Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Genetically Modified Food Pt. 1 (merged)

Re: Genetically Modified Food Pt. 1 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 05:04:11

An interesting write up on the complicated history of Golden Rice.

The True Story of the Genetically Modified Superfood That Almost Saved Millions

The cover of the July 31, 2000, edition of Time magazine pictured a serious-looking bearded man surrounded by a wall of greenery: the stems, leaves, and stalks of rice plants. The caption, in large block lettering, read, “This rice could save a million kids a year.”

The man in question was Ingo Potrykus, a professor of plant sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, in Zurich, where Albert Einstein had studied and taught. The rice plants around him, although the joint products of many minds and hands, had been largely inspired by him. Their kernels were not the usual plain white grains of rice. Instead, they had a distinct golden hue, the color of daffodils. When spread out on a black surface, they looked like nothing so much as tiny yellow gemstones.


Link
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16646
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Genetically Modified Food Pt. 1 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 09:47:14

Let them eat cake carrots.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Genetically Modified Food Pt. 1 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 13 Jun 2022, 07:35:56

Pictures and embedded links at link below quote.

BBC wrote:Scotland and UK governments split over gene-edited food

Scotland should not have food products "forced" on it because of the easing of regulations around gene editing, a government minister has said.

The UK government has introduced a Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill which would set different rules from the EU following Brexit.

But the idea has been dismissed by environment secretary Mairi McAllan.

She has written to UK environment secretary George Eustice and Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, saying Scotland would not make the same changes as England if the bill passed.

Ms McAllan said the Scottish government "will not accept any constraint on the exercise of its devolved powers to set standards within devolved policy areas".

Gene editing allows scientists to change a plant or animal's DNA.

Scientists can engineer crops that are more disease or drought resistant, without adding genetic material from another species.

Under the UK's internal market act, anything approved for sale in one part of the UK must be available across the whole of the UK.

Tomatoes developed by scientists in Norwich to produce high amounts of vitamin D could be among the first gene-edited produce to go on sale.

However, Scotland and Wales could potentially use their powers to restrict the use of genetically edited produce.

In her letter, Ms McAllan said: "If the UK government is determined to press ahead with this legislation, it must take steps to ensure that its revisions to the definition of a GMO (genetically modified organism) do not force products on Scotland which do not meet standards here without the consent of the Scottish Parliament."

Gene-edited tomatoes that boost vitamin D are among the foods that could be commercially developed

She also raised concerns about the impact of the bill on Scotland's food exports to the EU.

"As your impact assessment for the Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Bill acknowledges, removing gene-edited products from England's GM regulatory regime would mean divergence from the EU approach and as such could have implications for compliance costs and future trade," she wrote.

"The impact assessment also raises the prospect that new trade barriers could come in the form of checks and certification requirements on UK food exports entering the EU's single market.

"It states that this would not only affect products exported to the EU which contain precision-bred plant material, but also those in the same product categories which do not."

In turning down the UK government's offer to include Scotland in its gene editing scheme, the Scottish government is not saying "never".

Its preference is to wait for an EU-wide review of the technology, rather than to press ahead, with England, using the policy-making freedom that Brexit allows.

That is partly political - SNP ministers opposed Brexit and want to stay closely aligned to EU rules in the hope Scotland can one day rejoin the union as an independent country.

There's also a more practical consideration - that divergence could lead to new trade barriers with the European single market if it wants to keep gene-edited produce out.

The constitutional flashpoint is the operation of UK single market rules that mean any gene-edited produce approved in England must automatically be allowed into the Scottish market.

Holyrood ministers hate how that could cut across their powers to regulate what's suitable for sale and are seeking an exemption, without saying what action they might take if they don't get one.

Presentational grey line

Gene editing is supported by the National Farmers Union (NFU) in Scotland but Scottish ministers have consistently railed against it, aiming to keep as close as it can to EU regulations.

However, the EU has recently launched a consultation on bringing forward similar legislation for plants, food and feed produced from new genomic technologies.

UK cabinet minister George Eustice previously wrote to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, saying the new bill provided "the opportunity to make the UK the best place in the world to invest in Agritech innovation".

He said: "Outside the EU we are free to follow the science.

"These precision technologies allow us to speed up the breeding of plants that have natural resistance to diseases and better use of soil nutrients so we can have higher yields with fewer pesticides and fertilisers.

"The UK has some incredible academic centres of excellence and they are poised to lead the way."


BBC
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16646
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Genetically Modified Food Pt. 1 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 18 Jun 2022, 09:09:00

Germany’s Environment Minister and Green Party stalwart rebukes EU’s hopes to relax crop gene editing rules, invokes precautionary principle

German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke on [June 13] rebuffed the European Commission’s plan to propose new rules for crops bred using so-called new genomic techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, saying it’s not necessary.

“I see no need for re-regulation,” Lemke declared.

The topic of how to regulate new genomic techniques, or NGTs, is controversial, with proponents arguing they don’t pose the same risks as traditional genetically modified organisms and therefore should be treated differently, while some scientists and green groups warn there are still too many unknowns about their impacts.

The Commission is planning to propose a new legal framework for NGTs separate from the existing GMO rules they now fall under, currently expected to land next year.

Lemke, who also serves as Germany’s consumer protection minister, said that any new set of rules that Brussels puts out “must continue to include mandatory labeling,” and be underpinned by the EU’s precautionary principle of erring on the side of caution in food safety.

“Once an NGT is released to the environment, it is almost impossible to remove it,” she said. “Potential risks not only to the plants but also to ecosystems and biodiversity must be identified and evaluated precisely.”

LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16646
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Genetically Modified Food Pt. 1 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 18 Jun 2022, 11:56:04

Short video clip of text in link below quote from MSNBC
Developer of Golden Rice says genetically modified crops are essential for food security as global warming makes crops more vulnerable

Nafees Meah, regional representative for South Asia for the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute, calls genetically modified crops “a weapon in our armory” to address global food security; he says the world is going to get warmer with climate change, so people will have to develop crop varieties resistant to it, including GM crops.

LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16646
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Genetically Modified Food Pt. 1 (merged)

Unread postby C8 » Sat 02 Jul 2022, 13:48:24

Tanada wrote:
Germany’s Environment Minister and Green Party stalwart rebukes EU’s hopes to relax crop gene editing rules, invokes precautionary principle

German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke on [June 13] rebuffed the European Commission’s plan to propose new rules for crops bred using so-called new genomic techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, saying it’s not necessary.

“I see no need for re-regulation,” Lemke declared.

The topic of how to regulate new genomic techniques, or NGTs, is controversial, with proponents arguing they don’t pose the same risks as traditional genetically modified organisms and therefore should be treated differently, while some scientists and green groups warn there are still too many unknowns about their impacts.

The Commission is planning to propose a new legal framework for NGTs separate from the existing GMO rules they now fall under, currently expected to land next year.

Lemke, who also serves as Germany’s consumer protection minister, said that any new set of rules that Brussels puts out “must continue to include mandatory labeling,” and be underpinned by the EU’s precautionary principle of erring on the side of caution in food safety.

“Once an NGT is released to the environment, it is almost impossible to remove it,” she said. “Potential risks not only to the plants but also to ecosystems and biodiversity must be identified and evaluated precisely.”

LINK


This is hilarious, Germany is worried about the genetic purity of their crops and yet they are forcing all of their citizens to take a vaccine shot that is entirely based on messenger RNA experiments, and which there are no long-term studies about the effects of. You can't make this stuff up.

Experiment on corn = bad / Experiment on people = good
User avatar
C8
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests