Shared publicly  - 
[Peru pulls a bold move by implementing 10-year ban on all GMO's.]

Way to go, Peru! Not sure how I missed this! Perhaps because none of the mainstream media gave mention of it? (Even a Google search only pulls up independent news sources.) Seems pretty major to me. Now if only we'd take cue. (Given how recent lawsuits have been going though, I'm not too optimistic.)

But there's hope! That there is currently a very important "Right to Know" initiative in California that would require all GMO foods to be labeled. Note that they need physical, not virtual, signatures to get this on the ballot, which means you need to seize the day and get those legs moving down to your local spot! To find out where/how to sign, visit here: .

Given that California produces nearly half of U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables, this could be a major landmark move and could signal significant shifts for the rest of the country (and world).

Details on Peru's own revolutionary action below:
"In a massive blow to multinational agribiz corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients anywhere within the country for a full decade before coming up for another review.

"Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision 3 years after the decree was written despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization due largely to the pressure from farmers that together form the Parque de la Papa in Cusco, a farming community of 6,000 people that represent six communities. They worry the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will compromise the native species of Peru, such as the giant white corn, purple corn and, of course, the famous species of Peruvian potatoes. Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the 'danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.'”
#monsanto #GMO #righttoknow
In a massive blow to multinational agribiz corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients anywhere within the country for a fu...
Wolf Weber's profile photoAlison Gaynor's profile photoRelu Dumitru's profile photoPaul Heimbach's profile photo
Sorry to dissapoint, but almost every single thing we eat has been genetically engineered by thousands of generations of selective breeding (aka domestication).
I'm generally a big fan of people trying to protect the planet but sometimes the matter is oversimplified as natural=good and artificial=bad. the thing is, most of the things we eat have not been 'natural' for thousands of years now, which is a good thing.
basically, a potato plant does not become more numerous by having its roots eaten, so you'd expect the natural plant to develop chemical defenses against this happening, and indeed that is what you find.
there are very few natural things that won't hurt or kill us if we eat them. some types of fruit and nut and that's about it.
+Nick Marino I'm sorry you're factually incorrect. very few things you find in an overgrown lawn could be eaten in a nice salad, and of those that can, the majority have got that way through cultivation. the line between bitter chemicals and poison is gradual, too.
+T. Pascal and +Edouard Tavinor: Can you back that up with sources? Everything I've read indicates that GMO's have not shown increased yields, and their introduction has absolutely devastated many local agricultural economies, leaving them far worse than before GMO's were introduced, not better.


And as a more general overview:

There are plenty of more sources if you do a search.

Specifically to +Edouard Tavinor:
"...there are very few natural things that won't hurt or kill us if we eat them." Huh? There are tons of things we can eat, and if we can't, _maybe that just means we shouldn't be eating them. Moreover, by your logic, every other herbivore/omnivore on earth would be screwed by now because anything they tried to eat would have developed a natural defense. That hasn't happened though, correct?
GMO biodiversity omnibus: I found section 4.3.1, page 27 interesting: GMO species are more designed for production than reproduction and aren't always a threat to biodiversity. But the risks of their spreading may increase if they form hybrid with local commercial crops (my poorly worded summary, please read for yourself.) Caveat: my understanding of IUCN and the paper sponsors is little to none.
+kathryn llewe: It's definitely a threat to biodiversity for that exact reason. Because the plants aren't reproducing, there is no crossing of genes, thus no biodiversity is produced. Make sense? This is dangerous for a lot of reasons, but think about this: Imagine if we became entirely depending on Monsanto's single strain of bananas. (And we certainly would if they have it their way.) Now imagine there is some type of fungus that decides that this crop is their new food source, and the fungus completely wipe out these crops. (Or likewise, what if environmental conditions change, and those genetically-modified crops are no longer viable in that environment? There are many other similar scenarios.) We're screwed. Without natural biodiversity, entire food sources could be wiped out in one fowl swoop.

