Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do G.M.O.ís Need Protection?
New York Times ^ | April 2, 2013 | Mark Bittman

Posted on 04/10/2013 7:20:15 PM PDT by opentalk

Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it. Excluding, of course, those who’ve made money from it, appropriately represented in the public’s mind by Monsanto.

That corporation, or at least its friends, recently managed to have an outrageous rider slipped into the 587-page funding bill Congress sent to President Obama.[1]

The rider essentially prohibits the Department of Agriculture from stopping production of any genetically engineered crop once it’s in the ground, even if there is evidence that it is harmful.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: anticapitalism; bees; billgates; bribes; bttoxins; bullytactics; bypasscourts; californialefties; cancer; congress; congressboughtoff; conspiracynuts; corruption; environmentalwackos; friendsofearth; gmo; greenpeace; greens; infertility; killsbees; lacktransparency; leftistdrivel; luddites; monsanto; newyorktimes; organic; roundup; sierraclub
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 04/10/2013 7:20:15 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Could this have anything to do with the widespread death of the bees?


2 posted on 04/10/2013 7:23:00 PM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
The rider essentially prohibits the Department of Agriculture from stopping production of any genetically engineered crop once it’s in the ground, even if there is evidence that it is harmful.

Given the lock-in they've had w/ the copyright laws, they could release a GMO for a plant that's high susceptibility to some [rather uncommon] disease* on a dominant gene and let it in the wild to dominate whatever plant, then release the disease and bam -- step in with your crops that aren't susceptible.

* could also be artificial, or a two-part trigger.

3 posted on 04/10/2013 7:32:00 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Except for saving millions from starvation GMOs really benefit no one.


4 posted on 04/10/2013 7:33:38 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
From article

and net yields from applied genetic engineering in the United States are only a bit higher (and then only in monocrop systems) than net yields from seeds developed using more conventional techniques.

All of this explains why producers of genetically engineered seeds feel they need protection.

5 posted on 04/10/2013 7:37:28 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sioux-san

Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035688_Monsanto_honey_bees_colony_collapse.html#ixzz2Q7Pv6Tg7


6 posted on 04/10/2013 7:39:00 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Bittman is probably my $avorite $ood writer, the most use$ul
and user-$riendly to people who cook as much as I do, and I had no idea he was as conversant with this area o$ $ood and its production as this involved article suggests.
Also, he seems to be right on in his evaluations.


7 posted on 04/10/2013 7:39:07 PM PDT by supremedoctrine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Whistleblower: Monsanto Wants to Kill The Bees To Make Way For Its Super-Bee

Soon to be whistleblower who worked for Monsanto will be releasing documents detailing how Monsanto planned to kill off bee colonies in order to introduce a “new and improved” species of bee that will only pollinate Monsanto crops

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/01/26/whistleblower-monsanto-wants-to-kill-the-bees-to-make-way-for-its-super-bee/


8 posted on 04/10/2013 7:41:26 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Except for saving millions from starvation GMOs really benefit no one.

Evidence?

9 posted on 04/10/2013 7:42:49 PM PDT by EricT. (The Republican Party is a friend to conservatives the way Pakistan is an ally in the War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
It is amazing how stupid farmers are around the world, they keep buying all these poor performing GM seeds...farmers must be the dumbest people in the world. It is ready hard to understand how the use keeps expanding each year, especially in the developing countries where the farmers have less resources.....the farmers are just losing all their money paying for these GM seeds. They should just produce organic crops and they will all become wealthy.
10 posted on 04/10/2013 8:05:11 PM PDT by Aussiebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

GMO’s have been remarkably unsuccessful. The alleged “Science” has all been controlled by Monsanto, Bayer etc.
Bill and Melinda Gates think it’s ducky and shove money at this alleged technology like they do at birth control, vaccines, mosquito screens for bed ridden Africans, condoms for monkeys (that one is a joke) etc.
GMO Corn is refused by farm animals, GMO cotton is likely subject to bedbugs ( unprovable ...so far) GMO beets are filled with glyphosates, bees and monarch butterflies are dying and GMO’s are good for whom?

