And the GM Foods don't work.

Hal Emmerich

If your're actually going to read this you can skip the blue, Company spiel bit.

Rise in GM foods is creating crop spray-resistant superweeds, scientists warn

• GM has allowed biotech firms to gain a stranglehold over farming, report claims
• Three companies now control nearly 70 per cent of global seed sales
• But commercial GM crops have not yet delivered expected benefits
• And areas where GM cotton is grown have seen a 12 to 13-fold increase in pests

Intensive farming of genetically modified crops is creating dangerous, spray-resistant superweeds, a study claims.
The warnings come from research compiled by 20 food and conservation groups across India, Africa, south-east Asia and Latin America.


Biotech companies have sold genetic modification with claims it could feed the hungry with higher yields, cure the sick with improved nutrients and combat poverty.
But the reality of GM crops grown commercially around the world fails to live up to the hype, the report claims.


To date crops such as soya have been genetically modified to withstand spraying with powerful chemicals, such as Monsanto’s Roundup.

However, the fall-out of this GM system is that weeds in the fields have developed a resistance to the chemical.

The biggest concern is pigweed, which is now rife across the southern states of America. It grows at a rate of more than one inch a day and reaches a height of three metres.
The problem is so severe that farmers have had to resort to the expense of hiring labourers to tour fields with scythes to clear them.


The so-called perfect super-weed is extremely hardy, produces 10,000 seeds at a time and will smother commercial crops in the same field.


Other crops such as maize and cotton have also been altered to make them resistant to certain pests.
However, recent research suggests some of the toxins included in GM food plants have reached the bloodstreams of pregnant women and their unborn babies.
The harms this may cause are not yet known.


GM crops were first sold in the US about 15 years ago and which are now grown in 29 countries on about 3.7billion acres around the world.


Billions of dollars have been spent on the technology. Commercial crops, however, have not yet delivered the benefits touted by their makers, such as improved nutrients or drought resistance.


The authors of the Global Citizens’ Report on the State of GMOs said: ‘The genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering in farmers’ fields.’
It said the biggest issue is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals as part of the farming regime.
The study reported that, in China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests have increased 12-fold since 1997.


A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.
It is claimed that pesticide use in India has increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced


And soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops.


The report highlights the fact that GM technology has allowed three biotech firms to gain a stranglehold over large elements of farm production.

Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world’s three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70 per cent of global seed sales.


This allows them to charge high prices both for seeds and the chemicals used with them.
The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over 95 per cent of the Indian cotton seed market and pushing up prices.
High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought to be behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.


Vandana Shiva, director of the Indian organisation Navdanya International, which co-ordinated the report, said: ‘The GM model of farming undermines farmers trying to farm ecologically.
‘Choice is being undermined as food systems are increasingly controlled by giant corporations and as chemical and genetic pollution spread'

Vandana Shiva, director of Navdanya International

‘Co-existence between GM and conventional crops is not possible because genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops is impossible to control.
‘Choice is being undermined as food systems are increasingly controlled by giant corporations and as chemical and genetic pollution spread.
'GM companies have put a noose round the neck of farmers. They are destroying alternatives in the pursuit of profit.’


Dr Mark Buckingham, deputy chairman of the GM industry’s Agriculture and Biotechnology Council insisted the technology has huge potential benefits.

He said: ‘From India to South Africa, millions of farmers already value the positive impact GM technology can have on their operations.


‘ The world’s population is set to reach nine billion by 2050. Significant increases in crop yields are required or policy makers will struggle to address the most vital need of hunger and nutrition, particularly in developing countries.
‘From additional vitamins in key food crops such as rice to disease-resistant crops, GM technology is providing additional tools for farmers to tackle some of the challenges they face.
‘Drought tolerance technology is also being developed, which will allow crops to withstand periods of low soil moisture.’

The GM Soya that doesn't need to be sprayed has created a Superweed that is resistant to current Sprays:rolleyes: so even more Toxic ones have to be created. While they're being developed, workers have to go in and cut the Weed down by hand because it grows higher than the actual Crop which is actually making Food production more Labour intensive and more expensive to buy.

As for getting rid of Poverty and Malnutrition, Yields are actually down and GM related Toxins are showing up in Pregnant Mothers.

