GMO

[seoto]

Kan humor blandet med informasjon være et godt våpen?

Se edderkoppens nett ved 06:38

[Spiren]

Behind the scenes: Undercover shareholder pushes for transparency at Monsanto.

­About a dozen protesters calling themselves Occupy Monsanto spent several hours near Monsanto's headquarters in Creve Coeur, Missouri as shareholders voted on members for the company's Board of Directors.

The protesters called for more transparency in the multinational company's operations especially in labeling, research and business practices.

Adam Eidinger who owns 75 Monsanto shares read his speech to the protesters before heading to the meeting to address shareholders with a statement on behalf of Pesticide Action Network, the company, which submitted the study on potential risks of using GMOs.

http://rt.com/news/monsanto-shareholders-meeting-protest-207/

[jarlgeir]

Mark Lynas (som i klimasammenheng ikke er helt ukjent) holdt nylig en tale ved Oxford Farming Conference, her er et lite sitat:

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you'll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

When I first heard about Monsanto's GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get – here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.

These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn't realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein's monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I'd assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I'd assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I'd assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I'd assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I'd assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it's called gene flow.

But at the same time the growth of yields worldwide has stagnated for many major food crops, as research published only last month by Jonathan Foley and others in the journalNature Communications showed. If we don't get yield growth back on track we are indeed going to have trouble keeping up with population growth and resulting demand, and prices will rise as well as more land being converted from nature to agriculture.

The biggest risk of all is that we do not take advantage of all sorts of opportunities for innovation because of what is in reality little more than blind prejudice.

I don't know about you, but I've had enough. So my conclusion here today is very clear: the GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe – over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. More to the point, people have died from choosing organic, but no-one has died from eating GM.

Just as I did 10 years ago, Greenpeace and the Soil Association claim to be guided by consensus science, as on climate change. Yet on GM there is a rock-solid scientific consensus, backed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, health institutes and national science academies around the world. Yet this inconvenient truth is ignored because it conflicts with their ideology.

I know it is politically incorrect to say all this, but we need a a major dose of both international myth-busting and de-regulation. The plant scientists I know hold their heads in their hands when I talk about this with them because governments and so many people have got their sense of risk so utterly wrong, and are foreclosing a vitally necessary technology.

So I challenge all of you today to question your beliefs in this area and to see whether they stand up to rational examination. Always ask for evidence, as the campaigning group Sense About Science advises, and make sure you go beyond the self-referential reports of campaigning NGOs.

But most important of all, farmers should be free to choose what kind of technologies they want to adopt. If you think the old ways are the best, that's fine. You have that right.

What you don't have the right to do is to stand in the way of others who hope and strive for ways of doing things differently, and hopefully better. Farmers who understand the pressures of a growing population and a warming world. Who understand that yields per hectare are the most important environmental metric. And who understand that technology never stops developing, and that even the fridge and the humble potato were new and scary once.

So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably.


Du finner hele talen her: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lectur ... uary-2013/

Noen kommentarer? 

[seoto]

Jeg har ikke tid til noe stort svar, venter gjester.

Mark Lynas, ja. Det var han som skrev Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet i 2007. I 2011 skrev han The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, der Wikipedia refererer: "Lynas argues that as Earth has entered the Anthropocene, and as such humanity is changing the planet's climate, its bio-geochemical cycles, the chemistry of the oceans and the colour of the sky, as well as reducing the number of species. Based on the planetary boundaries concept, he proposes several strategies that are controversial among the environmental community, such as using nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions and geoengineering to mitigate inevitable global warming; or genetic engineering (transgenics) to feed the world and reduce the environmental impact of agriculture."

Han la ut en link til siden sin på en eller annen blogg, WUWT, Chiefio e.l., så jeg så hans blogg for noen dager siden. Ellers kjenner jeg ingenting til Mark Lynas fra tidligere.

Mark Lynas er ikke den første som har falt for at GMO er den eneste måten man kan fôre verden på.

For tiden er Jørgen Randers mye omtalt, og han ønsker jo også å minske verdens befolkning. Har Randers og Lynas møtt hverandre?

De møttes i hvert fall i Oslo i 2008.

Lynas er nok ikke mitt forbilde, nei ...

[Spiren]

Er GMO så farlig, som de fleste tror.
Jeg ser ingen forskjell. 

[seoto]

US farmers may stop planting GMOs after poor yields
Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts. Farmers in the USA pay about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from using GMs.

Viral Gene in Genetically Modified Foods Might Promote Diseases
Whenever critics of genetically modified (GM) plants warn that GM crops are inserted with dangerous parts of a virus, biotech advocates rush in to correct their "misunderstanding." We don't have to worry, they tell us. Only a small portion of a plant virus is used in order to "turn on" the accompanying gene. Called the promoter, it's like an on-switch. They say it's completely harmless.
Researchers in Europe finally got around to looking more closely at the genetic sequence from that promoter, and... well... now we can worry.(Min uth.)

