Is Genetic Engineering Good for the Environment?

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/07/28/Pamela_Ronald_and_Raoul_Adamchak_The_Food_of_the_Fu...

Pamela Ronald explains how genetic engineering can be used in place of more harmful farming practices. She describes how genetically modified cotton is used to reduce pesticide use and improve biodiversity.

-----

Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak present "Organically Grown and Genetically Engineered: The Food of the Future" as part of The Long Now Foundation's Seminars About Long-term Thinking. They explore how genetic engineering can work with organic growing practices to produce food in a more sustainable way than either of them could alone. - The Long Now Foundation

Pamela Ronald is Professor of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis, where she studies the role that genes play in a plant's response to its environment. Her laboratory has genetically engineered rice for resistance to diseases and flooding, both of which are serious problems of rice crops in Asia and Africa. She also serves as Vice President for the Feedstocks Division and Director of Grass Genetics at the Joint Bioenergy Institute.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• gmo
• organisms
• green
• organic
• crops
• food
• scientists
• foods
• farming
• agriculture
• sustainability
• pesticides
• pollution
• environment
• environmentalism
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[myndy86]

@averagehomosapien "Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems.""The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/189898­35

[myndy86]

@averagehomosapien "An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed.""it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/212964­23

[myndy86]

@averagehomosapien Most scientists will not accept a GMO as safe until long term safety testing by independant scientists is done. "The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats,which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory,and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/­20941377?dopt=Abstract&holding­=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

[myndy86]

@averagehomosapien This is what the vast majority of the scientific community says about GMOs "Hence assesments of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of these risks are yet unknown." -IAASTD, UN/World Bank report by 400 scientists.

[achillessniper]

thanks, I like how you miss out how the target pest has built up an immunity, how these seeds are sold in such an immoral way and how thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 10 years due to them buying these expensive seeds, only to find a pest with resistance

[averagehomosapien]

@mmazzi61

It's unfortunate that you've been so taken in by these GMO fear-mongerors. You shouldn't rely on information from "dvds and books", but rather from the actual scientific literature. This is just like the evolution-creationism "debate": you'll always be able to find a few pariahs in the scientific community who will speak against the consensus view -- and these are the people given media attention. I suggest you look up "GM food controversies" on wikipedia to get an introduction.

[mmazzi61]

@averagehomosapien  Seriously, I hope you'll order the book and trilogy for less than the cost of a pizza. There're at least 21 scientific points made about the dangers of gmo's along with the silencing of VALID biotech experts who were at the top of their field. If you can watch the two dvd's, read the book and STILL believe wholeheartedly in GMO's, then please come back and explain why so that I can hear your argument. I'm serious.

[mmazzi61]

@averagehomosapien Financial experts still preaching the same crap that's melting down our economy. There're biotech "experts" who truly believe what industry is pushing. At least open your mind to hear what other experts have to say. Though you don't believe in Dr. Shiva's credentials, you can't argue with the facts of what's actually happened in India. If agri-science wasn't in the pocket of business, we wouldn't dump pesticides galor and condone mono-culture which has depleted our soil.

[mmazzi61]

@averagehomosapien "public universities" receive plenty of grant money.  Read "Seeds of Deception" for the whole, well-documented, thoroughly referenced story with names of expert scientists who have lost their careers by telling the truth (see my other posting for details). I don't buy into the God complex... there were nuclear engineering experts who built reactors with generators on ground level next to the ocean in tsunami territory. Our ignorance is only surpassed by our arrogance.

[mmazzi61]

You can also see Jeffrey Smith present much of his information for free here on youtube. His presentation is in 10 parts. Search youtube for the presentation title: "Everything YOU HAVE TO KNOW about Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods". You should get results for all 10 parts.