Question "GMO" Myth revealed -planting standard crops less intensively sets world record yield without using toxins, GMO risks, fertilizers and is much cheaper

Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
No publicity is given to the record rice crop yields obtained by low tech changes to the way plants are looked after, and changing to low intensivity farming, less labor and mechanization use, without GMO or pesticides and little fertilizer, less water and toxins - producing better quality and cheaper food under almost all known land conditions and demonstrated in 100,000s of cases researched by State, University, NGOs and others around the world including Cornell University.

Meeting World Food Needs by Raising the Productivity of Land, Labor, Capital and Water with less intensive agriculture and by using less Plants, Labor, Capital Machines, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides and Water - producing higher yields and better quality cheaper foods without the need for GMO, intensive agriculture and toxins

However no funding is provided to develop and roll out the proven programs for commercial farmers over different crops that would produce better quality food and yields at cheaper prices, with little or no toxins, be GMO free, using less water, labor, machinery and other inputs etc and is far better for the environment -

Why no support ..... who gains?

View: https://youtu.be/HWZa53ZUREQ


Why are we still advancing GMO alone and not also using alternative crop enhancement processes to compare results ?

Techniques could be applied to other crops from small scale to big commercial operations

The world record yield for paddy rice production is not held by an agricultural research station or by a large-scale farmer from the United States, but by Sumant Kumar who has a farm of just two hectares in Darveshpura village in the state of Bihar in Northern India. His record yield of 22.4 tons per hectare, from a one-acre plot, was achieved with what is known as the System of Rice Intensification (SRI). To put his achievement in perspective, the average paddy yield worldwide is about 4 tons per hectare. Even with the use of fertilizer, average yields are usually not more than 8 tons.

Sumant Kumar’s success was not a fluke. Four of his neighbors, using SRI methods, and all for the first time, matched or exceeded the previous world record from China, 19 tons per hectare. Moreover, they used only modest amounts of inorganic fertilizer and did not need chemical crop protection.

Using SRI methods, smallholding farmers in many countries are starting to get higher yields and greater productivity from their land, labor, seeds, water and capital, with their crops showing more resilience to the hazards of climate change (Thakur et al 2009; Zhao et al 2009).

These productivity gains have been achieved simply by changing the ways that farmers manage their plants, soil, water and nutrients.

The effect is to get crop plants to grow larger, healthier, longer-lived root systems, accompanied by increases in the abundance, diversity and activity of soil organisms. These organisms constitute a beneficial microbiome for plants that enhances their growth and health in ways similar to how the human microbiome benefits Homo sapiens.

That altered management practices can induce more productive, resilient phenotypes from existing rice plant genotypes has been seen in over 50 countries. The reasons for this improvement are not all known, but there is a growing literature that helps account for the improvements observed in yield and health for rice crops using SRI.

The ideas and practices that constitute SRI were developed inductively in Madagascar some 30 years ago for rice. They are now being adapted to improve the productivity of a wide variety of other crops, starting with wheat, finger millet and sugarcane. Producing more output with fewer external inputs may sound improbable, but it derives from a shift in emphasis from improving plant genetic potential via plant breeding, to providing optimal environments for crop growth.

The adaptation of SRI experience and principles to other crops is being referred to generically as the System of Crop Intensification (SCI), encompassing variants for wheat (SWI), maize (SMI), finger millet (SFMI), sugarcane (SSI), mustard (rapeseed/canola)(another SMI), teff (STI), legumes such as pigeon peas, lentils and soya beans, and vegetables such as tomatoes, chillies and eggplant.

That similar results are seen across such a range of plants suggests some generic processes may be involved, and these practices are not only good for growing rice. This suggests to Prof. Norman Uphoff and colleagues within the SRI network that more attention should be given to the contributions that are made to agricultural production by the soil biota, both in the plants’ rhizospheres but also as symbiotic endophytes within the plants themselves (Uphoff et al. 2012).

The evidence reported below has drawn heavily, with permission, from a report that Dr. Uphoff prepared on the extension of SRI to other crops (Uphoff 2012). Much more research and evaluation needs to be done on this progression to satisfy both scientists and practitioners. But this gives an idea of what kinds of advances in agricultural knowledge and practice appear to be emerging.

Origins and Principles
Deriving from empirical work started in the 1960s in Madagascar by a French priest, Fr. Henri de Laulanié, S.J., the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) has shown remarkable capacity to raise smallholders’ rice productivity under a wide variety of conditions around the world: from tropical rainforest regions of Indonesia, to mountainous regions in northeastern Afghanistan, to fertile river basins in India and Pakistan, to arid conditions of Timbuktu on the edge of the Sahara Desert in Mali. SRI methods have proved adaptable to a wide range of agroecological settings.

With SRI management, paddy yields are usually increased by 50-100%, but sometimes by even more, even up to the super-yields of Sumant Kumar and his neighbors. Requirements for seed are greatly reduced (by 80-90%), as are those for irrigation water (by 25-50%). Little or no inorganic fertilizer is required if sufficient organic matter can be provided to the soil, and there is little if any need for agrochemical crop protection against pests and diseases. SRI plants are also generally healthier and better able to resist such stresses as well as drought, extremes of temperature, flooding, and storm damage.

