Two Genetically Modified crops face ban for damaging wildlife in EU

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1064967,00.html

<snip>
Two GM varieties, oil-seed rape and sugar beet, face a Europe-wide ban after long-awaited field-scale trials showed that the crops damaged wildlife, and would have a serious long-term effect on bee, butterfly and bird populations.

Three years of trials growing GM crops alongside conventional crops, the largest field study undertaken, has provided a legal basis for banning the two crops under European Union rules, which say that either health or environmental detriment must be proved.

The government is now faced with an embarrassing about-turn on its enthusiasm for GM technology. Loss of birdlife in the countryside has been put forward as a key "quality of life" indicator by the government and it is pledged to reverse the trend.
<snip>

Yipee Monsanto pulling out ahead of the news!!!! MUST READ :D

Trade war guys...and any handy ammo will do.

Even hokum.

thats been geneticly modified :shrug:

"Scientists from the independent panel set up to conduct the field trials were surprised that the results - revealed in the Guardian earlier this month - were so dramatic. In the case of conventional oil-seed rape, five times as many weed seeds survived, providing food for birds like skylarks, than in the GM field. The results were uniform across the country, giving Professor Chris Pollock, chairman of the scientific panel, confidence that the results would be the same across all of Europe."

bwhahahahahaha...too funny :crazy:

peace

are profit stealing, unpatriotic, traitorous scumbags who only want to kill the multinational corp. !!

(sigh)

Of course it's bad news that the crops do have negative effects on wildlife, and I hope we can get them banned here in the U.S., and everywhere else they are being grown, before irrevocable damage is done.

and they won't be banned anywhere.

They have in fact been growing for years...all around you.

The seeds reduce dramatically the number of weeds that grow along with the crops, andd increase the number of viable plants. So - shock of shocks - there are fewer weed seeds on the average farm.

What a setup - the GM program was extremely successful, and the conclusion is that there aren't enough weeds!!!!

Goes to prove that if you want to set up a test to fail, you can accomplish it easily by rigging the results.

...oh sorry, WEEDS and PESTS.

If you read up on current ecology, you'll find these wild organisms aren't faring very well at all in the USA, and the Euros just gave us an important clue that GE may be a part of their decline.

The research on the long-term viability of GE being done across the pond surpasses the level of independant research performed here in the US.

And now their science on Global Warming is also ahead of ours too.

it is hard to tell a starving man that he must go hungry so the birds don't.

The US is awash in surplus food. Even without
GMOs the world has plenty of food. It doesn't have
the will to get it into the hands of the people
who need it.

where people are starving and the gm strains will help feed them.

dont confuse the issues here, and dont try to blame world hunger on merely logistics.

if you want to whack away at the big, bad corporations go ahead, i am with you on that, but be clear about what the problem is, hunger.

human hunger.

Third world hunger and GMO foods are only
related in propaganda produced by the GMO
producers of the world.

Which you have studied, I see.

Third world hunger is a matter of logistics
and distribution.

I have no desire to "whack away" at
"big, bad corporations" but if you think
the key to hunger is getting marginal 10-20%
production increase at the expense of dependence
on a patended GMO seeds and matching weed killers.

You not I are confusing the issue.

maybe the poor sap botanists and genetic scientists who worked on the technology believed they were being noble and saving the world and did it for the right reasons.....but they were duped by the evil fuckers an Mansanto

it is BAD science...it will hasten the death of the planet period!

fyi

peace

#1 pollinator on the planet. Don't fuck with Bees! "We are 'The Killer Bees'!"

I grow only natural stuff..

Pulling Weeds is great exercise!

that is killing them......bullhockey!....4 years now not 1 bee on my upstate NY property...apple trees are not getting pollinated opps no apples :shrug: ....rasberry and blackberry crop none the past 2/3 yeasr...orchard growers are having to rent bees ...semis are trucking them all over the country for pollination purposes and it costs big $$$s...some fucking racket...must be a subsidsy of Mansanto>>>"bee haulers of america"

monarch butterflies??? i didn't see one this summer/fall...nor last year either even with 40 acres of MILKWEEDS(what monarch catapillars feed and crystalize on) right across the road .....there use to be hundreds of them on my property....something is killing them>>>>Monsanto corn and broccilli which has pesticide gene spliced into them..... they now contain pesticide in every cell ... the entire plant is poinious....can't wash that shit off any more... we eat it!!!....butterflies and bees that feed on them and DIE and guess what...so will we ....why do you think they are forcasting 50% of the population in america to have cancer by 2010? ...that means half your children will die from cancer....insidious <sigh>


FUCK Monsanto!!!!!

But I am ignorant and frightened. So let's burn down the observatory so that this can never happen again!

It started with him throwing weight around to get scientists with embarassing findings dropped from UN advisory bodies (you'll remember this if you have followed the politics around global warming).

Now we are due to get a helping of more politically-motivated science in the GE field.

If he has his way, he'll get rid of the observatories in Europe as well.

anytime anyone finds negative information
about the effects of GMOs on the planet a
bunch of people jump in to dismiss it as
bad science. Here and elsewhere.

It is funny and somewhat transparent.

Before jumping on me for pointing this out
why don't we LABEL all GMO food and let the
market decide if they are what is for dinner.

sheesh, you know NOTHING about marketing ;->

jk

peace

squinchy eyes. Cheekbiting.. Blood of ice.

I am sure the tongue is forked


Modifying george's genes may definitely have produced a monster

"Before jumping on me for pointing this out
why don't we LABEL all GMO food and let the
market decide if they are what is for dinner."

Because the evil Monsanto and their ilk doesn't want it!!