The same Companies selling the GM Seeds also helpfully sell the insecticides.:eek: That's good of them.

Insect resistant Cotton actually seems to attract 13 times more Pests.

In an effort to combat the new Weeds, Farmers are reverting back to 20 year old techniques of deep plowing with herbicide spraying which increases erosion and chemical run off into Waterways. Further contaminating Land.

60% of Cancers are caused by what a person eats, it's little wonder eveyone is getting it.

What I can't understand is why Farmers continue to buy these Seeds when their causing all these problems? Nowhere near enough small scale testing was done.

There would be no need for GM in the first place if some kind of Population control was adapted---->eventually, it will have to be as we will have no choice but why it has to get to that stage is a mystery to me.



This Article is from Dailymail and before anyone starts with the usual Afterhours Dailyfail bull**** line here aswell.

Banned throughout Europe, Monsanto's GM corn found growing in Ireland.

Jesus Wept

Skip the blue bit?!? I want to skip the black bit.

Hasmunch

And the GM Foods don't work.

The Verve wrote a song about this didnt they...

InkSlinger67

Is this why carrots don't taste like carrot anymore?

chucken1

Hasmunch wrote: »

The Verve wrote a song about this didnt they...

I demand a song for proof..ish?

Hasmunch

chucken1 wrote: »

I demand a song for proof..ish?

You may not be able to tell but i put a lot of work into this.....

All this talk of getting old
It's getting me down my love
Like a cat in a bag, waiting to drown
This time I'm comin' down

And I hope you're thinking of me
As you lay down on your side
Now the GM foods don't work
They just make you worse
But I know I'll see your face again

Now the GM foods don't work
They just make you worse
But I know I'll see your face again

But I know I'm on a losing streak
'Cause I passed down my old street
And if you wanna show, then just let me know
And I'll sing in your ear again

Now the GM foods don't work
They just make you worse
But I know I'll see your face again

'Cause baby, ooh, if heaven calls, I'm coming, too
Just like you said, you leave my life, I'm better off dead

All this talk of getting old
It's getting me down my love
Like a cat in a bag, waiting to drown
This time I'm comin' down

Now the GM foods don't work
They just make you worse
But I know I'll see your face again

'Cause baby, ooh, if heaven calls, I'm coming, too
Just like you said, you leave my life, I'm better off dead

But if you wanna show, just let me know
And I'll sing in your ear again

Now the GM foods don't work
They just make you worse
But I know I'll see your face again

Yeah, I know I'll see your face again
Yeah, I know I'll see your face again
Yeah, I know I'll see your face again
Yeah, I know I'll see your face again

The Agogo

So we still have a choice

Death by Starvation or Death by Cancer

Hal Emmerich

The Agogo wrote: »

So we still have a choice

Death by Starvation or Death by Cancer

How did you come across this thread now....what were you doing off down on page......18, or wherever it was.

RachaelVO

Seedy business altogether!

smk89

This article is from the Daily Mail. Your argument is invalid.

Hal Emmerich

smk89 wrote: »

This article is from the Daily Mail. Your argument is invalid.

You didn't read it so.

Son Of A Vidic

Nature will always find a way.

smk89

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

You didn't read it so.

I did, I just choose to ignore any paper which critizes celebrity obcessed culture in 1 column and in the next talks about beyonces new shoes. Also their science is ****

steddyeddy

Antibiotics can result in resistant bacteria because they have that affect should we abandon them? This is more or less the same thing. Gm crops are a wonderful thing. In first world countries nutrients have been added to crops that prevented blindness and malnutrition. Its not perfect but its getting there. A lot of people working in gm foods are not doing so to increase the profits of the farming industry.

Hal Emmerich

smk89 wrote: »

I did, I just choose to ignore any paper which critizes celebrity obcessed culture in 1 column and in the next talks about beyonces new shoes. Also their science is ****

And that's why I put two links in, so you didn't read it.

This Article is from Dailymail and before anyone starts with the usual Afterhours Dailyfail bull**** line here aswell.

Hal Emmerich

steddyeddy wrote: »

Antibiotics can result in resistant bacteria because they have that affect should we abandon them? This is more or less the same thing. Gm crops are a wonderful thing. In first world countries nutrients have been added to crops that prevented blindness and malnutrition. Its not perfect but its getting there. A lot of people working in gm foods are not doing so to increase the profits of the farming industry.

And those Crops cross pollinate with Non-GM Crops grown by other Farmers who are then Sued by the GM Company, but as they are usually poverty stricken themselves can't pay so end up losing their Farm.

ed2hands

smk89 wrote: »

I did, I just choose to ignore any paper which critizes celebrity obcessed culture in 1 column and in the next talks about beyonces new shoes. Also their science is ****

pdf of report:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2011/10/19/GMOEMPEROR.pdf

pragmatic1

LOL at anyone who thinks GM crops is a new thing. We've been doing it since farming began.

jive

pragmatic1 wrote: »

LOL at anyone who thinks GM crops is a new thing. We've been doing it since farming began.

?????????


To OP.
Your news post is a load of shít. Sure GM crops have their drawbacks but the positives far outweigh the negatives. The main negative being that large companies with a patent on their GM seeds essentially have a monopoly (e.g. Monsanto). Insinuating that these 'toxins' (which you never named, funnily enough) cause cancer is a bit far fetched (with no evidence mind you). Also the pregnant women jibe is such tabloidy bullshít it's not even funny, I bet that hit home with a lot of those daily mail readers who know next to nothing about genetic modification of anything. Essentially your article was a load of horse shít based on guessing or insinuating things with zero to back it up, so much so that I didn't make it to the end.

jive

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

And those Crops cross pollinate with Non-GM Crops grown by other Farmers who are then Sued by the GM Company, but as they are usually poverty stricken themselves can't pay so end up losing their Farm.

Sensationalist to say the least. I'm guessing you watched that retardedly biased documentary that I can't think of the name off the top of my head.

Senna

I've heard enough, i'm selling my GM car.

ed2hands

pragmatic1 wrote: »

LOL at anyone who thinks GM crops is a new thing. We've been doing it since farming began.

LOL at me so.
Think you mean selective breeding there horse. Sort of different things.

jive wrote: »

To OP.
Your news post is a load of shít. Sure GM crops have their drawbacks but the positives far outweigh the negatives. The main negative being that large companies with a patent on their GM seeds essentially have a monopoly (e.g. Monsanto). Insinuating that these 'toxins' (which you never named, funnily enough) cause cancer is a bit far fetched (with no evidence mind you). Also the pregnant women jibe is such tabloidy bullshít it's not even funny, I bet that hit home with a lot of those daily mail readers who know next to nothing about genetic modification of anything. Essentially your article was a load of horse shít based on guessing or insinuating things with zero to back it up, so much so that I didn't make it to the end.

Try these for size.

Here's a Guardian article from last week:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides

And the recent report:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...GMOEMPEROR.pdf

steddyeddy

Selective breeding is a type of genetic modification. Gm foods have been here for thousands of years. Transgenics however is new.

pragmatic1

ed2hands wrote: »

LOL at me so.
Think you mean selective breeding there horse. Sort of different things.

Its not actually different at all. The methodology might have been cruder and results less percise but the end goal is the same i.e altering a crops genetics in order to obtain a higher yield or a yield of higher quality.

ed2hands

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Its not actually different at all. The methodology might have been cruder and results less percise but the end goal is the same i.e altering a crops genetics in order to obtain a higher yield or a yield of higher quality.

Yup i get what you're saying. Selective breeding as has been done for millennia is a form of genetic modification.
I came across an article saying exactly that a few months ago (link below).

In reality though as am sure you're aware, selective breeding and modern genetic manipulation ala Monsanto are really worlds apart. A whole different kettle of fish.
That's sort of why it's banned in most of Europe and increasingly elsewhere. The comparison with normal selective breeding seems to pop in the media from time to time. I wonder why??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1OfiaKIAH

Some of the comments at the end from readers are funny too hehe:

"More GM propoganda and spin in the risible 'science' pages of the DM. Even the ill-informed know there is a difference between genetically modified and selective breeding. Try as you might, you'll never rebrand GM as selective breeding and the agenda to spin everything in Monsanto's favour and normalise GM crops is transparent."

