Hoe evil is Monsanto eigenlijk? #10

Omdat Monsatan, zoals ik hierboven meerdere keren uiteen gezet heb, indirect op minimaal 2 manieren betrokken is bij het ontstaan van de geboorteafwijkingen zoals microcephalie.

quote:

Op maandag 15 februari 2016 18:06 schreef NightFlight het volgende:
Omdat Monsatan, zoals ik hierboven meerdere keren uiteen gezet heb, indirect op minimaal 2 manieren betrokken is bij het ontstaan van de geboorteafwijkingen zoals microcephalie.

En beide verbanden slaan werkelijk helemaal nergens op. Monsanto is helemaal niet verantwoordelijk voor wat er met dat larvicide gebeurt, dat valt volkomen buiten hun bedrijf. En de GM industrie zorgt ervoor dat de regenwouden gekapt worden? Denk je niet dat het andersom is - de boeren daar kappen het regenwoud, en planten dan gewassen, (GM of niet GM, wat het beste voor ze werkt).

Let's agree to disagree ☺

[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door NightFlight op 15-02-2016 21:12:49 ]

Maar die boeren zijn een kleine schakel..die worden gebrainwashed

Dit vind ik nou slecht. Protesten over een test met GMO bananen die b-caroteen aanmaken. Bedoeld om vitamine A tekort in Oost-Afrika tegen te gaan, maar een stelletje ongeinformeerde, goed gevoede idioten uit het Westen denkt het beter te weten.

Ongelooflijk.

http://kfolta.blogspot.co(...)bananas-in-iowa.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 18:23 schreef Broomer het volgende:
Dit vind ik nou slecht. Protesten over een test met GMO bananen die b-caroteen aanmaken. Bedoeld om vitamine A tekort in Oost-Afrika tegen te gaan, maar een stelletje ongeinformeerde, goed gevoede idioten uit het Westen denkt het beter te weten.

Ongelooflijk.

http://kfolta.blogspot.co(...)bananas-in-iowa.html

Prima protest van goed geinformeerde studenten! Niks mis mee!

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 18:23 schreef Broomer het volgende:
Dit vind ik nou slecht. Protesten over een test met GMO bananen die b-caroteen aanmaken. Bedoeld om vitamine A tekort in Oost-Afrika tegen te gaan, maar een stelletje ongeinformeerde, goed gevoede idioten uit het Westen denkt het beter te weten.

Ongelooflijk.

http://kfolta.blogspot.co(...)bananas-in-iowa.html

Dit soort gemodificeerd voedsel vind ik zeker een verrijking als ik eerlijk ben, net als die Golden Rice. Als genetische modificatie enkel gebruikt wordt voor dit soort zaken zal je van mij nooit meer een piepje horen .

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 19:26 schreef Japie77 het volgende:

[..]

Prima protest van goed geinformeerde studenten! Niks mis mee!

Jij gunt een paar Afrikanen niet een banaan die voorkomt dat kinderen blind worden?

Laat me raden: blank, cis, man, West-Europeaan, hetero, middenklasse? Zeg maar alle privileges waarmee je geboren kan zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 20:37 schreef Dance99Vv het volgende:

[..]

Nee ik heb mijn bedenkingen, ik eet liever worteltjes om die b-carot-een binnen te krijgen dan dat ik bananen ga modificeren , bananenplantages kunnen ook zo vernietigd zijn door een bepaalde schimmel.
Het begint op god spelen te lijken, het begint bij groente , fruit en andere gewassen....

Je bedoeld die genetisch gemodificeerde dikke sappige oranje wortels, die nauwelijks nog iets te maken hebben met de oerversie van die plant? En die geen deel uitmaken van het eetpatroon in het bewuste deel van het Afrikaanse continent?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 20:45 schreef Dance99Vv het volgende:

[..]

He he, we zijn hier hollanders met een goede reputatie op het gebied van landbouw veeteeld en tuinbouw, de beste universiteiten op dat gebied en know-how.
waarom geen worteltjes daar kweken? alles in eenzijdig voedsel stoppen is niet de manier.
Had van jouw wel een beter , scherper antwoord verwacht, dan op de man spelen

We krijgen het hier in Nederland al niet eens voor elkaar om rijke, goed onderwezen westerlingen gezond en gevarieerd te laten eten. Terwijl we hier binnen een kilometer van huis zo'n beetje alle voedingsmiddelen kunnen krijgen die je maar kan bedenken. Desnoods komt het voorgesneden en geportioneerd voor vooraf samengestelde maaltijden aan huis gebracht.

Mijn uithaal op privileges, ja dat is op de man, deed ik omdat het in het artikel van Broomer ook op die manier wordt aangehaald: rijke westerling met privileges ontzegt arme Oegandees een banaan die voorkomt dat hij blind wordt. Omdat: "ieuw bang eng!"

