GMOs

[SunnyD]

as our world population keeps growing, we need to increase the amount of food we can produce off of our limited land. GMO allows us to do this.

At what cost?

The world has been ecologically balanced over millennia to support a habitat and change along with it, and all of a sudden we think we can do better? Here's the problem with that idea: We're not thinking about the entire habitat, we're thinking about US. Sure, you have a vested interest in you and I have a vested interest in me and to hell with the rest of everybody else.

If you take the time to see past the nose on your face you'd realize that we're infants at playing god with the world and frankly we're doing a pretty shitty job of it. Just look at our track record of species extinctions caused by human activity and other ecological issues that are rendering the need for things like GMO's even necessary in the first place. This all wouldn't be happening if we'd just slow down and consider the impacts of our activities.

Of course the progessives will just come back with "well if we did that we'd have never made it out of the stone age!" Fine. How about some balance to the approach then instead of letting $$$ rubber stamp every single new biotech thing that comes around the corner for the sake of humanity.

 

[Brainonska511]

How about some balance to the approach then instead of letting $$$ rubber stamp every single new biotech thing that comes around the corner for the sake of humanity.

I'm not seeing any rubber stamps in GMO approval. Taking years of testing for various agencies involved in regulatory approval hardly sounds like a rubber stamp.

 

[bradly1101]

How about consuming Roundup (glyphosate) in your food? Mmmmm. What could possibly go wrong?

One of the biggest things being done with GMOs is to create Roundup-resistant seeds so that farmers can clear fields and control weeks by dousing fields and crops with Roundup. The company doing the engineering of these foods is the chemical giant Monsanto, the makers of Roundup.

I think by now that I'm RoundUp-ready.

 

[SunnyD]

I'm not seeing any rubber stamps in GMO approval. Taking years of testing for various agencies involved in regulatory approval hardly sounds like a rubber stamp.

Years? Really?

The vast majority of the shit coming out on the market these days hasn't even had 12 months of testing and/or has had half the testing faked. That said, even two or three years is hardly a sample size to effectively judge what the long term ecological impacts are going to be for natural local and global environmental impacts.

 

[Delita]

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ld-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science

I like the little chart near the bottom:
Global annual dealths from:
Malnutrition: 3,100,000
GMO: 0

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think by now that I'm RoundUp-ready.

Monarchs used to be everywhere. I'll be sad when RoundUp makes them extinct.

 

[Gillbot]

Years? Really?

The vast majority of the shit coming out on the market these days hasn't even had 12 months of testing and/or has had half the testing faked. That said, even two or three years is hardly a sample size to effectively judge what the long term ecological impacts are going to be for natural local and global environmental impacts.

The thing that cracks me up is, people try to say we have years in testing and this shit is fine but we as humans haven't been here that long. Years of testing over our lifetime is a pittance to what the earth has been through and the history of mankind itself.

 

[DestinyKnight]

Oh, like this link:

Top 5 myths of Genetically modified seeds, busted.



Maybe you were thinking of something else?

I was hoping you would point that out. It's a "myth" because Monsanto's PR machine wants it to be. As the article clearly states, Monsanto sued Schmeiser because they found their GMO genes in Schmeiser's canola crop. However He never purchased Monsanto's canola seed and was simply growing seed saved from plants that had apparently hybridized with the Monsanto canola his neighbor was growing. The Monsanto gene was acquired from natural cross pollination.

So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.

 

[Brainonska511]

I was hoping you would point that out. It's a "myth" because Monsanto's PR machine wants it to be. As the article clearly states, Monsanto sued Schmeiser because they found their GMO genes in Schmeiser's canola crop. However He never purchased Monsanto's canola seed and was simply growing seed saved from plants that had apparently hybridized with the Monsanto canola his neighbor was growing. The Monsanto gene was acquired from natural cross pollination.

But let's ignore the other part:

Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.


This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)

He willfully infringed their patent under the law. It's hardly a case of "innocent contamination".



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

One example of such litigation is the Monsanto v. Schmeiser case.[395] This case is widely misunderstood.[396] In 1997, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, discovered that one of his fields had canola that was resistant to Roundup. He had not purchased this seed, which had blown onto his land from neighboring fields. He later harvested the area and saved the crop in the back of a pickup truck.[395]ara 61 & 62 Before the 1998 planting, Monsanto representatives informed Schmeiser that using this crop for seed would infringe the patent, and offered him a license, which Schmeiser refused.[395]ara 63[397] According to the Canadian Supreme Court, after this conversation "Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all....A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant."[395]ara 63–64 After further negotiations between Schmeiser and Monsanto broke down, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement and prevailed in the initial case. Schmeiser appealed and lost, and appealed again to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto's favor, stating that "it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto."[395]ara 68

 

[maddogchen]

At what cost?

