Ban GMOs Now - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Atlantis
#14487076
I quote some passages from a text that can be read in full here.

Circulate widely!

The industry-funded International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) claims that the global area of genetically modified (GM) crops reached 170.3 m hectares (420 m acres) in 2012; a 100-fold increase since commercialization began in 1996; and “the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture” [1].

However, GM crops are still confined to 28 countries, with nearly 90 % planted in just five. USA’s 69.5 m ha tops the list at 40.8 % of the total area; Brazil and Argentina with 36.6 and 23.9 m ha account for 21.5 % and 14.0 % respectively; and Canada and India with 11.6 and 10.8 m ha account for 6.8 % and 6.3 % respectively. Herbicide (glyphosate) tolerant crops comprise nearly 60 %, Bt crops 15% and stacked traits 25 %. The major crops are just three: herbicide tolerant soybean (47 %) maize (Bt 4%, stacked traits 23 %) and cotton (Bt 11 %, stacked traits 2%).

GM remains limited to two traits in three major crops that are largely kept out of most of the world.

One main reason is its inability to deliver really useful traits. As Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph remarked in reviewing a new book by Prof Sir Gordon Conway, formerly President of the Rockefeller Foundation and Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for International Development, and a known GM supporter [2}: “But what emerges from his book, One Billion Hungry….is how little – so far, at least – GM technology is contributing to beating hunger.” In contrast, conventional breeding assisted by genetic markers has been turning out miracles in the meantime, ...

GM crops are hardly grown in Europe even though the European Commission has given commercial approval for cultivation, showing every sign of caving in to the GM lobby. But at the end of May 2013, Monsanto, the largest producer of GM seeds, announced it is pulling out from Europe. Monsanto’s Europe representative Brandon Mitchener told the press the company would no longer engage in any lobbying in Europe and would not apply for approval of any GM plants [3]. German Agriculture Ministry issued a revealing statement: “The promises of GM industry have not come true for European agriculture, nor have they for the agriculture in developing and emerging economies.” Monsanto is the last company to depart Germany, if not Europe, following Bayer CropScience, BASF and Syngenta. ...

Monsanto has been in the news simultaneously for its unapproved glyphosate tolerant GM wheat that has turned up in a farmer’s field in Oregon; and Japan and then South Korea suspended their wheat imports for fear of GM contamination, leading to a 4% drop in Monsanto’s shares [5]. The shipments were eventually cancelled, which could cost US farmers billions [6].

In fact 8 European Union countries have imposed outright bans on crops approved: Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria and Poland [7]. Switzerland has had a moratorium on GM crops since 2008, which was set to end in 2013. But in March 2013, the Swiss Parliament voted to prolong the moratorium ignoring the findings of their National Research Programme 59, which [8] “re-confirmed the safety of the commercial use of GM crops and recommended an end to the moratorium.” Denmark gave up on GM crops after having allowed Monsanto to carry out field trials of GM maize since 2009 [9]. Italy is the latest to ban cultivation of GM maize (MON 810) citing environmental concerns [10]. In addition, regions and local administrations at every level in 37 European countries have declared themselves GMO-free. As of 2010, this comprises 169 main regions (prefectures, etc.); 123 intermediate regions (provinces, districts, etc.), 4 713 local governments (municipalities and communities up to areas of 1 m ha), and 31 357 individuals [11]; and the movement is growing rapidly.

Within the heartland of GMOs the USA, the failures of GM crops and the problems created are most visible and most acute [12] (GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USA, SiS 46). A new study reveals that the US staple crop system has performed worse than non-GM Europe in yields, pesticide use, genetic diversity and resilience since GM crops were planted [13] (US Staple Crop System Failing from GM and Monoculture, SiS 59); with a dangerous downward trend in recent years. Meanwhile, a pitched battle is taking place to get GM crops out through GMO-labelling legislation that would unleash the power of consumers against the might of the biotech industry [14]. Close to 95 % of Americans support GM labelling. In October 2011, the Center for Food Safety filed a legal petition with the FDA to require labelling of all GM food. In 2012, 55 members of Congress wrote a letter to the FDA commissioner in support of the petition. The FDA has received over one million public comments supporting the petition, the largest response ever received by the agency. Meanwhile, 37 GM food labelling bills have been introduced in 21 states in 2013. In the latest move in Washington, Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Peter DeFazio have jointly sponsored new federal legislation that requires labelling of all GM food in the US. The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act is the first national labelling bill to be introduced in Congress since 2010. The US Green Party has called Monsanto “a top risk to public health and the environment,” and has urged a moratorium on GM food crops [15].