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 20:48 schreef Dance99Vv het volgende:

[..]

Kom op he er komt heel wat uit afrika hierheen, wijn druiven ander fruit enz. zo bekrompen is het daar niet meer hoor.
Boerenkool komt ook uit een land waar je het niet uit zou verwachten, Spanje!

Er komt een heleboel van overal vandaan. Het is niet dat Afrika geen diversiteit en landbouw kent. Dat continent is groter dan Europa, de VS, China en India bij elkaar. Er is niet één Afrikaanse keuken of één Afrikaanse landbouwcultuur.

Het probleem zit hem in dit:
"...the bananas consumed as daily food in Uganda and other parts of Africa. There they might represent 70% of the dietary calories."

Volgens de VN leeft bijna 38% van de Oegandese bevolking onder de armoedegrens. Banaan is er een basisvoedsel voor velen. 70% van je calorische inname, ik denk dat zelfs ik niet zo'n aandeel aan koolhydraten in mijn dieet heb (en ik eet heel veel carbs). Al zou je ter plekke wortels gaan verbouwen, als er wortels zijn die het lokale klimaat verdragen. Dan moeten ze ook nog betaalbaar zijn, aangezien vitamine A deficiëntie een probleem is zal het om de allerarmsten gaan.

Als er al een wortelras is (of genetisch gemodificeerd kan worden) dat aan alle eisen voldoet. Dan moet je ook nog van een behoorlijk groot volk het eetpatroon en eetcultuur compleet omgooien. Het is niet voor niet dat er voor Aziatische landen zo hoog wordt ingezet op Golden Rice. Dat is de weg van de minste weerstand kiezen: de landbouw- en eetcultuur in die landen is gebaseerd op rijst. De boeren laten overstappen op een ander rijstras is makkelijker dan ze laten overstappen op worteltjes.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 20:37 schreef Dance99Vv het volgende:

[..]

Nee ik heb mijn bedenkingen, ik eet liever worteltjes om die b-carot-een binnen te krijgen dan dat ik bananen ga modificeren , bananenplantages kunnen ook zo vernietigd zijn door een bepaalde schimmel.
Het begint op god spelen te lijken, het begint bij groente , fruit en andere gewassen ( waarbij de veiligheid en het onderzoek naar de veiligheid te wensen overlaat)en eindigd bij de mens, waar men al genetische manipulaties op dna niveau uit kan voeren.
De supermens is de ultieme uitdaging. ( doet me weer denken aan een persoon uit het verleden die de superieure blanke mens ,ariër , wou kweken.
Onderbouwingen op aanvraag ( zijn er, maar moet dan even aan mijn vriendje google vragen voor de adresjes )

De technologie komt er toch wel. Dat valt niet tegen te houden. Als er een verbod komt gaat het in het geniep verder of zo. Dus als het gestuurd wordt als een voedingsadditief, makkelijker te verbouwen en meer voedingsstoffen in gebieden waar anders niets groeit dan ben ik fan en het gaat in de toekomst alleen maar meer nodig worden met de groeiende populatie en grotere droogte. Dit of populatie vermindering wat niet bepaald vrijwillig zal zijn. En voor gezonde stukken land gewoon biologisch/traditioneel.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 21:44 schreef Dance99Vv het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat de problemen veel groter zijn dan een banaan, (met of zonder b-caroteen) in afrika en i.h.b. oeganda.
Oorlogen, stammenstrijd, en religieus geweld, de outcasting van blanken boeren.cultuur enz
Persoonlijk denk ik dat er heel veel kan en mogelijk is maar dat omvat meer dan een gm bananen kwekerij. Hoe je het ook went of keert voor een product zal betaald moeten worden.

Maar goed we dwalen wat af van de beweegredenen waarom wel of geen gm bananen.
Maar om dan maar afrikanen als proefobject te gaan gebruiken vind ik dus bedenkelijk.
Nogmaals ik ben niet tegen maar vindt wel dat het veilig voedsel moet zijn.(goed getest en geen kankerverwekker moet zijn|))

Het artikel dat Broomer deelt gaat juist over het testen van die GM banaan. Testen of de bètacaroteen ook echt beschikbaar is voor het lichaam om op te nemen. En ik hoop ook dat ze andere dingen even checken. Die testen worden niet uitgevoerd op arme Afrikanen, maar rijke westerse vrijwilligers.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 20:37 schreef Dance99Vv het volgende:

[..]

