[onoway]

Some time ago, I posted a link to a study done regarding rats developing major tumors when fed GMO corn. One or two people had some questions about the protocol which I couldn't answer.
It turns out that the courts DID get the answers when the scientist in question took Monsanto to court for defamation. The link is obviously to an obviously biased article, but what is stated as fact is indeed so. http://www.realfarma...mation-lawsuit/

[y66]

A further update from Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops:

Quote

LONDON — The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.

But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.

The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.

Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.

One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

[mike777]

thanks for the update.

I keep waiting to hear more about food in a pill or food in a shake made in some giant vat in a factory by robots.


Not sure why mankind cannot make some "natural" man/woman/whatever made chemical based food in a lab to feed the world.


Despite all these silly posts I see zero evidence that denies that all food is modified, all food has been altered. These posts seem to feel magic has created food.

-----


with all of the above said I repeat a point I make often that is time is a safety factor.

An Apple modified 400 years and still we eat it has a better safety record than an apple created last night.

[helene_t]

New York Times has an article about the impact of GMO seeds on farming yields. It turns out that they haven't increases yields for most crops. http://www.nytimes.c...&smtyp=cur&_r=0

[barmar]

mike777, on 2016-October-30, 21:12, said:

Despite all these silly posts I see zero evidence that denies that all food is modified, all food has been altered. These posts seem to feel magic has created food.

Probably because no one thinks this really matters. There's a qualitative difference between the types of modifications that occur from natural selection or selective breeding, and the kind created in the lab with genetic engineering. The term "GMO" only refers to the latter, despite the literal meanings of the word.

[blackshoe]

Magically created food isn't very tasty — nor is food-in-a-pill.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-02, 15:10, said:

Magically created food isn't very tasty — nor is food-in-a-pill.

And even if it is, people may not go for it.

I heard a report a couple of months ago about artificially-created meats. Scientists have made great progress in creating beef in labs that are almost indistinguishable from real hamburger, and they can even make passable fascimiles of steak. If McDonalds were willing to switch to it, countless heads of cattle would not have to live in deplorable situations, just waiting to be slaughtered. They've done taste tests with people, they usually can't tell the difference.

But then if they asked if they would actually buy the stuff, they generally said no. They want real meat.

It's really hard for these alternative technologies to catch on in rich, developed countries. But they could be put to great use in the third world. The difficulty there is often getting past the tyrannical dictators, just like the problems with combatting medical epidemics or improving education.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-02, 15:10, said:

Magically created food isn't very tasty — nor is food-in-a-pill.

Have you personally tried any magically-created food?

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on 2016-October-30, 21:12, said:

thanks for the update.

-----


with all of the above said I repeat a point I make often that is time is a safety factor.

An Apple modified 400 years and still we eat it has a better safety record than an apple created last night.

And thats it. The key difference, if a change survives natures laboratory for a long enough time, the environment
had time to adapt.
You can simulate / fast track this with classical approaches, and this is being done, but it takes more time than
GMO.

GMO is basically the same as a sudden change in nature, but with huge / wide range impact, e.g. a meteor
hiding the earth, it made the evolution for mammals simpler, but the dinos got eliminated.
During development they test a lot, but usually they forget something, nobody thought about.

There may be a time, we need this, but not now.
Given the track record of most GMOs, they are only money makers, falling short of the promises. One major promise,
besides the one listed in the NYT: solving the hunger crisis, but it is expensive to develop, and they dont want to
give is away for free, because this way it does not make money.
For that matter: The yield in the developed world, was already enough to feed the peoble in the developed world,
exporting the stuff to the underdeveloped world, does more bad than good, at least most of the time.

With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt

[Zelandakh]

P_Marlowe, on 2016-November-03, 05:08, said:

but usually they forget something

P_Marlowe, on 2016-November-03, 05:08, said:

most of the time

You realise these expressions mean more than 50%, right? Do you really mean that? Any evidence to back up such a claim?

On the other hand I do like the idea of a meteor hiding the Earth. Maybe the Darleks will miss us on their next rampage through the galaxy...

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-03, 04:42, said:

Have you personally tried any magically-created food?

Not in this incarnation.