heres what I would of said... A Treatise on GE technology in its relation to agriculture and its future with and for humanity "Does UCS Have a Position On GE? Yes. We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we are critics of its commercial application and regulation to date. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production. However, its applications in agriculture so far have fallen short of expectations, and in some cases have caused serious problems. Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture and food system with broad societal benefits, the technology has been employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry PR campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland. These are a few things policy makers should do to best serve the public interest: Expand research funding for public crop breeding programs, so that a broad range of non-GE as well as GE crop varieties will remain available. Expand public research funding and incentives to further develop and adopt agroecologically based farming systems. Take steps—such as changes in patent law—to facilitate independent scientific research on GE risks and benefits. Take a more rigorous, conservative approach to GE product approvals, so that products do not come to market until their risks and benefits are well understood. Support food labeling laws that require foods containing GE crops to be clearly identified as such, so that consumers can make informed decisions about buying GE products." (ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/) Now i think it is important for me to say I take a stance against current ge farming methods so my stance is clear and to practice complete transparency... The current GE farming model being put forward seems to focus more on financial gain and industry dominance to the point of monopoly rather than yield production, overall human health, long term sustainability, and economic prosperity using aruably deplorable business practices and ethically and morally challenging practices. I believe this to be a severe flaw in our current farm model for farming should focus on growing food for our growing population in a manner that allows for the health of such individuals and the continuation of the use of the land for agricultural uses. This does not have to be done in a manner that harms in any form, economic, health, or morally for any reason as it is quite within our capabilities to do it otherwise. I summit the following study... ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html In this study we can see that despite the numerous claims by the GE sector as a whole we can see that yields have not increased in a significant way despite vast expenditure and dedication. Of all the products they have provided the only one that has any verifiable scientific increase in yield would be Bt corn. "Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided." (failure) Now according to this US crop yield growth has benefited from traditional practices such as selective breeding and "agroecological farming",or farming to create the best conditions for said enterprise, rather than the new technology of GE agriculture. As for Bt Corn I find that Bt or Bacillus thuringiensis is commonly used on organic farms or farms claiming to be such. It is used in a spray form which seems to be efficient thus in my mind questioning the need to develop crops that significantly produce the same results at a large increase of both monetary, resource, and work expenditure. I summit the following studies... consumersunion.org/news/consumers-union-statement-on-new-long-term-study-of-feeding-ge-grains-to-pigs/ sciencedirect/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 In these studies we can see that despite claims of safety their is substance to claims and worries of the consumers health due to eatting of GE products. Although both studys particularly the later have led to controversy amongst the science community together they lend eachother credibility and should encourage caution and more research. There does seem to be statistcal significance in the possibility of decreased health in individuals who consume of GE products containing Round-up. With an already taxed healthcare system in american that will only become more taxed as baby boomers continue to age along with new obamacare reforms precaution to tax it more would, seem to me, to be in order. Preventive care is at the forefront of health of which diet is a large factor. Thus it would seem to me to be in the best national interest to provide high quality food for individuals. As concluded by the author of the first study “The results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.” I summit the following articles... guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/22/us-government-sued-pesticides-bee-harm guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline These articles strongly suggest a correlation and possible direct cause between the use of neonicotinoids and the decline of bee populations experienced in the US and UK. This is quite alarming as bees the leading pollinators of most farms and food we eat. Their health should be seen and is linked to our own health and future of our food system. This could be a early warning that we are straying far from the natural order of nature and food production of the planet and ecosystem of which we inhabit questioning the sustainablity of such practices. I also can see that use of pesticides from companies such as sygenta who are also the same companies putting out many GE products are truly lacking in strong, rigourous and independent research before being used in large commercial application. This is costing the US money due the the loss of livelyhoods as well as being sued. I summit the following article... online.wsj/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515502675414838.html In this article we can see the some of the unforseen costs of the current GE model. The US is an agricultural nation where agricultural products our one of our main exports. We rely on contracts with countries like Japan and the cost of losing them would seem to me to be greater than any benefit that GE can so provide. I summit the following interview... non-gmoreport/articles/june2013/former-genetic-engineer-speaks-against-gmo-risks.php In this interview we can see some of the inner workings of the GE industry as well as some of the cautions that should be considered. There seems to be a understanding of lack of understanding even amongst there own scientists and a questioning to the viability of this as a new farming model. There are many questions such as the effects of rouge proteins and the deteroiation of soil life by such model. In the end this is just further evidence for the questioning of the health and sustainability claims put forward by the GE companies. I summit the following article... huffingtonpost/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html In this article I believe many of the GE sectors business practices Monsanto in particular are brought to light. I feel that not only do they not have the best for America, american agriculture and the people at heart but also rely on poor business practices to enforce their policies. I believe that they are seeking complete industry monopoly which in and of itself is against the american capitalist system. I believe tactics reduce competition and ability to enter the industry almost completely. This alone should be reason for a formal investiagation due to the antitrust laws. In the end and in conclusion I believe the evidence provided here is enough to at least advise high level of caution in the full implementation of such an agricultural model. I believe that much of GE technology as a whole has yet to be verified independently and without preconcieved bias on both sides... This alone in my mind should encourage caution and the demand for more research and longer trials until either GE claims are proven true of otherwise... but what are the alternatives??? ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/healthy-farm-vision.html I believe this to be an agricultural model that focuses on high yields, higher health, higher sustainability, and higher economic sufficiency than could be provided by the GE regime. I enourage this to be looked at and perhaps researched as well. It seems like this will provide the results that an agricultural model should hope to provide in a way accessable to the many rather than being monopolized by a few. In the end I find this system to be more free, just, and inline with the american principals. Humbly Daniel Schuberth
Posted on: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:13:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015