Nee ik heb mijn bedenkingen, ik eet liever worteltjes om die b-carot-een binnen te krijgen dan dat ik bananen ga modificeren , bananenplantages kunnen ook zo vernietigd zijn door een bepaalde schimmel.
Het begint op god spelen te lijken, het begint bij groente , fruit en andere gewassen ( waarbij de veiligheid en het onderzoek naar de veiligheid te wensen overlaat)en eindigd bij de mens, waar men al genetische manipulaties op dna niveau uit kan voeren.
De supermens is de ultieme uitdaging. ( doet me weer denken aan een persoon uit het verleden die de superieure blanke mens ,ariër , wou kweken.
Onderbouwingen op aanvraag ( zijn er, maar moet dan even aan mijn vriendje google vragen voor de adresjes )

Het gaat ook niet om jou, het gaat om Afrikanen die blind worden en dood gaan door vitamine A gebrek. Mooi als je dat met extra worteltjes kan oplossen, maar net zo mooi wanneer je dat met GMOs kan oplossen. Wat mij betreft moet je alle oplossingen proberen, en ik vind het eerlijk gezegd nogal asociaal om hier vanuit het westen dingen tegen te houden omdat je ze eng vindt. Want wat testen betreft -- er zijn geen nieuwe gewassen die uitgebreider worden getest dan GMOs. Juist bij conventionele gewassen kan er veel meer verbeteren (en begirjpen we ook veel minder van wat we doen).

Daar kan ik me best wel boos om maken. Je hebt gewoon ongelijk, Dance, over de rug de derde wereld.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 22:28 schreef Broomer het volgende:

[..]

Het gaat ook niet om jou, het gaat om Afrikanen die blind worden en dood gaan door vitamine A gebrek. Mooi als je dat met extra worteltjes kan oplossen, maar net zo mooi wanneer je dat met GMOs kan oplossen. Wat mij betreft moet je alle oplossingen proberen, en ik vind het eerlijk gezegd nogal asociaal om hier vanuit het westen dingen tegen te houden omdat je ze eng vindt. Want wat testen betreft -- er zijn geen nieuwe gewassen die uitgebreider worden getest dan GMOs. Juist bij conventionele gewassen kan er veel meer verbeteren (en begirjpen we ook veel minder van wat we doen).

Daar kan ik me best wel boos om maken. Je hebt gewoon ongelijk, Dance, over de rug de derde wereld.

Mensen proberen GMO niet tegen te houden omdat ze "eng" zijn maar om alle andere shit die ermee gemoeid gaat. Wat jij telkens maar goed probeert te praten.

Hier heb je er zo wat:

Weighing the GMO arguments: against

The main arguments that have been put forward against the use of GMOs in agriculture include:

Potential negative effects on the environment

Genes can end up in unexpected places: Through "gene escape" they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Genes can mutate with harmful effect: It is not yet known whether artificial insertion of genes could destabilize an organism, encouraging mutations, or whether the inserted gene itself will keep stable in the plant over generations. There is no conclusive data on this issue.

"Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent": Organisms contain genes that are activated under certain conditions -- for example, under attack from pathogens or severe weather. When a new gene is inserted, a "promoter" gene is also inserted to switch it on. This could activate a "sleeper" gene in inappropriate circumstances. This is especially relevant in long-lived organisms - such as trees. Sometimes the expression of genes is even "silenced" as a result of unknown interactions with the inserted gene.

Interaction with wild and native populations: GMOs could compete or breed with wild species. Farmed fish, in particular, may do this. GM crops could pose a threat to crop biodiversity, especially if grown in areas that are centres of origin of that crop. In addition, GM crops could compete with and substitute traditional farmers' varieties and wild relatives that have been bred, or evolved, to cope with local stresses. For example, local varieties in Latin America permitted the recovery from the catastrophic potato blight in Ireland in the 1840s. Today such plants often help improve climate tolerance and disease resistance. If genetically modified crop varieties substitute them, they could be lost, but the same applies to improved varieties developed by conventional breeding methods.

Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops. Planting "refuge" areas with insect-susceptible varieties is advised to reduce the risk of insect populations evolving resistance due to the widespread growing of GMO Bt-crops.

Potential negative effects on human health

Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released.

Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future.

Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

Potential socio-economic effects

Loss of farmers' access to plant material: Biotechnology research is carried out predominantly by the private sector and there are concerns about market dominance in the agricultural sector by a few powerful companies. This could have a negative impact on small-scale farmers all over the world. Farmers fear that they might even have to pay for crop varieties bred from genetic material that originally came from their own fields when they buy seeds from companies holding patents on specific genetic modification "events". Some argue that the World Trade Organization's agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) encourages this, but there are options to protect farmers' traditional practices within that agreement. Also, the new International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture recognizes the contributions of farmers to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources over time and for future generations. It provides for an international framework to regulate access to plant genetic resources and establishes a mechanism to share the benefits derived from their use.

