Monsanto Wins World Food Prize

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Utterly disengenuous post. It is proven that the human liver cannot cope with fructose - it converts it straight into fat. Blow smoke somwhere else. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense posted above. You must be trolling, right?

Sorry but I worked to hard in college memorizing biochemical pathways to let this one go. Yes the simple sugar glucose signals the start of Glycolysis, where glucose is broken down to pyruvate and this is the preferred molecule. However it is wrong to say that fructose is converted straight to fat. Fructose is converted to fructose-1-phosphate by the enzyme fructokinase.

Then the enzyme aldolase breaks this down to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. The glyceraldehyde is converted to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate by triokinase (a kinase is an enzyme that transfers a phosphorus group to another molecule).

This way fructose enters energy metabolism. The fatty acid synthesis pathway is a completely different pathway.

le sigh

IM0 wrote: »

what do you mean never gonna happen lol not in our life time but in a few hundred years or more the population will be 20 billion or so

nope

Hersheys wrote: »

Doing a quick lit review on glyphosate does show toxicity. But under the right conditions water is toxic. It's all about how the data is presented. Looking at the ic50 values for glyphosate you're looking at a very high amount needed to directly enter the blood stream on a continuous basis for about 5 years. The levels needed to induce toxicity would not be absorbed by the body as its present in trace quantities. For toxicity you're looking at GRAMS of the stuff to be ingested per kilo of body weight per day. You would want to be drinking the stuff. Even then there are only a handful of reported suicides linked to glyphosate consumption. The stuff just isn't toxic in the levels available.

Roundup and birth defects

Is the public being kept in the dark?

Hersheys wrote: »

All natural products which are linked to obesity. Obesity is an overconsumption of food generally, not because of GM foods. There is greater access to food now, better transport links & the likes. And as a result of increase in technology fattys drive instead of walk. It's cultural too. Not just food related.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well obesity is also a result of increased food but I agree with you on the processed food front. It has very little to do with gm crops however. In fact GM crops would likely but a lot healthier than the above ingredients.

Does Genetically Modified (GM) Food Increase the Incidence of Obesity?

Hersheys

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but I worked to hard in college memorizing biochemical pathways to let this one go. Yes the simple sugar glucose signals the start of Glycolysis, where glucose is broken down to pyruvate and this is the preferred molecule. However it is wrong to say that fructose is converted straight to fat. Fructose is converted to fructose-1-phosphate by the enzyme fructokinase.

Then the enzyme aldolase breaks this down to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. The glyceraldehyde is converted to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate by triokinase (a kinase is an enzyme that transfers a phosphorus group to another molecule).

This way fructose enters energy metabolism. The fatty acid synthesis pathway is a completely different pathway.

Thanked this even though it makes me cry as it brings back horrendous memories of learning off pathway that end up printed on lab walls anyway

Doing a project on the different metabolites present when cells metabolise fructose as the main carbon source instead of glucose. Very interesting results. Particularly when you throw LPS into the mix.

Back on topic. Science good. Monsanto bad.

NuckingFacker

If you have any "doubts" as to the effects of roundup, do a simple test - leave the lid of a container where one of your pets can lick it(do feckin not, btw, unless you really are an utter sadist). Observe the outcome.

Then have a think. That gets sprayed on cereal crops right before they are harvested, to kill the plant and allow an easier harvest. That cereal then gets incorporated into your food. Do the "pixies" remove the roundup? Or do you eat it? Mmmm. Lovely. Glyphosate-a-bix.

BTW, the next time someone you love suggests going outside in their shorts and T-shirt to "spray them unsightly weeds" around the house using a napsack or hand sprayer, if they really are someone you love, suggest they live with the weeds, or pull them weeds out by hand. If you really love that person.

steddyeddy

Le sigh genes code for proteins not simple sugars or fats. Are you referring to an increase in the enzymes involved with simple sugar storage in crops?

NuckingFacker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but I worked to hard in college memorizing biochemical pathways to let this one go. Yes the simple sugar glucose signals the start of Glycolysis, where glucose is broken down to pyruvate and this is the preferred molecule. However it is wrong to say that fructose is converted straight to fat. Fructose is converted to fructose-1-phosphate by the enzyme fructokinase.

Then the enzyme aldolase breaks this down to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. The glyceraldehyde is converted to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate by triokinase (a kinase is an enzyme that transfers a phosphorus group to another molecule).

This way fructose enters energy metabolism. The fatty acid synthesis pathway is a completely different pathway.

Yeah, I did biology till it came out my ears as well. What happens when the liver is incapable of dealing with the volume of fructose and fructokinase production is severly lagged? Fructose fcuks up your liver. we were built to eat apples, not barrels worth of apples fructose compressd into a single serving.

Hersheys

le sigh wrote: »

nope
Roundup and birth defects

Is the public being kept in the dark?





Does Genetically Modified (GM) Food Increase the Incidence of Obesity?

That first article linked is pretty interesting. The studies I looked at were toxicology based studies on rats so its interesting to see some other data on it. Again, have never said I agree with Monsanto or roundup, I just said that based on the evidence that I'd read I believed the original web page to be slightly misleading. I do think there are enough reputable scientists on each side of the debate that each can show data to back up their claims. Given the shady past of Monsanto I would err on the side of European based research (more regulation, research not funded by interested parties, less likely to get massaged data...) but I do think that more needs to be done.

Anyone got any roundup I can chuck on my cells & see what happens? For the craic like.

And I accept your second link but I remain skeptical but that's my opinion (which I hope I'm entitled to )

steddyeddy

Hersheys wrote: »

Thanked this even though it makes me cry as it brings back horrendous memories of learning off pathway that end up printed on lab walls anyway

Doing a project on the different metabolites present when cells metabolise fructose as the main carbon source instead of glucose. Very interesting results. Particularly when you throw LPS into the mix.

Back on topic. Science good. Monsanto bad.

Ha ha yes I had to look up glycolysis to be sure of the enzyme names in fairness. I did remember fructose enters the pathway somewhere though.

That sounds really interesting. You probably can't talk about the results yet but I would love to know more.

I'm working with nuclear magnetic resonance and I'm trying to elucidate a series of molecules involved with methylation of DNA. Apart from the methyltransferases that is.

Hersheys

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yeah, I did biology till it came out my ears as well. What happens when the liver is incapable of dealing with the volume of fructose and fructokinase production is severly lagged? Fructose fcuks up your liver. we were built to eat apples, not barrels worth of apples fructose compressd into a single serving.

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yeah, I did biology till it came out my ears as well. What happens when the liver is incapable of dealing with the volume of fructose and fructokinase production is severly lagged? Fructose fcuks up your liver. we were built to eat apples, not barrels worth of apples fructose compressd into a single serving.

Well the same thing that happens if other enzymes malfunction or are saturated with substrate. Most people have enzymes that can metabolise fructose.

NuckingFacker

Hersheys wrote: »

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

The GM industry feeds into the food industry. It is meeting a demand. Not a demand from people, a demand from factories.You cannot seperate them, they are systemic links in a process. More GN corn to make more Corn starch to make more cheap sweet tasting food to make more kids fat to make more money. There's a chain, every link is a part. It's a sh1t chain.

clairefontaine

Hersheys wrote: »

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

It's true, but at one point it was next to impossible to find bread that was fructose corn syrup in it. More available now as people are catching on.