"This is an outrage. There is a huge difference between what we call genetically modified crops, and artificial selection. I think we can all assume that once humans began dabbling in agriculture, it was a no brainer for them to realize that it's best to use seed from the crops with the best traits. It's something a child using only half their intellect could figure out.

"Another corkingly stupid science story in the DM. Selective breeding isn't GM. Get a writer with some basic grasp of science if you want to report on it."

Bobby Baccala

I'll swap you some genetically modified brown bread for it !!!!!!!!

The Outside Agency

It's arrogant to believe you can solve every problem with technology.

upandcumming

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

If your're actually going to read this you can skip the blue, Company spiel bit.

The GM Soya that doesn't need to be sprayed has created a Superweed that is resistant to current Sprays:rolleyes: so even more Toxic ones have to be created. While they're being developed, workers have to go in and cut the Weed down by hand because it grows higher than the actual Crop which is actually making Food production more Labour intensive and more expensive to buy.

As for getting rid of Poverty and Malnutrition, Yields are actually down and GM related Toxins are showing up in Pregnant Mothers.

The same Companies selling the GM Seeds also helpfully sell the insecticides.:eek: That's good of them.

Insect resistant Cotton actually seems to attract 13 times more Pests.

In an effort to combat the new Weeds, Farmers are reverting back to 20 year old techniques of deep plowing with herbicide spraying which increases erosion and chemical run off into Waterways. Further contaminating Land.

60% of Cancers are caused by what a person eats, it's little wonder eveyone is getting it.

What I can't understand is why Farmers continue to buy these Seeds when their causing all these problems? Nowhere near enough small scale testing was done.

There would be no need for GM in the first place if some kind of Population control was adapted---->eventually, it will have to be as we will have no choice but why it has to get to that stage is a mystery to me.



This Article is from Dailymail and before anyone starts with the usual Afterhours Dailyfail bull**** line here aswell.

Banned throughout Europe, Monsanto's GM corn found growing in Ireland.

That is the one of the worst put together posts I have ever seen.

steddyeddy

Selecting for certain traits in plants is in reality genetically modifying the plant. Certain traits are the expression of certain genes. Selcetive breeding of animals is genetically modifying the animal for instance dog breeders are genetically modifying their dogs. The more refined techniques such as transgenics, the placing of a gene from one species into another species, is a much more effective tool for selection of traits.

steddyeddy

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

And those Crops cross pollinate with Non-GM Crops grown by other Farmers who are then Sued by the GM Company, but as they are usually poverty stricken themselves can't pay so end up losing their Farm.

If that happened its not right to say the least but have you got a link? I imagine it would be quite hard to sue because your plants pollinated somebody elses.

wonderfulname

Weeds become resistant to sprays anyway though, a tiny, quite significant fact that seems to have been misplaced in your article.

As for Monsanto, their business is GM, but they aren't GM, any stories about cross pollination lawsuits don't really have anything to do with the actual science of GM foods do they?

IcedOut

A super-weed you say?

ShooterSF

What about this opposing report from the national academy of science so http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804

pragmatic1

ed2hands wrote: »

Yup i get what you're saying. Selective breeding as has been done for millennia is a form of genetic modification.
I came across an article saying exactly that a few months ago (link below).

In reality though as am sure you're aware, selective breeding and modern genetic manipulation ala Monsanto are really worlds apart. A whole different kettle of fish.
That's sort of why it's banned in most of Europe and increasingly elsewhere. The comparison with normal selective breeding seems to pop in the media from time to time. I wonder why??

The only difference is the techniques used and their selectivity. Do you think the potato we eat today is comparable to its ancestor.

ed2hands

ShooterSF wrote: »

What about this opposing report from the national academy of science so http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804

Some benefits to some farmers. Good for those concerned.

But on the whole, the original promises of the technology have not materialised for the most part. Higher yields are simply not present in many cases according to the latest reports. Pesticide use steadily increasing instead of decreasing due to more pests, super-weeds etc. Serious questions about toxicity from independant studies emerging. The spread of GM onto non-GM land with resultant lawsuits. All in the report on the previous page.

Too few benefits. Too many risks.

And if that wasn't reason enough, ceding control of global agri-business to a handful of corporations with a track record such as they have?

Chorcai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYO2k_o16E0

The World According To Monsanto, more people should watch this