The Deadly Opposition to GMO Food

[Iron Woode]

For the amount of money they wasted on this and other GMO boondoggles, they could have just bought every person on the planet a lifetime supply of vitamin supplements. GMO has absolutely nothing to do with providing nutritional benefit. It is about mass extermination of populations, ie genocide. What governments do best. Governments run by corporations who seek only to extract all profit and wealth from the citizens and then... exterminate them.

you might want to see a psychiatrist about them delusions.

You got that right. Instead of examining why people in certain places go blind from lack of Vit A due to eating only rice without supplementing their diet with enough green vegetables, sweet potatoes, organ meats, GMO proponents push forward the golden rice solution by saying eat rice only rice and more rice.

LOL

no one said they could only eat rice.

 

[cwjerome]

You got that right. Instead of examining why people in certain places go blind from lack of Vit A due to eating only rice without supplementing their diet with enough green vegetables, sweet potatoes, organ meats, GMO proponents push forward the golden rice solution by saying eat rice only rice and more rice.

Yeah, because that's what everyone is saying... eat only rice

But since we're on that subject, how many children have to die or go blind before we reach into every corner of the world and force tradition, cultural, economic, and dietary changes upon them? Do you take pleasure in forcing people into misery and death because of your irrational fears over "spider genes?"

 

[nehalem256]

You got that right. Instead of examining why people in certain places go blind from lack of Vit A due to eating only rice without supplementing their diet with enough green vegetables, sweet potatoes, organ meats, GMO proponents push forward the golden rice solution by saying eat rice only rice and more rice.

(1) How often do you eat organ meats?

(2) I wonder how many of the environmentalists who oppose GMO also think eating meat is bad for the environment?

And if you have a culture that eats rice often and has agriculture adapted to grow rice doesnt it make sense to grow the best rice possible? I mean don't you think there is a reason rice is such a staple crop?

 

[bononos]

Yeah, because that's what everyone is saying... eat only rice

But since we're on that subject, how many children have to die or go blind before we reach into every corner of the world and force tradition, cultural, economic, and dietary changes upon them? Do you take pleasure in forcing people into misery and death because of your irrational fears over "spider genes?"

The ones forcing cultural change are multinationals from western countries and 3rd world plutocrats. Why would a poor farmer want to use GMOs whose seed he can't own, resell, trade and keep because of IPR?

(1) How often do you eat organ meats?
(2) I wonder how many of the environmentalists who oppose GMO also think eating meat is bad for the environment?

And if you have a culture that eats rice often and has agriculture adapted to grow rice doesnt it make sense to grow the best rice possible? I mean don't you think there is a reason rice is such a staple crop?

I don't know why you think the frequency of my own meals containing organ meats have anything to do with what we are discussing. Getting OT here along with your environmentalist comment.

You and the other poster I quoted above continue to run with the red herring that rice growing cultures should get their vit A from rice. The problem with vit A deficiency has less to do with rice but everything to do with poverty, poor people who have nothing to eat except rice, possibly donated rice. Getting your daily requirement of beta carotene and many other essential nutrients from 3 scoops of sweet potato or green veges or organ meats from chicken/ducks/pigs/fish is alot easier than choking down a large amount of golden rice to get the same amount of vit A.

Growing the best rice is not the same as GMO. With GMO you add the vit A function to the grain with no clue or regard on the repercussions on what it does to the health of the people who eat it and the soil in which it grows.

 

[Brainonska511]

The ones forcing cultural change are multinationals from western countries and 3rd world plutocrats. Why would a poor farmer want to use GMOs whose seed he can't own, resell, trade and keep because of IPR?

Says who? There is more than Monsanto in the GMO game. There are nonprofits and independent research organizations that have developed their own GMO foods for poorer areas of the world that don't have those restrictions.

You and the other poster I quoted above continue to run with the red herring that rice growing cultures should get their vit A from rice. The problem with vit A deficiency has less to do with rice but everything to do with poverty, poor people who have nothing to eat except rice, possibly donated rice. Getting your daily requirement of beta carotene and many other essential nutrients from 3 scoops of sweet potato or green veges or organ meats from chicken/ducks/pigs/fish is alot easier than choking down a large amount of golden rice to get the same amount of vit A. Growing the best rice is not the same as GMO. With GMO you add the vit A function to the grain with no clue or regard on the repercussions on what it does to the health of the people who eat it and the soil in which it grows.

You act as if those other foods would readily grow in those areas. Or maybe we should just provide a hand out instead of allowing these people to gain self-sufficiency in their agriculture. GMO foods that are drought-resistant, pest-resistant, and nutrient rich will allow these people to slowly pull themselves from poverty. They'll have better food, improving their health and better crop yields, allowing them to sell the excess.