In November 2012, Peru imposed a 10 year ban on GMOs ...

In the same month, Kenya banned import of all GMOs with immediate effect [13]....

[b]On 1 June 2013, the new administration in Venezuela announced a new law to protect farmers against GM seeds [18]


On 22 July 2013, the Indian Supreme Court’s expert panel of scientists called for a ban on herbicide tolerant crops for India [19].

A critical juncture
The rising opposition to GMOs has done little to diminish the aggressive expansionist agenda of the GM corporate empire. Mexico is a major target. US biotech firms Monsanto, DuPont and Dow have applied for permits to grow more than two million hectares of GM maize in northern Mexico [20]. Mexico is the birthplace of maize and a centre of biodiversity. Since 2009, the Mexican government has granted 177 permits for experimental plots of GM maize covering 2 664 hectares. Large-scale commercial release of GM maize has not yet been authorised; but GM contamination of native maize has already been discovered, as the result of what some regard as “a carefully and perversely planned strategy”.

The other major strategy of the GM corporate empire is seed monopoly and escalating seed costs. Conventional non-GM seeds are pushed out at the expense of GM seeds, thereby reducing farmers’ choices [21]. The big four biotech seed companies – Monsanto DuPont/ Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences – now own 80 % of the US corn market and 70 % of soybean business. The costs of seeds have increased two to three fold since 1995. This is destroying the lives of farmers around the world; the most visible in India, where the introduction of GM cotton has coincided with an escalation of farm suicides ([22] Farmer Suicides and Bt Cotton Nightmare Unfolding in India, SiS 45). At the same time, farmers who want to return to conventional non-GM seed after experiencing increased pest resistance and crop failures find themselves unable to do so, on account of the limited availability of non-GM seeds [23].

Ban GMOs Now
This is a dangerous situation for the future of food and farming, one that needs to be reversed as quickly as possible, particularly as GM agriculture is failing on all counts. That can only be achieved by a ban on GMOs, an action already taken by countries and local communities around the world. We need to join forces with them, to put an end to the GM corporate empire.

Ten years ago, 24 scientists from around the world formed an Independent Science Panel and produced a report [24] (The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World, ISIS/TWN publication) summarizing compelling evidence on the hazards of GM crops and the benefits of organic agro-ecological farming, and called for a global ban on environmental releases of GMOs, and a shift to non-GM sustainable agriculture. This report was widely circulated, translated into several languages, and republished in the US a year later. It remains the most succinct and complete account on the subject; but crucial new evidence has come to light within the past decade that strengthens the case considerably.

First of all, decisive evidence has emerged on the unsustainability and destructiveness of conventional industrial agriculture, of which GM is the most extreme; in stark contrast to the proven successes of non-GM ecological farming: its productivity and resilience, environmental and health benefits, and in particular, its enormous potential for saving energy and carbon emissions in mitigating and adapting to climate change. We presented all that in a comprehensive and definitive report published in 2008 ([25] Food Futures Now *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free , ISIS/TWN publication). Our report is completely in line with the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report [26], which resulted from a three-year consultative process involving 900 participants and 110 countries around the world; a sure sign of the scientific consensus that has emerged around non-GM ecological farming as the way forward in food and farming.