The world has been ecologically balanced over millennia to support a habitat and change along with it, and all of a sudden we think we can do better? Here's the problem with that idea: We're not thinking about the entire habitat, we're thinking about US. Sure, you have a vested interest in you and I have a vested interest in me and to hell with the rest of everybody else.

If you take the time to see past the nose on your face you'd realize that we're infants at playing god with the world and frankly we're doing a pretty shitty job of it. Just look at our track record of species extinctions caused by human activity and other ecological issues that are rendering the need for things like GMO's even necessary in the first place. This all wouldn't be happening if we'd just slow down and consider the impacts of our activities.

Of course the progessives will just come back with "well if we did that we'd have never made it out of the stone age!" Fine. How about some balance to the approach then instead of letting $$$ rubber stamp every single new biotech thing that comes around the corner for the sake of humanity.

Good luck trying to get the developing countries to slow down and consider the impacts of their activities.

Although I think Hayabusa Rider's job of trying to get everyone in the world to use contraceptives is harder. He has to face Christianity and Islam who both view it as an affront to God. A religious fanatic will probably take his life.

In the meantime, I'm for it. Wild Quinoa is a weed that can grow in dry desert areas. If we can modify it to be more like the quinoa we eat and grow it in deserts, that can help a lot.
If we can lower the amount of nutrients crops take from the land and allow a farmer in Brazil to grow and harvest the land 4 times instead of 2 before you have to let the land recover, then maybe he's less likely to start chopping down the rainforest for more land.

 

[jagec]

The thing that cracks me up is, people try to say we have years in testing and this shit is fine but we as humans haven't been here that long. Years of testing over our lifetime is a pittance to what the earth has been through and the history of mankind itself.

And yet, every time a mutation happens in the wild, it is immediately in the environment without any testing whatsoever. Over time, many of these mutations have proven to be highly beneficial to the organism that harbors them.

Let evolution work. We're not going to destroy the earth, although we will certainly change it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Although I think Hayabusa Rider's job of trying to get everyone in the world to use contraceptives is harder. He has to face Christianity and Islam who both view it as an affront to God. A religious fanatic will probably take his life

There would be a problem with some religions. I'm not sure what the Muslim position is, but contraception mainly faces religious opposition in the US and developed countries from Catholicism. In places like Africa with a number of problems like food shortages, increasing population and rampant HIV, the difficulty is "real men don't use condoms." It's cultural, and if ways can be found to change that then famine would be easier to manage and disease would be slashed. Just use the darn things.

 

[Red Squirrel]

It's hard to avoid GMOs but I do avoid them if I can. Chances are they're not bad for you, but who knows, in 50 years from now they could discover that it was a major source of cancer or something.

If you look back at history there is a lot of things they thought was safe and turns out it was not. It's also often driven by business. Look at Asbestos. It was used everywhere, there was tons of money into that, do you think they'd want to stop using it if this one group of scientists tried to stop them? It eventually did stop being used but it took a while because it was a booming industry. Then there's DDTs. Similar idea.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's hard to avoid GMOs but I do avoid them if I can. Chances are they're not bad for you, but who knows, in 50 years from now they could discover that it was a major source of cancer or something.

And what way do you think they'll cause cancer compared to eating non-GMO food? What inherent property of RoundUp-resistant plants, Ring-spot virus resistant papaya, or BT-toxin corn will lead to cancer over plants not expressing these traits?

 

[Ichinisan]

It's hard to avoid GMOs but I do avoid them if I can. Chances are they're not bad for you, but who knows, in 50 years from now they could discover that it was a major source of cancer or something.

If you look back at history there is a lot of things they thought was safe and turns out it was not. It's also often driven by business. Look at Asbestos. It was used everywhere, there was tons of money into that, do you think they'd want to stop using it if this one group of scientists tried to stop them? It eventually did stop being used but it took a while because it was a booming industry. Then there's DDTs. Similar idea.

I don't follow the DDT thing. I heard DDT was incredibly beneficial, and all the problems with bird eggs were because farmers applied 1,000x more than necessary.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't follow the DDT thing. I heard DDT was incredibly beneficial, and all the problems with bird eggs were because farmers applied 1,000x more than necessary.

I'm not sure about DDT, but RoundUp is being used like that which is why Monarchs are headed towards extinction. One should always ask "what happens next". The food can be 100% safe but cause terrible destruction in real world situations.

 

[Ichinisan]

I'm not sure about DDT, but RoundUp is being used like that which is why Monarchs are headed towards extinction. One should always ask "what happens next". The food can be 100% safe but cause terrible destruction in real world situations.

saw this on the first page of this thread:

Yep. Those farmers are just "drowning" their crops in RoundUp.

You think "organic" farmers aren't using pesticides? You think "natural" pesticides are less toxic than synthetic? Natural is not a synonym for safe and synthetic is not a synonym for dangerous. In reality, RoundUp is a very safe-to-humans product when used according to the directions.

The linked article disputes that notion as misinformation. It says farmers apply it conservatively. It's a cost thing.

 

[Jeff7]

I'm not sure about DDT, but RoundUp is being used like that which is why Monarchs are headed towards extinction. One should always ask "what happens next". The food can be 100% safe but cause terrible destruction in real world situations.

I've seen quite a few things lately that indicate that some pesticides are ultimately responsible for the colony collapse disorder that's killing off honeybees.

I get the impression that it's more of a deep distrust of Monsanto and their motives and trying to avoid giving them even more control over the food supply.

They push for fewer regulations and spend quite a bit on lobbying to that end. I'm sure it's because the regulations aren't strict enough, and they feel that their altruistic duty is being held back.

That's the issue I have with it: It's not the modification itself that's the issue. I love the concept of effectively rewriting and editing genetic code for our benefit. But:
1) We constantly screw up computer code because it's very easy to create an extremely complex system. DNA is what we have after many hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Reverse-engineering it to the point that we can call ourselves "experts" at recoding it isn't an easy task.
2) The corporate politics guiding how and why it's being pursued.

...
Monsanto hardly has a stranglehold on the market. Lots of other companies (eg: Syngenta, Bayer Agriculture, Dow, DuPont, BASF, Simplot, and other smaller players) all play a part of the agriculture market. It would hardly be in Monsanto's interests to kill their customers with toxic foods. Am I completely trusting of them? No.

You do know of the phrase "Buyer beware," right? It's not around because sellers are always fully concerned about the safety of their customers. Plenty of people would willfully sell you poison if they thought they could get away with it and keep the money.

Remember, we're the same species that needs rules to serve as reminders that:
- It's bad to torture someone for information.
- We shouldn't murder other people.
- Owning other people and working them to death is bad.
- Companies shouldn't employ children to work long hours around dangerous machinery.

We have a tendency toward being self-serving even if it is directly detrimental to many other people, up to and including killing them. If fully left to our own devices, we can get to some pretty unsettling behaviors in a surprisingly short period of time.


On the less-extreme side, consumer safety can take a backseat when things like profitability and duty to shareholders constantly get the focus. "It must be entirely safe!" can be touted, but the undertone is "It must be as profitable as possible. When and if you have time, make sure it's safe."

But they also have large regulatory hurdles to overcome when bringing any of their genetically modified products to market.

...regulatory hurdles which they are constantly working to remove.

as our world population keeps growing, we need to increase the amount of food we can produce off of our limited land. GMO allows us to do this.

It'd be nice if we could drop that increase to a slow crawl, or replacement levels only. Good god there are so many people now.
We're just doing what life here does though, right down to bacteria:
Provide bacteria with an abundant but limited food supply. They'll rapidly reproduce and quickly consume the food, right up until it runs out. Then the majority will die off, leaving only a small and stable population, at least until the next abundance of food shows up. I'm sure it was an evolutionary survival tactic. If you expand your population as much as possible when times are good, even if there's a future die-off, the survivors will likely be spread out over a larger area, thus providing geographic diversification and a subsequent increase in chances of long-term survival.

We have data to show that the population growth rate can't continue indefinitely, but it's pitted against our powerful instinct to reproduce unabated, which led to outgrowths like ancient religions which promote exactly that sort of behavior.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The linked article disputes that notion as misinformation. It says farmers apply it conservatively. It's a cost thing.

That's probably true in Iowa. In the US there is pesticide regulation as well. Note I didn't mention the US. Unfortunately in this regard the world isn't America.

Global warming is on far more shaky ground than this.

 

[CZroe]

It's hard to avoid GMOs but I do avoid them if I can. Chances are they're not bad for you, but who knows, in 50 years from now they could discover that it was a major source of cancer or something.

If you look back at history there is a lot of things they thought was safe and turns out it was not. It's also often driven by business. Look at Asbestos. It was used everywhere, there was tons of money into that, do you think they'd want to stop using it if this one group of scientists tried to stop them? It eventually did stop being used but it took a while because it was a booming industry. Then there's DDTs. Similar idea.

http://junkscience.com/ddt/

 

[KeithP]

as our world population keeps growing, we need to increase the amount of food we can produce off of our limited land. GMO allows us to do this.