NuckingFacker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well the same thing that happens if other enzymes malfunction or are saturated with substrate. Most people have enzymes that can metabolise fructose.

of course they do. But in naturally occuring volumes. You cant eat 200 apples, you'd puke. I can plop 200 apples worth of fructose into a single serving of whatever you fancy - sure a few spoonfuls of "natural, healthy sweetener" will do the job nicely for me. That's the problem with scientists, they're so in love with science they tend to ignore consequences. Consequences are for doctors, and parents.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

But you have to agree that that's the food industry and not necessarily related to GM foods... It's the convenience market. None of the food I cook has a barrel worth of fructose in it, I cook everything from scratch. If more people did that we would have less obesity. As I said before, it's a lifestyle issue as much as anything.

How on *earth* do you propose that Genetically Modified food is separate from the "food industry"? And given the money driven media blitz in support of gm foods, do you really believe "what's best for the people" is in any way a consideration?

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

How on *earth* do you propose that Genetically Modified food is separate from the "food industry"? And given the money driven media blitz in support of gm foods, do you really believe "what's best for the people" is in any way a consideration?

How is concentrating a naturally found sugar into a syrup genetically modifying the sugar?!

I don't know how many times I have to say it!! I don't do the whole GM foods thing. My interest in GM is in bacterial modification for the expression of bio active proteins.

The food industry is massive in Ireland and we survive without GM foods. So I do think its possible for the two to coexist.

blatantrereg

steddyeddy wrote: »

GM has prevented blindess and other diseases related to nutritional deficits for years. GM crops will also combat crops problems relayed too human causes such as them decline of the honey bee. Web needs GM crops and if Monsanto enhanced global crops production thats not a bad thing.

Saying that I would be against the total privatisation of crops production despite its benifits.

No. Monsanto are largely responsible for the decline in honey bees.

Monsanto crops are modified so that they can survive being sprayed with copious amounts of poison.

le sigh

NuckingFacker wrote: »

BTW, the next time someone you love suggests going outside in their shorts and T-shirt to "spray them unsightly weeds" around the house using a napsack or hand sprayer, if they really are someone you love, suggest they live with the weeds, or pull them weeds out by hand. If you really love that person.

I personally know of 2 people who ended up in A&E after doing this and even with these tails to recount to people about to do the same they'll still fcuking do it.

Don't waste your breath.

It's evolutions fault.

le sigh

Great little essay on obesity.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

How is concentrating a naturally found sugar into a syrup genetically modifying the sugar?!

I don't know how many times I have to say it!! I don't do the whole GM foods thing. My interest in GM is in bacterial modification for the expression of bio active proteins.

The food industry is massive in Ireland and we survive without GM foods. So I do think its possible for the two to coexist.

The point is that GM foods are not, and cannot be, divorced from the food industry. The industry created this technology and has a massive vested interest in seeing it succeed. That interest is not health, poverty, hunger, sustainability or the good of society: it is to inflate the cost of producing food, and to increase the profits of the food industry.

I understand you're a scientist in a semi-related field, so I'm not suggesting you're supporting Monsanto the company.

However there is always a danger with scientists that their interest in an intellectual challenge, and their focus on their own work leaves them terribly naive about the way other players work, and means they often fail to appreciate the long term implications of their work.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The point is that GM foods are not, and cannot be, divorced from the food industry. The industry created this technology and has a massive vested interest in seeing it succeed. That interest is not health, poverty, hunger, sustainability or the good of society: it is to inflate the cost of producing food, and to increase the profits of the food industry.

I understand you're a scientist in a semi-related field, so I'm not suggesting you're supporting Monsanto the company.

However there is always a danger with scientists that their interest in an intellectual challenge, and their focus on their own work leaves them terribly naive about the way other players work, and means they often fail to appreciate the long term implications of their work.

The GM industry created GM foods and the GM industry, from my experience, are the only ones who really have an interest in seeing it succeed. Not all science is GM, not all GM is science. They can co-exist independantly of each other.

And generalised sweeping statement there. Research is done by one person, one group, but it goes through a huge, rigourous process before it is ever published, all work is reviewed by at least 3 impartial reviewers who give their opinion on the work before it's allowed be common knowledge. There is nothing more grounding than a reviewer not liking your work - and it really does make you think about the long term implications of your work.

tin79

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

And of course a major pesticides corporation AKA Roundup of which Monsanto has a vested interest in.

