banjalukaforum.com

Osiguravajuće kuće u Americi su ove godine najveće isplate za odštetu od suše imale upravo za usjeve pod GMO kukuruzom. Toliko o otpornosti.

Why labeling of GMOs is actually bad for people and the environment

On November 6th, California voters will be asked to vote on a proposition about labeling of genetically modified (GM) products. On the surface this seems quite reasonable: people should have information about what they consume. In my view, labeling requirements are appropriate when there is undisputed scientific evidence that a food component is damaging, which, for example, is the reason for warning labels on cigarettes. But with GMOs this is not the case. For example, a recent NRC report states that GMOs are as safe if not more safe than conventional food which is also consistent with most of the published research.
...
The importance of GMOs has to be viewed within a global context. Population and income growth have led to increased demand for food and especially meat. Meat production is feed intensive. This and the introduction of biofuel has resulted in increased prices of agricultural commodities. When food becomes scarce (and expensive), it is the global poor that suffers most. Our calculations suggest that the magnitude of the impact of GMOs on reducing food commodity prices was the same or even bigger than biofuels had on increases of these prices (15-30% reduction in the price of corn and soybeans overall). Furthermore, the prices of cotton did not rise with the prices of other commodities in 2008 due to increased supply from the adoption of GMOs. If African nations and Europe would have adopted GMOs, current prices of food would have decreased significantly, and much of the suffering associated with the food shortages could have been avoided. Thus even in its early stages GMOs have made significant contributions to reducing food shortages and saving lives.
...
Adoption of herbicide tolerant varieties enabled transition to minimal tillage techniques, which reduced the GHG effect of agriculture equivalent to hundreds of thousands of cars annually. GMOs make it possible to produce food on less land, reducing the incentive of converting wild land into agricultural land.
...
But what about Monsanto? This company has a monopoly on crucial patents and has made a lot of money from GMOs. This is undisputed. However, studies show that the economic gain from GMOs was divided between consumers, farmers, and seed manufacturers without anyone gaining the lion’s share. Apple also makes a lot of money and no one complains.
...
Now, what about emergence of resistance to GMOs? This is an unavoidable consequence because of evolution. This means that we need to have continuous research in the life sciences to find solutions for potential problems. I believe sustainability is different than Nirvana; we cannot find final solutions that do not give rise to new problems. GMO is a technology that allows us to better adapt to new diseases and climate change. Genetic tools will improve our adaptive capacities to climate change.

The public is divided among individuals who believe that GMOs are bad, others who think they are valuable, and many who are basically indifferent. The last group may not see the damage of requiring labeling of GMOs since they do not see the big loss. However, labels make a difference. A labeling requirement creates a stigma effect that will reduce the demand for GM products and may reduce investment in new GM traits. The net effect will be to slow the development of agricultural biotechnology, and this in turn may negatively affect health, the economy, and the environment. It is actually counter-productive to the many environmental and social goals that we cherish. Therefore, labeling of GMOs will be a step in the wrong direction.

Čini mi se da niko ne priča o patentiranju sjemena, a to je zapravo pozadina čitave priče. Navodne bolje osobine i izraženija otpornost GMO usjeva su marketinški trik: suština je da GMO sjeme proizvode kompanije koje se bave proizvodnjom pesticida, tako da se na parcelama gdje se uzgajaju takvi usjevi mogu koristiti samo njihovi pesticidi, na koje su takve GMO biljke otporne.

Znači, da bi se mogao koristiti određeni pesticid, mora se sijati GMO sjeme koje će dati biljke otporne na taj pesticid, dok će sve ostalo što se pojavi u usjevu (korov, bolesti, štetočine itd) biti uništeni prskanjem s tim pesticidom. Dakle, nema nikakve ugrađene GMO otpornosti na bolesti i štetočine u samim GMO biljkama, nego je to otpornost na pesticid koji proizvodi ista kompanija. Znači, u čitavoj priči postoji samo jedan cilj: profit kompanije koja nameće svoje GMO sjeme i svoje pesticide.

Budući da su se u USA vođe vodećih hemijskih/GMO korporacija uspješno infiltrirale u sve nivoe vlasti, donesen je niz suludih zakona koji ih štite. Tako su uspjeli da patentiraju i zaštite GEN ugrađen u GMO biljke i sad imaju dozvolu da tuže svakog proizvođača na čijoj parceli pronađu biljke s njihovim genom. Budući da se gen prenosi prirodnim oprašivanjem u prirodi i ne postoji apsolutno nikakva mogućnost njegove kontrole, ovaj suludi zakon omogućava im da legalno dobijaju sudske sporove s proizvođačima na čijim parcelama su GMO biljke SLUČAJNO narasle. Sporovi obično završavaju nagodbom i proizvođač je prinuđen da počne koristiti GMO sjeme i prateće pesticide, te samim tim postaje potpuno zavistan od korporacije. Uz to, treba napomenuti da su prozvođači GMO sjemena multinacionalne korporacije, tako da njihova moć i uticaj nadilazi zakone pojedinih država, a osnovni razlog razvijanja GMO biljaka je osiguravanje i širenje te moći, zarad povećanja profita tih korporacija.

Upravo ovo su glavne stvari zbog kojih postoji otvoreno protivljenje uvođenju GMO kultura tamo gdje do sad nisu uvedene. A tu su naravno i podaci o štetnosti GMO hrane na zdravlje ljudi i životinja...

Takođe moralo bi se povesti računa o edukaciji običnih ljudi o štetnosti GMO proizvoda.

reci... slusam...