Roundup Harms Beneficial Gut Bacteria
A study by scientists at Leipzig University found that Roundup herbicide negatively impacted the gastrointestinal bacteria of poultry tested in vitro. The researchers found that highly pathogenic bacteria resisted Roundup, whereas beneficial bacteria were moderately to highly susceptible to it. The study provides a scientific basis to farmer reports of increased gastrointestinal disease in animals fed GM Roundup Ready soy, which is tolerant to Roundup.

An interesting video shows how Danish egg producer Claus Storgaard found drastic improvements in the health and egg production of his hens after changing from GM to non-GM soy feed. (Min uth.)

The GMO Seed Cartel
The introduction of GM crops has corresponded with increasing monopolization of seed by biotechnology companies and higher seed costs that have led to tragedies in some countries, while pushing out conventional, non-GM seeds, and reducing farmer seed choices. These impacts are being seen in the United States, Brazil, India, the Philippines, and South Africa, and even Europe, says Ken Roseboro in an article, "The GMO seed cartel".

Sannelig ser det ut for at de mektige grupper sliter både med "mat" og klima nå om dagen! Kan det være nok til å sette på bremsen også når det gjelder privatisering av vann? Til syvende og sist er vi vel på vei til å se flere fiaskoer enn suksesser gjennom de siste tiårene. Trenger vi egentlig at storkapitalismen fortsetter å løpe løpsk, fordi bittet forlengst er røket tvers av?

[seoto]

Sannelig har Monsanto sitt å stri med når det gjelder rettssaker for tiden.

As Challenge over Seed Rights Approaches Supreme Court, New Report Exposes Devastating Impact of Monsanto Practices on U.S. Farmers
. . .
Among the report's discoveries are several alarming statistics:

• As of January 2013, Monsanto, alleging seed patent infringement, had filed 144 lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 different states.
• Today, three corporations control 53 percent of the global commercial seed market.
• Seed consolidation has led to market control resulting in dramatic increases in the price of seeds. From 1995-2011, the average cost to plant one acre of soybeans has risen 325 percent; for cotton prices spiked 516 percent and corn seed prices are up by 259 percent.

[Amateur2]

Det grunnleggende problemet her er det samme som i legemiddelindustrien:

a) Samfunnets manglende vilje til å satse på forskning som kommer alle til gode i form av åpne resultater
b) Adgangen til å patentere blant annet genmateriale. Hvis noe skulle være patenterbart så er det teknologien man benytter, ikke resultatet.

På grunn av at betalingsviljen for medisiner, behandling og godt såkorn i utgangspunktet er ganske høy så er det mulig for smarte og risikovillige investorer å skape akkurat den markedsdominansen man her ser.

[seoto]

Dette er jeg helt enig med deg i, Amateur2. Det vi ser er monsterselskaper som har overtatt makt og ødelagt alle gode intensjoner med det kapitalistiske systemet. Mens dette skjedde, gikk folk rundt i en illusjon om at det var våre myndigheter som skulle beskytte oss mot at noe slikt skjedde. Det vi ser i dag, er at myndighetene styres av disse selskapene, spesielt i USA. Vi har fått en monsterkapitalisme som ingen ser ut for å ha visst hvordan de skulle kunne kontrollere eller stoppe. I dag er vi til og med blitt indoktrinerte til å mene at det meste er ok så lenge noen tjener penger på det, uten å forstå at vi selv blir utnyttet. Og det gjelder langtfra bare Monsanto. Hvor mye penger har f.eks. Haliburton kanalisert oppover i sitt system gjennom krigs"tjenester"? Hvor mye var det som "forsvant" i Irak? Og GE, og alle de andre? Det er snart så CocaCola blir reine speiderklubben (bortsett fra makt gjennom bl.a. "funding").

Det er ekstremt viktig at nok midler blir gitt til fri og uavhengig forskning, men da må folk (og regjeringer) få tilbake kontrollen over pengene.

[Spiren]

Monsanto takes home $23mln from small farmers, seeks to maintain 'seed oligarchy'

It's been dubbed a 'David and Goliath' trial by many, as multi-billion-dollar Monsanto goes head to head against 75-year-old Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, who said that fighting for justice is his main concern.
When Monsanto originally sued Bowman, he was already bankrupt as a result of land deal gone wrong, so he had very little to lose. "I made up my mind to fight it until I could not fight it anymore," he said. "I thought, I am not going to play dead."

The Supreme Court trial is scheduled for February 19.

http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-seeds-trial-bowman-123/

[Spiren]

Supreme Court sympathizes with Monsanto in seed patent case.

