GMOs good for health

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5125
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 514

GMOs good for health




by Exnihiloest » 05/04/19, 20:24

Golden rice, a new rice variety fortified with vitamin A, will soon be available, said Bangladesh Agriculture Minister Abdur Razzak. Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness for millions of children around the world. The adoption of golden rice should help to reduce this scourge.
https://www.thedailystar.net/country/go ... on-1695541

There are 3 years, many personality had called at the end of the campaign against the golden rice.
http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/ ... _Nobel.pdf

"More than 100 Nobel Prize winners (including the French Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Roger Guillemin, Serge Haroche and Jean-Marie Lehn) have just published a statement addressed to Greenpeace on the one hand, and to the UN and governments around the world on the other hand, for greater use of modern plant breeding techniques and for an end to the campaigns of organizations that oppose it, Greenpeace in the lead. They particularly highlight the case of golden rice, genetically modified rice that would save hundreds of thousands of people suffering from vitamin A deficiencies, especially children. "
In the Americas since 25, almost all corn and soybeans grown are GMO varieties without resulting in any public health problem.
1 x

izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11548
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1039
Contact :

Re: GMOs good for health




by izentrop » 06/04/19, 01:48

It remains to be seen whether the population will accept it, since they are also influenced by anti-GMO NGOs such as Greenpeace and Masipag, but as they are already growing a BT eggplant, it would really be an evolution for the health of the poorest.

Seppi writes http://seppi.over-blog.com/2019/04/riz- ... ucros.html :
So it's good and bad news for the anti-GM world: good because it allows them to gesticulate, to manifest, to manifest, etc. ; bad because the production of the Golden Rice will be for him a failure (as long as the Golden Rice is accepted by the population but, apart from culinary habits, there is no reason to doubt it). : Mrgreen:

If you have not done so, watch the excellent Well Fed (you can display French subtitles). It focuses on eggplant - which Bangladesh has allowed to cultivate the Bt (GM) version - but will dramatically show you the problem of malnutrition in Bangladesh.

It is from 46: 00 Click on CC to have the French subtitles (I already published it here):


Another video of the Opinion Direct link
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11265
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1951

Re: GMOs good for health




by Ahmed » 09/04/19, 20:16

On the form, three argumentative biases are observed here:
- the call to pity (or feeling), the false dilemma and the argument of authority ... 8)

Basically, how can we believe that an institution would massively deploy this sophisticated technique without lucrative backsliding? The acceptance of this first GMO would constitute the possibility of colonizing new markets.
The central idea is that of dispossessing the capacity of the locals to provide for their food needs in order to subject them to an external technique that they could no longer control and from which they would become dependent.
Rather than speaking too holistically of this vitamin A deficiency, it would be more serious to see in what context it occurs. One would see then that the problem could not be limited to its only technical aspect (especially since the content of this vitamin of this golden rice appears to be singularly low after cooking) and that it is by no means inevitable within the framework of traditional agriculture.

To take one example, a region of Madagascar that I know particularly lives in rather difficult conditions and to speak only of
food, which consists almost exclusively of husked rice (it is a cultural habit), very poor in micronutrients and therefore very unbalanced, but to this is added what they call brèdes, which are rather variable plant leaves: thanks to this addition, this spartan diet works. Yes Dédé2000 go through here, he can confirm.
2 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11548
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1039
Contact :

Re: GMOs good for health




by izentrop » 09/04/19, 21:57

Ahmed wrote:- the call to pity (or feeling), the false dilemma and the argument of authority ...
We can return you the compliment ... 2 arguments of authority:
Ahmed wrote:1) the vitamin content of this golden rice appears to be singularly low after cooking
2) The central idea is that of dispossessing the capacity of the locals to provide for their food needs in order to subject them to an external technique that they could no longer control and from which they would become dependent.
An article by andicap.fr decrypts these unfounded rumors:
The plant was developed in 1999 by German-born Swiss biologist Ingo Potrykus, with his associate Peter Beyer of the Swiss University of Friborg. The first prototype included two daffodil genes, which have since been replaced by a corn gene and microorganisms that promote the production of beta-carotene in the grain - from which it gets its yellow color. Golden rice can, at a rate of one bowl per day, fill the vitamin A deficiency that affects the disadvantaged populations. It affects 250 million children worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Near 500 000 children under the age of 5 are affected every year of which 350 000 become blind.

The researcher has dropped any patent that pays for golden rice and intends to distributed free to peasants earning less than 10 000 dollars a year. "South America is very interested, Africa too," he said. "I hope that the tests conducted in the Philippines will conclude within two years to convince the last skeptics. And that I will always be alive.

In addition, farmers in this country are already successfully growing BT eggplants https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/07/life ... ly-gets-to
... an 2018 study published in the Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research found that biotech varieties improved yields by about 10%. But more significantly, biotech crops have significantly reduced their production costs while increasing their incomes. The net yields per hectare were 2 150 dollars for Bt aubergines, 360 for non Bt aubergines ... Bt eggplant producers saved 61 percent of the cost of pesticides compared to costs without Bt eggplant producers suffered no losses due to the fruit and twig borer and achieved higher net returns.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 17343
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2640

Re: GMOs good for health




by Janic » 10/04/19, 08:38

Rather than speaking too holistically of this vitamin A deficiency, it would be more serious to see in what context it occurs. One would see then that the problem could not be limited to its only technical aspect (especially since the content of this vitamin of this golden rice appears to be singularly low after cooking) and that it is by no means inevitable within the framework of traditional agriculture.
It's very fair! vitamin A is present in the form of provitamin A in many foods and husked rice is not the ideal food because of its lack of nutrients and enzymes necessary for its assimilation. Indeed, what counts is not the presence of a product that matters, but its assimilation as it can be seen with the decalcifications despite large intakes of calcium from dairy, more particularly, and therefore generally pasteurized and lacking necessary enzymes.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11548
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1039
Contact :