GMO = Pestilence manufacture + Seed production
= high resistant to nuisance pests = Higher crop Yield.
= Death to bee population.

Monsanto purchases major honeybee research company.

= Development of bee that will only pollinate certain Monsanto crops.
Bees are highly sensitive sent detection and are very easily to train.
strains can be developed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-the-devastation-of-bee-colonies-blamed-for-bee-collapse-monsanto-buys-leading-bee-research-firm/30445

What the f*ck are you on about?

CruelCoin

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

And of course a major pesticides corporation AKA Roundup of which Monsanto has a vested interest in.

GMO = Pestilence manufacture + Seed production
= high resistant to nuisance pests = Higher crop Yield.
= Death to bee population.

Monsanto purchases major honeybee research company.

= Development of bee that will only pollinate certain Monsanto crops.
Bees are highly sensitive sent detection and are very easily to train.
strains can be developed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-the-devastation-of-bee-colonies-blamed-for-bee-collapse-monsanto-buys-leading-bee-research-firm/30445

1: Roundup is not a company.
2: Manufacturing pestilence? They're breeding the spanish flu now?
3: Bees cannot be trained. They exist in a constant struggle for food and the urge to grow their hives. They will not pass-up food because of "training".
4 wut?

5live

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Modified crops such as dwarf wheat are being linked to all sorts of health problems, notably obesity and gluten intolerance. This is the first I've heard of a foodstuff being linked as a cure for blindness, so a link would be helpful.

Switching the world to an American diet of processed or modified foods is not the same as feeding it, in fact probably the opposite.

Edit: And what is responsible for the decline of the honey bee? Industrialised agriculture and "modern scientific methods" of pest control. Your solution is... *more* industrialisation?

Cant link atm but look up golden rice on Wikipedia

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

of course they do. But in naturally occuring volumes. You cant eat 200 apples, you'd puke. I can plop 200 apples worth of fructose into a single serving of whatever you fancy - sure a few spoonfuls of "natural, healthy sweetener" will do the job nicely for me. That's the problem with scientists, they're so in love with science they tend to ignore consequences. Consequences are for doctors, and parents.

Actually its scientists who are working out how too cure diseases aswell. Doctors wouldnt really get far without geneticists or biochemists.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

The GM industry created GM foods and the GM industry, from my experience, are the only ones who really have an interest in seeing it succeed. Not all science is GM, not all GM is science. They can co-exist independantly of each other.

This is what I'm talking about where a scientist's logical mind doesn't apply to the world around them. Yes "all science" is not GM, and the food industry employs different sciences and pieces of research. However, the food industry has a single goal: profit. Nothing else. Not scientific integrity, not honesty and not public benefit. The fructose example is excellent. The science of "what is fructose corn syrup" may be sound. The scientists may have come to a conclusion in peer reviewed journals that all the factors had been covered and understood. They may have addressed the use of sugared additives and said "well it's the same thing in a different form, and nobody's going to use it at massive amounts". However, the way the food industry *uses* corn syrup was inevitable, and obvious, and is extremely dangerous for the long term health of humans. It is the industry that funds this research, it is the industry that stands to benefit, and it is the industry which will corrupt, manipulate, lie and bully in order to ensure that profit. The scientists are just tools to an end, and in the view of the average sociopathic corporate boss, they're not even very astute tools because they don't recognise what's going on in the bigger picture.

