PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

GM foods story in papers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4002

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

featherstick wrote:

This is phuckwittery of the highest order. Either he's willing to lie through his teeth, or he knows nothing.

Share that letter, woodburner?


He's not lying he just hasn't read this

You've already got the basis of a letter. It will take less than an hour to compose the rest of it as emordnilap gave the steps required. I know it seems like your time is being stolen in having to write letters like this, but this one is so important I'm sure you can see it's worth the investment. It's very important that all the letters look like individual compositions to have the best effect. So get a few reasons ready and trot off a letter this evening, the more MPs get letters the more it will worry the blinkered ministers. (I can dream can't I? Embarassed)

See the work being done http://earthopensource.org/index.php/media-menu
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4002

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everything in the GM garden is rosy.

Quote:
Mr Paterson will stress how the farmer benefits, the consumer benefits, the environment benefits from GM crops.
In his speech, Mr Paterson will link increased use of GM crops with freeing up more land for nature reserves. This is because GM crops have a better yield and so means that a smaller area of land would need to be planted.
He will say: It has the potential to reduce fertiliser and chemical use, improve the efficiency of agricultural production and reduce post-harvest losses. If we use cultivated land more efficiently, we could free up space for biodiversity, nature and wilderness.


Ok, you're right, lies.
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hodson2k9



Joined: 21 Dec 2011
Posts: 546
Location: telford west midlands

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:

You've already got the basis of a letter. It will take less than an hour to compose the rest of it as emordnilap gave the steps required. I know it seems like your time is being stolen in having to write letters like this, but this one is so important I'm sure you can see it's worth the investment.


What Wood said.
_________________
"Unfortunately, the Fed can't print oil"
---Ben Bernake (2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11195
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Letter sent to my MP

Quote:
I note that Owen Paterson thinks that GM crops are safe and should be grown in the UK and that they will result in increased yields and less use of herbicides.

Why will that be so in the UK when US farmers are now having to use increased amounts of Roundup on their "Roundup Ready" crops as the weeds develop resistance to that much overused chemical. The only increase in yields shown has been in the profit margins of Monsanto and other chemical companies. There are numerous health hazards starting to emerge from independent scientific research, some of which I have already sent to you, relating the use of Roundup and GM crops in general.

In India, where there is extensive use of GM technology, the only increasing yield, apart form Monsanto profits, is in the number of farmers committing suicide as they cannot afford to stay on the treadmill of GM crop use but are unable to get off again. Do we want that in the UK? Does Mr Paterson want to be the man who encouraged the UK farmers into such a position?

I hope that the increasing transparency on lobbying will let us see what the GM companies are doing in this regard to effect such a change in policy on the part of our Environment Minister and his civil servants when recent research is picking up health and environmental problems related to their use. I would think that increased research into conventional plant breeding and companion planting would show better returns and a safer environment. Research into companion planting and its rolling out in East Africa has shown huge results in crop protection and subsequent yield increases.


If we all write to our MPs about this sort of stuff and send them the research we stand a better chance of resisting the advance of Monsanto and its ilk. If we sit on our arses and witter on about it on little read forums such as Powerswitch we are as guilty as the people who are perpetrating the deed. It doesn't take long to whip an email off to your MP and he/she will pass it on to government. Government is then bound to reply to the MPs query so your opinion gets through in the end: unlike wittering on the web!
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4002

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's my offering:

Quote:
I disagree with Owen Paterson that GM Crops are safe, and evidence
shows that he is wrong to push GM. Research outlined in
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408 -
Conclusion) shows non-GM farming in the EU is more efficient and
resilient than GM farming in the US.

From the Conclusion section of the above link:

"Reviewing the parameters of yield, pesticide use, germplasm diversity
and human resources of the US staple crop agroecosystem demonstrates
that lessons provided by past technology-derived disasters, such as the
southern corn leaf blight epidemic (National Research Council,
Committee on Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops 1972), still have to
be learned. The US (and Canadian) yields are falling behind
economically and technologically equivalent agroecosystems matched for
latitude, season and crop type; pesticide (both herbicide and
insecticide) use is higher in the United States than in comparator W.
European countries; the industries of all types that are supplying
inputs to the farmer are becoming more concentrated and monopolistic
(Fuglie et al. 2012) and these tendencies correlate with stagnation or
declines in germplasm diversity (Welsh and Glenna 2006, Howard 2009,
Domina and Taylor 2010). Farm number is decreasing and scale is
increasing, concentrating and narrowing the farming skills. Annual
variations in yield, which not only indicate low resilience of the
agroecosytem but also can fuel dramatic price changes in agricultural
markets, are more severe in the United States than in W. Europe.

The choice of GM-biotechnology packages in the US agroecosystem has
been the stark contrast with W. European patterns of biotechnology use.
Notwithstanding claims to the contrary (e.g. Derbyshire 2011), there is
no evidence that GM biotechnology is superior to other biotechnologies
(all technological applications that use biological systems, living
organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or
processes for a specific use, IAASTD 2009) in its potential to supply
calories (Heinemann2009, IAASTD 2009, Jacobsen et al. 2013)."

I am concerned about the use of GM animal feed. (Now permitted by all
the major UK supermarkets) This is mainly Roundup Ready soy, which is
damaging monarch butterfly populations in the US and causing human and
environmental devastation in Latin America. I would prefer that GM
products were not made available, but I want at least meat, eggs, and
dairy to be labelled to show whether it has been fed on GM or not so
that I can have the choice of avoiding it.