SRI methodology is based on four main principles that interact in synergistic ways:

  • Establish healthy plants early and carefully, nurturing their root potential.
  • Reduce plant populations, giving each plant more room to grow above and below ground and room to capture sunlight and obtain nutrients.
  • Enrich the soil with organic matter, keeping it well-aerated to support better growth of roots and more aerobic soil biota.
  • Apply water purposefully in ways that favor plant-root and soil-microbial growth, avoiding flooded (anaerobic) soil conditions.
These principles are translated into a number of irrigated rice cultivation practices which under most smallholder farmers’ conditions are the following:

  • Plant young seedlings carefully and singly, giving them wider spacing usually in a square pattern, so that both roots and canopy have ample room to spread.
  • Keep the soil moist but not inundated. Provide sufficient water for plant roots and beneficial soil organisms to grow, but not so much as to suffocate or suppress either, e.g., through alternate wetting and drying, or through small but regular applications.
  • Add as much compost, mulch or other organic matter to the soil as possible, ‘feeding the soil’ so that the soil can, in turn, ‘feed the plant.’
  • Control weeds with mechanical methods that can incorporate weeds while breaking up the soil’s surface. This actively aerates the root zone as a beneficial by-product of weed control. This practice can promote root growth and the abundance of beneficial soil organisms, adding to yield.
The cumulative result of these practices is to induce the growth of more productive and healthier plants (phenotypes) from any given variety (genotype).

Variants of SRI practices suitable for upland regions have been developed by farmers where there are no irrigation facilities, so SRI is not just for irrigated rice production any more. In both settings, crops can be productive with less irrigation water or rainfall because taking up SRI recommendations enhances the capacity of soil systems to absorb and provide water (‘green water’). SRI practices initially developed to benefit small-scale rice growers are being adapted now for larger-scale production, with methods such as direct-seeding instead of transplanting, and with the mechanization of some labor-intensive operations such as weeding (Sharif 2011).

From the System of Rice Intensification to the System of Crop Intensification
Once the principles of SRI became understood by farmers and they had mastered its practices for rice, farmers began extending SRI ideas and methods to other crops. NGOs and some scientists have also become interested in and supportive of this extrapolation, so a novel process of innovation has ensued. Some results of this process are summarized here.

The following information is not a research report. The comparisons below are not experiment station data but rather results that have come from farmers’ fields in Asia and Africa. The measurements of yields reported here probably have some margin of error. But the differences seen are so large and are so often repeated that they are certainly significant agronomically. The results in the following sections are comparisons with farmers’ current practices, showing how much more production farmers in developing countries could be achieving from their presently available resources.

See link for more

 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
Meeting World Food Needs by Raising the Productivity of Land, Labor, Capital and Water with less intensive agriculture and by using less Plants, Labor, Capital Machines, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides and Water - producing higher yields and better quality cheaper foods without the need for GMO, intensive agriculture and toxins

See next post
 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
Meeting World Food Needs by Raising the Productivity of Land, Labor, Capital and Water with less intensive agriculture

See next post
 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
Meeting World Food Needs by Raising the Productivity of Land, Labor, Capital and Water with less intensive agriculture and by using less Plants, Labor, Capital, Machines, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides and Water - producing higher yields and better quality cheaper foods without the need for GMO, intensive agriculture and toxins


Cornell University


Cornell University Presentation - see youtube video at end

Norm Uphoff discusses opportunities indicated by the system used for many years that multiplies yields of traditional crops by 5x or more by

Planting less intensively, with less labor, less mechanization, less other inputs like fertilizer, water and toxins that harm insects and humans

These methods can be industrialized and used on a range of commercial crops

This shows that by planting traditional grains and other plants less intensively and using simple cheap methods for improving soil management and air uptake to encourage normal root and fungal growth means yields in all types of environment (except water logged land) increased by around 5 times compared to tradtional or GMO intensive agriculture

These results were repeated in 100,000s of cases across the world and documented by a range of State, University and NGO researchers including Cornell University

Mainstream agri-business, GMO researchers and traditional academics have pushed back saying it is not possible to achieve these results despite the proven results.

Less density planting with simple land management = significantly higher yields (5x or more) and better and cheaper food

The quality of the grains produced is better and yields more flour when milled compared to the same grains of equal weight grown under traditional conditions at the same site. This is because there is less poor quality grain grown under these new methods

This can be further seen by Millers paying 10% more for rice grown using these methods

Economic, academic, business and political groups appear to be blocking the funding of this research as it could change the way farms operate - so effecting farm machinery, fertilizers & seed suppliers etc profits and business

View: https://youtu.be/HWZa53ZUREQ

 
Mar 19, 2020
285
37
730
If there were a problem, with GMOs you would have a point. They can have less water demand than regular crops and grow more, no fertilizer required for the basic effect. Although, I am going to use your tips to plant my beets more effectivly this year in my garden, thanks.
 
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
If you watch the Cornell University video you will see how and why there are major problems with GMO crops. All food products containing GMOs should be labelled

A top GMO scientist has come out and set out why he wants the GMOs food he created at Monstanto and in his own later company pulled from the market - and why generally all GMOs are bad for people.

See post link at end about Caius Rommes who after he received his PhD went to the University of California in Berkeley and helped develop a new branch of genetic engineering and then worked for Monstanto and then set up his own GMO food developer.

It is well established that GMO crops require more water pesticides and fertilizer than regular crops, damages the environment and creates a host of long term problems that kill pollinators and other wildlife. GMOs fail to match or exceed safer and cheaper non GMO food production methods.

