The bt injected into the DNA of plants and the Glyphosate resistance also acquired into the DNA of
plants do more harm than help. First off Monsanto Corp. has never made anything good in its entire history.
(Theres a big tip off right there) Second its completely obvious the multinational, multibillioinaire,
corporation is buying everyone off. One month Forbes retracts Monsanto, next month Monsanto is back in full graces.
Same thing happened on Wikipedia. I smell a big fat rat.
On to the proof, because I know all of you will be clamoring whether I really know anything about GE stuff
or if Im just following the bandwagon. (actually I get more people on the bandwagon with truth)
Bt levels have skyrocketed in the soil. Hence creating/created pest resistant to one of the safest
natural pesticides known to man. Therefore Biotech giant Monsanto just took what was everyones property
and is ruining it for all worldwide. (what greed). However Bt was never in the DNA of anything in the first place,
it was contained in the soil, putting it into the DNA has caused the increase of BT in the soil and no one knows
what the consequence will be. Now lets talk about Glyphospate. The plants designed to withstand
glyphospate (roundup ready) are also causing resistant species. One of these species is a soil pathogen
that already caused major crop damage and millions of dollars worth of losses. Now this pathogen is becoming
resistant to all RRplants. Fusarium. Fusarium is the cause of sudden soybean death, not too mention many other
diseases. So Monsanto has taken a problem, tried to make it better, but made it worse. It should also be know
that Monsanto corp. Is pushing for GE crops worldwide. Sometimes in the guise of aide for developing countries,
sometimes not. Monsanto has forced their products into India,Iraq, Afghanistan,Africa and other countries.
Its the number one priority to push and promote GE crops More productive crops are only part of the solution
to the world's food crisis.
There are many reasons for the current and projected food crisis. Among the most important are lack of income
to buy food, lack of infrastructure like roads to get products to market, trade policies that disadvantage farmers
in the developing world, lack of inputs such as fertilizer, lack of information, and low-yield farming practices.
More productive crops will do little to alleviate hunger if deficiencies in those areas are not addressed as well.
Where more productive crops are needed, there is little reason to believe that genetic engineering will be
better than other technologies -- in particular, sophisticated traditional breeding -- at producing higher yielding crops.
Many technologies can increase the yields of crops. These include traditional breeding, production of hybrids
, so-called marker-assisted breeding (a sophisticated way of enhancing traditional breeding by knowing which
plant cultivars carry which trait), and tissue culture methods for propagating virus-free root stocks.
All of these could help improve the productivity of crops in the developing world, but currently only limited
resources are available for applying them there.
So far, there no reason to believe that genetic engineering would be markedly better than these more traditional
technologies in improving crops. Early "gene dreams" were of nitrogen-fixing crops, higher intrinsic yield,
and drought tolerance. But so far none of these seems realistic because most involve complex multigene traits.
For the most part, genetically engineered crops are limited to one or two gene transfers and have relative few
applications of use to hungry people. Those that are of use, such as insect resistance and virus tolerance,
do not increase intrinsic yield and vary in effectiveness. In addition, they appear to be short lived due to the
almost certain evolution of resistant pests and pathogens.
Currently, there is no reason
GM crops are a threat to food security rather than a solution to the food crisis. Genetic
engineering does not increase yields and GM crops have failed under extreme fluctuations in
temperature. Rather than increasing critical biodiversity, genetic engineering puts the world’s
natural biodiversity at risk of contamination in an unforeseeable and uncontrolled way. Since
1996, there have been 216 cases of crops being contaminated by GMOs in 57 countries
Genetic engineering is also expensive and risky for farmers. Its seeds are subject to patent
claims which will indirectly increase the price of food and, as a result, will not alleviate poverty or hunger and pose a threat to food sovereignty. This analysis is shared by the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report. Initiated by several UN bodies and the World Bank, the report is the first global scientific agriculture assessment. Compiled by over 400 scientists from around the world, the assessment sees no role for GM crops in achieving the Millennium Development Goals or in eradicating hunger.
Traditional and modern conventional breeding techniques can help achieve long-term solutions to the food crisis. They increase plants’ ability to withstand the unpredictable and variable weather brought by climate change.
Genetically engineered crops are going to provide the food self sufficiency and also taking care of the providing better nutritional value in near future. But it requires the thorough food safety testing before coming to a conclusion that GE crops are a threat to biodiversity.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.