Mr. Paterson needs to be availed of the content of "GMO Myths and
Truths"
(http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf)

a lengthy document, but essential understanding of evidence based
research into GM crops. Thorough understanding is needed before making
a courageous decision to approve GM crops. It is vital the implications
of GM crop production on the wider ecosystem are understood. As with
many "improvements" there are almost always disadvantages, and in this
case the disadvantages strongly outweigh the advantages.


Kenneal's is better IMO, but they are definitely not clones. Whatever you do, DO NOT just copy and append your name, these get collated and it will be seen for the lazy approach it is, then ignored, and you will be eating GM before you know it.
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4002

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Government chief scientist advising on GM biased?

Quote:
Mark Walport was working for GSK which has an interest in GMO's and disease. If the governbent want's to be taken seriously they should employ scientists that are independent and knowlegable. Such scientists would reccommend the banning of imports of GM animal feeds since there is evidence of animals getting ill and people who consume meat and dairy are also being harmed by deficiencies in minerals due to the glyphosate contamination.




More.......
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14526
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well done woodburner and Ken.

At a presentation on GMOs, the speaker likened the issue to climate change - the potential scale of both is incomprehensible to the ordinary joe. One issue, even in the absence of the other, is life-threatening: not just human life.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4002

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't like everything Michael Meacher does, but well done for this

Quote:
Why GM when there are known risks but no proven benefits?
June 23rd, 2013

Owen Paterson, the right-wing Tory hawk at Defra, has just delivered another forlorn call to the EU to surrender its principles and embrace genetically modified foods. Why is he so opposed to the deeply entrenched view among the public in every EU country that they dont want commercial interests messing about with their food unless there are clear, proven and overriding benefits in doing so? Paterson said nothing new, but merely repeated 4 claims that have been made repeatedly before, namely that (i) GM will increase yields, (ii) will lower the use of pesticides and other chemicals, (iii) is a more efficient technology to reduce the impact of weather and disease, and (iv) is needed to feed the world as global population rises. All of these claims are demonstrably false.

On yields and pesticide use, there is indeed evidence from Canada and Argentina that, initially, yields increased and pesticide use fell. But Charles Benbrook, an independent US scientist who formerly worked for the US Department of Agriculture and has done the most thorough and lengthy investigation into this issue, found that over a 5+ year long period yields began to fall because glyphosate applications (the powerful chemical used in GM Round-up Ready systems) interfered with plant nutrient intake, increased pests and diseases, and reduced vigour and yield. He also found that pesticide use increased markedly longer-term because glyphosate-resistant weeds (known as super-weeds) abounded, requiring ever more toxic herbicides to eliminate them.

Nor is GM a more efficient technology than traditional cross-breeding in inducing new expressions in plants, e.g. to resist disease. It is in fact a qualitatively different and risky technology which can cross the species barrier, which naure itself would never do. Blasting GM DNA into a plant arbitrarily and out of a sequence of genes evolved over hundreds of millions of years to optimise the functioning of the organism is risky and unpredictable and bound to destabilise the biochemistry of the plant. There are alternative technologies, notably marker assisted selection, which are equally or better able to protect the plant against weather impacts or disease, but without any of the systemic risks to the functioning of the plant.

Nor is GMs capacity to counter world hunger anything more than marginal to the point of invisibility when the real causes of famine or under-nourishment in developing countries are to be sought elsewhere. The real problems are rather a discriminatory trading system that subordinates poorer countries, bad or corrupt governments that mismanage their economies, gross maldistribution of land, and lack of population management policies.

If then there are no particular benefits from GM, but clear risks environmental (no tests done on soil pollution or transgene flow), health (no systematic testing done at all), and farming (cross-contamination) where does all the pressure for GM come from? Answer Monsanto, the US company, and one of the biggest chemical companies in the world. It sees its chance to corner the worlds food supply and potentially rack up the biggest profits bonanza the world has ever seen. Enough said.


See, I knew I'd disagree, nowhere near enough said.
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14526
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, in the US they're going to double the amount of glyphosate residue allowed in food.

Plus, there's this.

Quote:
the total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops corn, cotton and soybeans increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012. Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmers fields as there were in 2001.

_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18541
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just as the evidence for the harmful effects of Roundup on humans is mounting. Rolling Eyes
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4002

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is soya milk in the UK produced from GM or non-GM crops?
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't worry, things can only get worse Crying or Very sad.
http://ecowatch.com/2013/obama-trade-agreements-threaten-food-safety-promote-gmos/
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12654
Location: York

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that since Soya Milk is aimed at the health-conscious punter, the makers do their best to keep away from GM soya. I also believe that they don't always succeed... Were it not for that, I would have gone over to Soya milk years ago.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14526
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
Is soya milk in the UK produced from GM or non-GM crops?


Depends upon the brand; GM ingredients in Europe are supposed be labelled as such above 0.9%. It may be difficult to spot. An animal feed manufacturer here in Ireland uses GM ingredients extensively but the text saying so on the bags is tiny and usually in the bottom corner at the back.

Some organic brands (Plamil, f'r instance) use European-grown soya beans (non-GM, of course). Cheaper organic brands would use Chinese- or US-grown beans, where organic standards are more lax.

Organic everything should be the norm. Why would you eat something that is not food?
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Why would you eat something that is not food?

Because it's good for the economy Sad.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 9 of 24

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group