GMOs incease the costs of food production and the toxic chemicals present in human and animal foods.

Most GMO crops have little if any long term benefit except for their developers and create long term food production problems such as the requirement for increasing using of pesticides and fertilisers and long term contracts for farmers etc

See the post below about the failure and dangers of GMOs including FDA and EU Regulator research showing GMOs created antibiotic resistant cattle and plants which may open the human immune system to being shut down and open to viral attacks. These problems were found by chance not as a result of a formal FDA regulatory approval processes for GMOs.

There are serious issues with the regulation of GMO research including the failure to ensure it is carried out properly and that the regulators are controlled by the very industry that creates GMOs (in some countries this control is direct - see Argentina)


 
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
If there were a problem, with GMOs you would have a point.
GMO editing has created problems in the edited plant and animal cells including antibiotic resistant cattle and papaya open to infection by both animal or plant viruses.

The GMO processes are pretty much the same for plants and animals.

Plant and animal DNA can be and are inserted into each other. The problems are often only discovered by other researchers later, not by the regulators or those doing the initial editing.

Some problems may not be found for a long time or not at all. Some GMO editing has left open reading frames in the edited DNA which means that viruses can use these as a vehicle to enter and disable the immune system of a plant or animal - see example below discovered by European Food Regulators researching Hawaiian GMO papaya in which an open frame was discovered which is very dangerous and leaves the plant or animal open to further later insertions by viruses etc at anytime

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNvLhjalJMY


GMO editing to cut out DNA can be precise and is called tweaking
but as soon as you add anything into the edit then the problems can start as the genetic damage is repaired by the cell

The DNA repair process cannot be controlled and ends up creating unknown mutations by the random insertion of any non-host DNA included along with the edited material inserted during the gene editing. See youtube video above

Japanese researchers looking at mouse cell DNA recently edited found e-coli, bovin and goat DNA to have been inserted during the repair process.

A range of foreign and unintended DNA has been found inserted in fruitflies, fish, mice, yeast, the nematode C. elegans and various plants

The gene editors appear not to know that this had happened and regulators also seem to have failed to pick up most of these issues as part of any approval process

GMO editing can have major problems.

In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses.

Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture.

Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm


Watch Dr Latham's presentation in the video below from 45 minutes on and you will see how the GMO editing is flawed and foreign DNA, bacterial, viral, plant and animal DNA can be randomly added in gene editing with unknown and sometimes obviously dangerous results.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-c33wZGs74&feature=youtu.be


In 2015 Japanese researchers showed that DNA edits made to mouse zygotes using the CRISPR method of gene editing are also vulnerable to unintended insertion of non-host DNA (Ono et al., 2015).

Since then, similar integrations of foreign DNA at the target site have been observed in many species: fruitflies (Drosophila melanogaster), medaka fish (Oryzias latipes), mice, yeast, Aspergillus (a fungus), the nematode C. elegans, Daphnia magna, and various plants

The same Japanese group showed that DNA from the E. coli genome can integrate in the target organisms’ genome (Ono et al. 2019). Acquisition of E. coli DNA was found to be quite frequent. Insertion of long unintended DNA sequences occurred at 4% of the total number of edited sites and 21% of these were of DNA from the E. coli genome. The source of the E. coli DNA was traced back to the E. coli cells that were used to produce the vector plasmid. The vector plasmid, which is DNA, was contaminated with E. coligenome DNA. Importantly, the Japanese researchers were using standard methods of vector plasmid preparation.

Even more intriguing was the finding, in the same paper, that edited mouse genomes can acquire bovine DNA or goat DNA (Ono et al., 2019).


By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

I left science in large part because it seemed impossible to do research while also providing the unvarnished public scepticism that I believed the public, as ultimate funder and risk-taker of that science, was entitled to.

Criticism of science and technology remains very difficult. Even though many academics benefit from tenure and a large salary, the sceptical process in much of science is largely lacking. This is why risk assessment of GMOs has been short-circuited and public concerns about them are growing. Until the damaged scientific ethos is rectified, both scientists and the public are correct to doubt that GMOs should ever have been let out of any lab.


Transparency

Another example of problems with GMO editing is shown via the USA Company Cibus a gene editing seed company, which announced its SU Canola is a rapeseed engineered with oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM), a gene editing technique, to withstand spraying with certain herbicides.

Products of gene editing fall within the scope of EU GMO law, according to a European Court of Justice ruling of 2018.

When the company launched SU Canola on the North American market, it touted it as its “first commercial seed product developed using its rapid trait development system (RTDS), a patented gene-editing tool”.

When Cibus went to investors in 2019, Cibus said in a preliminary prospectus filed with the US Securities Exchange Commission that SU Canola was gene edited.

Consequently, the rapeseed was listed as a GMO in the EU GMO databaserun by German regulator BVL and Wageningen University, and in the Clearinghouse of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

However Cibus said in 2020 the product was not a result of gene editing after it was informed that its GMO canola could now be detected by a test and so could excluded from being improted for sale and use in the EU

On 7 September 2020, an open source detection test became available for the first gene-edited crop on the market, SU Canola, developed by US company Cibus. The test was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Foods.




Discussion with Dr Latham on Regulatory Structural Failings

 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
258
35
730
GMO started with the first bite of a predator. Every new generation of growth is GMOed. Plant disease and insects have done thousands of years of GMO. Whenever you shop, harvest or hunt, you are participating in an GMO event. We can just do it faster now....in a lab.

