to you that there might be reasons why some obviously simple solutions like leafy greens do not work well in some parts of the world.?
As Stone and Glover point out, it is still unknown if the beta carotene in Golden Rice can even be converted to Vitamin A in the bodies of badly undernourished children.
Statements like this is why you never listen to an Anthropologist regarding nutrition or agriculture… Like come on you are smarter than this.
So Golden Rice would solve all those problems at the same time? Amazing!
Seriously, it might be more advisable for Nobel prizes or anyone to campaign in order to offer those poor children an education and a future, rather than concentrating on feeding them like cattle.
And is there a ngo that campaigns for decades against education ? And as a side note I think that your chances for education and future are much higher when you are not blind.
From http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2815%2900039-X/fulltext
Findings
In 1991, 39% (95% credible interval 27–52) of children aged 6–59 months in low-income and middle-income countries were vitamin A deficient. In 2013, the prevalence of deficiency was 29% (17–42; posterior probability [PP] of being a true decline=0·81). Vitamin A deficiency significantly declined in east and southeast Asia and Oceania from 42% (19–70) to 6% (1–16; PP>0·99); a decline in Latin America and the Caribbean from 21% (11–33) to 11% (4–23; PP=0·89) also occurred. In 2013, the prevalence of deficiency was highest in sub-Saharan Africa (48%; 25–75) and south Asia (44%; 13–79). 94 500 (54 200–146 800) deaths from diarrhoea and 11 200 (4300–20 500) deaths from measles were attributable to vitamin A deficiency in 2013, which accounted for 1·7% (1·0–2·6) of all deaths in children younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries. More than 95% of these deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia.
Interpretation
Vitamin A deficiency remains prevalent in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Deaths attributable to this deficiency have decreased over time worldwide, and have been almost eliminated in regions other than south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. This new evidence for both prevalence and absolute burden of vitamin A deficiency should be used to reconsider, and possibly revise, the list of priority countries for high-dose vitamin A supplementation such that a country’s priority status takes into account both the prevalence of deficiency and the expected mortality benefits of supplementation.
exactly. and it is a pretty good argument why sustainable solutions like biofortification eg. golden rice are urgently needed.
You should read before saying “exactly” ;-)
There is an abundance of scientific information and or research, providing ‘clear’ evidence that Vitamin A uptake, depends on dietary fats or
oils – and these oils are often, and or usually lacking, in the diets of the poor. So the bottom line is: With the lack of these essential oils, Genetically Modified Organisms, which is “GOLDEN RICE”, is simply a useless source of Vitamin A – as useful as teats on a bull.
So, what you’re saying is, working to solve a problem isn’t acceptable unless you are working on a comprehensive solution? Progressing toward a solution in a stepwise manner isn’t OK?
not exactly. working to solve a problem isn’t acceptable unless the solution is well aligned with greenpeace ideology and their puppetmasters.
Ah, yes. I stand corrected.
History repeats. A comparable outburst of heavily propagandized and nobelized American philanthropy already happened long ago: it was called “The Green Revolution” and it is difficult not to see analogies with the Chinese “Great Leap Forward”, except that the Chinese had the decency to stay in their own land.
See e.g. the non-activist website https://www.britannica.com/event/green-revolution
Today, as Cullather devastatingly notes, “the green revolution
epicenters—Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Mexico, the
Philippines, and Indonesia—are all among the most undernourished
nations, each with higher rates of adult and childhood malnutrition and
deficiency diseases … than most Sub-Saharan countries.
Source: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/08/green-revolution-cullather
well the great leap forward was an epic fail, but technology improving crop production has been an epic win. There has never been less starving people on the planet in the last 200 years, due to Ag tech. And it is to this day dropping like a stone. -38% drop in undernourishment just in the last 15 years, Suck on that Chairman Mao.
Claiming all the merit for any feat around is standard capitalist practice.