As for the 'repercussions', I think you're playing to a fear of the unknown. Please explain how these human-modified foods would be worse for the health of the people that consume them. If you don't know, that's fine. Maybe you can make a rational speculation based on what we know about biology. There's a lot of science fear running around lately (see articles on Chemophobia), but maybe you can enlighten us as to why we should be afraid.

 

[Lalakai]

And if you have a culture that eats rice often and has agriculture adapted to grow rice doesnt it make sense to grow the best rice possible? I mean don't you think there is a reason rice is such a staple crop?

It's not this easy. The GMO corps have already proven they will vigorously fight to protect their patents (which is their right). But the ability to control the movement of GMO material from one field to another is impossible, yet the corprations contest that if a crop contains a certain percentage of GMO material, that it is their property and the farmer will have to show they legally purchased the seed. The majority of farmers that try to fight it are buried by the lawyers from the corporations and end up bankrupt.

From first hand knowledge of living in the barangays and seeing many infants die due to the direct "assistance" of the large corporations, I have serious doubts in believing that these corporations have the best interests of the people, at heart. It was a priority to try and keep the mothers nursing their children, instead of using the free samples of formula that were given to them at the hospital. The mothers would use the formula and during that time their milk would dry up and then they would be forced into using the highly expensive formula, using water that definitely wasn't suitable, nor were they able to adequately sterilize the feeding nipples. The infants that didn't die were often sick and more prone to later illnesses. An example of a corporation saying "doesn't it make sense to provide the infants with the best possible nutrition. If it is so desireable and accepted in other parts of the world, why not here." The corporation makes a profit and infants die. I helped bury too many of them.

 

[Texashiker]

The problem with vit A deficiency has less to do with rice but everything to do with poverty, poor people who have nothing to eat except rice, possibly donated rice. Getting your daily requirement of beta carotene and many other essential nutrients from 3 scoops of sweet potato or green veges or organ meats from chicken/ducks/pigs/fish is alot easier than choking down a large amount of golden rice to get the same amount of vit A.

Instead of fixing the underlying issue, which in this case is access to a variety of food, GMO rice is reinforcing poverty and dependance on monocropping.

People need some vitamin A, grow some carrots and leafy greens, plant some fruit trees,,,,.

We already have a fix for vitamin deficiencies. But for some reason people like the author of the article in the OP would rather point their finger at resistance to GMO.

 

[nehalem256]

The ones forcing cultural change are multinationals from western countries and 3rd world plutocrats.

From the article. In fact I bolded it in the OP.

Greenpeace and many others claim that GM foods merely enable big companies like Monsanto to wield near-monopoly power. But that puts the cart before the horse: The predominance of big companies partly reflects anti-GM activism, which has made the approval process so long and costly that only rich companies catering to First World farmers can afford to see it through.

Why would a poor farmer want to use GMOs whose seed he can't own, resell, trade and keep because of IPR?

Because it has higher yield? Because he doesn't want his children to die?

 

[bononos]

Instead of fixing the underlying issue, which in this case is access to a variety of food, GMO rice is reinforcing poverty and dependance on monocropping.

People need some vitamin A, grow some carrots and leafy greens, plant some fruit trees,,,,.

We already have a fix for vitamin deficiencies. But for some reason people like the author of the article in the OP would rather point their finger at resistance to GMO.

Yep the poster boys for GMO don't seem to understand that the issue its not just vit A but possibly even getting enough calories or the dozens of other vitamin deficiencies which goes back to the main issue of poverty, civil wars, refugees...

 

[bononos]

From the article. In fact I bolded it in the OP.

Because it has higher yield? Because he doesn't want his children to die?

The approval process should be stringent and long or even longer since we can't trust big corps to always have the consumers' interests as their 1st priority can we. How did the GMO starlink corn issue get hushed up and forgotten so quickly?

Again you are bringing up the red herring about children dying because of GMO crops aren't approved. The issue is poverty from stalled land reform or poor people who are pushed into cities because of globalisation with little to eat and no marketable skills.

Higher yield at what expense? Farmers in the 1st world like Percy Schmeiser have to give up any right to their seed and keep buying from corps every planting season or lose their farms.

 

[nehalem256]

The approval process should be stringent and long or even longer since we can't trust big corps to always have the consumers' interests as their 1st priority can we.

Which completely misses the point. You set up an approval process that basically ensures that only big corps can create GMO foods. And then complain we can't trust big corps. It seems like bit of a circular argument.

Again you are bringing up the red herring about children dying because of GMO crops aren't approved. The issue is poverty from stalled land reform or poor people who are pushed into cities because of globalisation with little to eat and no marketable skills.

How many children have to die while we wait around for your solution to global poverty?