Other than water and rock salt, what foods do you consume that has not been GMOed? Do you have any idea of what our crops and stock looked like and tasted like before thousands of years of GMOing?

Cloning and growing in a sterile environment, would be the only non GMO solution. If GMO scares or worries you.
 
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
I am not saying nature has not improved crops and animals over time ..... or that man cannot help by breeding techniques or certain types of GMO editing to remove DNA

However the natural / wild breeding selection process of plants and animals do not involve animal, fish, viral or plant etc DNA being mixed with each other as part of any natural process.

Also with GMOs sometimes markers are added to identify the GMO crop from control plants - for example an anti-biotic DNA is added just as a marker. This could have unknown dangerous consequences

I quoted previously and below from Caius Rommens a Berkeley Phd GMO researcher who developed a new field of GMO processes, then worked for Monsanto and then set up SIMPLOT a commercially successful GMO developer.

He has around 200 GMO patents to his name and has said in a book that all his GMO foods should be withdrawn

"Pandora’s Potatoes.’ This book, which is now available on Amazon, explains why I renounce my work at Simplot and why the GMO varieties should be withdrawn from the market"

He now breeds plants and animals using conventional techniques to improve them

In 2013 Caius Rommens concluded GMO processes were dangerous. He has reviewed his patents and says the lessons apply to all GMO work for plants and animals etc

GMO editing that inserts DNA is not the same as what happens in nature and cannot be compared as it often involves different life forms being combined

So simple cross breeding of species to improve a wheat corn, livestock etc or cutting out DNA is not the same as inserting DNA

There are 2 parts the initial cutting out and insertion of required DNA. This can be relatively easy to control

However the primary long term effects are unknown.... as Caius Rommens has shown he refers to assumptions about DDT etc as an example. See later on

However the secondary DNA repair process cannot be controlled and this is where secondary additional unknowable side effects and other DNA additions take place separate to any primary inserted DNA and unknown primary side effects.

GMO processes involve foreign DNA in solution.

This solution contains both the selected required DNA and other foreign species DNA separate from the required DNA. This is a high risk area

The known results to date have included

1. antibiotic resistant cattle

2. Japanese researchers looking at mouse cell DNA recently edited found e-coli, bovin and goat DNA to have been inserted during the repair process.

3. A range of foreign and unintended DNA has been found inserted in fruitflies, fish, mice, yeast, the nematode C. elegans and various plants

4. Open reading frarmes in DNA

This is what has been found mostly by accident not from any approval process or by the GMO editor

This does not address the creation of toxin resistant plants or toxins in plants etc

The research papers about all this are set out in the previous posts and in links below

Please watch the video from 45 minutes in to see the secondary risks in gene editing healing process for plants/animals

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-c33wZGs74&feature=youtu.be


Also note GMO work has left edited organisms open to further unknown modification by errors in the GMO editing process - termed leaving an open reading frame in the DNA.

This is very dangerous and is not allowed by regulators but is also not typically checked for.

An open reading frame could even allow humans to become compromised by viruses, which could use such open reading frames in the GMO food humans eat to infect humans via bacteria or viruses

Note also that Caius Rommens the GMO Phd developer who previously worked for Monsanto and at University of California in Berkeley helped develop a new branch of genetic engineering and had said that all his SIMPLOT GMO potatoes should be withdrawn from the market says that the SIMPLOT lessons apply to all GMO products...

[Quotes]

The GMO potatoes are likely to accumulate at least two toxins ..
...

......I renounce my work at Simplot and ..... the GMO varieties should be withdrawn from the market.

It is a warning and a call for action: a hope that others will step forward with additional evidence, so that the public, with its limited financial means, has a chance to counter the narrow-mindedness of the biotech industry.

My book describes the many hidden issues of GMO potatoes, but GMO potatoes are not the exception. They are the rule.

I could just as well have written (and may write) about the experimental GMO varieties we developed at Monsanto, which contains an antifungal protein that I now recognize as allergenic, about the disease resistance that caused insect sensitivity, or about anything else in genetic engineering.

........They don’t understand the level of bias and self-deception that exists among genetic engineers.

Indeed, anyone who is pro-science should understand that science is meant to study nature, not to modify it—and certainly not to predict, in the face of strong evidence, the absence of unintended effects..........

The real anti-science movement is not on the streets. It is, as I discovered, in the laboratories of corporate America....

Another strange assumption was that I had felt able to predict the absence of unintentional long-term effects on the basis of short-term experiments. It was the same assumption that chemists had used when they commercialized DDT, Agent Orange, PCBs, rGBH, and so on.

The true scope of my errors became obvious to me only after I had relocated to a small farm in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest.

By this time Simplot had announced the regulatory approval of my GMO varieties. As the company began to plan for quiet introductions in American and Asian markets, I was breeding plants and animals independently, using conventional methods.

And since I still felt uncomfortable about my corporate past, I also re-evaluated the about two hundred patents and articles that I had published in the past, as well as the various petitions for deregulation.


 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
Please note this original post was not about the risks from GMOs but how non GMO farming yields can yield 5x or more than GMOs and use less water, toxins, fertilizers, labor and finance etc plus can be used on both industrial farms and small holdings and poor quality land without damaging the environment and insects wildlife and plants as GMO farming does

The GMO Myth is clear - we do not need GMOs and they have been shown in some cases to have dangerous or negative long-term effects set out in the previous posts above on humans, plants, wildlife and the world we live in

For Cornell University backed benefits of non-GMO over GMO see info below from previous posts and Cornell video

Cornell University Presentation - see youtube video at end

Norm Uphoff discusses opportunities indicated by the system used for many years that multiplies yields of traditional crops by 5x or more by

Planting less intensively, with less labor, less mechanization, less other inputs like fertilizer, water and toxins that harm insects and humans

These methods can be industrialized and used on a range of commercial crops

This shows that by planting traditional grains and other plants less intensively and using simple cheap methods for improving soil management and air uptake to encourage normal root and fungal growth means yields in all types of environment (except water logged land) increased by around 5 times compared to tradtional or GMO intensive agriculture

These results were repeated in 100,000s of cases across the world and documented by a range of State, University and NGO researchers including Cornell University

Mainstream agri-business, GMO researchers and traditional academics have pushed back saying it is not possible to achieve these results despite the proven results.

Less density planting with simple land management = significantly higher yields (5x or more) and better and cheaper food

The quality of the grains produced is better and yields more flour when milled compared to the same grains of equal weight grown under traditional conditions at the same site. This is because there is less poor quality grain grown under these new methods

This can be further seen by Millers paying 10% more for rice grown using these methods

Economic, academic, business and political groups appear to be blocking the funding of this research as it could change the way farms operate - so effecting farm machinery, fertilizers & seed suppliers etc profits and business

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZa53ZUREQ&feature=youtu.be
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Please note this original post was not about the risks from GMOs but how non GMO farming yields can yield 5x or more than GMOs and use less water, toxins, fertilizers, labor and finance etc plus can be used on both industrial farms and small holdings and poor quality land without damaging the environment and insects wildlife and plants as GMO farming does

The GMO Myth is clear - we do not need GMOs and they have been shown in some cases to have dangerous or negative long-term effects set out in the previous posts above on humans, plants, wildlife and the world we live in

For Cornell University backed benefits of non-GMO over GMO see info below from previous posts and Cornell video

Cornell University Presentation - see youtube video at end

Norm Uphoff discusses opportunities indicated by the system used for many years that multiplies yields of traditional crops by 5x or more by

Planting less intensively, with less labor, less mechanization, less other inputs like fertilizer, water and toxins that harm insects and humans

These methods can be industrialized and used on a range of commercial crops

This shows that by planting traditional grains and other plants less intensively and using simple cheap methods for improving soil management and air uptake to encourage normal root and fungal growth means yields in all types of environment (except water logged land) increased by around 5 times compared to tradtional or GMO intensive agriculture

These results were repeated in 100,000s of cases across the world and documented by a range of State, University and NGO researchers including Cornell University

Mainstream agri-business, GMO researchers and traditional academics have pushed back saying it is not possible to achieve these results despite the proven results.

Less density planting with simple land management = significantly higher yields (5x or more) and better and cheaper food

The quality of the grains produced is better and yields more flour when milled compared to the same grains of equal weight grown under traditional conditions at the same site. This is because there is less poor quality grain grown under these new methods

This can be further seen by Millers paying 10% more for rice grown using these methods

Economic, academic, business and political groups appear to be blocking the funding of this research as it could change the way farms operate - so effecting farm machinery, fertilizers & seed suppliers etc profits and business

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZa53ZUREQ&feature=youtu.be
When I worked in a produce department in a grocery store, I was encouraged to educate myself about our products and inform our customers.
After reading that braising older veggies is often a good way of bringing out a depth of flavor and enhancing the quality of older products, I posted a handwritten sign by the cabbage, which was never close to fresh (we usually had to peel layer after layer of rotten leaves just to display the product), saying just as much. I was immediately reprimanded by a manager. "What kind of message does that send to the customer?"
You wanna know why nobody changes the way we (particularly big companies) manage crops, even though we all know it would be to our benefit?
Because every defineable sector of our society has empowered people to be liars. Not only do we not care, we are happy to play along.
 
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
Another aspect of the GMO myth relates to Glyphosate herbicides and other chemicals and pesticides used with GMO crops. The info below is all set out in the video docu at the end of this post - titled

Poisoned Fields - Glyphosate, the underrated risk?

This video sets out the medical studies, reports and sources of other tests and findings quoted below

At the end of the Poisoned Fields - Glyphosate video below from around 40.14 mins on it sets out that Glyphosate has been found in human breast milk in various locations in Germany and also in the USA, including Virginia, Florida etc. at very high levels far above those allowed by various regulatory agencies.

Glyphosate was also found in adults and childrens urine.

How this can happen needs to be fully researched as a range of serious human health issues are linked to Glyphosate

In Germany the regulators have confirmed they have not tested the other 20 chemicals used in GMO related herbicide products like Roundup and admit that some of these products are up to 1000 times more toxic than Glyphosate alone

Glyphosate based herbicides like Roundup are used on a range of human and animal foods have been shown in animal studies and real use on farms to be linked to lower fertility rates, higher still births and other defects and serious issues and gets into human water supplies and food

These Glyphosate related effects have been evidenced by farmers switching from animal food with glyphosate-based herbicide to foods without glyphosate. They saw animal fertility rates rise by 100%. In at least one case a farmer tested the results by switching back temporarily to animal foods with glyphosate and found the previous animal health problems then returned

Long term (24 months) university studies of rats fed on food with glyphosate at levels allowed for humans showed huge tumors and other toxicity of organs. The studies by the GMO companies of glyphosate products were for only 3 months and showed no ill effects. The same types of rats and accepted processes were used in both long and short term studies

It is also noted that glyphosate has antibiotic properties and has been patented as an antibiotic. However it was never used in this role because it was shown to kill beneficial gut bacteria but not harmful ones.

This has serious implications for human food health and that of the land on which glyphosate is sprayed as it destroys bacteria needed to maintain soil quality and life.

There are indications that long term use of GMOs and their glyphosate linked products can lead to a decline in crop yields of up to 40% as harmful soil bacteria not effected by glyphosate take over and allow the spread plant diseases through the soil

Additionally glyphosate was first developed as a pipe cleaner. Glyphosate binds all the minerals in the pipe to it and removes them. This same effect may also happen on the land glyphosate is sprayed on

Given the negative impact of glyphosate on animal health and the soil humans should have a strong desire to have independent glyphosate studies conducted.

A WHO panel reviewed medical studies on glyphosate and found the herbicide produced by Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF to be absolutely toxic and probably carcinogenic.

Bayer and others led a campaign against the WHO findings even before the WHO panel had begun its review. This was shown in court documents see the video Monsanto's Toxic Tricks

It appears that national regulatory agencies are unwilling to conduct studies on glyphosate even though some regulatory scientists have refused to sign off on glyphosate being safe to use or as non carcinogenic and studies used to support glyphosate paid for by chemical firms have been shown to to have been fabricated with court action taken

My conclusion is please have independent studies done on all these matters its in all our interests

See video below on Glyphosate

Poisoned Fields - Glyphosate, the underrated risk?

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyI10Z8aH0

Monsanto's Toxic Tricks


Very interesting presentation by a very humble Canadian farmer who was NOT seeking financial compensation from Monsanto for damages suffered due to his non GMO crop being contaminated by Monsanto but was taken to court by Monsanto

'The Farmer Who Took on Monsanto' -
Western Washington University

When Monsanto's 'Round-up Ready' GMO canola seeds were found in his fields, Monsanto sued the Schmeisers for patent infringement and sought $400,000 in damages. Monsanto offered to withdraw the suit if the Schmeisers signed a contract to buy the company's seeds in the future and to pay its associated technology-use fee. The Schmeisers contested the case to the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled that Monsanto did own the "Round-up Ready" gene, but that the Schmeisers owed no damages to Monsanto. When Monsanto's seeds again found their way into Percy's fields, he sued the company for cleanup costs. The case was settled when Monsanto agreed to pay to clean the Schmeisers' fields and dropped its demand that Percy not speak publicly about the matter.

From his experience, Percy has developed 12 principles for food and agriculture in an age of biotechnology. Schmeiser's story is one of the first and most prominent cases of a corporate claim to own patents on life.



Biology of Soil Health

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ntJouJhLM48


The docu below raises some very troubling GMO issues and interviews a lady member of the UK House of Lords about her own medical issues she says are related to glyphosate

The Peril on your Plate: Genetic engineering and chemical agriculture, what's in your food?

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VCmZJtztAvI


Finally it seems that there is an interesting slick and co-ordinated effort to soft promote GMOs through easy to watch videos promoted as addressing environmental issues in a clear way.

These videos do not address the known risks like the anti-biotic resistant GMO cattle that were accidentally developed and only found out about by accident, the lack of regulation and independent checking of GMO work or issues with accidentally inserting potentially human harmful virus or bacteria or other DNA in GMOs that resist insects and these effecting people.

Below are 2 of these slick GMO videos as you will see much of the content is similar or the same and aimed at the younger audience

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLhrUYtbCi0


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h4_t4Xgd4CA
 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
University Koblenz-Landau, Germany study and Uni of Bern Switzerland and other studies

indicate that in real terms more herbicides and pesticides are now being used with GMOs or GE crops than before GMOs as the newer toxins are much more leathal in smaller doses than the older toxins plus insects and weeds are becoming resistant and that pesticide use is growing as much in various GMOs as non GMO crops.

We fail to take on board that these insect and plant toxins are getting into human food and water supplies as a direct result of GMOs via the animals, plants, milk, water and drinks we consume

 
Last edited:
Mar 19, 2020
285
37
730
University Koblenz-Landau, Germany study and Uni of Bern Switzerland and other studies

indicate that in real terms more herbicides and pesticides are now being used with GMOs or GE crops than before GMOs as the newer toxins are much more leathal in smaller doses than the older toxins plus insects and weeds are becoming resistant and that pesticide use is growing as much in various GMOs as non GMO crops.

We fail to take on board that these insect and plant toxins are getting into human food and water supplies as a direct result of GMOs via the animals, plants, milk, water and drinks we consume

So is it the GMOs to blame or pesticide use? "Overall, pesticide toxicity for terrestrial plants is highest regardless of whether fields are conventional, non-GE, or GE," Is what the article says, and you say that pesticides are being used more because of growing resistance, which is true. So it would seem that it is not related to GMOs and simply a farming practices issue.
 
Mar 19, 2020
285
37
730
Another aspect of the GMO myth relates to Glyphosate herbicides and other chemicals and pesticides used with GMO crops. The info below is all set out in the video docu at the end of this post - titled

Poisoned Fields - Glyphosate, the underrated risk?

This video sets out the medical studies, reports and sources of other tests and findings quoted below

At the end of the Poisoned Fields - Glyphosate video below from around 40.14 mins on it sets out that Glyphosate has been found in human breast milk in various locations in Germany and also in the USA, including Virginia, Florida etc. at very high levels far above those allowed by various regulatory agencies.

Glyphosate was also found in adults and childrens urine.

How this can happen needs to be fully researched as a range of serious human health issues are linked to Glyphosate

In Germany the regulators have confirmed they have not tested the other 20 chemicals used in GMO related herbicide products like Roundup and admit that some of these products are up to 1000 times more toxic than Glyphosate alone

Glyphosate based herbicides like Roundup are used on a range of human and animal foods have been shown in animal studies and real use on farms to be linked to lower fertility rates, higher still births and other defects and serious issues and gets into human water supplies and food

These Glyphosate related effects have been evidenced by farmers switching from animal food with glyphosate-based herbicide to foods without glyphosate. They saw animal fertility rates rise by 100%. In at least one case a farmer tested the results by switching back temporarily to animal foods with glyphosate and found the previous animal health problems then returned

Long term (24 months) university studies of rats fed on food with glyphosate at levels allowed for humans showed huge tumors and other toxicity of organs. The studies by the GMO companies of glyphosate products were for only 3 months and showed no ill effects. The same types of rats and accepted processes were used in both long and short term studies

It is also noted that glyphosate has antibiotic properties and has been patented as an antibiotic. However it was never used in this role because it was shown to kill beneficial gut bacteria but not harmful ones.

This has serious implications for human food health and that of the land on which glyphosate is sprayed as it destroys bacteria needed to maintain soil quality and life.

There are indications that long term use of GMOs and their glyphosate linked products can lead to a decline in crop yields of up to 40% as harmful soil bacteria not effected by glyphosate take over and allow the spread plant diseases through the soil

Additionally glyphosate was first developed as a pipe cleaner. Glyphosate binds all the minerals in the pipe to it and removes them. This same effect may also happen on the land glyphosate is sprayed on

Given the negative impact of glyphosate on animal health and the soil humans should have a strong desire to have independent glyphosate studies conducted.

A WHO panel reviewed medical studies on glyphosate and found the herbicide produced by Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF to be absolutely toxic and probably carcinogenic.

Bayer and others led a campaign against the WHO findings even before the WHO panel had begun its review. This was shown in court documents see the video Monsanto's Toxic Tricks

It appears that national regulatory agencies are unwilling to conduct studies on glyphosate even though some regulatory scientists have refused to sign off on glyphosate being safe to use or as non carcinogenic and studies used to support glyphosate paid for by chemical firms have been shown to to have been fabricated with court action taken

My conclusion is please have independent studies done on all these matters its in all our interests

See video below on Glyphosate

Poisoned Fields - Glyphosate, the underrated risk?

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyI10Z8aH0

Monsanto's Toxic Tricks


Very interesting presentation by a very humble Canadian farmer who was NOT seeking financial compensation from Monsanto for damages suffered due to his non GMO crop being contaminated by Monsanto but was taken to court by Monsanto

'The Farmer Who Took on Monsanto' -
Western Washington University
When Monsanto's 'Round-up Ready' GMO canola seeds were found in his fields, Monsanto sued the Schmeisers for patent infringement and sought $400,000 in damages. Monsanto offered to withdraw the suit if the Schmeisers signed a contract to buy the company's seeds in the future and to pay its associated technology-use fee. The Schmeisers contested the case to the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled that Monsanto did own the "Round-up Ready" gene, but that the Schmeisers owed no damages to Monsanto. When Monsanto's seeds again found their way into Percy's fields, he sued the company for cleanup costs. The case was settled when Monsanto agreed to pay to clean the Schmeisers' fields and dropped its demand that Percy not speak publicly about the matter.

From his experience, Percy has developed 12 principles for food and agriculture in an age of biotechnology. Schmeiser's story is one of the first and most prominent cases of a corporate claim to own patents on life.



Biology of Soil Health

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ntJouJhLM48


The docu below raises some very troubling GMO issues and interviews a lady member of the UK House of Lords about her own medical issues she says are related to glyphosate

The Peril on your Plate: Genetic engineering and chemical agriculture, what's in your food?

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VCmZJtztAvI


Finally it seems that there is an interesting slick and co-ordinated effort to soft promote GMOs through easy to watch videos promoted as addressing environmental issues in a clear way.

These videos do not address the known risks like the anti-biotic resistant GMO cattle that were accidentally developed and only found out about by accident, the lack of regulation and independent checking of GMO work or issues with accidentally inserting potentially human harmful virus or bacteria or other DNA in GMOs that resist insects and these effecting people.

Below are 2 of these slick GMO videos as you will see much of the content is similar or the same and aimed at the younger audience

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLhrUYtbCi0


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h4_t4Xgd4CA
Could you link to anything on the cattle? And couldn't we just... kill them?
This video does emphasise the correct point, it is our farming systems that cause the problem, and you say it too. Companies like mosanto and our heavy use of various -icides are the problem, if GMOs simply enable the system, they aren't the problem.

And the House of Lords video, do you want to use a Russian propaganda conglomerate as a source?
 
Jul 2, 2020
223
27
130
So is it the GMOs to blame or pesticide use? "Overall, pesticide toxicity for terrestrial plants is highest regardless of whether fields are conventional, non-GE, or GE,"
This is really about why we do not need GMOs. We can have cheaper better food and environment without GMOs.

Yes its GMOs that are to blame for increased toxin use - there is

1. GMOs DNA are specifically designed to be used with large amounts of toxins (which would kill most non GMO plants)

Plant GMO DNA designed to kill pests results in pests getting resistant and so more pest toxins are used

2. high toxin usage builds up resistance in other exposed plants and also in insects / fungi etc to the toxin

3. GMO cross pollination of related species some of which are weeds or not wanted (ie cereals are grasses as are some weeds etc etc) creates toxin resistant weeds / plants

4. we know all toxin usage creates resistance in other plants and pests etc over time.

This cycle keeps going - also these toxins have been shown to effect human fish insects and animal hormones and health etc

So more powerful toxins are needed to kill the GMO resistant weeds / plants and pests - thus even if the same volume of toxins is used as before there is a much higher toxicity level. However we are seeing both greater volumes and stronger toxins

Next

Allowing cross pollination of natrual species or removing DNA are probably less risky or good processes, but inserting foreign DNA is very different as multiple foreign species DNA is introduced through the processes used -

See GMO accident creates antibiotic resistant cattle

Note the wide use of antibiotics as markers just to identify a GMO plant not for any improvement in yield etc

This is really wrong

GMOs may also create serious long term health risks, do not seem properly regulated and lack long term studies - same for GMO toxins see previous posts above.

The same GMO firms pay the regulators fees and own both plant / animal GMO patents and GMO toxin patents

Same firms want to control seeds via patents even seeds that get cross pollinated from GMOs - see above to my post on Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser - plus his video on his GMO seed experience and unreasonable demands made

Lets be really clear

We are now consuming much more of these GMO related toxins in our food and liquids - milk water juice etc.

GMO Toxins are even appearing in human breast milk in Germany and the USA at levels unsafe in water.

The weed killer traces in breast milk were found to be between 0.210 and 0.432 nanograms per millilitre (PPB). Drinking water is allowed to have no more than 0.100 nanograms of glyphosate.

Irene Witte, professor of toxicology at the University of Oldenburg, described the findings as “intolerable.”




University lab studies show these GMO related toxins do effect human cells and cause tumors in animals when given over time at adjusted doses "safe" for humans. Rats fed on GMO plants have also become ill and there are repeated efforts to cover up and discourage research.


The EPA and FDA do no long term studies on GMOs or toxin effects. Most studies sponsored by GMO developers are limited to 90 days

Independent Universities have done long term toxin studies.

See previous posts.

Huge tumors have grown in the same type of rats used in short term studies, even though the short term studies show no toxin problems etc

These GMO related toxins have been shown to kill wild and farmed fish and mammals from water runoff - ie species they are not not supposed to effect.

Next

There is a better way to farm that does less damage to the land and produces much higher yields and removes human health risks and its CHEAPER.

Monsanto patented Glyphosate as a human antibiotic but it was not used because it killed off only good human gut bacteria and caused negative health effects - it has now been shown to kill off good bacteria in the soil and so allow disease to spread and also seriously degrade soil quality

If there were no GMOs the use of toxins would be much much less and also toxins would not be sprayed during the plant growing stage etc.

Herbicides can not be used in the same way with non GMO crops as with GMOs

We know all these GMO methods result in much greater use of herbicides and pestcides because the GMO uses are creating toxic resistance in weeds and pests.

As far as the House of Lords video goes RT was the only place I could find it -

You can see in the link the lady is Margaret, Countess of Mar and is the holder of the original Earldom of Mar, the oldest peerage title in the United Kingdom. She is also a farmer and former specialist goats cheesemaker in Great Witley, Worcestershire.

You will have to decide why other news services would not report questions regularly raised by this very neutral member of the House of Lords who focuses on asking for better regulation on the use of organophosphates.

Margaret, Countess of Mar
She was a crossbenchmember of the House of Lords from and was one of 92 hereditary peers elected to remain in the Lords in 1999.

In the summer of 1989, while dipping her sheep through a tank of organophosphorous chemicals, Lady Mar was subjected to chemical exposure on her foot, and three weeks later developed headaches and muscular pains. She was eventually diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome.[14][15][16] Since then Lady Mar has used her seat in the House of Lords almost exclusively to press the government to provide suitable care and support for patients with similar long-term and poorly understood medical conditions, and to better regulate the use of organophosphates. This also led to her membership on the EU sub-committees listed above.

As a consequence of her illness, Lady Mar founded the organisation Forward-ME to co-ordinate the activities of a fairly broad spectrum of charities and voluntary organisations working with patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).


GMO Anti biotic resistant cattle

See link below from my earlier post above ref Dr Latham or a media search.

https://jonathanlatham.net/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

What people do not understand is these GMO risks are only found by accident. Regulators generally just accept what they are provided by the GMO developer.

Also researchers found a range of foreign and unintended DNA inserted in fruitflies, fish, mice, yeast, the nematode C. elegans and various plants. See previous posts above.

Japanese researchers looking at mouse cell DNA recently edited found e-coli, bovin and goat DNA to have been inserted during the repair process.

Please review my previous posts for videos by Drs Latham PhD and Wilson PhD both are biologist/virologist whose work focused on creating GMOs at University

How many risks are already out and not discovered is the question
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY