Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Talks About Her Plan to Get People to Accept GMOs
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/02/08/video-hillary-clinton-talks-about-her-plan-to-get-people-to-accept-gmos/Hillary Clinton remains firm in her stance on GMOs. In 2014 Clinton formally expressed her support from genetically modified crops and biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization convention in San Diego, stating:
“I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record. There is a big gap between what the facts are, and what the perceptions are.”
Clinton professes that there are unwarranted fears surrounding GMOs, many of which come from the terms they are associated with. She then divulges part of her plan to get the public to accept GMOs and biotechnology, which is pretty much just changing how they are marketed.
You can see some of her remarks on changing the narrative of how GMOs are promoted below, or you can watch her entire keynote speech above.
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
seeds of nope........I mean hope 
Most industries that are regulated have a history of past environmental or health problems that precipitated the need for governmental oversight in the first place. In the case of crops improved by biotechnology, the regulations were put in place well before any such crops were commercialized, with the express purpose of ensuring that this promising technology would not cause problems. The scientific community began thinking though any potential health or environmental issues starting with a major conference in 1975 (21 years before the first biotech crop was commercially planted).
Working with the broader community of academic and commercial scientists, three US regulatory agencies hammered out a system of shared responsibility for the review of biotech crops. Called the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, the system was instituted in 1986―still 10 years before the first commercial acre was planted. The proactive involvement of three regulatory agencies is completely unprecedented and has made crops improved through genetic engineering the most carefully monitored foods in history.
The USDA considers whether there are any “plant pest” issues with the specific crop and trait, such as the ability to cross with weedy relatives. The new crop cannot even be planted outdoors for testing purposes until the USDA determines that it is prudent to do so. The EPA gets involved if there is anything pesticide-related to do with the trait, such as tolerance to a herbicide or the production of the Bt protein that protects the plant from insect damage. The FDA reviews the information that the producing company or other entity generates to show that the modified crop is “substantially equivalent” to the non-modified version. This step is technically voluntary, but that sort of data has been provided and reviewed for every biotech trait that has been commercialized in the United States. The exact nature of the equivalency testing is, logically, customized based on the type of trait involved.
Working with the broader community of academic and commercial scientists, three US regulatory agencies hammered out a system of shared responsibility for the review of biotech crops. Called the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, the system was instituted in 1986―still 10 years before the first commercial acre was planted. The proactive involvement of three regulatory agencies is completely unprecedented and has made crops improved through genetic engineering the most carefully monitored foods in history.
The USDA considers whether there are any “plant pest” issues with the specific crop and trait, such as the ability to cross with weedy relatives. The new crop cannot even be planted outdoors for testing purposes until the USDA determines that it is prudent to do so. The EPA gets involved if there is anything pesticide-related to do with the trait, such as tolerance to a herbicide or the production of the Bt protein that protects the plant from insect damage. The FDA reviews the information that the producing company or other entity generates to show that the modified crop is “substantially equivalent” to the non-modified version. This step is technically voluntary, but that sort of data has been provided and reviewed for every biotech trait that has been commercialized in the United States. The exact nature of the equivalency testing is, logically, customized based on the type of trait involved.
For instance, this was done by governmental agencies for the benefit of their citizens.
A farmer in her Irish potato garden in Kisoro. Late blight causes significant yield losses in Irish potato-growing areas of the country
The situation
In Uganda, about 300,000 smallholder households grow potatoes for their subsistence living and for income. Loss due to late blight can be up to 60 per cent in Uganda forcing farmers to spray fungicides often up to 15 times to protect their crops. This represents between 10-25 per cent of their revenue from potato.
Recently, a new population of the pathogen is sweeping through Uganda that appears to be more difficult for farmers to manage. Hence, the pressure on farmers to grow resistant varieties is escalating.
A resistance (R) gene was isolated from Solanum bulbocastanum, a wild relative of the potato found in Mexico, and shown to confer resistance to a broad spectrum of pathogen strains. Soon after the discovery more R genes were isolated paving the way to obtain durable resistance to late blight in potato using biotechnology. Today we use genetic engineering, transgenesis, more commonly known genetic modification (GM), to introduce three R genes with broad spectrum resistance from wild relatives of the potato into potato varieties preferred by farmers and consumers alike.
~~~
National Agricultural Research Organisation (Naro) is in the process of breeding Irish Potato varieties that are resistant to late blight, a fungal disease ravaging the crop in farmers’ fields across the country.
Via transgenic technology, two varieties are being studied by scientists at Naro’s Kachwekano Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (KZARDI), which is located in Kabale.
The varieties being tested are commonly grown in the country, namely Victoria from Uganda and Désirée from Kenya.
~~~
Genes for resistance against late blight were introduced into the varieties in the laboratory at International Potato Centre (CIP), which is based in Lima, Peru. The genes were obtained from the wild relatives of the Irish Potato from South America—Solanum bulbocastanum and Solanum venturii. Potato tubers, which were planted at the Institute, were obtained by KZARDI from Peru through African Agricultural Technology Foundation.
http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/Farming/Scientists-make-breakthrough-in-blight-resistant-Irish-potatoes/-/689860/3068836/-/13r526cz/-/index.html
Roundup use has increased (skyrocketed?) but the overall use of pesticides has actually dropped since a high in the 80's. And considering that production has increased, farmers are actually getting a higher yield using less chemical than in the past.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib124.aspx#.U4S7BfldXO4
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1424185/eib124.pdf
The USDA study analyzed data from the department’s National Agricultural Statistics and Economic Research services, and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. The 21 crops included in the pesticide use data are apples, barley, corn, cotton, grapefruit, grapes, lemons, lettuce, peaches, peanuts, pears, pecans, potatoes, oranges, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugarcane, sweet corn, tomatoes and wheat. Those crops represent about 72 percent of total conventional pesticide use in the U.S.
Pesticide application on those 21 crops climbed from 196 million pounds of active ingredient in 1960 to 632 million pounds in 1981, as farmers began applying more herbicides to control weeds. Changes in planted acreage, crop and input prices, weather, pesticide regulations, Integrated Pest Management education and the introduction of genetically modified crops that made some applications less necessary, caused pesticide use to drop to 516 million pounds in 2008 – the most recent year for which complete pesticide statistics are available.
