Jump to content
Tuts 4 You
whoknows

Bayer closes $63 billion Monsanto takeover

Recommended Posts

whoknows

The advent of new genetic engineering technologies, namely CRISPR Cas, is now about to change the game substantially. It will probably open a new chapter of the GMO dispute.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/germanys-bayer-closes-monsanto-deal-plans-to-drop-us-companys-name.html

ref - September 6th and 7th 2018 in Berlin - https://www.gmo-free-regions.org/9th-conference-gmo-free-europe.html

ref - https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/five-things-monsanto-doesnt-want-you-know-about-gmos

 

A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose genetic makeup has been modified in a laboratory using genetic engineering or transgenic technology. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu

Hi,

Nice to see some posts about science topics.

Although the name "Monsanto" is associated with all things bad in the general public,  is it important to point out that MonsantoGMOs in general. It is often claimed that GMO crops pose a significant risk to our health and are a threat to the environment.
At least two statements about the impacts of GMO crops (health, environment, etc) have been written by some of the most prestiguous scientific associations in the world (NAS - National Academy of Sciences & AAAS) and after evaluating the evidence for or against the benefits and dangers of GMO crops they released a report/consensus statement.

From the executive summary of the NAS statement:    ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects )

Quote

 

There have been claims that GE crops have had adverse effects on human health. Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.

 

And from the one by the AAAS:   ( https://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods )

Quote

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

In short: There is no high-quality evidence that suggests that GMO crops pose a threat to human health.
In case everyone knew this already: Good. In case you did not: You're welcome 🙂

Cheers
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoknows
Posted (edited)
Quote

There is no high-quality evidence that suggests that GMO crops pose a threat to human health.
In case everyone knew this already: Good. In case you did not: You're welcome

I hope, you joking - look how made the story from their side hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

--

Bio/Organic foods - EU Commission Declaration

Quote

without having recourse to genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-legislation/brief-overview_en

 

Quote

What biotechnology and biotech corporations like Monsanto have done, is they have allowed the transfer of genes from one kingdom to the other without any regard for the biological limitations, or constraints. The problem with this is that it is based on very bad science.

https://dailyinformator.com/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-can-be-transferred-into-humans-who-eat-them

 

Quote

Link between the introduction of GMOs and an increased number of diseases developed by the cows

http://www.euronews.com/2016/01/27/report-claims-of-link-between-animal-health-and-gm-crops

--

yday @ :

The first person to take Monsanto to trial

Over the years, however, studies have suggested otherwise, and in 2015, the World Health Organization’s international agency for research on cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

Roundup products are registered in 130 countries and approved for use on more than 100 crops, and glyphosate has been found in food, a variety of water sources, and the urine of agricultural workers and others. A number of countries have policies banning or restricting the sale and use of glyphosate.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/09/monsanto-trial-roundup-weedkiller-cancer-dewayne-johnson

 

Edited by whoknows (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kao

Let's bring out our tin-foil hats! :sorc:

Everyone has a right to believe in anything, if he/she wants to. Be it gay marriage, life after death, pastafarianism or that GMOs are bad. I don't have problem with that.
But I do have a problem if and when such person tries to spread this opinion, especially in a place which has absolutely nothing to do with it. This is a reverse engineering board, for gods sake!

 

Your arguments are invalid and here's why:

1) You ripped half-a-sentence out of context because it seems to support your point. But it doesn't. Full paragraph is this:

Quote

Organic production respects natural systems and cycles. Biological and mechanical production processes and land-related production should be used to achieve sustainability, without having recourse to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

This paragraph merely explains what is organic farming and how it should work. It does not say that GMOs are bad or undesirable *in general*, it plainly states that organic farming should achieve sustainability without using them.

2) Dailyinformator is certainly "reliable" source of scientific information. :D Just look at their research! "Scientists say: If a woman has these 14 qualities, never let her go", "BBC Doc Proves Jesus Was A Buddhist Monk Named Issa Who Spent ..." and "Former Apollo 15 Astronaut says Ancient Aliens created humans". Do I need to say more?

3) The research the Euronews article refers to was done by Gilles-Éric Séralini who is well known as having, to put it mildly, controversial opinions about GMOs. See Wikipedia and sources it links to.

4) Roundup has absolutely nothing to do with GMOs. But since you hate Monsanto, why not use whatever unrelated argument you can find to "prove" your point. :)

 

To sum it up - you only see what you want to see. Ever heard of echo chamber?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoknows
Posted (edited)
Quote

You ripped half-a-sentence out of context 

1- ^no is not like that, the headline is Bio/Organic foods - EU Commission Declaration and ofc I cut the needed part. Just to show that Organic is for 2 serious reasons, the important is the non-GMO.

2-null

3-all wikipedia is manipulated

4-true

--

you think that sites like

Quote

https://www.nongmoproject.org
Creation Date: 2005-10-01T02:53:58Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2027-10-01T02:53:58Z

https://www.gmo-free-regions.org
Creation Date: 2005-02-09T12:21:47Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-02-09T12:21:47Z


get paid by someones or that made fun ?

--


or what all about these cancers appear, again for fun (?) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

is all about money, using GMO they have minimum 50% turnover.


---

Quote

Everyone has a right to believe in anything, if he/she wants to. Be it gay marriage, life after death, pastafarianism or that GMOs are bad. I don't have problem with that.

^dont take it personally, this pseudodemocracy, still fornicating the world, decades now... there are some defaults in life, you cant make it up side down.

So lets stick only to 'Everyone has a right to believe in anything' respected 100%.

--

now the ferronickel producers starting messing up with the water we drinking world wide... but all these hiding, they buying people, more and more...

--

Paradox - 

Quote

To sum it up - you only see what you want to see

 

--

moreover @ :

http://earthopensource.org/downloads/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf

 

DNA Damage from CRISPR Has Been ‘Seriously Underestimated’

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3qv7a/dna-damage-from-crispr-has-been-seriously-underestimated

 

Edited by whoknows (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×