Intellectual property rights could slow research: The proprietary nature of biotechnology products and processes may prevent their access for public-sector research. This might have a stronger negative impact in developing countries where no private research initiatives are in place. In addition, most developing countries still do not provide patent protection to biotechnological products and technologies. Because patents have a national scope, the entry of products developed through proprietary biotechnologies could be prevented in those external markets where patent protection exists.

Impact of "terminator" technologies: Although these are still under development and have not yet been commercialized, they would, if applied, prevent a crop from being grown the following year from its own seed. This means that farmers could not save seeds for planting the next season. Some believe that this technology, also known as the Technology Protection System, could have the advantage of preventing out-crossing of GM seeds.

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm

En hier:

1. Consumers' Choice Is At Stake
Here in the United States, genetically engineered (GE) foods are not labeled or separated from conventional foods. Because of this, we do not have much of a choice. Although regulations in Europe require mandatory labeling of GE food, consumer’s choice is still threatened because of cross-pollination and contamination. When genetic engineering is planted in the fields, the family shopper really has no choice. Is this how we want our food treated?
2. Health risks
Genetic engineering can make foods that were once safe to eat a threat to people with allergies. Because this process is unpredictable, new substances can develop in engineered foods. The FDA knows this and does some testing, but there are no guarantees.

Besides the new allergies, inserting genes into plants and animals can cause existing genes to react in unknown ways, including reduced nutritional values and changes in organism quality.

3. Ecological risks
There is no such thing as a free lunch. By engineering plants to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, we necessarily affect the web of life. Other plants and animals not considered will be impacted. As has been said, when one string in the web is tugged, it pulls all of the others.
4. Biodiversity in danger
Engineering specific traits into select species threatens the planets biodiversity by upsetting the natural balance. Engineered organisms spread uncontained into the wild. They also spread their genes into the gene pool. Once engineered organisms are released, there will be no recalls, and as they continue to upset nature, it may be impossible to undo the damage.

5. Genetic engineering is about corporate control of agriculture
The reason to engineer and patent a seed is to make money off of a captive market. Although some family farmers in the US are using this technology, they are not the driving force behind its creation. Genetically engineered crops further lock farmers into a cycle of dependence on quick fix techno schemes with royalty fees and debts to the bank.

6. Organic Agriculture is at Risk
Genetically engineered plants do not recognize buffer zones and containment fields. They will drift and they will be carried wherever fate will have it. Contamination of conventional and organic crops isn't a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. These new creations have proven impossible to contain outside of a lab.

So who will be liable when this contamination occurs? Not the Biotech companies. Currently there are few if any laws assigning liability to life's new architects. The laws that do exist are concerned with intellectual property rights. It seems the court want to be certain you pay for every GE seed that grows, whether you planted it or not.

7. Economic misjudgments
These crops cost more money than expected. They also carry loads of new risks. Scandals like the Starlink contamination caused Asian markets to shut down to American corn imports. This risk of loss of foreign markets resulted in the abandonment of genetically engineered wheat in 2004.
8. Increase in insecticide and herbicide use
When plants are engineered to resist insecticides, farmers spray more insecticide o­n the plants. Couple that with pests building up insecticide resistance because of the larger usage and you have a company selling more chemicals, an environment more polluted, and a farmer more dependent.

9. Monopolization of food production
The spread of genetic engineering coincides with widening legal possibilities to patent plants and their genes. Patents o­n food bear the intrinsic danger that a few transnational corporations obtain exclusive control over the whole chain of food production, from the gene to the dish. Initial conflicts over patent rights in Northern America show how, in the future, farmers may lose some of the rights concerning their crops. Patents o­n life are not compatible with the concept of intellectual property rights. They confer rights which go far beyond what the "inventor" has really accomplished.

10. The myth of fighting world hunger
The promise to overcome worldwide hunger with the help of genetic engineering is not credible. Research and development of genetically modified plants are organized privately and lie in the hands of o­nly a few big corporations in the North, which protect their products through patents. This development is addressed to the needs of intensive industrialized farming in the earth's temperate zone. The genetically modified plants don't yet contribute to the solution of agricultural problems in the tropics. Patents and technology fees prevent the transfer of technology from North to South. Deficient nutrition is not a problem of food quantity, but of power and distribution. There is no scarcity of food in the world, but grave deficiencies in access to food and distribution.

http://nwrage.org/content/10-reasons-oppose-genetic-engineering

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 23:13 schreef Japie77 het volgende:

[..]

Mensen proberen GMO niet tegen te houden omdat ze "eng" zijn maar om alle andere shit die ermee gemoeid gaat. Wat jij telkens maar goed probeert te praten.