Ever heard of human gut bacteria? What do you think runs your health?

Yes, I am a Luddite...okay?!


11 posted on 04/10/2013 8:12:50 PM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

If you read it in the NYT it must be so.


12 posted on 04/10/2013 11:35:22 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Thanks - will read the link when I get home tonight. With the Federal Govt. holding this company harmless, Monsanto Tools are free to taint and reduce the food supply around the country & world — food prices will skyrocket accordingly (ol’ supply and demand that we are already seeing).... The End Game is reduced population brought about by provoked Revolution and mass starvation. Not a 100% foolproof plan, but enough to cause some real CHAOS on the planet.


13 posted on 04/11/2013 10:36:05 AM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Yeah, or it could betray that this writer for the New York Times is wholly incompetent to discuss farming.

The advantage of GMO corn or soybeans isn't so much that they yield that much more than a more traditional variety (in an optimal year the yields wouldn't be all that different; in a year of drought or other stress the yields can be substantially greater), but that the inputs necessary to raise a good crop are dramatically reduced.

14 posted on 04/11/2013 11:38:44 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EricT.

This is truly sad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/business/energy-environment/14borlaug.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


15 posted on 04/11/2013 8:27:58 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Do not confuse natural plant breeding with splicing genes from dissimilar organisms (such as fish) into the plant’s DNA (hence the moniker Genetically Modified Organism).

I am very grateful for Mr. Borlaug’s work in natural plant husbandry. He should be applauded and honored.

What he did is not hacking together frankenplants like Monsanto and others are doing.


16 posted on 04/12/2013 5:42:17 AM PDT by EricT.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EricT.

I really think the anti-GMO movement is one of the most dangerous movements in the world. Genetically modifying organisms such as plant life offers a technological solutions to serious problems such as human hunger. Modifying plants so they can grow in environmentally difficult regions can save human lives and we know this empirically and scientifically. Here is an excerpt from the link noted above describing Bourlag’s work:

“By the late 1940s, researchers knew they could induce huge yield gains in wheat by feeding the plants chemical fertilizer that supplied them with extra nitrogen, a shortage of which was the biggest constraint on plant growth. But the strategy had a severe limitation: beyond a certain level of fertilizer, the seed heads containing wheat grains would grow so large and heavy, the plant would fall over, ruining the crop.

In 1953, Dr. Borlaug began working with a wheat strain containing an unusual gene. It had the effect of shrinking the wheat plant, creating a stubby, compact variety. Yet crucially, the seed heads did not shrink, meaning a small plant could still produce a large amount of wheat.

Dr. Borlaug and his team transferred the gene into tropical wheats. When high fertilizer levels were applied to these new “semidwarf” plants, the results were nothing short of astonishing.”

The idea that Monsanto is some mega agent of hate and killing is plainly ridiculous and it makes me sad to see FR trafficking this nonsense. If the worst things alleged were true (higher cancer rates), it could never justify depriving the world of alternatives that can overcome the cultivation problems that exist around the world.

I really wish the anti GMO crowd would stop with this maddening demagoguery. I think it is more fair to accus the anti-GMO crowd of wanting people to starve to death than to accuse Monsanto of wanting people to have cancer and die.

That is my honest view reading both sides of this debate. You are certainly free to buy organic food and grow your own crops if you personally believe this dangerous nonsense but it makes me sad that people have to die for your insistence that GMOs be banned from the free market.


17 posted on 04/12/2013 11:23:15 AM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

What was average human life expectancy in the United States in 1912?


18 posted on 04/12/2013 11:27:07 AM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Regarding the above post... 1940’s that would be when they started messing with wheat... diabetes. ALS, MS, SIDS, Polio....ML/CFS, autism do you want me to stop mentioning proliferating diseases. 1912 was nothing compared to Woodrow Wilson’s 1919.
Progressive much?


19 posted on 04/12/2013 6:21:50 PM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

So life expectancy began to decline with the advent of GMOs.

More importantly its better to die of starvation than cancer later in life.


20 posted on 04/12/2013 6:56:39 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson