Comprehensive coverage

The US Department of Agriculture has removed restrictions on the development of genetically modified plants

The condition for exemption from approval is the use of genes from another plant in the same family * The new policy will allow companies and associations to compete with each other in the development of genetically modified plant varieties that they can sell to farmers - or release them to the public for free. In other words, it is precisely the large and maligned genetic engineering companies - Monsanto, for example - that are most affected by the new situation

Genetically modified vegetables and fruits Image: from PIXABAY.COM
Genetically modified vegetables and fruits Image: from PIXABAY.COM

Last week, a decision was made in the United States that shakes the heads of the genetic engineering companies, and is about to - without much exaggeration - change the world. The US Department of Agriculture has announced, unequivocally, that it allows the genetic engineering of plants, their growing and selling without oversight by the legislature. All this, according to the ministry, in order to "allow innovation in a place where there is no risk."[1]

This may sound strange to you - we are always scared about genetically modified plants, right? And really, there is room for concern. Through genetic engineering, genes can be taken from various sources and effectively inserted into the plants we all eat. But the US Department of Agriculture, along with committees and similar bodies from around the world, has come to understand that other methods of plant improvement - for example, hybridizing different plants with each other, or creating random mutations - are slower and have a greater potential for damage than the modern technology used for genetic engineering (known as CRISPR - Cass). Because of this, the Ministry of Agriculture decided that in any situation where it was possible to bring about the desired genetic change in a particular plant through hybridization with other plants of the same family, the final product would not be subject to government supervision.

This is a big change in the policy that has been practiced until now, and it is very happy - and a little scary. On the one hand, the new policy will allow companies and associations to compete with each other in the development of genetically modified plant varieties that they can sell to farmers - or release them to the public for free. In other words, it is precisely the large and maligned genetic engineering companies - Monsanto, for example - that are most affected by the new situation. They were the only ones who could afford an investment of tens of millions of dollars in order to start and finish the arduous and expensive safety inspections that had been common until now in the United States. All of a sudden, they have to face… well, anyone who has a genetic engineering kit at home.

And here begins the scary part. In my book "The Guide to the Future", written five years ago, I predicted that private entrepreneurs - as well as students and high school students - would soon be able to genetically engineer plants in public laboratories, or even in their home kitchens. We are not there yet, but the decision by the Department of Agriculture shows that the US government understands the new situation, where private entrepreneurs can genetically engineer plants in efficient and safe ways, and is determined to open the market to competition for the benefit of farmers and consumers.

Indeed, the decision is already beginning to make waves in the genetic engineering industry. Small companies talk enthusiastically about the genetically engineered plants they are creating, which could soon reach the market. The Clixt company, for example, develops soybeans with oil that does not develop trans fats when heated, as well as healthier potatoes and wheat, which contain more fiber[2]. The company Yield10 Bioscience genetically engineered flax with a higher omega-3 concentration[3]. Other companies intend to genetically engineer plants whose fruits will be larger (and still retain the full taste and smell of the original fruit), survive longer on the shelf, be more resistant to diseases and extreme weather, and a multitude of other features that we will discover later.

Why is it scary? Because the power we have over nature continues to grow. Entrepreneurs and scientists can now legally engineer plants and grow them. But let's face it: they could have done it before, under the radar. The US Department of Agriculture has wisely realized that this force cannot be stopped any longer, so it is better to harness it for the public good. And yet, the fact that we are entering a period where efficient genetic engineering can be carried out easily, requires us to think about how we can reduce the chance of mistakes.

In conclusion, this is a smart decision on the part of the US Department of Agriculture, which will take control of the market for genetic engineering in plants out of the hands of Monsanto and its ilk, and will bring a wealth of innovation to the field. We should all be happy for the decision, which will lead to a more efficient, healthier and smarter agriculture. Now we just have to hope that we will be smart enough to use her products.

-----

You are invited to read more about the future of genetic engineering and its supervision in the books Guide to the Future and Those Who Control the Future, in selected bookstores (and those that are just fine).

1] US Department of Agriculture announcement

[2] Callist company

[3] Yield10 Bioscience Company

15 תגובות

  1. Genetic engineering breaks the species barrier that ensures genetic diversity
    Promiscuous opening of genetic engineering means a huge reduction in species diversity and greater exposure to harm in the medium and long term
    Just another system madness from Trump's seminary
    Crazy people come down from the tree

  2. I wanted to show the insanity and danger in dishonest and ego-based science.

    You demonstrate this beautifully by ignoring logic, facts and an obvious danger, by blindly following the "FALSE" of a handful of scientists whom you call "scientific consensus" instead of consensus.
    Proof is in conducting a feeding experiment with transgenic corn that will disprove its dangerousness. No such experiment was done. In fact, the statement "FALSE" has no proof.