Hier heb je er zo wat:

Weighing the GMO arguments: against

The main arguments that have been put forward against the use of GMOs in agriculture include:

Potential negative effects on the environment

Genes can end up in unexpected places: Through "gene escape" they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Genes can mutate with harmful effect: It is not yet known whether artificial insertion of genes could destabilize an organism, encouraging mutations, or whether the inserted gene itself will keep stable in the plant over generations. There is no conclusive data on this issue.

"Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent": Organisms contain genes that are activated under certain conditions -- for example, under attack from pathogens or severe weather. When a new gene is inserted, a "promoter" gene is also inserted to switch it on. This could activate a "sleeper" gene in inappropriate circumstances. This is especially relevant in long-lived organisms - such as trees. Sometimes the expression of genes is even "silenced" as a result of unknown interactions with the inserted gene.

Interaction with wild and native populations: GMOs could compete or breed with wild species. Farmed fish, in particular, may do this. GM crops could pose a threat to crop biodiversity, especially if grown in areas that are centres of origin of that crop. In addition, GM crops could compete with and substitute traditional farmers' varieties and wild relatives that have been bred, or evolved, to cope with local stresses. For example, local varieties in Latin America permitted the recovery from the catastrophic potato blight in Ireland in the 1840s. Today such plants often help improve climate tolerance and disease resistance. If genetically modified crop varieties substitute them, they could be lost, but the same applies to improved varieties developed by conventional breeding methods.

Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops. Planting "refuge" areas with insect-susceptible varieties is advised to reduce the risk of insect populations evolving resistance due to the widespread growing of GMO Bt-crops.

Potential negative effects on human health

Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released.

Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future.

Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

Potential socio-economic effects

Loss of farmers' access to plant material: Biotechnology research is carried out predominantly by the private sector and there are concerns about market dominance in the agricultural sector by a few powerful companies. This could have a negative impact on small-scale farmers all over the world. Farmers fear that they might even have to pay for crop varieties bred from genetic material that originally came from their own fields when they buy seeds from companies holding patents on specific genetic modification "events". Some argue that the World Trade Organization's agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) encourages this, but there are options to protect farmers' traditional practices within that agreement. Also, the new International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture recognizes the contributions of farmers to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources over time and for future generations. It provides for an international framework to regulate access to plant genetic resources and establishes a mechanism to share the benefits derived from their use.

Intellectual property rights could slow research: The proprietary nature of biotechnology products and processes may prevent their access for public-sector research. This might have a stronger negative impact in developing countries where no private research initiatives are in place. In addition, most developing countries still do not provide patent protection to biotechnological products and technologies. Because patents have a national scope, the entry of products developed through proprietary biotechnologies could be prevented in those external markets where patent protection exists.

Impact of "terminator" technologies: Although these are still under development and have not yet been commercialized, they would, if applied, prevent a crop from being grown the following year from its own seed. This means that farmers could not save seeds for planting the next season. Some believe that this technology, also known as the Technology Protection System, could have the advantage of preventing out-crossing of GM seeds.

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm

En hier:

1. Consumers' Choice Is At Stake
Here in the United States, genetically engineered (GE) foods are not labeled or separated from conventional foods. Because of this, we do not have much of a choice. Although regulations in Europe require mandatory labeling of GE food, consumer’s choice is still threatened because of cross-pollination and contamination. When genetic engineering is planted in the fields, the family shopper really has no choice. Is this how we want our food treated?
2. Health risks
Genetic engineering can make foods that were once safe to eat a threat to people with allergies. Because this process is unpredictable, new substances can develop in engineered foods. The FDA knows this and does some testing, but there are no guarantees.

Besides the new allergies, inserting genes into plants and animals can cause existing genes to react in unknown ways, including reduced nutritional values and changes in organism quality.

3. Ecological risks
There is no such thing as a free lunch. By engineering plants to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, we necessarily affect the web of life. Other plants and animals not considered will be impacted. As has been said, when one string in the web is tugged, it pulls all of the others.
4. Biodiversity in danger
Engineering specific traits into select species threatens the planets biodiversity by upsetting the natural balance. Engineered organisms spread uncontained into the wild. They also spread their genes into the gene pool. Once engineered organisms are released, there will be no recalls, and as they continue to upset nature, it may be impossible to undo the damage.

5. Genetic engineering is about corporate control of agriculture
The reason to engineer and patent a seed is to make money off of a captive market. Although some family farmers in the US are using this technology, they are not the driving force behind its creation. Genetically engineered crops further lock farmers into a cycle of dependence on quick fix techno schemes with royalty fees and debts to the bank.

6. Organic Agriculture is at Risk
Genetically engineered plants do not recognize buffer zones and containment fields. They will drift and they will be carried wherever fate will have it. Contamination of conventional and organic crops isn't a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. These new creations have proven impossible to contain outside of a lab.

So who will be liable when this contamination occurs? Not the Biotech companies. Currently there are few if any laws assigning liability to life's new architects. The laws that do exist are concerned with intellectual property rights. It seems the court want to be certain you pay for every GE seed that grows, whether you planted it or not.

7. Economic misjudgments
These crops cost more money than expected. They also carry loads of new risks. Scandals like the Starlink contamination caused Asian markets to shut down to American corn imports. This risk of loss of foreign markets resulted in the abandonment of genetically engineered wheat in 2004.
8. Increase in insecticide and herbicide use
When plants are engineered to resist insecticides, farmers spray more insecticide o­n the plants. Couple that with pests building up insecticide resistance because of the larger usage and you have a company selling more chemicals, an environment more polluted, and a farmer more dependent.

9. Monopolization of food production
The spread of genetic engineering coincides with widening legal possibilities to patent plants and their genes. Patents o­n food bear the intrinsic danger that a few transnational corporations obtain exclusive control over the whole chain of food production, from the gene to the dish. Initial conflicts over patent rights in Northern America show how, in the future, farmers may lose some of the rights concerning their crops. Patents o­n life are not compatible with the concept of intellectual property rights. They confer rights which go far beyond what the "inventor" has really accomplished.

10. The myth of fighting world hunger
The promise to overcome worldwide hunger with the help of genetic engineering is not credible. Research and development of genetically modified plants are organized privately and lie in the hands of o­nly a few big corporations in the North, which protect their products through patents. This development is addressed to the needs of intensive industrialized farming in the earth's temperate zone. The genetically modified plants don't yet contribute to the solution of agricultural problems in the tropics. Patents and technology fees prevent the transfer of technology from North to South. Deficient nutrition is not a problem of food quantity, but of power and distribution. There is no scarcity of food in the world, but grave deficiencies in access to food and distribution.

http://nwrage.org/content/10-reasons-oppose-genetic-engineering

Sorry, er wordt veel te algemeen over GMOs gepraat. Dit artikel ook weer. Bezwaren die gelden voor RR gewassen hoeven niet te gelden voor Rainbow papaya of golden rice. Waarom zou je in gods naam tegen Bt gewassen zijn als je eigenlijk tegen glyfosaat bent?

Specificeer. We hebben het hier over GMO bananen (met een gen van wilde bananen). Welke bezwaren kleven aan die banaan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 20:37 schreef Dance99Vv het volgende:

[..]

Nee ik heb mijn bedenkingen, ik eet liever worteltjes om die b-carot-een binnen te krijgen dan dat ik bananen ga modificeren , bananenplantages kunnen ook zo vernietigd zijn door een bepaalde schimmel.
Het begint op god spelen te lijken, het begint bij groente , fruit en andere gewassen ( waarbij de veiligheid en het onderzoek naar de veiligheid te wensen overlaat)en eindigd bij de mens, waar men al genetische manipulaties op dna niveau uit kan voeren.
De supermens is de ultieme uitdaging. ( doet me weer denken aan een persoon uit het verleden die de superieure blanke mens ,ariër , wou kweken.
Onderbouwingen op aanvraag ( zijn er, maar moet dan even aan mijn vriendje google vragen voor de adresjes )

Hoe zie jij het verschil met de klassieke plantenveredeling? Daarbij pas je ook het genoom van het gewas aan, om de gewenste kwaliteiten er in te krijgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 23:20 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Hoe zie jij het verschil met de klassieke plantenveredeling? Daarbij pas je ook het genoom van het gewas aan, om de gewenste kwaliteiten er in te krijgen.

En laten we het dan ook even over colchicine, random mutagenesis, of wide crosses hebben. Veel, veel, veel aspecifieker dan genetic engineering, en zeker ook voor god spelen. Maar ja, veel minder gereguleerd, en geaccepteerd in de organische landbouw.

Edit: veel minder gereguleerd

[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door Broomer op 17-02-2016 07:15:04 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 februari 2016 23:13 schreef Japie77 het volgende:

[..]

Mensen proberen GMO niet tegen te houden omdat ze "eng" zijn maar om alle andere shit die ermee gemoeid gaat. Wat jij telkens maar goed probeert te praten.

Hier heb je er zo wat:

Weighing the GMO arguments: against

The main arguments that have been put forward against the use of GMOs in agriculture include:

Potential negative effects on the environment

Genes can end up in unexpected places: Through "gene escape" they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Genes can mutate with harmful effect: It is not yet known whether artificial insertion of genes could destabilize an organism, encouraging mutations, or whether the inserted gene itself will keep stable in the plant over generations. There is no conclusive data on this issue.

"Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent": Organisms contain genes that are activated under certain conditions -- for example, under attack from pathogens or severe weather. When a new gene is inserted, a "promoter" gene is also inserted to switch it on. This could activate a "sleeper" gene in inappropriate circumstances. This is especially relevant in long-lived organisms - such as trees. Sometimes the expression of genes is even "silenced" as a result of unknown interactions with the inserted gene.

Interaction with wild and native populations: GMOs could compete or breed with wild species. Farmed fish, in particular, may do this. GM crops could pose a threat to crop biodiversity, especially if grown in areas that are centres of origin of that crop. In addition, GM crops could compete with and substitute traditional farmers' varieties and wild relatives that have been bred, or evolved, to cope with local stresses. For example, local varieties in Latin America permitted the recovery from the catastrophic potato blight in Ireland in the 1840s. Today such plants often help improve climate tolerance and disease resistance. If genetically modified crop varieties substitute them, they could be lost, but the same applies to improved varieties developed by conventional breeding methods.

Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops. Planting "refuge" areas with insect-susceptible varieties is advised to reduce the risk of insect populations evolving resistance due to the widespread growing of GMO Bt-crops.

Potential negative effects on human health

Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released.

Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future.

Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

Potential socio-economic effects

Loss of farmers' access to plant material: Biotechnology research is carried out predominantly by the private sector and there are concerns about market dominance in the agricultural sector by a few powerful companies. This could have a negative impact on small-scale farmers all over the world. Farmers fear that they might even have to pay for crop varieties bred from genetic material that originally came from their own fields when they buy seeds from companies holding patents on specific genetic modification "events". Some argue that the World Trade Organization's agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) encourages this, but there are options to protect farmers' traditional practices within that agreement. Also, the new International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture recognizes the contributions of farmers to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources over time and for future generations. It provides for an international framework to regulate access to plant genetic resources and establishes a mechanism to share the benefits derived from their use.

Intellectual property rights could slow research: The proprietary nature of biotechnology products and processes may prevent their access for public-sector research. This might have a stronger negative impact in developing countries where no private research initiatives are in place. In addition, most developing countries still do not provide patent protection to biotechnological products and technologies. Because patents have a national scope, the entry of products developed through proprietary biotechnologies could be prevented in those external markets where patent protection exists.

Impact of "terminator" technologies: Although these are still under development and have not yet been commercialized, they would, if applied, prevent a crop from being grown the following year from its own seed. This means that farmers could not save seeds for planting the next season. Some believe that this technology, also known as the Technology Protection System, could have the advantage of preventing out-crossing of GM seeds.

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm

En hier:

1. Consumers' Choice Is At Stake
Here in the United States, genetically engineered (GE) foods are not labeled or separated from conventional foods. Because of this, we do not have much of a choice. Although regulations in Europe require mandatory labeling of GE food, consumer’s choice is still threatened because of cross-pollination and contamination. When genetic engineering is planted in the fields, the family shopper really has no choice. Is this how we want our food treated?
2. Health risks
Genetic engineering can make foods that were once safe to eat a threat to people with allergies. Because this process is unpredictable, new substances can develop in engineered foods. The FDA knows this and does some testing, but there are no guarantees.

Besides the new allergies, inserting genes into plants and animals can cause existing genes to react in unknown ways, including reduced nutritional values and changes in organism quality.

3. Ecological risks
There is no such thing as a free lunch. By engineering plants to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, we necessarily affect the web of life. Other plants and animals not considered will be impacted. As has been said, when one string in the web is tugged, it pulls all of the others.
4. Biodiversity in danger
Engineering specific traits into select species threatens the planets biodiversity by upsetting the natural balance. Engineered organisms spread uncontained into the wild. They also spread their genes into the gene pool. Once engineered organisms are released, there will be no recalls, and as they continue to upset nature, it may be impossible to undo the damage.

5. Genetic engineering is about corporate control of agriculture
The reason to engineer and patent a seed is to make money off of a captive market. Although some family farmers in the US are using this technology, they are not the driving force behind its creation. Genetically engineered crops further lock farmers into a cycle of dependence on quick fix techno schemes with royalty fees and debts to the bank.

6. Organic Agriculture is at Risk
Genetically engineered plants do not recognize buffer zones and containment fields. They will drift and they will be carried wherever fate will have it. Contamination of conventional and organic crops isn't a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. These new creations have proven impossible to contain outside of a lab.

So who will be liable when this contamination occurs? Not the Biotech companies. Currently there are few if any laws assigning liability to life's new architects. The laws that do exist are concerned with intellectual property rights. It seems the court want to be certain you pay for every GE seed that grows, whether you planted it or not.