Think this is the thing of fiction? It's not. I used the example of bananas as a reason. They're being threatened by extinction because of this exact situation:

I'm glad you brought that point up because it illustrates just one of the many reasons GMO's are a terrible idea.
+Alida Brandenburg I understand your argument, but let's say Peru has lots of types of potatoes, and Mexico has lots of types of maize. I was worried about some cross-pollination that would turn all the heirloom potatoes and maize into monsanto-clones, bye-bye biodiversity, not through intentional planning, but through the natural pollination process. Since gmo crops don't tend to breed as well (monsanto wants to keep selling those seeds), it seems like it may be a protection not only to monsanto's revenue stream but also to heirloom potatoes a la because they won't breed in the same area as the heirlooms and run them out of town, so to speak. It's interesting how we're approaching biodiversity threats from two different angles. (You're worried about the farms and farms of mono-crop bananas, I'm worried about the adjacent farm with its diverse banana crops.) One might argue that these threats could exist from using one crop strain for bananas, or potatoes, gmo or regular commercial. GMO just modifies the dynamics.
+Nick Marino foul tasting often means that if you eat too much of it you will get sick. most grasses can make you very ill if taken in sufficient quantities. in fact humans have difficulty digesting them. this is just one sort of defense mechanism plants have. most flowers will also make you ill if taken in sufficient quantities, have a look at the wikipedia entry for poisonous flowers which includes whole classes of flowers rather than individual species.

generally this shouldn't surprise us. plants don't generally become more numerous from being eaten so you would expect natural selection to favour defense mechanisms.

i think you would agree that if somebody just walked out into a rain-forest and started eating plants at random, they wouldn't last very long. the same person would last much longer in an orchard or on a farm.
+Edouard Tavinor: ...this is just one sort of defense mechanism plants have....plants don't generally become more numerous from being eaten...

Actually, they do. That's how many of them spread their seeds. Being tasty to eat is an advantage to them.

Also, taste isn't always an indication of what is good for us. By that logic, I should be able to eat as much sugar as I want and be just fine- healthy even. There are a good number of bitter plants that very good for our health. (In fact, most medicines are.) Also, when there is an imbalance in our bodies or our taste buds are accustomed to a poor diet, things that are actually good for us don't taste as good, and you tend to crave the very foods that are terrible for us and feed the imbalance (sugar being a primary example of that again).

+kathryn llewe: Oh, I think I understand what you're saying now, but if everything moves to GMO, it won't matter whether or not the GMO crops are pollinating with non-GMO crops anyway, you know?
+Nick Marino Um is not a word. Next time you mow your lawn grab a bowl full of grass from the lawn mower bag and eat it.

I dare you.

Sprouts and shoots are not mature grass now are they?

Edit: I can eat a tree if it’s young enough.
+Alida Brandenburg that's why i mentioned nuts and fruits separately. These obviously become more numerous from being eaten. Grasses and trees, for example, do not.
generally our tastebuds are a good thing. They have evolved as a mechanism against being poisoned. Of course we can expect some plants to take advantage of this mechanism and taste bad without going to the trouble of producing toxins in large amounts. This is called an evolutionary arms race by the way.
it is also true that evolution has given us a preference for sweet things. Due to thousands of years of genetic manipulation we can now overload on sweet things. Had we no society i imagine there would now be a strong evolutionary pressure to favour reduced attraction to sugar. But that ain't gonna happen until we genetically engineer it in ourselves.
Wonderful! I run a small county newspaper in south central Kansas (if you think Kansas is country, multiply your imagination by five or ten and that's us, 6,000 county population). So to survive, I have to mostly go along with conventional wisdom around here, and one of our columnists just wrote an article about how he uses GM feeds for his cattle, and seeds for his crops, and publishing his defense of GMOs was hard. The worst is that he had rational arguments FOR using GMOs, which I had never before heard. Anyway, go Peru and c'mon Cali!
Its a big step for peru but at the same time it would be horrible to loose the biodiversity of plants that the country has.
+Nick Marino providing specific examples of plants which are notable for being edible does not detract from my argument that most plants, if eaten in sufficient quantities, have deleterious effects on humans, nor does it detract from my argumentation (which is pretty standard) as to why this is the case.

there are cases where humans are winning the arms race against the chemical defenses plants use. an example would be some sorts of salad, but there are many, many highly toxic plants. i can imagine our discovery of cookery and cultivation of less toxic strains having resulted in a reduction in our ability to digest some toxins in plants. it would be interesting to see some research into this.
Keep thos genetically engineeted food out Peru
Add a comment...