Maybe at some point but the fact of the matter is the main problem with our current food supply is one of distribution not production and it will continue to be that way in the foreseeable future.

Right now, the main purpose of GMOs is to increase profit, all the other reasons are just smoke screens.

-KeithP

 

[CZroe]

That's probably true in Iowa. In the US there is pesticide regulation as well. Note I didn't mention the US. Unfortunately in this regard the world isn't America.

Global warming is on far more shaky ground than this.

"the amount of milkweed in farm fields fell by more than 80 percent"

LOL! They bolded "fell by more than 80 percent" when they should have bolded "in farm fields."

Also, shamelessly they go from correlation to causation by simply switching the order so that the conclusion comes first:
"It’s no coincidence monarchs faltered at the same time."
"This is the only thing that we’ve actually been able to correlate with decreasing monarch numbers."

So, the only correlation is milkweed in farm fields. It's not really a "weed" if you are asking us to frickin' farm it for the butterflies.

Lessons:
Be more discerning.
Be mindful of the author's slant and try to read through it.
Look for word play and misleading arrangements in everything you read.

Ever consider that their population peak in 1996 due to all the milkweed growing in farmland was the man-made anomaly?! It's reasonable that there is NO problem with the declining numbers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"the amount of milkweed in farm fields fell by more than 80 percent"

LOL! They bolded "fell by more than 80 percent" when they should have bolded "in farm fields."

Also, shamelessly they go from correlation to causation by simply switching the order so that the conclusion comes first:
"It’s no coincidence monarchs faltered at the same time."
"This is the only thing that we’ve actually been able to correlate with decreasing monarch numbers."

So, the only correlation is milkweed in farm fields. It's not really a "weed" if you are asking us to frickin' farm it for the butterflies.

Lessons:
Be more discerning.
Be mindful of the author's slant and try to read through it.
Look for word play and misleading arrangements in everything you read.

Ever consider that their population peak in 1996 due to all the milkweed growing in farmland was the man-made anomaly?! It's reasonable that there is NO problem with the declining numbers.

No problem with declining numbers? Seriously? Loss of habitat is not in doubt. Use of pesticides especially in poorer countries like Mexico is less regulated. Numbers are down in Mexico, the food supply is being eradicated because we have to have "efficiency" at all costs. Well some things aren't worth it and thoughtless agricultural practices are among them. Your slant is to find a way to excuse it and I'm not buying it. Lesson learned.

 

[MarkXIX]

While I don't agree with some of what Monsanto does, alot of the issues people have with that company is just stupid and doesn't align with reality.

So much this. If they rebranded tomorrow, many of the idiots who don't know shit who equate Monsanto with their faux, ignorance rage would probably be all like "Otnasnom makes the best, sweetest fucking organic corn in the world! Did you know this shit doesn't even use pesticides because it is so delicious that bugs don't even want to eat it!"

GAH! I just get more pissed off every day when I hear people at work spouting stupid shit they "heard" and how bad whatever that thing is.

 

[CZroe]

No problem with declining numbers? Seriously? Loss of habitat is not in doubt. Use of pesticides especially in poorer countries like Mexico is less regulated. Numbers are down in Mexico, the food supply is being eradicated because we have to have "efficiency" at all costs. Well some things aren't worth it and thoughtless agricultural practices are among them. Your slant is to find a way to excuse it and I'm not buying it. Lesson learned.

Perhaps you missed the last paragraph because I added it just before you quoted:
"Ever consider that their population peak in 1996 due to all the milkweed growing in farmland was the man-made anomaly?! It's reasonable that there is NO problem with the declining numbers."

The farmers aren't going to continue raising weeds to maintain an artificially-inflated population. Asking for a "balance" to maintain it is ludicrous. Everything in that article REEKS of this kind of sensationalist crap without ever asking THE RIGHT questions.

Yes, they were talking about having the farmers "balance" by growing a weed in an unnatural environment:
"Helscher said, butterfly conservation needs to be balanced with 'society’s need to improve productivity in agriculture.'"
El Oh El!

These are the kinds of slants that start anti-vax movements.

"Loss of habitat" isn't as much as a concern as you assume when it was unnatural habitat artificially increased by farms before being reduced again by RoundUp. Got it? Don't just read "loss of habitat" and go "ZOMG!" without considering WHAT "habitat" and how it may already be an imbalance.