Re: GMOs good for health




by izentrop » 10/04/19, 09:26

Janic And so, the poorest Bangladeshi consume husked rice and pasteurized milk? hey : Mrgreen:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 17343
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2640

Re: GMOs good for health




by Janic » 10/04/19, 10:32

Janic And so, the poorest Bangladeshi consume husked rice and pasteurized milk? hey : Mrgreen:
always so bad!
Making comparisons are not answers to special cases. that Bangladeshi or Zulu consume or not husked rice, does not enter into account. I was talking about assimilation, if you know what this word obviously means! : roll:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11265
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1951

Re: GMOs good for health




by Ahmed » 10/04/19, 19:53

Izentrop, you can not say:
We can return you the compliment ... 2 authority arguments

... because I am only expressing an opinion and not invoking any authority whatsoever (in the case cited, it was about Nobel prizes and others).

In the case of the poorest Bangladeshi, the cause of malnutrition is not technical.
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11548
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1039
Contact :

Re: GMOs good for health




by izentrop » 11/04/19, 02:08

We must not have the same notion of the authority argument and the subject is "GMOs good for health" : Wink:

Decryption is needed : Mrgreen: The danger of GMOs is not where you believe
... the more you dig, the more you come across a lot of fraud in the anti-GMO argument. This indictment is full of errors, sophisms, distorted facts, falsifications and lies. People who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth hide themselves the evidence of the falseness of their own claims about GMOs. They hope to drown you under a flood of science and so overwhelmed you preferred to trust your guts and gobble their incitement to distrust.
the central argument of the anti-GMO movement - the precaution to avoid genetically modified foods - is an imposture. Activists who tell you to pay attention to GMOs are far from being meticulous in evaluating alternative options. They denounce the toxicity of certain proteins of GM crops, while being the heralds of substances, pesticides and other non-GM crops packed with the same proteins. They describe genetic engineering as a chaotic and unpredictable process, although studies have found that other methods of agricultural improvement, including those endorsed by these same activists, are far more disruptive to plant genomes.
... If you're concerned about pesticides and transparency, then you need to know what toxins some of your food, and not others, have been exposed to. It's not a label that will tell you. On the other hand, it may push you to buy a non-GMO product, even though the GMO selection is comparatively the safest.

The story of Hawaii's papaya
Twenty years ago, Hawaiian papaya producers were not in great shape. The papaya ringspot virus, transmitted by insects, destroyed the crops. The farmers had tried everything to stop the epidemic: plant breeding, crop rotation, quarantines. Nothing had worked. A scientist had another idea. And if it was possible to transfer a gene from a harmless element of the virus, the envelope protein, into the DNA of the papaya? Would genetically modified papaya be immune to phytovirus?
This scientist, Dennis Gonsalves, of Cornell University, had this idea in part thanks to Monsanto. But Monsanto did not care about papaya. While papaya is an essential commodity in the developing world, it is not as profitable as soybean or cotton. As a result, Monsanto and two other companies would patent the technology for a Hawaiian farmers' association. Licenses were free but limited to Hawaii. The association distributed the seeds to the farmers for free at first, before selling them to them.

Today, the GM papaya is a triumph. She saved the area. But his story is also most edifying. Because the papaya, once the virus is defeated, almost did not survive a campaign to purge Hawaii of GM crops. The story of this campaign teaches us a difficult lesson: no matter that a GMO is consumed for years without harming anyone, no matter how many studies prove its safety, there will always be skeptics for warn you of unknown risks.

In 1996 and 1997, three federal agencies give their approval to the papaya GM. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not report "no deleterious effects on plantations, non-target organisms or the environment" in field trials. EPA, the US environmental agency, points out that people have consumed the virus for years in infected papayas. "Whole infectious particles of the papaya ring-spot virus, including its envelope protein, are present in the fruits, leaves and roots of most plantations," says the EPA. The agency mentions the long mammalian food history and indicates that for a very long time the entire virus has been consumed without causing any deleterious health effects on humans. Plantations infected with the virus have been, for centuries, an integral part of the diet of humans and domestic animals, and no study suggests that this plant may be toxic to humans, as it is to other vertebrates. In addition, phytoviruses are unable to replicate in mammalian organisms as in other vertebrates, which precludes the possibility of human infection.

Arguments that were not going to satisfy everyone. In 1999, one year after the arrival of the new papaya seeds in Hawaiian farmers, their opponents claim that the viral gene can interact with the DNA of other viruses and create pathogens all the more dangerous. In 2000, vandals destroy plantations of papaya and other plants grown in the University of Hawaii's research laboratory, calling them "genetic pollution". In 2001, the Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) considers Hawaii as the US state where open-label GM experiments are the most numerous and calls for a national moratorium on such tests. The US PIRG states that "the science of genetic engineering is radical and new" and that, with respect to GM crops, "their effects on human health and their impact on the environment have not been properly assessed".
As with the activists "voluntary reapers" : roll: in France, it is often dogmatism that triumphs, surely that the "original sin" sticks to our skin : Mrgreen:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11265
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1951

Re: GMOs good for health




by Ahmed » 11/04/19, 12:14

You write:
We must not have the same notion of authority argument

Yet your reference affirms the same thing as me ... Would you have read it badly?

The subject is what you say and the pretext is the putative capacity of the golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiencies. It is permissible to question the relevance of the questioning.
In addition, why in fact simple, since it can be complicated?
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 233 guests