GMO decline

Some slightly good news for a change; less GMO crop area worldwide, led by the US: http://www.agweek.com/news/nation-and-world/4008456-global-gmo-crop-area-dips-2015-first-ever-decline

Not necessarily due to lower desire for GMO crops, but due to lower prices for commodities.

Ever notice that the main countries growing GMO crops are those that do not worry about pollution or population health so much?

More and more countries are outlawing GMO crops, so much so that GMO growing countries are becoming fewer and fewer, it seems that what is happening is that farmers are no longer buying into the hype about how great these plants are.

India, for example has rejected GMO crops on the premise that they do not taste as good as the old crops taste. It also costs much more money to grow the GMO plants.

Eventually the rest of the world will pull the wool from over their eyes and they too will reject the GMO hype. There is something wrong when we are told to plant things that have less nutrition and cost more to grow, not to mention that it is just dollar incentives for the folks that sell these atrocities.

Wow, I'm really glad to know that. Not following the news leaves me out of the loop, and I don't find out things like this until someone else tells me. Thanks for posting it, Tyler.

Something else I found out by reading the article is : "Some U.S. states have passed laws requiring food labels to disclose GMO ingredients. Industry-backed efforts to block the regulations failed in the Senate last month." I knew they were trying to PREVENT states from requiring labeling of GMO content, but I did not know it had failed.

Monsanto can only win this fight by cheating - by preventing people from knowing what's in their food and how it is produced. More and more people care deeply about their food. I think we're witnessing an important shift.

http://www.naturalnews.com/045188_Clean_Food_Movement_transparency_grassroots_activism.html

The biotechnology companies are all moving in a different direction. The new terms coming up are going to be Epigenetic Engineered Oroganisms pr Epigenetically Modified Organism. This is the practice using their new toy called CRISPR which they tout as safer amd more effective than the inserting of foreign genes using a viral vector. In fact it's already begun with the gene silencing of a gene in White Button Mushrooms which causes browning. They insist it is safe and there will be no consequences. This is a lie because genes have multiple functions depending on the context they are used within any organism.

Anyway, I've added it to a post I created here

Epigenetic Mechanisms Defined and Illustrated

Kevin Franck wrote:This is the practice using their new toy called CRISPR which they tout as safer

How can it be safer when they claim their current practices are perfectly safe?

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Kevin Franck wrote:This is the practice using their new toy called CRISPR which they tout as safer

How can it be safer when they claim their current practices are perfectly safe?

Yeah, no kidding

I can't stand it, how a discovery or new understanding such as epigenetics gets twisted around. My take on epigenetics is that when they, "they" got done with the human genome project, and it was clear there was not room on those chromosomes for all the traits conditions diseases being attributed to heredity, then the idea of epigenetics was "born". When I was getting my undergraduate degree in biology in the late 60s and early 70s, Lamarck (just few years prior to Darwin's "Origin") was touted as an idiot because he said environmental things caused or elicited changes in an organism that could then be transmitted to offspring.

There is the pure discovery of indications of "how things work", that's what I would call science, but more and more, science is as much politics as discovery. A "scientist" has to be very careful what they say they found or discovered, or think they discovered, in case it might offend someone or some entity such as a corporation with wealth and power, because that scientist who said they found something unpopular or out of line with the status quo or inconvenient to a mega corporation could lose funding, could have professional journals refuse to print their papers, etc etc etc. History is full of scientific discoveries being buried, of discoveries being "stolen" and the thief receiving Nobel prize for discoveries they did not make. I just can't stand it.

But I followed Kevin's link to find out what he had to say about epigenetics, and had a lot of fun watching the video about the complexity of language. Those guys Rhett and Link are zany fun guys. I tried to bring the link of their video but couldn't. You'll find it if you follow Kevin's Epigenetics Mechanisms link. His article is pretty interesting too.

Thanks Kevin.

Thekla McDaniels wrote: But I followed Kevin's link to find out what he had to say about epigenetics, and had a lot of fun watching the video about the complexity of language. Those guys Rhett and Link are zany fun guys. I tried to bring the link of their video but couldn't. You'll find it if you follow Kevin's Epigenetics Mechanisms link. His article is pretty interesting too.

Here is the Youtube link




And you're right about Lammark. When secularism took over Academia and Science away from Europe's Christendom, they structured their own version of an Ecclessiastical Hierachical structure which was actually pattern after the religious orthodoxy they replace. Complete with all the newer lines of dogma and conduct that the former orthodoxy used with they ran things. Unfortunately all the flaws common to imperfect human nature rode along for the ride as well. Academic jealousies, scientific envy, pride, etc. So Lammark was dismissed for decades for´his seemingly unorthodox views on inheritance. Even when Epigenetics was first starting to gain interest, academics, especially those who were diehard Darwinians were adamantly opposed. Then begrudgingly open slightly, now they are saying Darwin new this all along. The direction science takes as time goes on is sad. And our planet continues to degrade. One is forced to ask, how much do they not really know contrary to public relations propaganda.