7. Economic misjudgments
These crops cost more money than expected. They also carry loads of new risks. Scandals like the Starlink contamination caused Asian markets to shut down to American corn imports. This risk of loss of foreign markets resulted in the abandonment of genetically engineered wheat in 2004.
8. Increase in insecticide and herbicide use
When plants are engineered to resist insecticides, farmers spray more insecticide o­n the plants. Couple that with pests building up insecticide resistance because of the larger usage and you have a company selling more chemicals, an environment more polluted, and a farmer more dependent.

9. Monopolization of food production
The spread of genetic engineering coincides with widening legal possibilities to patent plants and their genes. Patents o­n food bear the intrinsic danger that a few transnational corporations obtain exclusive control over the whole chain of food production, from the gene to the dish. Initial conflicts over patent rights in Northern America show how, in the future, farmers may lose some of the rights concerning their crops. Patents o­n life are not compatible with the concept of intellectual property rights. They confer rights which go far beyond what the "inventor" has really accomplished.

10. The myth of fighting world hunger
The promise to overcome worldwide hunger with the help of genetic engineering is not credible. Research and development of genetically modified plants are organized privately and lie in the hands of o­nly a few big corporations in the North, which protect their products through patents. This development is addressed to the needs of intensive industrialized farming in the earth's temperate zone. The genetically modified plants don't yet contribute to the solution of agricultural problems in the tropics. Patents and technology fees prevent the transfer of technology from North to South. Deficient nutrition is not a problem of food quantity, but of power and distribution. There is no scarcity of food in the world, but grave deficiencies in access to food and distribution.

http://nwrage.org/content/10-reasons-oppose-genetic-engineering

PS over je link: dit is wel een joekel van een fout zeg: "When plants are engineered to resist insecticides, farmers spray more insecticide o­n the plants."

Weet je gelijk hoeveel ze van de materie afweten.

Haha inderdaad, planten kunnen sowieso wel tegen insecticide

Vanmorgen een goede documentaire geluistert over huidige conflicten bij de toelating van Glyfosaat door de EFSA (European Food Safetys Authority's)
een van de meest gebruikte Pesticiden (waarbij Monsanto het grootste marktaandeel bezit)

Glyfosaat is door de WHO als kankerverwekkend geclassificeerd en er zijn veel redenen te geloven dat het mogelijk grotere schade toebrengt dan uit de 'officiele' onderzoeken nu blijkt, toch eheft het een steeds verder uitgebreidde toelating op de europese markt gekregen.
Ook blijken de officiele verkoop en toepassingscijfers sterk 'gemanipuleerd'

http://www.hpdetijd.nl/20(...)rverwekkend-of-niet/

http://www.groeneruimte.nl/nieuws/artikel.html?id=178335
http://www.greenpeace.nl/pesticidesleak/

De documentaire (duitstalig)
http://www.swr.de/swr2/pr(...)4/1co8rj0/index.html
(over TTIP, maar gaat uiteindelijk dieper in op de huidige strijd rondom Glyfosaat en de EFSA, als voorbeeld van de huidige praktijk rondom toelating en controle's van middelen op de markt, en de 'wetenschappelijke' basis voor verboden en/of toelatingen)

rapport over de beinvloeding van de EFSA door bedrijfslobby's:
http://corporateeurope.or(...)eport_23_10_2013.pdf

quote:

Op woensdag 17 februari 2016 12:30 schreef RM-rf het volgende:
Vanmorgen een goede documentaire geluistert over huidige conflicten bij de toelating van Glyfosaat door de EFSA (European Food Safetys Authority's)
een van de meest gebruikte Pesticiden (waarbij Monsanto het grootste marktaandeel bezit)

Glyfosaat is door de WHO als kankerverwekkend geclassificeerd en er zijn veel redenen te geloven dat het mogelijk grotere schade toebrengt dan uit de 'officiele' onderzoeken nu blijkt, toch eheft het een steeds verder uitgebreidde toelating op de europese markt gekregen.
Ook blijken de officiele verkoop en toepassingscijfers sterk 'gemanipuleerd'

http://www.hpdetijd.nl/20(...)rverwekkend-of-niet/

http://www.groeneruimte.nl/nieuws/artikel.html?id=178335
http://www.greenpeace.nl/pesticidesleak/

De documentaire (duitstalig)
http://www.swr.de/swr2/pr(...)4/1co8rj0/index.html
(over TTIP, maar gaat uiteindelijk dieper in op de huidige strijd rondom Glyfosaat en de EFSA, als voorbeeld van de huidige praktijk rondom toelating en controle's van middelen op de markt, en de 'wetenschappelijke' basis voor verboden en/of toelatingen)

rapport over de beinvloeding van de EFSA door bedrijfslobby's:
http://corporateeurope.or(...)eport_23_10_2013.pdf

Dat de WHO iets als kankerverwekkend classificeert is niet zo veelzeggend. Dat zeggen ze van vleeswaren ook.