This is what I mean by scientific naivety. Getting a product, GM or not, reviewed by scientific peers is meaningless if the way the research is going to be used "in the wild" is something the scientists dismissed as "well obviously someone wouldn't be allowed to do that because it's bad".

steddyeddy

Processed food is very different too GM foods. Why are we even mentioning it. Most people agree that processed foods are unhealthy but I don't think GM foods are inherently unhealthy.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

This is what I'm talking about where a scientist's logical mind doesn't apply to the world around them. Yes "all science" is not GM, and the food industry employs different sciences and pieces of research. However, the food industry has a single goal: profit. Nothing else. Not scientific integrity, not honesty and not public benefit. The fructose example is excellent. The science of "what is fructose corn syrup" may be sound. The scientists may have come to a conclusion in peer reviewed journals that all the factors had been covered and understood. They may have addressed the use of sugared additives and said "well it's the same thing in a different form, and nobody's going to use it at massive amounts". However, the way the food industry *uses* corn syrup was inevitable, and obvious, and is extremely dangerous for the long term health of humans. It is the industry that funds this research, it is the industry that stands to benefit, and it is the industry which will corrupt, manipulate, lie and bully in order to ensure that profit. The scientists are just tools to an end, and in the view of the average sociopathic corporate boss, they're not even very astute tools because they don't recognise what's going on in the bigger picture.

This is what I mean by scientific naivety. Getting a product, GM or not, reviewed by scientific peers is meaningless if the way the research is going to be used "in the wild" is something the scientists dismissed as "well obviously someone wouldn't be allowed to do that because it's bad".

Apologies, the strings on my puppet arms are tangled... :rolleyes:

What an ignorant attitude. Please do not tar all scientists with the one brush.

5live

blatantrereg wrote: »

No. Monsanto are largely responsible for the decline in honey bees.

Monsanto crops are modified so that they can survive being sprayed with copious amounts of poison.

The highlighted passage refers to roundup-ready crops which can survive being sprayed with roundup while competing weed species cannot and die.

Your original passage is, i presume, referring to Bt corn which has a gene for insecticide added to kill corn borer weevil, iirc. The alternative to Bt corn is a spray with a systemic insecticide(travels through the plant killing any succeptible insects) which has both environmental impacts on non-target species and environmental toxicity on soils and groundwater supplies. Your choice is which one to choose. Personally i would lean towards the Bt corn.

On the decline of honeybees, i struggle to see the link between monsanto and their decline as Bt corn is wind pollinated so bees in general wouldnt be trying to pollinate them

Jonny7

5live wrote: »

Cant link atm but look up golden rice on Wikipedia

Has increased vitamin A, which helps decrease blindness in kids - very good for developing countries, but nothing has been done to produce it yet.

Paramite Pie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's not right? We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years.

Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their inferior 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for copyright protection and 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

steddyeddy

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.

Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

It's ironic the anti gm brigade using the phrase "educate yourself" to be honest.

Iwasfrozen

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.



Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their inferior 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for copyright protection and 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

Read the whole thread, and particularly this post and come back with a less condescending attitude.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85171881&postcount=79

CruelCoin

5live wrote: »

On the decline of honeybees, i struggle to see the link between monsanto and their decline as Bt corn is wind pollinated so bees in general wouldnt be trying to pollinate them

Bees will still try to pollinate.

Its a very rough and crude rule of thumb, but in general, bees utilise pollen as protein and nectar as carbohydrates.

The bees will try to collect as much pollen as they can, regardless.

Jonny7

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.



Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their inferior 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for copyright protection and 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

I'm not into this whole GM panto but even I know this has been debunked.

Monsanto is a big corp which makes a profit, but no need to embellish it with bull****

5live

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Jonny7 wrote: »

Has increased vitamin A, which helps decrease blindness in kids - very good for developing countries, but nothing has been done to produce it yet.

Finally got it.

Lots done but not available yet. Interesting that Monsanto quickly granted the licence to produce the crop.

steddyeddy

The fact that it's not available yet is testament to the amount of trials GM foods will be put through. The most recent test involved determining whether the Beta carotene in the rice is as effectice as the beta carotene from other sources. The good news is it is!

