Are Bt GMOs ecological?

[GuyGadebois]

Where do you think you are in Davos?

No, I think that "realistic ecology" is believed on the forum "econology", which has been in existence for more than 10 years.
Now, if a guy who has landed 4 months ago and posted more 1400 messages since thinks right to do the police because of his hyper activity, it can be conceived. This will inevitably lead to a risk of debunking debates, but there are others forums.....

Debates can only be constructive if we eliminate (from the debate, not physically) the extremists. And I am not one.

[sen-no-sen]

Are Bt GMOs environmentally friendly?

Ecology is the science that studies the environments in which living beings live and the interactions of their beings with their ecosystems.

From this point of view, we can not say that GMOs are ecological in the sense that the latter result from a tendency to want to adapt the living to technological hyper-acceleration ... ecologically it is the strict opposite that We have to do.
GMOs are a consequence of the effect of the red queen.
The argument that its last is a solution to deforestation is misleading. By the methods of manipulation of the genome are mainly aimed at maintaining a level of exploitation on the rise replacing an agrochemical model breathless.We are therefore faced with an umpteenth attempt to exceed the threshold of tolerance, as it exists in the economic field (Quantitative easing) or energetic (ENR): by principle of distribution of constraints.
Multinationals like Bayer Monsanto or Syngenta are strangely chemical companies ... a minimum of objectivity allows us to see that such entities have only one priority: to adapt to change in order to guarantee their capital. , ecology in all this

[GuyGadebois]

Are Bt GMOs environmentally friendly?

Ecology is the science that studies the environments in which living beings live and the interactions of their beings with their ecosystems.

From this point of view, we can not say that GMOs are ecological in the sense that the latter result from a tendency to want to adapt the living to technological hyper-acceleration ... ecologically it is the strict opposite that We have to do.
GMOs are a consequence of the effect of the red queen.
The argument that its last is a solution to deforestation is misleading. By the methods of manipulation of the genome are mainly aimed at maintaining a level of exploitation on the rise replacing an agrochemical model breathless.We are therefore faced with an umpteenth attempt to exceed the threshold of tolerance, as it exists in the economic field (Quantitative easing) or energetic (ENR): by principle of distribution of constraints.
Multinationals like Bayer Monsanto or Syngenta are strangely chemical companies ... a minimum of objectivity allows us to see that such entities have only one priority: to adapt to change in order to guarantee their capital. , ecology in all this

OUAIIIIIIS !!!!!! King memes, king memes, king memes !!!!

[izentrop]

Monsanto says it himself:
https://www.greenpeace.fr/grande-premie ... -coton-bt/

Ah, finally a beginning of argumentation.
Indeed, resistances appear. They were planned, consistent with the mechanisms of adaptation and evolution of species.
In the same way that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. In the case of antibiotics new ones are created, and it is recommended to use them only when necessary.
In the case of Bt GMOs, second and third generation GMOs are created, comprising two or three resistance genes, and it is recommended to create "refuge zones".
We can obviously point the microscope on a few particular cases and believe that this is the general case, but more generally:
“Region-wide adoption of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) suppresses pests regionally, with declines extending beyond Bt crops to fields of non-Bt crops.” (Regional pest suppression associated with widespread Bt maize adoption benefits vegetable growers - 2018)

"In areas of the United States and China where adoption of Bt corn or Bt cotton is high, some pest populations are regionally reduced, benefiting both adopters and non-adopters of the crops. Bt. [...]
The application of synthetic insecticides to maize and cotton has decreased following the switch from non-Bt to Bt varieties, and in some cases the use of Bt crops has been associated with less use of insecticides in non-Bt varieties and in other crops in the same area. »(Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine - 2016)

If you have more recent serious references, other than militant sites, this is the time.

It is clear that Greenpeace only gives partial information that goes in the direction of their activism against GMOs.
Any fight against bio aggressors requires varying means to avoid resistance.

Today the technique is well developed, there is a whole panoply of toxins BT, enough to overcome the resistance, if we associate them with other means of struggle: http://www.ogm.gouv.qc.ca/utilisation_a ... coton.html

Even if the seed is more expensive, the poor Indian peasant finds himself there, because his yields are much higher and his expenses in insecticides much lower.

[GuyGadebois]

It is clear that Greenpeace only gives partial information that goes in the direction of their activism against GMOs.

Monsanto self-defames and Greenpeace benefits. Ah, what do you want, it's good war ...

[izentrop]

No, for Greenpeace it's disinformation, manipulation https://www.bunkerd.fr/greenpeace-manipule/.

[realistic ecology]

Are Bt GMOs environmentally friendly?

Because genome manipulation methods are primarily aimed at maintaining a level of exploitation on the rise

I guess you mean that the genome manipulation methods are mainly aimed at producing more, and you regret it.
Yet we are doomed to produce more - there will soon be two billion more mouths to feed. Let's hope that this is done in the best possible environmental conditions (the least bad ones).

