Lower taxes: a liter of gasoline to less than € 0,6 !!!

[jonule]

All this to say that GMOs can be an opportunity to improve yields with less pesticides.

yes, "can be" except that the peasants see the opposite, it's a bit stupid ... you have not seen the documentary "life according to Monsanto", come on, another film is in preparation, "Monsanto a company that wants you well "!

in fact at the beginning the pretext was "with GMOs there will be more hunger in the world", except that it is still not true; now it would be "to produce with less pesticides?" and why not "to make cheap agrofuels"? -)

a bit like "with nuclear we will be independent of oil and we will not see a barrel of oil exceed $ 100" ...

[Remundo]

"The peasants", you'll excuse me, each have their own story, like their cows . Between the FNSEA and the Confédération Paysanne, via the Young Farmers, all the musical notes pass through ... they are all right and wrong at the same time.

I know the environment well because in my youth, I was an agricultural worker during the holidays ... and my whole family bathed or bathed one day or the other in agriculture.

I saw the film on Monsanto ... of course. What do we see? An irresponsible multinational on GMOs.

Conclusion? Let's remove GMOs !!!! Haro, ugly hang them all!

Human stupidity in all its splendor, sorry to be a bit direct ...

It's like a bakery is putting poison in its bread. Precautionary principle: we no longer make bread. Some of you are at this level of reasoning there!

And on agrofuels, imagine that we find a plant from which we can sterilize the seeds of year n for year n + 1 (which Monsanto viciously hijacks to "fuck" the peasants by making them hyperdependent ... ), with a super oilseed yield.

It is far from impossible. A small genetically doped miscanthus, with proliferation impossible by sterilization of seeds ... Well here ... a whole clean diesel industry.

Sorry guys, but stop arousing yourself on anti-GMO extremists. You can do much better than that!

And in addition, what I am gibbering there about fuels would perhaps be a solution to have cheaper oil ... provided that the State stops sucking our juice at petrol stations ... But that's it not tomorrow the day before with a 2000 billion euro deficit ...

@+

[bham]

"The peasants", you'll excuse me, each have their own story, like their cows . Between the FNSEA and the Confédération Paysanne, via the Young Farmers, all the musical notes pass through ... they are all right and wrong at the same time.

Yes of course who is wrong who is right? Disinformation, seeking profit, everything is there to sow discord.
I come back to my report, sorry, I think it came from the WHO. But I guess you don't give it more credit than the UN.

Conclusion? Let's remove GMOs !!!! Haro, ugly hang them all!

Monsanto is the perfect example of possible abuses in GMOs and it is true that we should not generalize. But it is then up to the legislator, always very objective as we have seen (hum, hum ..), whether in the USA or in France, to strictly regulate research, development and production of GMOs.
-Do you have enough confidence in the legislators in place in your country? Me no.
-Do you think that they are in majority sufficiently honest and independent to guarantee ABOVE ALL the good of the citizens? Me no.
-Do you think they are mostly curious and critical enough to analyze for themselves a thick file of several directories without being scientists? Me no.
-Do you think they always have ALL the information in their study files? not necessarily.
-Do you think they are well surrounded by sufficiently honest and independent advisers? Not necessarily.

In short, what happened in the US for Monsanto can happen anywhere in the world. The EU has granted authorization for the cultivation of GMO Monsanto when it should have reconsidered the conditions for granting US authorizations (after viewing the film "the world according to Monsanto"). Europe cannot ignore the way Monsanto GMOs have been legalized in the US. She shouldn't have been satisfied with it, but it must have been the subject of grim business discussions; one only has to see the US reaction to the French frost of Monsanto corn.
Therefore for me, the common rule is not to trust because we can no longer trust a democratic system whose only law is money and profit, even before the notions of public health and respect for human nature.

So even if it means going back to cave times, I prefer to apply the precautionary principle.

[highfly-addict]

+1 bham!

...
-Do you think they always have ALL the information in their study files? not necessarily.
-Do you think they are well surrounded by sufficiently honest and dependent advisers? Not necessarily.
...

Well here we are! They NEVER have ALL of the info because scientists themselves recognize that they are just "tinkering" with DNA without understanding exactly what is going on.

Then the competence of the advisers ....

We are touching an already incredibly vast area for what we know. And we KNOW that we don't know much.

When we detonated the BOMB, we saw and UNDERSTOOD that we had to regulate at the international level: vitrified square kilometers, that "speaks".

The concern with GMOs is that we will not be able to SEE the damage (if there is damage) as clearly as when it is too late!

Besides, it seems to me that with cotton, they are starting to have concerns about insect resistance.

We have already disturbed the EARTH "machine" a little, we know that and we also know that we do not understand everything about how it works.
With this in mind, is it reasonable to continue like this?

After what will we run after all? What do we want for our future?

[Capt_Maloche]

+1 guys

the solution: reduce the population so as not to have to increase yields per hectare

But a GMO corn whose only "apparent" modification, I grant you, would be to have a shorter foot so that motorists can see each other in crossroads, what do you think?

[highfly-addict]

I think it would be easy to get that by classical selection, without tampering with the genome.

And then they just have to drive slower na!

[gegyx]

And guys, I was there ...
And I dared not intervene!

Le Nouvel Obs is a pink tea towel every other page ... I prefer the World and especially The Mountain even if it will make you laugh

" The world "
according to Monsanto?

Pierre and Bruno Patino as President of Le Monde.
Jeantet / on a center-right list at municipal level + project manager for Christine Albanel.
-----
I see that you all agree in the end (overcrowding and GMOs not very clear).
Thinking a little further:

GMO plants are imposed, to reduce the earth's population, quite simply.

----
Today, I recovered a composter, offered by the agglomeration.
I followed the whole conference well.
This is a bit like the educational entertainment gadget.

[nonoLeRobot]

a solution: reduce the population so as not to be forced to increase yields per hectare

But a GMO corn whose only "apparent" modification, I grant you, would be to have a shorter foot so that motorists can see each other in crossroads, what do you think?

That it is wrong to steer in to decrease the population if there are fewer accidents.

PS: another HS you don't want to talk about in a special GMO subject, good at the same time since it starts with an April Fool, it's less serious ...

[Capt_Maloche]

It is true that from this point of view, GMOs will help us reduce the population

Well here it is the big plot we were missing!

[bham]

+1 bham!

Thank you for your very useful details on GMOs.

For Capt., Would it be possible to have corn on the short foot and that smells of rose?

For Nono, sorry for the modification of subject genes, you wanted to provoke us with your lower taxes, suddenly it goes on GMOs.