Activists block GM potato planting in Sweden

"But it should be made clear, under no uncertain terms, that certain modifications have prevented major, MAJOR disasters. If you think the food shortage is bad now, what do you think it would be like if there hadn't been quick modifications to wheat to make it resistant to a fungus that threatened to wipe out 60% of crops in the 90's? And all the other major fungus and disease outbreaks that GMs have diverted since before 'genetic modification' was even a field of science?"

How could GM's divert a disaster "before genetic modification was even a field of science?"
If they weren't messing around with GM shit, how the hell could they have diverted earlier "disasters"? That makes no sense.......

If there was talk of disasters it was probably put out by the very companies who are making these frankenstein crops so they would look like we "needed their help".

I don't trust them........

It's just like Bush and his Patriot Act. We have a threat.... so we NEED to take everyones rights away to "protect you".

Actually though, that does make me right 100%. :)

I stated repeatedly what Monsanto and other corporations have done is repugnant- and what Jan should do is go after them because of SPECIFICS, not because of a broad brush attack against an entire scientific discipline.

By that line "before genetic modification was even a field of science?" I meant before it was recognized as it's seperate field, rather than simply a small part of general biology. Genetic modification has gone on since Mendel planted his beans... we just haven't always called it that. And it wasn't companies like Monsanto who brought us these boons, it was hardworking scientists researching and working on their own. I am no Monsanto apologist, and I don't think anything they do is beneficial.

I was not referring specifically to you, but generally. I actually didn't read much of the comments down there... like I said, it was a mess and a little hard to follow the lines of conversation.

They aren't being dumbed down and they respect environmentalists and groups like Green Peace.
In the USA the right wing is being told they are the enemies and should be treated as such and considered "godless".
It's some pretty sick stuff .........the bullshit they're telling the right wing and they seen to be attaching godless or god mandated it into every argument now.

Like in the movie IDIOCRACY a comedy . But seriously all too real.

I hope so too. But according to some the millions worldwide who see the damage these GMOs are causing are just "fearmongering."

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/docs/145.pdf is an EXCELLENT document, that has loads of sources regarding GMO. In that document it states "THE FDA’S “NON-REGULATION” OF GM FOODS
Rhetoric from the United States government since the early 1990s proclaims that GM foods are no different from their natural
counterparts that have existed for centuries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has labeled them “Generally Recognized as
Safe,” or GRAS. This status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be
considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and
there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither.
Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move in 1992 that some experts contend was illegal, the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS
as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labeling of GMOs. A company can
even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency." That is not good enough for me, and I will never, ever, change my position regarding the dangers of GMO. I value food and it's obvious healing properties way too much, to be used as a guinea pig for some profit ridden corporation. Neither will I ask anyone to do MY research, if I was intent on finding fault with GMO or find ways to feel good about GMO, that "google tab" has all the information anyone of us dare to spend our time reading and learning, research away. Jan, I have been involved in the non gmo movement since late 2005. I happened upon Current.com 2007 or 2008, I am not sure, I cannot find my old post. I have been posting sourced articles and statements about GMO from day one here. (that stuff is gone now, sadly) But, along the way, I met you and we became friends, our friendship is based upon common goals, "No GMO's" being one of those". I like the hard work you do, it is not easy to post these articles day in and day out, I couldn't do it. I am disappointed when I read others try and disarm you by throwing meaningless, unsubstantiated spin at you, while not offering any science to back up their claims (none exist). Like Jeffery Smith recently stated in his blog: It took the biotech industry three years to create their so-called academic review of Genetic Roulette. The mere fact that after all that time they could not put together even the most basic scientific arguments is a tribute to the authenticity of the book. If they could have used science to counter it, they would have. But they didn't. They used spin." And like him, you remember:
"I am much more motivated to spend my time taking steps that will end the genetic engineering of the food supply, rather than trying to convince the handful of people who try to....... spread disinformation" Thanks for all you do Jan!

below taken from Jeffery Smith blog.....