We need to produce more food:
“And we must also prepare ourselves to properly feed nine billion people in 2050. And for that we will have to double global food production, which must be sustainable because it is environmentally conscious. »(FAO's perspectives to resolve the global hunger crisis - Article by Jacques DIOUF Director-General of the FAO - 2012 - The Political and Parliamentary Review)

“It is clear from this that a significant increase in production is necessary for the sector to meet the growing demand for food for humans or animals and for raw materials for industrial use. However, the availability of land and water is declining in many parts of the world. "[...]
“[In East and South Asia] The agricultural sector is however confronted with growing constraints, linked as well to the available surfaces and to the management of water as to the lack of manpower. The increase in agricultural production of nearly 20% over the next ten years will require intensification and efficiency gains. "("OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025 " - OECD / FAO, 2016)

Activist sites contest the OECD / FAO expertise, contest that it is necessary to produce more. Argument: "it is enough" (yaka) to eat less meat and not to waste. They would be right ... if they described a way to convince people to eat less meat (without violence)! All the more so since the main consumption of meat, which is also increasing, comes from countries where little meat is consumed per person.


According to OECD Statistics (The OECD is roughly equal to all developed countries)

We must do with what we have on hand, men as they are. We are condemned to produce more.
For that, we can increase the yields.
If yields can not be increased, there is still the option of earning new land in one way or another. The easiest and easiest way is to cut down the forest. It's so simple and easy that it's already started, in the Amazon rainforest, in equatorial Africa, in Asia ...

This is why I am in favor of Bt GMOs which, with better yields, make it possible to produce more on the same surface, thus saving some forest.

You say that GMOs are an "adaptation of living things" and that "ecologically, it is necessary to do the exact opposite". I do not quite understand. All the so-called natural varieties that we cultivate are adaptations of life, which have been made slowly over the millennia. You know the difference between the ancestor of corn and the corn today. GMOs are also an "adaptation of living things", but better than the new so-called natural varieties which are now only obtained by very unnatural manipulations.

[realistic ecology]

Yes, I am an OBM Bt pro, with strong arguments. Is it forbidden here?

How does one become pro GMO (Bt)? Can you explain this personal choice?

I have already written a first reply to this message; I add this.

The Grenelle de l'environnement (2007), full of enthusiasm, asked to halve the use of pesticides in France by 2018.
Various studies were subsequently carried out to assess this request. INRA sums up:
“A halving of the use of pesticides would require a new conception of the production systems, with significant effects on the level of production and margins; it would also involve changes in value chains and markets, and profound changes over time. For example, in field crops, this objective would involve lengthening rotations and therefore to introduce new crops into the rotations. "(Ecophyto-RD / EcophytoRD - What ways to reduce the use of pesticides? - INRA - 2010)

That is to say that it may be possible, but INRA is warning, it is difficult. And these new crops that should be introduced, lentils, chickpeas, etc., they will have to be sold; will consumers take a liking to it? Otherwise, it is not certain that it is sufficient to offer lentils more often in school canteens, a waste of food guaranteed.
And above all, it would result a drop in production. This is not the best way to face the food challenge on the planet, to prepare to feed nine billion Earthlings.

But behind this INRA report, there is another interesting point.
- It is accepted that insect-resistant Bt GMOs reduce the use of insecticides. A priori, it is therefore one of the elements ecological industrial printing process of the solution.
- INRA is aware of this, however, the use of GMO Bt is not considered in its work. Explanation in the report: “The objective being to identify crop protection strategies that can be applied immediately by farmers, the solutions proposed do not include the use, among other things, of genetically modified varieties. " (INRA Ecophyto R&D - What ways to reduce the use of pesticides? - Synthesis - 2010)

(This is not applicable in France, since Bt GMOs are banned in France ...)

And that's one of the reasons (the refusal of GMO Bt), for which the use of insecticides does not decline in France, despite all the Grenelles that we want, full of dreams and good intentions, but also full of dogmas that render them ineffective.
This is why I am in favor of GMO Bt.

Can we reduce by half the use of pesticides?

[Christophe]

What does a "forum green trend ".
Un forum allows to discuss.
I understand well a forum to discuss ecology, with possibly contradictory arguments on this or that aspect of ecology, with even new and disturbing opinions.
But one forum "eco-friendly"? ... do you mean a forum where people who all have the same profile, already all convinced of the same word and unique truth, discuss among themselves over micro points of detail?

If "econology" means nothing to you, I give you its definition: https://www.econologie.com/definition-econologie/
So yes here you will find more people who want to reduce their impact on the environment and who are asking questions in the sense that 6 Golf tuners! This is a forum eco-friendly!

A bad language could then say that it is a sect.

And here is a beautiful word of troll ...

Others have tried a long time ago !! When you want to kill your dog, you say he has anger ...



Debate here: bistro / sect-the-econology-t641.html

The title is worded as a question, of course! It is not formulated for me, it is formulated for the community whose opinions are undoubtedly diverse, I hope. I, in fact, given what researchers are measuring, I am convinced that Bt GMOs are ecological for the reasons already stated.

I think we all understood very well that for you it was not a question but an affirmation ...

So I rephrase: why do you come to promote Bt GMOs on this forum?

[GuyGadebois]

No, for Greenpeace it's disinformation, manipulation https://www.bunkerd.fr/greenpeace-manipule/.

But of course...
Poison manufacturers, by cons.

http://www.lechodes3baies.fr/acide-pela ... lyphosate/