GMO's and the Meat Industry

Pranams,

I read this today supporting GMO and it is linked to the meat industry trying to prove that these practices have no detrimental affect on the environment and human health.

i know some here are very good in science and wondered if they could refute this. I find it shocking how these types of modern practices are now being supported science.

Quote:

---

Here's the consensus for you:

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)

American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

---

Ys

Md

Namaste Md,

You highlight a critical point, in the future of life on Earth ...
Here are my thoughts upon the subject.

I would call for a vote of incompetence and a need for greater regulation in light of the recent instability in the current scientific/economic system; citing the mercurial nature of the governing body of this system to be conducive of an environmental feedback loop; a feedback loop that is already rendering our agricultural land infertile and disrupting the climate of the planet; in a worse case scenario that can be compared to a cancer in the food chain its self.

Given the current lack of advancement in methods to understand such temporal effects as cancer, and our inability to stabilise any simulated eco systems, even upon a small scale; I would propose that we consider very hard the consequences of these actions.

The endocrine system is obviously highly critical in this ecological system, its balance within the environment. A factor which is evidently important any studies which do not include this field of research are inherently blind; A brief look at obesity and diabetics in the Occident will make this very clear, a neuro epigentic study over several generations even clearer.

It does not take long when examining the record of occidental economically fuelled science, to observe the ghastly blunders that it has made in the past; largely through its own self assurance; to allow this occur again on a planetary scale is disturbing to say the least. It has already occurred in the petrochemical industries.


Regards,

Pranams Mana Ji,

Thank you for your reply. Without trying to sound to religious surely these are symptoms of an ever increasing degradation of Kali Yuga.

Science within its own paradigm is surely a noble thing, in fact I would go so far to say that we are born as natural scientists, a scientist is one who inquires to gain knowledge, it can be of two types, atma jana and then the sciences of the the phenomenal world. Its a broad subject far to broad for me to understand, but in the Vedic model or Hindu model throughout the history of Bharata Varsha the two system were either co dependent or were harmonized in one way or another. I think we could say this about most ancient cultures. To regain that balance is crucial, is it to late, and because we live in Kali Yuga and its all sort of leading upto the Avatara Kalki.

I recently heard a talk between Jeremy Paxman and Dawkins, and Dawkins said how there are few Christians who are now scientists, and the few that are scientist he just does not understand how they can be both a scientist and Christian. Although I understand the argument within that Historical battle between Empirical Science and faith based practice, the scope of acceptance of a person of faith and being a scientist has become oppressed. I can imagine that a person w ho has some faith in any type of religion may keep it very quiet due to fear of being criticized and discriminated against, I wonder if the so called human rights have this covered for the protection of a person of religious denomination. Lucky Indians who are from a deeper richer cultural foundation may have less trouble.

An interesting description of Lord Shiva who has 3 eyes and how each one represents 1. The objective world 2. The subjective world 3. The cognizant world. When all 3 are in balance we have pure synthesis.

That balance has been lost and while within science they have made many great advancements, especially on the medical side many things they have been doing should stand up for severe scrutiny. It has almost become a sin to say that science is doing anything wrong, and even then they have it covered by the intellecutual answer that " We are not a religion, so we can make mistakes and then correct them because we have no dogma"


It is obvious that there is this imbalance, and you call for a vote, but sadly science now is very closely related to the economics of the world, and without going into any type of conspiracy when any form of knowledge is directed with objectives of gain and profit then the moral structure maybe lost, or at least corrupted. This is not to say that each scientist is corrupt.

I followed a thread where some Americans were talking (or shouting at each other ) about the pro's and cons of GMO, and the evidence was shown that GMO's actually had no detrimental effect ( as provided above), the argument back was given in simple terms, just look at the general health of Americans, weight increase to some levels where they no longer look human, I do not mean that in derogatory way, it's an observation, and U.K is not far behind. I was looking for evidence against that, or at least would put those above evidences into question. I think if one reads between the lines it becomes disturbing really.

It seems in this time the voice of the sincere has been muted or least they only whisper in the background and are heard in faint vibrations. For example a doctor now chooses to be a doctor because the money is good, and so this attracts a different type of person into the medical world, which is now more of an industry rather than a practice.

I saw some Kaviraja's in India and one in south India I met had a Deity that after seeing Him the patient would donate to the Deity according to his means

I am not really a negative person, but without the blessings of the teachings everything just seems a complete mess.

Ys

Md

Dear Md,

Oh you don't sound religious; I like to call it social entropy so as to sound scientific; amounting to the same thing.
I don't separate science from Vedic culture and perceive the risi to be the greatest scientists performing massive thought experiments and also constructing formidable mathematical models in their own ways.
This happens over several incarnations/generations, such is their mastery of mind and elements, testimony to the stability of past cultures.
Richard Dawkins is, to my mind, a preacher, In my opinion he would do well to listen to the lectures of Richard Feynaman.
There is no battle here, not in the totality of balance, siva forgets so that he can recognise him self again; As such knowledge is both transient and transcendental; any one in their right mind can see this.

You don't sound negative to me Md, I detect perhaps a little sadness though; that is normal when one is aware of such stupidity in ignorance.
Ignorance exists so that we might remember; time will bring forwards forth this inevitability; To my mind any how. It is just a question of how far the degradation must go before it happens ... Perhaps I might recommend that you look for grace even in the formations of ignorance, it is there, a spiralling swirl of Fibonacci existing in the probability that ignorance will auto self district; rather like a cancer the over working cell kills the organism. Time folds back upon us, due to our own creation that of our probable future.

Stay positive my friend; look at how quickly life is taking hold again after the disaster at Chernobyl, barely the blink of an eye and the eco system has re-stabilised; with no human intervention what so ever. When compared to the infertile farmland created by mass nitrate utilisation and hedgerow destruction, we see clearly where AUM is to be found; Mother nature will wipe our dirty behinds and clean up after us, regardless of how cleaver and grown up we think we are.

The good that you do now is part of another possible future; I think that we both understand that blessings of the teachings stabilise the vibration of all of that; by way of their own vibration. I think working upon a far greater scales and much longer wavelengths.


Kind regards.