Genetic engineering is soon to be introduced into agriculture as standard, replacing classic seeds and some of the farm animals with genetically modified variants. After the genetic manipulation of citizens through the “corona vaccinations” was carried out with almost sensational success (around 75 percent of all German citizens received a gene injection), now comes the somewhat more difficult part: Many of the genetically manipulated German citizens do not want genetic engineering in their food. So we still need some work to improve the willingness to use genetically modified manure here too. And who does it better than ZDF, for example? [1]
Genetic plants should reduce the use of pesticides – madness with a method?
ZDF against genetic engineering for the benefit of genetic engineering
The article is from July 2023 and is well suited to slowly and carefully prepare the reader for the introduction of genetic engineering in agriculture, i.e. all kinds of food, while also being critical. This undoubtedly increases the acceptance of unacceptable arguments.
First we learn that the EU Commission wants to relax the regulations on the use of certain genetic engineering methods in agriculture. Why does she want that? Apparently there are new processes, such as the Crispr/Cas DNA scissors, which are not yet included in the 2001 specifications catalog because this technology did not yet exist at the time. This technology should therefore be excluded from the regulations. Another justification is that the genetic modification of crops for food and/or feed can be carried out more quickly and in a more targeted manner in order to breed more resistant varieties that would also arise naturally without genetic engineering, namely through crossing and selection.
The overriding reason for genetic engineering in agriculture and food production is of course once again climate change, which here too requires rapid adaptation to the impending chaos. Because without this genetic engineering-based response to climate change, we will be at risk of starvation. Maybe next Christmas?
We already had a similar argument with the “corona vaccinations”, where there was an urgent need for action. Because with SARS-CoV-2 there was supposedly a new viral threat that could only be eliminated with a gene injection, quickly and without further, otherwise usual security checks. And are we now doing that again with climate and genetically modified foods because it worked so well with Corona?
And so ZDF continues to advertise the EU’s plans. Deregulation of the approval of new plant varieties is intended to make them more resistant to climate change and pests. And above all, the old myth still surfaces that such new plants require less fertilizer and pesticides. Haven’t I had this before? We had: [2]
Genetic plants should reduce the use of pesticides – madness with a method?
Of course, these plans are met with open ears at Bayer (and other agricultural companies), as these plans are likely to be an Eldorado for glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides: [3] [4]
Glyphosate – surely unsafe?
Glyphosate – poisons and genetic engineering out of control
There are other alleged advantages, for example that the Leopoldina is also in favor of the introduction of genetic engineering in agriculture. Reason: The old restrictive rules do not correspond to the current state of research and cannot be justified rationally. Great!
And why do new rules that do not require security tests for new technologies have to be justified rationally? The financial justification for such projects, on the other hand, is rational and obvious, not so much for consumers but for producers.
Since ZDF has learned to also look at the other side, some arguments are listed that speak against the plans. For example, negative effects on ecosystems could be mentioned here, which the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation warns about. There are also warnings about a lack of consumer information, as according to the plans, genetically modified plants no longer have to be labeled. And genetically modified plants and animals could of course also be patentable. This would mean that farmers would own the plants and animals that they keep on their farms to the corporations. We have already seen what this entails in India: [5]
A genetic engineering company and the Indian suicides
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then be sure to request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. Clear edge.” to:
What do others say and what is it ultimately about?
The Greens’ position on this question is peculiar. While the Greens were still in favor of “compulsory vaccination” = forced genetic modification of German citizens, when it comes to the question of genetic engineering in crops and animals, they seem to be falling back on old positions. At least this is what an article published at the end of October 2023 suggests: [6]
Deregulation of new genetic engineering – Nunne: “A risky step for organic farming and nutritional transition” |
The “German Nature Conservation Ring” discussed this topic in September 2022: [7]
New genetic engineering: protest against secret deregulation
Here we are talking about genetic engineering, which the EU is trying to introduce through the back door. Why go through the back door when the supposedly overwhelming benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture are so obvious?
DER “BUND” wrote in July 2023:
“The EU Commission’s proposal to deregulate genetically engineered plants produced using new processes abolishes labeling requirements, safety controls and any kind of liability. All the alarm signals are going off for us.”
New EU genetic engineering rules sacrifice freedom of choice and the precautionary principle – BUND eV
Further in the text it is explained what deregulation means in detail, as:
No more risk assessments for new GMOs (genetically modified organisms). To this day, it is not known what effects such new organisms have on biotopes. It cannot be ruled out that such plants are toxic to insects and other living beings. Nothing precise is known. And apparently they don’t want to know anything specific, the main thing is that the genetic engineering industry is fully involved. There is no longer any requirement to label whether products contain GMOs. This essentially forces anyone who doesn’t like GMOs to spend their money on something they don’t want. Facilitated approval for particularly sustainable products… According to “BUND”, there is no definition of what “particularly sustainable products” should be. It seems to be a kind of placeholder to enforce some special regulations that are not yet known. EU member states are forced to implement the rules. Since 2015, 17 governments have banned the cultivation of GMOs. That would then be the end of these bans. Coexistence of traditional and organic farming with GMO farming is hardly possible. We have seen in the past that drifting GMO seeds onto organic farmland led to Monsanto filing claims and suing organic farmers. No regulation of patents. This could open the door for the agricultural industry to monopolize the area of food production for itself and thus ultimately determine who can eat what, to put it somewhat drastically.
Further sources, including online letter campaigns, can be found here: [9] [10] [11]
No genetic engineering – organic circle
Bioland
No to the deregulation of new genetic technologies | Demeter
Conclusion
We must not leave the seeds to the corporations! Why not? I gave the reasons in this post: [12]
We must not leave the seeds to the corporations!
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then be sure to request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. Clear edge.” to:
Sources:
[1] Genetic plants should reduce the use of pesticides – madness with a method?
Featured image: pixabay.com – DarkoStojanovic