GM agriculture is a recipe for disaster, as this report will make clear. It is also standing in the way of the shift to sustainable agriculture already taking place in local communities all over the world that can truly enable people to feed themselves in times of climate change. Future generations will not forgive us if we do not stop the GM takeover now.
...
Glyphosate & glyphosate tolerant crops
Glyphosate use has gone up sharply worldwide since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops. Herbicide use per acre has doubled in the US within the past five years compared with the first five years of commercial GM crops cultivation, the increase almost entirely due to glyphosate herbicides. Glyphosate has contaminated land, water, air, and our food supply. Damning evidence of its serious harm to health and the environment has been piling up, but the maximum permitted levels are set to rise by 100-150 times in the European Union with further hikes of already unacceptably high levels in the US if Monsanto gets its way.
1. Scientific evidence accumulated over three decades documents miscarriages, birth defects, carcinogenesis, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, general toxicity to cells, neurotoxicity, and toxicity to liver and kidney at glyphosate levels well below recommended agricultural use.
2. The major adjuvant POEA in glyphosate Roundup formulations is by far the most cytotoxic for human cells, ahead of glyphosate and its metabolite. It also amplifies the toxic effects of glyphosate.
3. A recent review blames glyphosate for practically all modern diseases as its general chelating action affects numerous biological functions that require metal cofactors. It is the most pervasive environmental chemical pollutant that also inhibits enzymes involved in detoxification of xenobiotics, thereby increasing their toxicity. In addition, it kills beneficial gut bacteria that prevent pathogens from colonizing the gut and promotes the growth of the pathogenic bacteria, leading to autism and other diseases.
4. Rats fed Roundup contaminated and Roundup tolerant maize beyond the required 90 days showed a startling range of health impacts. Females were 2 to 3 times as likely to die as controls and much more likely to develop mammary tumours. In males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times as frequent as controls, while kidney diseases were 1.3-2.3 times controls. Males also develop kidney or skin tumours 4 times as often as the controls and up to 600 days earlier. The harmful effects were found in animals fed the GM maize that was not sprayed with Roundup, as well as those that were, indicating that the GM maize has its own toxicities apart from the herbicide.
5. Livestock illnesses from glyphosate tolerant GM feed including reproductive problems, diarrhoea, bloating, spontaneous abortions, reduced live births, inflamed digestive systems and nutrient deficiencies. Evidence has also emerged of chronic botulism in cattle and farmers as the result of glyphosate use.
6. Glyphosate is lethal to frogs and Roundup is worse; it increases toxic blooms, and accelerates the deterioration of water quality. It use also coincides with the demise of monarch butterflies.
7. Glyphosate poisons crops and soils by killing beneficial microorganisms and encouraging pathogens to flourish. Forty crop diseases are now linked to glyphosate use and the number is increasing.
8. Glyphosate-resistant weeds cover 120 million ha globally (61.8 m acres in the US) and continue to spread; it is a major factor accounting for the enormous increase in pesticide use since herbicide tolerant GM crops were introduced.
9. Contamination of ground water supplies, rain, and air has been documented in Spain and the US. Berlin city residents were found to have glyphosate concentrations above permitted EU drinking water levels.

Bt crops
...
New genetics & hazards of genetic modification
...

There is a compelling case for banning all environmental releases of GMOs now, and with that the glyphosate herbicides. Action can be taken locally in communities, villages, towns, municipalities, regions, as well as nationally and globally. It must be done now; for time is running out. We need to shift comprehensively to non-GM sustainable ecological farming in order to feed ourselves under climate change. We the people need to reclaim our food and seed sovereignty from the corporate empire before they destroy our food and farming irreversibly.


The bottom line: the only reason for introducing GMO crops is corporate profit. We are playing Russian roulette with the ecosystem for a handful of dollars. The most urgent task ahead is to convert destructive industrial farming to sustainable farming. GMO is the problem not the solution.
By mikema63
#14487139
No, the technology is sound and perfectly safe. Even the environmental impact is comparable to traditional crops.

Arguing that we should ban something because the corporations do bad things is an argument for socialism, not a ban on any particular technology.
By Atlantis
#14487358
mikema63 wrote:No, the technology is sound and perfectly safe. Even the environmental impact is comparable to traditional crops.


That is what the industry says Mike, yet there is no way to prove such a thing. They have said it about so many products that were proven too dangerous at a later stage.

Arguing that we should ban something because the corporations do bad things is an argument for socialism, not a ban on any particular technology.


So, socialism is bad? Do anti-socialism and GMOs always go together?

And do we live in a socialist World because we have banned DDT?

Come on Mike, you can do better than this lousy excuse of an argument. Read your corporate song sheet again, I'm sure you can come up with something.
By mikema63
#14487460
That is what the industry says Mike, yet there is no way to prove such a thing. They have said it about so many products that were proven too dangerous at a later stage.


It's the only type of crop we test at all. It's tested by industry, government agencies, and independent groups. Every major scientific group from the AAAS to the royal society have come out supporting GMO's as a safe technology.

So, socialism is bad? Do anti-socialism and GMOs always go together?