The United States Supreme Court justices head arguments on Tuesday involving the case of a 75-year-old soybean farmer who is being sued for patent infringement by biotech giant Monsanto.

http://rt.com/usa/supreme-court-monsanto-patent-615/

[Rosario]

US farmers may stop planting GMOs after poor yields
Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts. Farmers in the USA pay about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from using GMs.

Bøndene liker ikke GMO når de ikke tjener penger. Hvis de tjente mere penger på GMO ville de like det 
Som om det er det som er saken

[seoto]

Hei, Rosario - og velkommen til forumet!

Bønder er jo avhengige av å tjene penger, slik vi alle er. Presset fra Monsanto har vært gigantisk, og løftene fagrere enn huldra. Det de oppdager nå, er at løftene var falske. Det største problemet nå, er at de som ønsker å gå over til tradisjonell dyrking, ikke får kjøpt såkorn, siden det meste av det som dyrkes er etter avtale med Monsanto, og dermed er det nesten ingen som sitter på kornlagre. Så man kan vel si at de sitter i den fagre huldras kraftige favntak nå (hun viste seg å være en utkledd mann ), uten å komme seg løs.

Bønder er vel neppe verre pengepugere enn vår øvrige befolkning. Mange av dem ønsker å gjøre sitt beste. I lokalavisen fra mandag var det en artikkel om Vannsjø i Østfold (dessverre har jeg ikke tilgang til avisen nå, siden jeg ikke er hjemme, og de har ikke noe i sin elektroniske utgave). Der kom det tydelig fram fra den kvinnelige forskeren som hadde holdt på med de gamle vannproblemene over tid, at hun var svært fornøyd med alt samarbeidet nettopp fra bøndene i nedfallsområdet. Grunnen til noe av problemene er Hobølelva som renner ut i Vannsjø og fører med seg mye avfall fra landbruket. Vannsjø er drikkevannskilde for Mosseområdet, og har vært så ille at folk har vært frarådet å bade i vannet! Dersom myndighetene bare kan vise fornuftige og vettuge løsninger, så tror jeg folk er villige til å strekke seg langt - også bøndene Det er vel ikke for ingenting vi har det gamle uttrykket "sunt bondevett". Tradisjonelt har de vært flinkere til å tenke langsiktig enn hva de fleste politikere ser ut for å evne.

[Rosario]

Takk til begge to

Vi blir syk av maten, det begynner å bli opplagt. Norsk mat kan redde oss, men da må bøndene begynne å skjønne saker. Her utvider og utvider REMA (minst 3 av dem fra før), og de få bøndene vi hadde har lagt inn årene .. eller nesten. Ordentlig mat koster mere, man når gift er alternativet tror jeg ikke folk frivillig spiser gift istedenfor ... men de lever i illusjoner. Bøndenes verste fiende er dem selv, de kunne ha tatt til motmæle og fått nye kunder hver dag, spesielt på økologisk råmelk utfra hva som etterspørres i USA.

- Vi kutter prisene

REMA kunne ha vært slaktet, 90%? er søppel.

GMO og helse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esk7k5KkhXE
(har ikke kommet så langt at jeg kjenner alt han sier)

Samme mann (ikke GMO, men noe verre, barn med hjerneslag) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTzbbk-AFSM (1:17:10 -)

[seoto]

Dyrking av sunn mat med et minimalt bruk av kjemikaler er også et politisk ansvar. Foreløpig er det dyrere å produsere naturvennlig. Det er også vanskelig å få de tradisjonelle kjedene til å ta inn produktene. Tine har f.eks. trenert økologisk melk, og tømmer den inn blant den øvrige melken. Det kan være vanskelig å finne økologiske produkter av noe slag. Foreløpig er det vel COOP som har det "beste" utvalget. Jeg antar at dersom politikerne hadde ønsket at vi skulle få kjøpe f.eks. økologiske produkter, ville de ha presset litt hardere på de etablerte kjedene. Her har REMA1000 langt igjen på frivillig å gå foran med et godt eksempel. Folk vil gjerne kjøpe god mat, og jeg ser at gårdssalg med lokaldyrkede og gjerne økologisk dyrkede produkter ser ut for å bli populære, men det er så sørgelig få av dem. Det er ingen innen rimelig avstand der jeg bor i Østfold.

Danskene har vært opptatt av at GMO-fôr fører til fertilitetsproblemer på avlsdyr. Vanligvis har problemene gått over når de bytter fôr til tradisjonelt dyrkede korn/mais/soya.

Når det gjelder å følge med på hva som skjer, har jeg lagt meg inn på nyhetslisten til Responsible Technology. Det er tross alt i de amerikanske landene det meste av GMO-dyrking foregår.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/blog/

De har også en svært god og prisbelønnet video, men dessverre koster det nå penger å se den, eller man kan kjøpe en CD.