Paramite Pie

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's ironic the anti gm brigade using the phrase "educate yourself" to be honest.

I'm not anti GM, I'm anti certain corperate practices that make it illegal to harvest seeds from GM crops that farmers already paid for.

I'm not part of any brigade. GM crops have certainly caused alot of problems. I have no problem with 'frog dna' in tomatoes cos I've already eaten frogs anyway (and they're safe). I'm not Greenpeace. I know how science works and I trust it's safe.

GM crops are harmless themselves. I know that. I'm talking about the people who might not be aware of all this patent stuff. That's the education I'm talking about. Nothing ironic about that.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Read the whole thread, and particularly this post and come back with a less condescending attitude.

I fail to see how my post was condescending? Perhaps you can elaborate please? Apologies regardless but I stand by what I posted.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not into this whole GM panto but even I know this has been debunked.

Monsanto is a big corp which makes a profit, but no need to embellish it with bull****

First of all, I originally said I do not believe Monsanto intended to cause all the problems that occurred, but I think their practices have turned out to be unethical.

Has it been debunked? I will read any links you can post. I'm not opposed to mega corps (or crops), but they save been sucessfully sued in so many countries. They are doing something wrong I can assure you. GM crops will be alot more affordable (and bettert quality) if there's more competition and right now Monsanto has a monopoly on that.

The patent stuff is true as far as I know. Since none of us live in India we can't truly see what impact it has or hasn't had in terms of affordability.

Iwasfrozen

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I fail to see how my post was condescending? Perhaps you can elaborate please?:)

Even that post was condescending. You're doing it in note to yourself.

steddyeddy

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I'm not anti GM, I'm anti certain corperate practices that make it illegal to harvest seeds from GM crops that farmers already paid for.

I'm not part of any brigade. GM crops have certainly caused alot of problems. I have no problem with 'frog dna' in tomatoes cos I've already eaten frogs anyway (and they're safe). I'm not Greenpeace. I know how science works and I trust it's safe.

GM crops are harmless themselves. I know that. I'm talking about the people who might not be aware of all this patent stuff. That's the education I'm talking about. Nothing ironic about that.



I fail to see how my post was condescending? Perhaps you can elaborate please?:)



Has it been debunked? I will read any links you can post. I'm not opposed to mega corps (or crops), but they save been sucessfully sued in so many countries. They are doing something wrong I can assure you. GM crops will be alot more affordable (and bettert quality) if there's more competition and right now Monsanto has a monopoly on that.

The patent stuff is true as far as I know. Since none of us live in India we can't truly see what impact it has or hasn't had in terms of affordability.

Ending a post with eudcate yourself and some condescending happy face is condescending.

Paramite Pie

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ending a post with eudcate yourself and some condescending happy face is condescending.

Again apologies but I thought it would be worse without the happy face. My bad....:o

I thought this was the only condecending smiley ':rolleyes:'.... at least I didn't use that!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Even that post was condescending. You're doing it in note to yourself.

I just use smileys alot. I used the happy one to show that I didn't want have some silly interet arguement and that I meant no harm. I guess we all interpret things differently. You can't gauge one's tone of voice through text so I tried smilies.

blatantrereg

5live wrote: »

The highlighted passage refers to roundup-ready crops which can survive being sprayed with roundup while competing weed species cannot and die.

Right.

Your original passage is, i presume, referring to Bt corn which has a gene for insecticide added to kill corn borer weevil, iirc. The alternative to Bt corn is a spray with a systemic insecticide(travels through the plant killing any succeptible insects) which has both environmental impacts on non-target species and environmental toxicity on soils and groundwater supplies. Your choice is which one to choose. Personally i would lean towards the Bt corn.

Not really. It's mainly a reference to pesticides which appear to be a factor in the bees dying. The leading theory at the moment on the cause of the CCD is this. The EU is issuing a 2 year ban on certain types of pesticide to try to address this:

http://rt.com/news/bee-eu-pesticides-ban-750/

More Monsanto products are of the most damaging kind than other companies (60%).