And do we live in a socialist World because we have banned DDT?

Come on Mike, you can do better than this lousy excuse of an argument. Read your corporate song sheet again, I'm sure you can come up with something.


You misread my statement.
Last edited by mikema63 on 15 Nov 2014 21:33, edited 1 time in total.
By Atlantis
#14487731
mikema63 wrote:It's tested by industry, government agencies, and independent groups. Every major scientific group from the AAAS to the royal society have come out supporting GMO's as a safe technology.


You are pulling my legs Mike. The Federal Food Agency rubber stamps tests industry does in house under laboratory conditions for a couple of weeks. What will happen with those organisms in the real world in 10 years time is anybody's guess.

And yes, most people making a living by working for the biotech industry support GMO. What else do you expect?

You misread my statement.[/quote]

You misunderstand the issue.
By mikema63
#14487772
You are pulling my legs Mike. The Federal Food Agency rubber stamps tests industry does in house under laboratory conditions for a couple of weeks. What will happen with those organisms in the real world in 10 years time is anybody's guess.


Do you actually have any idea how testing is preformed? Did you ever actually look into it or read the methods of any paper that has been published from GMO research that you didn't already know agreed with you? Have you even looked at the abstracts?

And yes, most people making a living by working for the biotech industry support GMO. What else do you expect?


Most scientists don't make a living from it, and do peer review the research. Also, the AAAS and royal society certainly don't get all their money from the agricultural industry (which is separate from the biotech industry which includes a great deal of other things beyond GMO's).

You misunderstand the issue.


You misunderstand science.
By RhetoricThug
#14953178
mikema63 wrote:Do you actually have any idea how testing is preformed? Did you ever actually look into it or read the methods of any paper that has been published from GMO research that you didn't already know agreed with you? Have you even looked at the abstracts?



Most scientists don't make a living from it, and do peer review the research. Also, the AAAS and royal society certainly don't get all their money from the agricultural industry (which is separate from the biotech industry which includes a great deal of other things beyond GMO's).



You misunderstand science. :eh:

I guess I'll post here.

The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well.

OBJECTIVE: Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company's efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate.

METHODS: A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined.

RESULTS:The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products.

CONCLUSION: The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843257


See, most people just run programs and say "I'm thinking, I'm a scientist." :lol: Nah, you just run programs and earn your indoctrination credits. If I didn't have "Monsanto Papers" this post would be called a conspiracy theory... Because, again, most people run programs and call it thinking.

User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14953838
I'm against GMOs, but I think the solution is grass roots. The state and cronyism is what has made this whole catastrophe possible.
By RhetoricThug
#14954090
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I'm against GMOs, but I think the solution is grass roots.
It's the only solution, and we need informed consumers to drive the change in farming practices. Organic foods, non-GMO foods, shouldn't be niche markets. The thing is, 1st world countries follow scientism or an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. Meanwhile, 3rd world countries receive loans from monetary institutions and are provided with the same farming techniques to increase yields. OR, like in the case of the original macro-economic deal, NAFTA, countries Americanize their diet- As Mexico's food supply becomes more Americanized, their struggle with obesity and related health problems are becoming more Americanized as well.

The state and cronyism is what has made this whole catastrophe possible.
Yes, the state (lobbyists) has fostered the use of agrichemicals through agriculture subsidies. Nonetheless, an informed consumer can impact the market. Furthermore, the use of a herbicide is not limited to farming. In-fact, it's used throughout the growing season by landscapers and lawn groomers. Lawn irrigation is a big deal... Look at the headline of this next article, it sounds like something out of Mike Judge's Idiocracy.

The American Lawn Is Now The Largest Single ‘Crop’ In The U.S.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/la ... ddcb43435d

And you need to control weeds when you're responsible for a well-manicured lawn. Of course, experienced turf professionals know how to maintain established greens without the use of herbicides. Nonetheless, Roundup is an effective post-emergent broad-spectrum solution when you want to save on labor costs. Combine that with pesticides, fungicides, and inorganic fertilizers, and you got a crazy cocktail of chemicals (and run-off).

The only people creating an unsafe situation on c[…]

how 'the mismeasure of man' was totally refuted.[…]

I saw this long opinion article from The Telegraph[…]

It very much is, since it's why there's a war in t[…]