    It says "number of scientists", it doesn't say consensus and it doesn't say shoes.
    It is about the fear of a handful of scientists from the readers' reactions to the original article.
    There is no "scientific consensus" as evidenced by the European countries that prohibit the import of genetically modified food from the USA. Even if the scientific consensus claims that black is white you will support it. That's how it is with robots and liars.

  3. You're embarrassing yourself... what's the bottom line of the Snoops page? Is a disputed claim perhaps? Waiting for unquestionable proof? No. Write FALSE.

    Regarding ignoring facts or foreign interests - what do you say about someone who brings only one side of the claim and does not mention the scientific criticism of the claims at all? Or the scientific consensus that it is wrong?

    That someone is you. not nice..

  4. "I'll repeat the criterion for your reliability again: "Consume concentrated poison (glyphosate) that was injected into corn for a year and watch the results."

    This is also true for sugar, salt and even water.

  5. Cancer concerns:

    By Anne Sewell Sep 26, 2012 in Food

    "On Tuesday this week, Russia suspended the import and use of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn, following

    the scientific study released on September 19 on rats fed with this corn, which caused serious health problems,

    including tumors and organ failure.

    http://digitaljournal.com/article/333607

    Criticism of the aforementioned study:

    According to the peer-reviewed study which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and was

    presented at a news conference in London, the animals on the genetically modified (GM) diet suffered mammary

    tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage.”

    Six French scientists expressed opposition to the study after about a month in France:
    "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn"

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/monsanto-corn/

    An objection based on statistical criticism does not eliminate findings and serious concerns from the previous study. Disagreement is not a lie.

    When someone claims to lie, his claim is not proven by itself. In the current case, Monsanto must prove biochemically beyond doubt that the poison glyphosate does not harm the cells of the human body and its mechanisms.
    There are many other studies that show the long-term health damage of introducing genes that produce toxins into food. When it is biochemically proven that a certain substance damages the cell and body mechanisms, there should be no doubt about its danger.

    Well, before you falsely accuse Tol Cora before your eyes.
    If you don't agree, you are welcome to consume the same poison (glyphosate) that was injected into corn for a year and watch the results for yourself.

    Science based on profits (ego) is science based on bribery and lies, you should know that.

    -
    You can read the eye drop cycles from cancer to cancer-free starting in 1985 here in the link provided:

    The first assessment of glyphosate's carcinogenic potential was undertaken by the United States Environmental

    Protection Agency in 1985. Based on studies done primarily with rodents, they classified the chemical as "a

    Group C (Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans: Agents with limited animal evidence and little or no human data)

    carcinogen” in 1986. After a series of additional investigations, which included industry sponsored studies,

    the EPA reclassified the chemical in 1993 as "Group E carcinogen (signifies evidence of non-carcinogenicity in

    humans).”

    The latest research was funded by the industry. Something to think about.

    And the article continues with pros and cons.

    Why should the FDA not be trusted according to the same link:

    "When it comes to the FDA, they are not protecting the American public from glyphosate either. After announcing

    in February that they would FINALLY begin testing foods for glyphosate residues, they just decided to suspend

    their testing this week. Could it be that Monsanto didn't like the results they started getting - especially

    since the FDA found glyphosate in foods that should be especially safe like BABY FOOD? Monsanto will do

    whatever it takes to keep that story out of the public eye.”

    The amount of glyphosate in food is dangerous even according to the FDA:

    An FDA-registered food safety laboratory tested iconic American food for "residues" of the weed killer glyphosate

    (aka Monsanto's Roundup) and found ALARMING amounts. Just to give you an idea of ​​how outrageous these amounts are

    are, independent research shows that probable harm to human health begins at really low levels of exposure - at

    only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate. Many foods were found to have over 1,000 times this amount! Well above what

    regulators throughout the world consider "safe".

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/

    Then a debate about what is a dangerous amount and whether to believe agenda-based studies. There is no end to it. When science doubts itself in its reliability and honesty that is the end.
    Instead of sticking to the logic that what is toxic in small amounts is self-evidently dangerous, people look for ways to ignore logic and make research personal and ego-based.

    You claim to lie when from the body of the article itself arise foreign interests (the profit line), irrationality, facts, and ignoring facts (cancer), which disprove your words.

    The cancer risk of glyphosate existed decades before the Monsanto company was established, so who has an interest in hiding the truth?
    Who here lies and misleads himself and others? - The answer is clear.