Bt exposure does not have a direct immediate effect on bee mortality. It may have a minor direct and immediate effect on their foraging.

However most of the concerns are about delayed or combined effects. There are a couple of studies from the University of Jena which appear to support those ideas, but they have not been formally published, peer-reviewed etc.

On the decline of honeybees, i struggle to see the link between monsanto and their decline as Bt corn is wind pollinated so bees in general wouldnt be trying to pollinate them

Bees do collect corn pollen to feed their young, even though corn is generally described as wind pollinated.

ThreeBlindMice

"GM food off the menu in Parliament's restaurants despite ministers telling the public to drop their opposition"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345937/GM-food-menu-Parliaments-restaurant-despite-ministers-telling-public-drop-opposition.html

le sigh

steddyeddy wrote: »

Most people agree that processed foods are unhealthy but I don't think GM foods are inherently unhealthy.

Piggies eat a lot of GM.

New study of sick pigs.

The results, as reported by Reuters:

Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.
But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation — 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said.

Nonetheless, even critics of the study agree that it was conducted in a rigorous way, and the findings are intriguing and worth pursuing. The researchers did, after all, find high rates of severe inflammation. As the study’s main author, Judy Carman, observed in a response to critics, all commercial pigs raised in typical hog barn conditions experience gut inflammation to a degree. The point is that the severity was much worse for GMO-fed pigs.

But instead of calling for independent, rigorous science to explore the questions the study raised, critics dismiss it as “junk science

The takeaway for scientists who might be interested in studying the effects of eating GMO crops is that it’s not worth the trouble.

Throw a few quid at a some scientists nowadays and you can get them to say whatever you want.





Studies show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact that it's not available yet is testament to the amount of trials GM foods will be put through.

Ah come on! After 90 days of their own trial, Monsanto can release whatever they want. FDA doesn't even check (but then why would they) the trial papers as independent checking on some have shown problems with viral chain lengths (gibberish) and other stuff.

You have to sign a contract on purchase agreeing you won't study/test it.

Golden Rice delay due to no Bio Safety regulations in the Countries where they wanted to grow it, seemingly it took them a pathetic 5 years to resolve, patent messes, currently 70 Patents related to it.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Right.

Not really. It's mainly a reference to pesticides which appear to be a factor in the bees dying. The leading theory at the moment on the cause of the CCD is this.

Dead Bees: 25,000 Found In Car Park Amid Probe

Early investigations suggest the trees were recently sprayed with an insecticide known to be toxic to bees.


One official said experts will be looking at a pesticide called Safari that apparently was applied in the area last Saturday to control aphids such as greenflies.


Safari is part of a family of pesticides called neonicotinoids that are considered acutely toxic to pollinators.

The herbicide sprayed on most of the world’s genetically engineered crops—and gets soaked into the food portion—is now linked to “autism … gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn’s disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others.”

le sigh

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

"GM food off the menu in Parliament's restaurants despite ministers telling the public to drop their opposition"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345937/GM-food-menu-Parliaments-restaurant-despite-ministers-telling-public-drop-opposition.html

Same in the US, Obama, Romney, Senators, none of them will touch it.

ThreeBlindMice

le sigh wrote: »

Same in the US, Obama, Romney, Senators, none of them will touch it.

Reminds of us of George Orwells Animal Farm.

Voodoo_rasher

Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma cancer. Says WHO's cancer research institute in Lyon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/roundup-weed-killer-can-probably-cause-cancer-warns-who-10124812.html

But the article from Swedish tv text below says gives more detail.

http://www.svt.se/svttext/web/pages/107.html

le sigh

le sigh wrote: »

Same in the US, Obama, Romney, Senators, none of them will touch it.

Source?

WhatNowForUs?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Source?

You've given him enough time anyway to find the source.