"The Royal Society of Canada stated that it is "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GM foods are safe and that the "default presumption" is that unintended, potentially hazardous side-effects are present. A WHO spokesperson said that current regulations are not adequate to determine the health effects; the Indian Council of Medical Research called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations; and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods altogether.

Since Chassy and Tribe are fond of using the FDA policy as support for their position, I am happy to quote Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, who directly contradicts their ridiculous assertion. In a memo that summarized the position of FDA scientists about GMOs, she stated, "the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/558

If this is fear mongering, well worth it, in my view. So many things to not be afraid of, but GMO is certainly one that is best to steer clear of at all cost.

Absolutely, and thank you for your comments on this here. We need all we can to continue to report about the implications of foisting this onto our environment without the proper testing and with no regulations. I am sure you remember the Starlink incident. Dr. Vandana Shiva is also a heroine to me because of her relentless pursuit of environmental democracy regarding GMOs and sustainability. A monoculture world is not something we should be heading for especially with a growing population and with climate change (biodistress) showing its effects globally. Any one gene trait that shuts off in these organisms that is compromised due to environmental stresses not made part of any testing (scientists have already reported of horizontal gene transfer which is something that is definitely not good science) will have huge ramifications on biodiversity, soil health, the health of all species up the food chain and yield. We could see a famine in that case. Bt toxins have also been discovered through scientific testing to be present in human blood and fetuses, in the gut bacteria of cows, causing sterility in third generation mammals as well as transferring into the wild. To say we have opened a Pandora's Box is an understatement and why I am so relentless regarding studying this.

What will we do when our grandchildren start exhibiting the consequences of our actions based not on looking to the future, but only living for the present? We can most definitely provide for the needs of the world's people by using agroecology and other sustainable agriculture methods ( that will also sequester carbon, unlike GMO agriculture being used to feed animals and for biofuel which is cutting down huge swaths of the Amazon and exacerbating climate change), as well as traditional breeding within genuses. As a matter of fact, some companies that started using GM seeds are backing away from them as they see that it has been a failure and being globally rejected, and was/is merely a scheme in league with governments to control the food supply at the expense of the livelihoods and lives of so many farmers, while making a petrie dish out of our planet. It isn't only immoral, I think it is criminal and you can bet I will continue to report on this and not let anyone dissuade me from doing that. Thanks for your friendship here, and for your caring about the future. Oh, and you know, it is kind of ironic that I was referred to as a 'luddite' (another useless label) when I am entirely for technology such as alternate energy and other advances that have saved lives, and reporting on the science behind climate change. There is a difference between science that seeks to save lives and science that is pseudo and a sellout to commerce. Knowing the difference can make all the difference regarding our survival.

Speaking of "studies" here is some alarming news I just ran across today.

GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

"The new study was carried out by independent doctors at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada.

They took blood samples from 30 pregnant women and 39 other women who were not having a baby.

They were looking for residues of the pesticides associated with the cultivation of GM food.

These include so-called Bt toxins, which are implanted using GM techniques into corn and some other crops.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn...

This won't reach msm either I fear.

Yes I posted about this a couple weeks ago. And for sure you won't see this on MSM. And lo and behold, it is about the organism and not just the "company." They really need to be banned, but until then we will have to keep fighting for labelling. California is going to put it on their ballot, and I think some other states are weighing this too. We have to keep on our state legislators as that seems to be where the most progress on labelling can come.

Wow, thanks for the link to the PDF. That's some good stuff and filled with info all in one place.

It's good to go after the corporations- it's not good to go after the entire scientific discipline of genetic engineering and all of it's potential for advancement.

you mean it's potential for destroying the planet? Money is the key here and money can produce as many predetermined results as required...... don't forget that once you introduce these genetic engineered organism it can literally mean that there is no way of recalling them. The damage can literally be irreversible. You really want to take that risk just so that a few corporations can profit?

Agreed...let us see how the Gulf holds up.

Understanding of a thing must begin to supercede the engineering of a thing. To blindly go where no man has gone before is arrogant and potentially disastrous. We need to act for people and the Earth not for money.

You said:
"you mean it's potential for destroying the planet?"

Right now you are sitting in front of a computer.
Computers can aid terrorist cells!
So we should not have computers?

The first scientific discovery, according to legend, was fire.
Fire can burn people, it can burn down whole cities!
Should we not have fire?

How about this- we use fire, we use computers, we use genetic engineering, for all of the wonderful things they can do, and use necessary precautions when doing so.

You said:
"Money is the key here and money..."

Are you arguing against science or corporatism?
Don't confuse the two topics.

You said:
"The damage can literally be irreversible. You really want to take that risk just so that a few corporations can profit?"

Every day you step outside your front door, you take a risk of being killed in a car crash. But you do it anyway.

People who do not understand the topic under discussion constantly confuse science and it's huge potential for advancement of humanity and "corporate profits".

No, I would not risk a toenail for corporate profits.

I WOULD actively encourage scientific advancement to feed the starving people of the world.

Why do you want people to starve to death and die?

Hey, that's just as valid as your question about corporate profits.

You say:
"Understanding of a thing must begin to supercede the engineering of a thing."

Yes, that is why only Genetic Engineers should do genetic engineering, not a typical high school science class.

You say:
"To blindly go where no man has gone before is arrogant and potentially disastrous."

Yes, that is why blind people should not be genetic engineers.

You say:
"We need to act for people and the Earth not for money."

EXACTLY.
That is why we need genetic engineering, and all of the potential benefits it can bring to this planet.

Using the necessary precautions is the problem.... when you introduce a new organism in an environment what do you consider necessary precautions? and how about the long term effects of this organism.... 1 month about 20 yrs???? how are you suppose to account for these time variables???? and as I said earlier once you have released these organisms then there is no turning back.

and mixing science and corporatism is a necessary thing to do because corporatism hardly worries about consequences 1 yr down the road let alone 20 yrs. so yea corporations finance science and since corporations main quest is profit then science is compromised. So I really don't see how you can have a discussion here without taking both into account.

I think that taking a risk by walking our the door is a ridiculous analogy to the potential damage considered here.

You say:
"Using the necessary precautions is the problem.... when you introduce a new organism in an environment what do you consider necessary precautions?"

That would depend on knowledge of the species and the changes done to it.

What you don't understand is that we have been manipulating the genetic codes of plants and animals since the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago through cross-breeding programs.

NONE of the foods you eat today look anything like their ancient wild predecessors.

And cross-breeding is an almost random process, completely uncontrolled, with far more chances for bizarre strains than a modern controlled manipulation in a laboratory.

We know EXACTLY what genes are being changed.

You have to admit that is a big diference compared to cross-breading.

You say:
"and mixing science and corporatism is a necessary thing to do because corporatism hardly worries about consequences..."

That's why the corporatism should be attacked, not the science.
There are publicly funded research institutions and universities doing scientific research out there too.

You say:
"I think that taking a risk by walking our the door is a ridiculous analogy to the potential damage considered here."

It is the perfect analogy considering the potential benefits.
Blind fear of the unknown prevents progress of any kind.
ALL of science, from the discovery of fire on, is about exploring the unknown.

I don't deserve to be patronized to. I am well aware of the benefits of technology; however, until we can decide how to use it as a joint benefit and not allow the hijacking of sensitive subjects by entities that have proven their lack of concern for the Earth or it's inhabitants, it is in our best interest to proceed with complete awareness. We, as I said before, don't understand our potential in the systems that due exist. We have much to learn before we start to unwittingly guess at alterations or additions that may be of gain or disaster.

If you want to solve the food crisis you can grow a lot more food (not to mention quality) on 5 acres through diversity of crops and understanding sytems than you can with mass produced,bio-engineered seeds and chemicals. These have been proven unsafe, more expensive and have a need for higher levels of water. Who does that benefit?

The whole point of worrying about the depletion of species is the loss of diversity. We can not lose that in our food supply.

And cross-breeding is an almost random process, completely uncontrolled, with far more chances for bizarre strains than a modern controlled manipulation in a laboratory.
We know EXACTLY what genes are being changed. Except that the method used to insert the genes IS practlically random.They use a shotgun method to litteraly blast the new genetic material into the DNA strands. The method DOES yield bizzare results. Only the strains that come closest to the desired results are bred to yield more for testing. Normal cross breeding only works between similar species. They are inserting animal genes into plants and vice/versa. You can't do that with natural cross breeding. The results produced in the labs are impossible in nature. Without PROPER testing we can not know the effects of these freaks on living creatures. I wish I could remember the documentary that covered this because you wouldn't be so quick to defend Monsanto's "scientific" laboratory method. As for the potential to "destroy" the planet; they also showed how in remote regions of Mexico where they grew corn from ancient strains, the corn is now growing in "bizzare" ways. When examined, their genetic code had been contaminated by, wait for it, GM corn made by Monsanto. So like pandora's box, the damage is done. God help us if their quest to make round up ready everything turns out to cause genetic/hormonal damage to pregnant human mothers who eat it because it did to mice at an independent lab. Strangely their funding dried up suddenly when they published the results. Since you'll just poo-poo this as hearsay, after this I'm going to try to see if the documentary has been added to any of the movie sites I frequent so I can give you a title instead of just saying I saw it. It has been at least two years since I watched it on cable so this may not yield a quick result or any at all.

Is it The World According To Monsanto or The Future Of Food?

I just re- watched the future of food. While it covered most of what I remembered, it wasn't the one I was thinking of. It could be the world according to Monsanto, but couldn't find it in my brief search. If it had a clip of G.Bush Sr. talking to Monsanto executives how he would remove any regulations against them, then that's the one. The future of food did mention the mexican cross contamination but didn't show the physical changes to the actual plants. The other documentary did. The one I forgot about was the "terminator" gene that kills the seed's ability to live past one generation. If anything was going to f@#k up the world, it would be that little gem.

Then that's the one. And yes, that "terminator" technology is proof positive of what this is really all about.

You say:
"I don't deserve to be patronized to."

Neither do I.
Do you realize how patronizing your list of platitudes were?
I responded in kind.

You say:
"we ... we ... we ... "

Who is this "we"? There are things you understand and do not understand, things I understand and do not understand, and things a genetic engineer understands and does not understand.

Do not assume you know what a genetic engineer does or does not know.

You say:
"If you want to solve the food crisis ... "

It's so nice you have the one and only solution to the world's problems.
I say there is another way, that is even beter.

You say:
"These have been proven unsafe, more expensive and have a need for higher levels of water. Who does that benefit?"

*sigh*

As with Jan, you are showing you do not understand the topic.

The point is NOT the plants developed by the Monsanto corporation to be resistant to herbicides, or to contain pesticides.

Poisson is bad, genetically engineering poison into our food is bad.

GMO's have not been "proven" to have any of the characteristics you list, because there is no such thing as a "GMO".

Genetic Engineering is a PROCESS, and that process can be used in millions of different ways, with billions of different results, with NO common characteristics at all.

You say:
"The whole point of worrying about the depletion of species is the loss of diversity. We can not lose that in our food supply."

This is one of the more ridiculous arguments that show that, just like Jan, you do not understand the topic.

Creating a new strain of a crop does NOT mean destroying all the existing strains.

Creating MORE strains with MORE diversity means GAINING food supply.

Addition does not result in subtraction.

Your complaint is about CORPORATE agricultural process of monoculture, which has NOTHING to do with the scientific process of genetic engineering.

You say:
" a shotgun method ... They are inserting animal genes into plants and vice/versa"

Your complaint is about SPECIFIC actions done in SPECIFIC cases.

To use that as a basis for a brush attack against all Genetic Engineering is wrong.

You are in favor of traditional agriculture- let's say at a farm, a traditional farm with no genetic engineering, a spinach crop gets mixed with a tobacco crop, and tobacco makes it's way into cans of strained spinach baby food.

Does that mean all farming is to blame, and no one should ever farm again?
Or does it just mean that this SPECIFIC incident was wrong, and precautions should be put in place to prevent cross-contamination?

The problem with these discussions is exactly that- specific problems are specific problems, period.

Those specific problems should be addressed, period.

But because people do not understand the big picture- beyond documentaries designed to convey a single point of view- they attack an entire scientific procedure that has huge potential for benefit to humanity.

It's good to go after the corporations- it's not good to go after the entire scientific discipline of genetic engineering and all of it's potential for advancement.

Truly, I wish you would stop spreading unsubstantiated BS here about those who give a damn for sound INDEPENDENT science like I do.

Because you certainly don't.

Instead, you never present any sound scientific data of your own that has anything to do with genetic engineering ITSELF being harmful.

And, you never listen to reason, and you never even address any of the points I make.

And this is the point where you spew a bunch of insults at me.

You have no data. Your credibility is null and void on this as far as I am concerned. And you are wrong. There are many posts here and on my blog dealing with the science behind this and the scientists performing independent testing and finding fault with the "technology." You simply refuse to address it.

This is not safe. What positives are you speaking of? The limiting of our genetic bases through mass produced GMO's. We can't even control our current envasive species and we feel the need to unleash more? We should be more concerned with how we can fit into the sytems around us rather than destroy them through further artificial means.

Jan, YOU have no data. YOUR credibility is null and void on this as far as I am concerned. And YOU are wrong.

You do not have one SHREAD of data that proves that genetic engineering, as an entire scientific discipline, is unsafe.

Pesticides, yep.
Herbicides, yep.
Specific strains of crops with other difficulties, you betcha.

But you have NO data condemning an entire scientific discipline.

I cannot adress anything that does not exist.

You, however, fail to address ANY of the points I make.

Instead, you just keep saying I want corporations to burn family farms, control the planet, destroy the ecosystem, kill puppies, drown kittens, and make Lex Luthor president.

THAT is why you have no credibility, because you attack me in ways that you know DAMN WELL have nothing to do with me.

If you had any points at all, you would never do such a thing in the first place.

And, you never, even once, ever, discuss this topic with me reasonably like an adult, no mater how often I have attempted a discussion with you.

When my logic overwhelms you to the point where you can't address it, you insult me and run away.

And that is usually after the first post.

Hello, I'm here. And you have not stated one thing here in regards to the process of this or the science behind it, or anything to refute any of the findings posted on this site. So you can deflect and place it on me all you wish. It only proves the point that you are in denial, and not only have nothing to back yourself up, but come off as actually a bit ignorant about this topic. For someone who comes across as knowing so much, you don't say much for all your verbosity. So if all you are going to do is piss in the wind in this thread and try to degrade me, it's a waste of my time. Unless you have something of real substance to post in support of your opinion, you are accomplishing nothing.

You say:
"This is not safe.What positives are you speaking of?"

These specific Swedish potatoes, I don't know, perhaps they are unsafe.
My point is the luddite attacking of genetic engineering as a whole, and all the benefits it can bring- such as crops that can grow in deserts with minimal water.
Crops with a higher yield, and larger fruits.
Crops that have a longer shelf life so they can be shipped over longer areas.
Crops that have a higher nutritional value so people all over the world do not die of malnutrition.

Even the ability to grow meat in "sheets", without an animal, so us carnivores can eat meat without killing anything.

You say:
"We can't even control our current envasive species and we feel the need to unleash more? We should be more concerned with how we can fit into the sytems around us rather than destroy them through further artificial means."

You just said "envasive" and "unleash" and "destroy".

This is the problem- fearmongering.

You do not understand genetic engineering, so you are afraid of it.
And, people who are afraid form mobs with torches and pitchforks.

You do not understand it, so you assume the worst from it.

Like a primitive tribesman who thinks a camera will steal his soul.
Or a Jehovah's Witnesses who thinks a blood transfusion will damn them to hell.

Instead, we should focus on REAL problems: like that independent organizations should conduct a final round of testing and environmental impact studies before corporations can distribute a new organism, and corporations should never be allowed to patent a genetic sequence.

That is MUCH beter than random broad-brush fearmongering, don't you agree?

You said:
"Hello, I'm here. And you have not stated one thing here in regards to the process of this or the science behind it, or anything to refute any of the findings posted on this site."

I cannot adress anything that does not exist.
You do not have one SHREAD of data that proves that genetic engineering, as an entire scientific discipline, is unsafe.
Pesticides, yep.
Herbicides, yep.
Specific strains of crops with other difficulties, you betcha.
But you have NO data condemning an entire scientific discipline.

You say:
... and then come the personal attacks, the attacking the messenger, and the running away.

Instead, you could have provided a link to something for me to refute that actually proves that genetic engineering, as an entire scientific discipline, is unsafe.

But you didn't.

Because you can't.

Because there isn't any.

And that is all the backup I need.

You see, I don't need to prove that genetic engineering is ALWAYS safe.
That would be silly.
Because I never asserted any such thing.
That would be like saying fire is always safe, or rocks are always safe.
Heck, I'd never even say bunny rabbits are always safe.

The point is they are NOT always BAD, and have POTENTIAL for great GOOD.
And to prove that, all I need to do is sit back, and let you be unable to suport your position.

Provide you a link? Who are you? Go into the Monsanto tag or the other tags and find them like everyone else does. Again, denial and diversion.

LOL!

You keep proving my point Jan, over and over.

You say:
"Again, denial and diversion."

What am I denying? What am I diverting?

YOU are the one doing both things here!
I'm the one asking for a link!
From someone who has devoted their live to this topic, someone who posts dozens of links every day, and you can't provide ONE.

You have NOTHING.

Monsanto? Are you serious?
Did you read anything I wrote?
I said Monsanto is crap, but you keep bring it back to that.

You do not have one SHREAD of data that proves that genetic engineering, as an entire scientific discipline, is unsafe.
Pesticides, yep.
Herbicides, yep.
Specific strains of crops with other difficulties, you betcha.
But you have NO data condemning an entire scientific discipline.

Instead, you could have provided a link to something for me to refute that actually proves that genetic engineering, as an entire scientific discipline, is unsafe.

But you didn't.
Because you can't.
Because there isn't any.
And that is all the backup I need.

You see, I don't need to prove that genetic engineering is ALWAYS safe.
That would be silly.
Because I never asserted any such thing.
That would be like saying fire is always safe, or rocks are always safe.
Heck, I'd never even say bunny rabbits are always safe.

The point is they are NOT always BAD, and have POTENTIAL for great GOOD.
And to prove that, all I need to do is sit back, and let you be unable to suport your position.

I felt at a point in my life as you do now. Pushing scientific discovery is important. I don't want to ever say, OK that's enough learning. Year's ago I saw a movie, "Mindwalk", that made me see some things from perspectives I, being too young and in public school, hadn't yet considered. Our science does currently worry me.
I want local foods not something that can be shipped further. Plants have a way of balancing themselves that we have proven through our pharmaceuticals we can't or just don't replicate. We have been in a frame of mind for so long that to understand a thing you must tear it apart. We forget it is only when we step back and see the relationships between the parts that we can finally take strides in understanding the whole.

I prefer biodynamic, organic & permaculture to engineered. Working within environmental systems rather than against them is a science I would like to see spread.

They are not creating more species. They are eliminating the need and market for anything but theirs. Why have 250,000 farmers in India killed themselves if these products are bettering their lives?

You clearly have done no research yourself. There is no wisdom in your words and you miss the most important points.
No, all genetic engineering is not bad. What is bad is the detachment of ourselves to our Earth that continues to be pushed through "innovation".

No, I have done the research, And you do not understand the wisdom of my words, and I missed nothing, because This IS MY POINT:

"No, all genetic engineering is not bad."

Now, try to get Jan to say that.

Jan thinks ALL genetic engineering is bad, and that is the entire point I am making.

What makes something good or bad is how it is applied, NOT how it is created.

You say:
"What is bad is the detachment of ourselves to our Earth that continues to be pushed through "innovation"."

The fact that you write this while sitting in front of a computer in an air-conditioned room is astonishing.

You call technology "detachment", I call it "improvement".

No mater what your rhetoric, since you are not sitting in a cave communicating with me using smoke signals, you obviously agree.