 

[nehalem256]

Higher yield at what expense? Farmers in the 1st world like Percy Schmeiser have to give up any right to their seed and keep buying from corps every planting season or lose their farms.

This has nothing to do with GMO foods, but your hatred of Monsanto.

I hate Monsanto therefore lets block GMO crops is not exactly a logical argument.

 

[Brainonska511]

Higher yield at what expense? Farmers in the 1st world like Percy Schmeiser have to give up any right to their seed and keep buying from corps every planting season or lose their farms.

People are free to buy or develop their own seeds. There is not one company controlling the seed market. Monsanto is just one of a few corporations that develop GMO seeds, then there are traditional seeds still available, and other non-corporate entities that also develop GMO seeds. You also assume that the guy on the end of that lawsuit is entirely blameless in the whole affair. Is he really the innocent victim of some corporation gone awry?

And in Monsanto's defense (even if they do employ rather scummy tactics at times): If I spent millions upon millions of dollars developing some new technology, you damn well bet I'd be aggressively defending my intellectual property.

 

[Texashiker]

How many children have to die while we wait around for your solution to global poverty?

Even though the comment was not addressed towards me, I wish to post a rebuttal.

Poverty and starvation do not always go hand-in-hand.

When people try to live an industrial lifestyle and buy all of their food, then yes, poverty and starvation do go hand-in-hand.

National geographic wrote an article for their magazine a few years ago about how oil companies in africa pay almost no taxes, and hire almost no locals. There may be a oil well a mile from a village, but the village does not benefit from the jobs or the oil produced from the well.

There are several things that can happen to improve nutrition:

Force companies to pay taxes, which can be used to provide locals with job training and nutrition assistance
End free trade, US companies should not be allowed to exploit low wage nations
Introduce new food crops to the region
Provide farm equipment, seeds, and training so people can grow their own food
Develop civil engineering programs for local jobs and with a goal towards flood control and crop irrigation

Developing a GMO monocrop is not a long term solution.

~ EDIT ~

Back in the 1940s, 1950s and into the 1960s a series of government civil engineering programs built dams all over the nation, and levees. Both of which are used for flood control and irrigation.

All over southeast Texas raised canals were built for irrigation of fields, canals that are still be used.

Projects such as construction of dams and canals provided jobs, job training, and ensured food security for future generations.

 

[cwjerome]

The ones forcing cultural change are multinationals from western countries and 3rd world plutocrats. Why would a poor farmer want to use GMOs whose seed he can't own, resell, trade and keep because of IPR?

As I mentioned before, here we're getting to the real reasons you (and most others) are against it... capitalistic, multinational, plutocrats, power, control, and money. Using these arguments alone are easily seen as specious and easily disregarded, that's why you have to supplement them with bogus fear-mongering claims against GMOs.

Who are you to speak for the poor farmer? He doesn't give a shit about your petty worries over corporations, he wants his children to live. So what if some of the rice he gets is from GM seed? So what if some of the rice they grow is GM? You people are blocking its use while masses suffer not because you care about the farmer, you do it out of hatred for evil big businesses.

 

[bononos]

As I mentioned before, here we're getting to the real reasons you (and most others) are against it... capitalistic, multinational, plutocrats, power, control, and money. Using these arguments alone are easily seen as specious and easily disregarded, that's why you have to supplement them with bogus fear-mongering claims against GMOs.

Who are you to speak for the poor farmer? He doesn't give a shit about your petty worries over corporations, he wants his children to live. So what if some of the rice he gets is from GM seed? So what if some of the rice they grow is GM? You people are blocking its use while masses suffer not because you care about the farmer, you do it out of hatred for evil big businesses.

They are not specious since you simply disregarded the problem of GMO ipr's and the supreme court decision of Percy Schmeiser and was apparently an issue with golden rice itself.

Pretty worries? GMO and ipr's are a real problem all over the developing world. There was alot of resistance in Mexico (except from the elites) regarding GMO corn contamination/ipr. A US corp tried to patent Basmati but failed eventually after the Indian govt stepped in.

People are free to buy or develop their own seeds. There is not one company controlling the seed market. Monsanto is just one of a few corporations that develop GMO seeds, then there are traditional seeds still available, and other non-corporate entities that also develop GMO seeds. You also assume that the guy on the end of that lawsuit is entirely blameless in the whole affair. Is he really the innocent victim of some corporation gone awry?

And in Monsanto's defense (even if they do employ rather scummy tactics at times): If I spent millions upon millions of dollars developing some new technology, you damn well bet I'd be aggressively defending my intellectual property.

You were obviously asleep for the last 4 decades when the number of players in the seed industry shrunk due to mergers and aquisitions and the race by corps to patent as many varieties as possible. Thus the whole seed sovereignty issue, let google be your friend. The whole food industry resembles a funnel where a small number of companies are in control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#Legality

 

[bononos]

This has nothing to do with GMO foods, but your hatred of Monsanto.