EVERYONE should read "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins...lots of good facts on GMO's - it's very scary what biotech is trying to force on us, and with our government's cooperation no less.

Buy all your seeds from these guys...


http://www.seedsofchange.com/

cept in the REAL WORLD where we can't just reboot or restore from a back up or buy a new one...

peace

This is what I've gotten out of this review, in a nutshell. Farmers hate weeds because they compete with their crops and reduce yields. Therefore, farmers have used herbicides for decades to reduce the weed populations in fields. Genetically engineered crops allow farmers to use more effective herbicides and kill more weeds than conventional crops sprayed with less efficient herbicides. The end result is that the farmers have fewer weeds and greater yields. An unintended consequence is that wildlife has less food due to fewer weed seeds on which to feed. Where exactly did the genetically engineered plants themselves directly cause harm to wildlife, though? The title and first paragraph of this article seem to imply, to me at least, that the plants themselves are somehow harmful on a molecular level, that they are toxic in some way to wildlife that may feed upon them. This has been one of the largest fears for people concerned about GM food. The article offered no statements or findings about potentially harmful nutritional changes in the crops, though. That is my concern about this statement, that it gives a false impression of GM crop potential to those who give it just a quick glance. I find the loss of valuable bird and insect species simply to kill a few more weeds horrible, but that doesn't invalidate the technology of GM crop production. It just means that biotech firms will have to find new ways to increase crop yields without relying so heavily on herbicide resistance genes, which is a good thing. If, in a few years, a new strain of GM oil rapeseed or sugar beet is introduced that uses a different approach to increase yields and allows sufficient weed populations to survive so that wildlife numbers remain high, this entire study would be nullified.

However , be prepared for someone to suggest you work for Monsanto.

Like most Americans I daily consume GM foods, and I feel fine thank you. If I seriously thought this harmed me I guarantee I would join the others on the barracades. But scare headlines, slanted news stories, hatred of corporations, and political hysteria won't convert me.

The EU fought GM for years to pacify the farm blocks and never could find any credible scientific evidence it was harmful. This won't do it either, the same effects could be had with pesticides on any crop strains.

Now, if the biotech companies can tell us how much cheaper British food will be if we allow the GM crop/herbicide combination, we'll have an idea if it's worth the wildlife damage (which you could offset by insisting some fields are left fallow, for instance). Have they ever told the US how much cheaper its food is due to the use of GM technology?

GM isn't about making foods cheaper. It's about making profits bigger.

Tied products -- a crop plus a pesticide -- is about profits as well. IBM used to make sure that its patented punch card machines only worked with a punch card they made. They got you on the machines and on the cards.

according to the following inflation calculator,

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

prices overall increased 27% over the past decade, outpacing food prices by 2%.

what a conundrum - should i be happy that gm foods are saving me 2 cents, or should i be appalled that i'd even consider being happy over saving 2 cents when the planet's being destroyed and evil runs rampant?

It ran three or four weeks ago.

That tomato has some balls.

beneficial to the environment - here's a fairly balanced article:

Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/rauch.htm

Allergies!! What if you are allergic to peanuts and you buy potatoes that have peanut genes? How would the consumer have any idea that peanut genes were in the potatoes? This is particularly important to me at this time, because I had a mild anaphylactic reaction last week to something I ate and I still haven't figured out what caused it. It can be life threatening.

those who think it is hogwash haven't. Once again you have people accepting things at face value and decrying those who are yelling foul because it is not of importance to them.

Reminds me of those accepting the propoganda lies about the following and not willing to hear the truth or search it out for themselves:

BBV
2000 elections
Iraq
Plaeme leak
Halliburton - KRB

Anyway, that list is too long for my brain to focus on atm. If you are interested then research it, if not that is fine. That is your right, but slamming someone because they care and have researched it isn't too kosher IMO.

I would be careful about which scientists you trust. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean their pockets aren't being lined by big money.

EDIT: spelling and the following addition

Food is different for everyone. For some it is just the garbage they insert to get along every day for others it is sacred. Sacredness of food is primarily found among indigenous and poor people. Those are the ones who truly understand its roots, its behavior, its importance and these people do NOT want GMOs.

and, sure, if those particular genes were introduced into your potatoes then there'd be a problem. but who's doing that? not even evil, evil monsanto!

oh oh - here's a newsflash just in - saddam and osama are somewhere in a cave right now introducing the gene for the major peanut allergen, the Ara h 2 protein (it's a trypsin inhibitor) into your potatoes. scary.

next, they're going to be putting the ricin gene into all your food. i believe monsanto HAS signed onto this particular project - yup, they've gotta be stopped NOW!! and thank god for all the alert folks on du, they will be!!

...we are supposed to shut up and die quietly and get out of the way of the profit-takers who are killing our bees and butterflies.

The elite ultimately does not want such a large population, as with our ever-increasing efficiency and productivity there is no way to employ us all, and the elite just can't stand to see a poor person idle yet in good health, decently fed and housed, with time on his hands to get involved with that troublesome thinking.



my paranoid theory anyway

www.foodfirst.org/wto/foodsovereignty.php

www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Chronicle.htm

Fewer weeds means less herbicides which is good in general. Fewer chemicals to get into the water table and for the people handling the crops. Now I am not sure how I feel about GM foods. If they have a negative impact on wildlife, that is not good. But those animals and "weeds" would be killed anyway, only with pesticides.

break a link :shrug:...and we can WASH off the pesticides before consumtion...not so with Monsanto splicing the poision into the every cell in the plant...yummy

And the GM genes make their way into the wild, damaging the health of wild plants and insects.

That way we can manage them more efficiently.