    I will repeat the criterion for your reliability again: "Consume concentrated poison (glyphosate) that was injected into corn for a year and watch the results."

  6. When someone is blind and we are not aware of his blindness, his decisions are necessarily immoral - great, so you published lies, unconsciously (I hope), then you are blind, and not aware of it - and your decisions are necessarily immoral.

    Also you are human (again, I hope), so from what you yourself wrote, your lies serve your ego.

    Something to think about.

  7. Insect repellent garden:
    What the free market cannot deal with is unexpected disasters.
    The most common gene that Monsanto inserted into corn was once in the body of an insect-poisoning bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (BT).
    Monsanto isolated specific genes of the bacterium, which is considered lethal to insects but not mammals, and planted them in the corn genome in the hope that it would begin producing the toxin itself. it worked.
    BT corn is one of the most popular seeds in the United States. An insect that dares to bite one of the parts of the plant will die within minutes, when its digestive system begins to digest itself from the inside.

    sterile soil + the poison:
    Another gene that the company incorporates into its corn seeds is called Roundup.
    This gene also comes from a bacterium, the only living creature that has shown natural resistance to large amounts of a certain poison, protected by a patent, sold by Monsanto. The gene that enables this protection was planted by Monsanto in corn.
    And so today the farmer can spread the poison freely in the field and after 24 hours get sterile soil, free of any weed or living thing, except the corn.

    http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3552039,00.html

    A garden resistant to the herbicide glyphosate + glyphosate:
    Exposure from eating genetically modified food - a much more difficult and disturbing way of exposure!
    It turns out that in many crops, including soybeans and corn (and non-edible crops such as cotton and more), which are notorious for the excessive use of genetic engineering in these crops,
    Find a brilliant way to get rid of unwanted vegetation without harming the crops, and inject the corn and soybean plants with a gene for resistance to glyphosate.
    This is an ingenious trick that allows easy and convenient spraying of entire fields with the substance without killing the soybeans or corn - which are originally extremely sensitive to glyphosate.
    But what did we do with it? It turns out in retrospect that the crops, which are now saturated with glyphosate in all their tissues, also transfer it to the fruits and seeds - and from there to our plate!
    And so a path of exposure through ingestion opens up to us which is probably the main factor behind the increase in the rates of serious diseases, autism and possibly even cancer.

    http://www.rambam-medicine.org.il/category/roundup?fb_comment_id=1212261732118124_1212915265386104

    A French study from 2012 shows that genetically modified food harms mammals and causes sterilization in the next generation, both in genetically modified corn and causes cancer:

    http://digitaljournal.com/article/333607

    Information that was confidential for 8 years and was revealed by court order GM potatoes cause cancer:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppressed-report-shows-cancer-link-to-gm-potatoes-436673.html

    As mentioned, science is blind and the same scientist with a scientific discovery can become a disaster for humanity.
    Man serves the ego and there is no scientist who is not a man. Hence, science inevitably serves the ego, which in the end brings destruction to man sooner or later.
    When someone is blind and we are not aware of his blindness, his decisions are necessarily immoral. And this is where blind science enters the picture when the prediction is that it will bring destruction upon man unless man acknowledges his blindness.
    And there are precedents for the destruction that science has brought: the enormous progress in science in the 19th and 20th centuries was accompanied by two deadly world wars.

    The story of Fritz Haber:
    ּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּּ

    "Haber organized the production and worked tirelessly to produce hundreds of tons of chlorine gas and in the construction of thousands of gas cylinders, trained special divisions of soldiers to use the gases and personally supervised the placing of the cylinders in the excavations.
    The first use was on April 22, 1915, in which about 150 tons of chlorine were released, along a front of about 5 kilometers, in a period of time of about 10 minutes and caused 15,000 casualties among the Allies.

    The mustard gas used as a weapon of mass destruction even almost 100 years after its invention. Haber's wife opposed the development of chemical weapons, begged him to stop, but Haber did not heed her pleas.
    On May 1, 1915, she shot herself with her military pistol. The next day, Habar returned to the research institute to continue working on the development of chemical weapons.

