Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

No it's business..!!!!

https://www.grain.org/article/entries/1 ... the-ground





http://permaculturenews.org/2015/04/24/ ... entalists/

So, because Syngenta signed an agreement with the University, that negates the fact that this is a science based discovery? Your argument makes no sense.
This is more info as to the benefits of the GMO developed rice-

Initial analyses of the potential nutritional benefits of golden rice suggested consumption of golden rice would not eliminate the problems of vitamin A deficiency, but should be seen as a complement to other methods of vitamin A supplementation.[24][25] Since then, improved strains of golden rice have been developed containing sufficient provitamin A to provide the entire dietary requirement of this nutrient to people who eat about 75g of golden rice per day.[4]

In particular, since carotenes are hydrophobic, there needs to be a sufficient amount of fat present in the diet for golden rice (or most other vitamin A supplements) to be able to alleviate vitamin A deficiency. In that respect, it is significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but usually coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet (see also Vandana Shiva's arguments below). The RDA levels accepted in developed countries are far in excess of the amounts needed to prevent blindness.[4] Moreover, this claim referred to an early cultivar of golden rice; one bowl of the latest version provides 60% of RDA for healthy children.[26]

They made new varieties that addressed some of the issues you brought up. 1 bowl of rice equates to 60% of their RDA.
Science.

Science- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


You can argue for and against, but you can't argue(intelligently) that this is not science. It's actually cutting edge, very high tech biotechnology. No different then the research(science) that is involved in cancer research or trying to discover a new energy efficient fuel. Same basic steps.

I'm not saying that GM food/crops ISN'T big business, just that the science behind the business could create some amazing breakthroughs. If you consider that over 90% of corn and soybeans grown in the US are GM, then you realize it is, and has been a huge business.

It's not just Monsanto either. Dow, Syngenta, the Swiss company that bought the Golden Rice patent, and Bayer are all big players in a global market. For some reason, Monsanto takes all the heat? Most people here gladly purchase Bayer products, but not the "evil Monsanto's" Round Up?? Not sure why that is?

There is also a problem with weeds being sprayed with Glyphosate on giant farms over years and years. Like everything, they are building resistance to the herbicide. Possibly creating "super weeds". In a more traditional approach, still chemical, not organic, they would rotate herbicides and resistance would not be an issue. Obviously, the fact that the crops are glyphosate resistant allows them to be over sprayed with the chemical, another possible issue. If you did that with non GM crops, you would have a bunch of dead plants.

I couldn't run my landscape business without chemicals, They are a necessary tool in our tool box. We use IPM as often as possible, apply the most environmentally friendly products that we can, and try and keep the turf and plants healthy to avoid issues.

I see the uninformed people at the retail pest control store on a regular basis. From people who want to only use "organic" products(arsenic is organic) to those who tell me they want "food safe DE, so they can use it in their dog and eat it. Never mind that both are not on the label?? These same people will ask me if a product is "safe for their kids & pets". A reasonable request, but this is after I have told them to apply it as an OUTSIDE perimeter spray and a small amount under bathroom and kitchen sinks. Don't let them lick the spray before it dries.

In my AP, I use only omri rated products and am trying hard to do what Ryan does. use no chemicals at all. It's difficult, especially when I know that I can go to 1 of my trucks and pull out a chemical that would cure the issue.

I have also offered natural methods to many of our customers, but when they find out that the cost for the natural products are substantially more, they usually say their fine with the service they have had.

Ha ha, Im fairly sure Joel isn't disagreeing its taken science to develop or create GMO. He's merely stating that GMO for the greater part isn't developed for the benefit of science but more so for the benefit of profit and control.

Your views on 'golden rice' are alarming and unfortunate. For starters, as already pointed out, vitamin A deficiencies can be tackled in much easier and less destructive ways. Less destructive? Well Asia's somewhat 470 million people (larger than the entire USA) rely on the biosecurity and profit derived from their 40,000 odd species of rice to survive and stay sustainable. From the outside it may look like Golden rice is a wonderful non-for profit solution but the reality is its the beginning of a major take over.

Golden rice is promoted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Iinternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR), both are directly funded by Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer etc to be the solution to 'saving millions of children' tugging at the emotions of human kind to cover their true motive.... to control Asias rice industry.

Rice is a big deal. Asia relies on well established market networks to sell and profit from rice from those, many of these markets have tight export requirements including the total ban of GMO products, this can and will have devastating effects as GMO slowly takes over existing rice species and crops. As we already know from the countless farmers who have lost their farms and livelyhood as Monsanto takes over their GMO cross-pollinated fields, the same will happen in Asia. Monsanto and the big names will now own the market or at the very least take a percentage profit. And then eventually the GMO export restrictions will need to be dropped because thats all thats available - well then that opens the flood gates for all species of GMO exportation and further control via the worlds seed supply.

iits all been said before but
instead of trying to alter what is being grown, why not alter the way that it is grown...
its a fairly simple strategy don't you think.

if our fish die in our AP systems, we don't try to make the fish more resilient, we try to solve the problem why they die.

SCIENCE

depends where it falls .... into which hand.

like wise power .

you elect a 'good' leader , the whole country prosper .

if you ended up with a despot - many examples -you are bankrupt.

one LATEST example -

http://asia.rbth.com/blogs/2015/08/03/v ... 48211.html


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/13e5cf02-34f6 ... z3ho98imFF


so, BACK TO TOPIC

science in whose hand ?

into the big corporation ? well - only profit.

-------------------------------

one other thing that also makes me wonder -> computer virus

who creates the virus and then creates the 'patch' ?

don't be surprised !!!

I must concede to being bested once photos of people in lab coats come out..

I know GMO is a like a big warm hug to southern american, but im sorry chris i cant agree with you in any way.
I would like you, like colum did, to answer How does the world get rid of GMO genes from the environment if a problem is found?

GMO will lead to more desertification as agricultural attitudes wont change, infact they will (and already have in america) get worse and worse as rediculously ignorant farmers and consumers now think it ok to spray more weedkiller, etc because "now the plants can handle it", etc..

People say that GMO is the solution to problems, i think those problems need to be solved in another way as a solution to GMO.

For eg. Instead of going GMO that will grow in shit soil, why not improve the soil? It is not hard at all, it may take some time, but unlike GMO would be a permanent solution and not just a bandaid fix that will make things worse in the future. Here is one technique which could help and notice it goes with nature, not against.

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-de ... -livestock

Chris, you seem to be one of those people who also have thier blinkers on towards science, you say Anti-GMO people are blind to science, yet you say:



Which to me shows that you ignore the bad things "science" has given us, like chemicals and other pollutants, the same thing you accuse anti GMO people of doing.

Actually this "Southern gentleman"hasn't completely made up his mind, I'm still gathering information.
A few questions:

What are the ""much easier and less destructive ways to cure the deficiencies"?

What does an investment fund (1Malaysia Development Berhad) have to do with GMO's or science?

Yavi, I like the article link. In underdeveloped countries, it certainly could work. On large, personal or corporate farms, it would be very difficult to implement. You are relying on this year's crops to pay this year's bills, and I'm not sure it would be economically feasible.

I'm not blind to the negatives that science has created, it's just not relevant in this discussion. Not every anti-GMO person is oblivious to facts. You guys are obviously informed. But, in my experience, you're in the minority.

Charlie, I still haven't found any hard proof that my stand on Golden Rice is "alarming and unfortunate." I keep reading supplied links, and that may change.

EB- I knew I had you when I broke out the lab coats.

Seriously, what's different about ag science and any other science? Pharmaceuticals spend millions to develop and bring to market a new drug, then want to get paid for their efforts. Often times, and an obscene profit, but that's a whole different discussion. Corporate greed doesn't change the facts and science behind the products.

I guess the difference as i see it is that pharma NEED to do R&D and thier R&D is very expensive, so is the testing period.
However AG, well all the plants we need are already available.... for free. There is no major R&D needed, we dont need to develop new types of plants.

The vast majority of food and ornamental plants have all been altered from the original variety. Corn was hybridized thousands of years ago. i assume you mean anything having to do with genetically manipulating the plants in a lab?

This is from a scientist at the University of Florida-

Expert Answer
By: Dennis Gray, Professor of Developmental Biology, University of Florida on Friday, 8/01/2014 10:52 am
I agree that it has essentially has been a lapse on scientists’ part not to express this “truth” whenever appropriate. I believe that allowing the definition of “GMO” to be limited to the use of modern scientific technologies has, over time, caused its placement within the context of genetic improvement to be lost. Especially for non-specialists, there seems to be a tendency to not understand that all foodstuff contain DNA and with no to few exceptions, were and are deliberately modified by humankind.

At first, the modifications were accomplished without understanding the underlying genetic mechanisms, but without doubt, they were deliberate. Later, we learned more and improvement became accelerated. Keep in mind that still, we do not understand everything about genetic function and gene expression and may never do so. It has dumbfounded some to hear that all organic crops are produced from bred (i.e., heavily modified) cultivars, often to the point of disbelief.

I present the following text on a slide in all of my presentations, and in fact, did so just this week at the annual meeting for the American Society of Horticultural Science.

Basic Tenets of Crop Improvement

1. Without exception, all crops utilized for food and fiber were genetically improved by man.
2. Crops like corn didn’t even exist in nature and only evolved through our deliberate actions.
3. Improved crop plants have fed the world.
4. Further improvement is urgently required to meet current and future demands.

The question was: It is my understanding as a graduate student in molecular anthropology that we consider anything that has been domesticated as a GMO, because domestication is one of the earliest forms of genetic engineering. I was wondering whenever I hear GMOs rightfully being defended, none of the experts ever point this out. Why is it?

i suppose what i meant is the hard work has been done and is still being done by backyard farmers, etc.
Big business doesnt need to spend lots of money because they can just go pick up a breed which is ready for use, unlike pharma.

If you can't get it in the goal try to move the goal posts.



Do we really have to go back to the basics of definitions? Yes I know you can find places online where pro GMO try to stretch the definitions of what GMO is, to soften the blow and make out like we've been doing it for centuries. There is a common understanding of exactly what GMO means and I think almost everyone else commenting on here has in mind.

Was talking with a wheat geneticist the other day and she was telling me about how quickly GMOs are losing what advantages they had if any as the organisms they are meant to be able to resist adapt.

Contrast that with a presentation by Kelvin Free of Alkira Organics at the CVAF agribusiness forum in June. His slides comes accross as corporate but he didn't really speak to them much if at all. This guy is a third or fourth generation farmer who went into organic farming at the behest of Kilter Rural (agribusiness fund manager) to supply organic produce to major retailers. He basically spent much of his talk saying "You know that myth about organic farming....well it turns out its true". Examples he spoke about were less water use, more productivity, better quality produce, less disease, less pests, etc. All the organic "dogma" being spouted by a reluctantly converted industrial farmer.

The argument over GMO is being fought on the basis of safety. If adversaries of GMO farming were to resist the use of GMOs on the basis of the economic arguments then pretty much the war would be won. GMOs have never delivered the results they have promised and as weeds and pests have once again demonstrated their ability to adapt farmers would be well advised to listen to Kevin Free and find out that the so called "myths" of organic farming are actually facts.