I hate Monsanto therefore lets block GMO crops is not exactly a logical argument.

We are talking past each other at this point. You believe the problem is that farmers in poor countries are not growing enough food to feed their families or getting enough vit A from what they are growing. This is false. This is an issue of socio-economic imbalance where people have no access to land, were chased off their farms, poor people who are forced to migrate to cities due to globalization from cheap foreign imported food etc. One example would be Mexico where cheap US corn killed the livelihoods of Mexican corn growers and forced them to work elsewhere, like becoming illegal immigrants in the US.

 

[Doppel]

A few sites in the last day or so are posting an article authored by a research scientist from MIT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/roundup-herbicide-health-issues-disease_n_3156575.html

Roundup, An Herbicide, Could Be Linked To Parkinson's, Cancer And Other Health Issues, Study Shows

I've not seen the article abstract, though, just mostly sites parroting the same thing.

 

[Lalakai]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/22/superbugs-destruct-food-supply.aspx

there's no doubt of the benefits that GMO's can offer but I'm far from convinced that they are safe for humans and the environment. I keep remembering words from my stat's teacher "these are the facts as best presented to support my case" and right now its the GMO corps with the deep pockets who are fighting the hardest. If they were confident in their product then why the strong resistance to having GMO identified on food labels? Just curious.

 

[nehalem256]

A few sites in the last day or so are posting an article authored by a research scientist from MIT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/roundup-herbicide-health-issues-disease_n_3156575.html



I've not seen the article abstract, though, just mostly sites parroting the same thing.

Saying that spraying chemicals on crops can result in bad things happening is different than saying GMO foods are dangerous.

It certainly seems plausible that herbicides can cause bad things to happen. And it is way more logical than OMG EVIL GENES!!!!!!!!!

 

[CottonRabbit]

A few sites in the last day or so are posting an article authored by a research scientist from MIT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/roundup-herbicide-health-issues-disease_n_3156575.html



I've not seen the article abstract, though, just mostly sites parroting the same thing.

This is why science reporting is a joke. The article they cite is not even a research study! It has no original research in it!! At best I would call it a poorly organized review. The first authors is an "independent" scientist. The other author works at the MIT computer lab. Neither have any background in biology or pharmacology.

Also, by the paper's logic, we should all become alcoholics, since alcohol induces P450 liver enzymes, which according to them protect us from pretty much every human disease.

 

[Budarow2]

Funny this post shows up. We're looking into the GMO debate and have decided to buy more organic foods and less GMO foods (while taking the budget into account). It shouldn't be any more expensive since we tend to buy too much food and it ends up getting pitched (i.e., buy less, eat it all, and cut down on waste which saves money).

A local grocery store (Hiller's in Michigan) recently started advertising they will identify foods in every aisle which are NOT GMO foods in order to give consumers a clear choice.

We' haven't regularly shopped Hiller's because it's generally more expensive, but hearing more and more about foods which contain pesticides, herbicides and/or are GMO foods has caused my family to think more about our health and less about initial cost.

 

[Brainonska511]

Funny this post shows up. We're looking into the GMO debate and have decided to buy more organic foods and less GMO foods (while taking the budget into account). It shouldn't be any more expensive since we tend to buy too much food and it ends up getting pitched (i.e., buy less, eat it all, and cut down on waste which saves money).

A local grocery store (Hiller's in Michigan) recently started advertising they will identify foods in every aisle which are NOT GMO foods in order to give consumers a clear choice.

We' haven't regularly shopped Hiller's because it's generally more expensive, but hearing more and more about foods which contain pesticides, herbicides and/or are GMO foods has caused my family to think more about our health and less about initial cost.

Organic doesn't mean it is safer. There are plenty of "organic" rated pesticides that are bad for you.

 

[Budarow2]

Organic doesn't mean it is safer. There are plenty of "organic" rated pesticides that are bad for you.

What do suggest? Any certifications which actually designates health food?

We're also starting to grow our own organic veggies and we won't be using any chemical treatments.

 

[Brainonska511]

What do suggest? Any certifications which actually designates health food?

We're also starting to grow our own organic veggies and we won't be using any chemical treatments.

That's the problem, isn't it. But that's a horrible characterization of the issues at hand. Some things that occur naturally are bad for you and some things that are made synthetically are completely harmless to people. You need to take things on a case-by-case basis.

I'm just pointing out that an irrational fear of chemistry and biology and jumping on the organic food train isn't necessarily good decision making, just as much as blindly trusting experts (but they should be trusted at some point, because we all cannot be experts in everything). But at the moment, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of irrational distrust for experts.