    In 1919 Haber began developing chemical pesticides against agricultural pests; He served as national commissioner for the issue and even headed the "German Society for Pest Control".
    The company has developed a preparation based on the absorption in porous powder of hydrocyanic acid, in combination with a volatile, sweet and non-toxic aromatic drug.
    The purpose of the scented substance is to warn people not to approach the acid that kills the aphids.
    The name of the preparation was "Zyklon B", later the same substance that was used for mass murder in the Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camps, without the added smell."

    https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A5_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A8

    "It was his most benevolent invention, the synthesis of ammonia, that caused irreparable damage to humanity. Without this invention Germany would have been left without explosives,
    When a blitzkrieg against France that had been planned for many years failed. The war could have ended long before it actually did, thus preventing the deaths of many young people.
    Under such circumstances Lenin might not have come from exile to Russia, Hitler might not have succeeded in seizing power in Germany, the Holocaust might not have happened,
    And the European culture from Gibraltar to the Ural Mountains would go out for rent."

    https://musaf-shabbat.com/2012/01/19/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0/

    Is the story over? No.
    Many scientists, mostly psychopaths, are working around the world on means of mass destruction that amount to crimes against humanity, knowing in advance that this is the case.

    Should we believe scientists whose intentions are innocent? Ltd. Depends on what and who it is.

    To separate science from those who practice it is foolishness, like giving a gun to a child without predicting the outcome.

    logic:
    When two factors together lead to a certain result, but without one of them it is avoided, then each of those factors is responsible for the same result, even though alone he is not responsible for it.

  8. There is no place for a nutritional catastrophe here. Science is not blind or seeing - science is not a tool that judges something.

    Science is a tool that allows us to collect as much data as possible in the hope of arriving at a correct theory or refuting those that are not. This is not always possible, but science is not a judgmental tool, but a logical tool that says that in order to know how something works, then we need to collect information about it, analyze it and maybe then try to determine in one direction or another.

    This technology is a byproduct of that science based above. You are equally welcome to return to the cave age where you will eat raw meat without cooking it. You will of course risk a lot of diseases. But hey, you said that science and technology is just a disaster.

    Science and technology is a disaster in the hands of people with bad intentions. When an atomic weapon is found, say, in the hands of the State of Israel, is it a bad thing or a good thing? When atomic weapons, God forbid, are found in the hands of one terrorist organization or another - is this good or bad? It all depends on the people who use the technology. Any technological tool can be a huge boost to human society in the hands of many people, but also as a destructive tool.

    For example, the stones that were sharpened by the ancients allowed them to hunt animals that otherwise would have been much more difficult to hunt. In addition, it made it possible to shed their skin (as it is documented that it did happen this way in the past) and create warm clothes so that their population would survive.

    At the same time, it was a murderous tool for hunting the members of that population - murder. Does this mean that the same scientific and technological tool is good or bad? There will always be bad people whose technology in their hands would be a disastrous move, but let's not forget the glass half full.

    The development of biological and chemical weapons at the same time led to bad things, but also to good things, as far-fetched as it may sound. It taught us that we need to be careful about using those things if we want to have a sustainable population in the world at all.

    Science serves no purpose, except to be a tool for researching things. When a person is curious about why something works the way it does - is it out of egoism or out of an innocent desire to know how nature works around him?

    When man first tried to understand how these diseases wipe out entire populations - is it selfishness or a simple desire to survive - "Why? "

    Global warming is related to people who hold those developments unrestrained. The one who ultimately takes responsibility for things is not the science, but the people who are able to act and do not act to exploit that science as a necessary resource. Why are there other technologies and scientific developments to lower the toxic gases, and also the legal tools to prevent the development of overpriced drugs.

    Without the pharmaceutical companies we could not have reached such and such developments. We could not extend our life span. The cost of each drug research costs billions of dollars. The fact that there is no supervision beyond that from an economic and monopoly point of view - this is not the responsibility of science. But it is the responsibility of the people who choose who will represent them.

    Why always blame the science and not the people who don't know how to use it. Ones that mean that the wonderful technological tools we have created can be much more good than bad.

    ""Oil that does not develop trans fats when heated" - oils that are very stable, very saturated or that include aromatic rings, for example beeswax, these oils are not digested and disrupt the digestive process, some of them are toxic."

    Even if I had no knowledge of chemistry or biology at all, I could understand that logically there is some contradiction in your words. The very fact that you said that "some of them are poisonous" does not mean that they are all poisonous as such and therefore not necessarily harmful.

    Not everything is harmful and not everything is a cure. It all depends on its dosage. Take oxygen in a low amount and everything is fine, take it in a large amount and the physical damage is irreversible! Even to oxidize and eliminate substances that are in your food in a tiny amount.

    "Potatoes and wheat are healthier, containing more fiber" - which fiber and from which source? Not all fibers are healthy, there are fibers that cause severe digestive problems and intestinal inflammations and even cancer (carrageenan)."

    Again partially contradicting yourself. Who said they would use the fiber you claim is "unhealthy"? Sounds like wishful thinking.

    "They will survive longer on the shelf" - at what health cost? Sometimes the substance in the plant that extends the shelf life is toxic and harmful."

    This is what is called arguing from the emotion, but not from the data or the facts if you will. On the contrary, food that spoils quickly on the shelf is in danger of poisoning you and me. Food that won't last on the shelf as it should will cause you to spoil the stomach, etc.

    Don't forget that there is currently a problem due to global warming. So plants cannot last as long as they could in the past due to these extreme changes. If there is no such thing that will allow us to control the environment to a certain extent - we will have nothing to eat.

    "They will be more resistant to diseases and extreme weather" - at what health cost? These features sometimes mean the insertion of genes for toxic proteins. Their safety is questionable."

    Safety like anything else is always something to question. But it is important for us to check as much as possible about him. Gene insertion of toxic proteins? Are you aware of how difficult and almost impossible this process is - even today?

    No toxic proteins. There is a certain arrangement of the proteins (which tell me and you how to act, as above for the body) which creates products that are not necessarily beneficial to our existence on Earth. Again, you have given no scientific or factual backing for false claims.

    There is always the possibility of byproducts in anything. This is especially so in the field of genetic engineering. This does not mean that all those that have been genetically modified and found to be abnormal/toxic, are the ones that will be transferred to the general public. There is no logic in this. And if, God forbid, someone acts in such a way - then his prospect of succeeding financially is zero.

    "The only appropriate genetic engineering is to increase the amount of vitamins and antioxidants in the plant, and under control and verification." - lies and falsehood. By making such changes, you also change the resistance of that vegetable, for example, to the environment. that you add one thing to another - it does not come without some kind of price.

    Therefore, if we succeed in assessing the durability of the things we will consume and in particular make it "healthier" or "more diverse" from a health point of view - the success is many times greater.

  9. There is a place here….
    On what basis are you saying all this?

    Science and technology are blind - because they have no eyes. The people who make these developments are no less moral than me and you, so please don't just slander.

  10. Don't be naive.

    Science and technology are blind, they have no morals, they can cause major disasters, global warming, the development of atomic, biological and chemical weapons, the poisoning of the air, water and food, the development of drugs that create more diseases than cures. Science serves the ego and the ego has no limits.

    If it is true that they want to protect public health, every genetically modified food producer should be required to indicate on their products the name of the inserted gene and its function, and operate laboratories to verify that this is the case.

    The following examples will clarify:

    "Oil that does not develop trans fats when heated" - oils that are very stable, very saturated or that include aromatic rings, for example beeswax, these oils are not digested and disrupt the digestive process, some of them are toxic.

    "Potatoes and wheat are healthier, containing more fiber" - which fiber and from which source? Not all fibers are healthy, there are fibers that cause severe digestive problems and intestinal inflammations and even cancer (carrageenan).

    "They will survive longer on the shelf" - at what health cost? Sometimes the substance in the plant that extends the shelf life is toxic and harmful.

    "They will be more resistant to diseases and extreme weather" - at what health cost? These features sometimes mean the insertion of genes for toxic proteins. Their safety is questionable.

    Sometimes there are unexpected side effects as a result of introducing new genes into a plant.

    I recommended - not to approach genetically modified food.

    The only appropriate genetic engineering is to increase the amount of vitamins and antioxidants in the plant, and under control and verification.

  11. Don't be naive.

    Science and technology are blind, they have no morals, they can cause major disasters, global warming, the development of atomic, biological and chemical weapons, the poisoning of the air, water and food, the development of drugs that create more diseases than cures. Science serves the ego and the ego has no limits.

    If it is true that they want to protect public health, every genetically modified food producer should be required to indicate on their products the name of the inserted gene and its function, and operate laboratories to verify that this is the case.

    The following examples will clarify:

    "Oil that does not develop trans fats when heated" - oils that are very stable, very saturated or that include aromatic rings, for example beeswax, these oils are not digested and disrupt the digestive process, some of them are toxic.

    "Potatoes and wheat are healthier, containing more fiber" - which fiber and from which source? Not all fibers are healthy, there are fibers that cause severe digestive problems and intestinal inflammations and even cancer (carrageenan).

    "They will survive longer on the shelf" - at what health cost? Sometimes the substance in the plant that extends the shelf life is toxic and harmful.

    "They will be more resistant to diseases and extreme weather" - at what health cost? These features sometimes mean the insertion of genes for toxic proteins. Their safety is questionable.

    Sometimes there are unexpected side effects as a result of introducing new genes into a plant.

    I recommended - not to approach genetically modified food.

    The only appropriate genetic engineering is to increase the amount of vitamins and antioxidants in the plant, and under control and verification.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.