Are GMO's bad for us?

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

GMO crops have been extensively studied and there's been absolutely no data to suggest there's any risk to health when consuming GMO foods.

for most commodity crops the non GMO varieties require MORE pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers.

Round up ready?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/128224...62_summary.pdf (this can be interpreted a few ways)

Gosh, BMP is a term that grinds my gears too.

Scotty you should visit an industrial farm some time and look at the soil that has totally been broken down and is now lifeless silt due to bad practices like tilling, unnecessary herbicide and pesticide use and chemical fertilizers instead of organic (by that I mean adding organic matter via cover crops or any of those much more preferable soil management practices)

How does this guy exist because he's the most offensive and uninformed weirdo on here

[Trotskilicious]

omega nailed it

scotty put it in his profile for some reason

[Trotskilicious]

"You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American"

[Trotskilicious]

ps the climate is changing and we're all going to die if we don't make everything drought resistant

[vixnix]

I think it's good to keep plugging away at drought resistant crops as much as we can, and ones that can thrive in soils of different acidity/salinity, and also ones that are resistant to different pests, as climates become less stable.

But most of the GM research AFAIK goes into producing high yield, uniform crops. which isn't so much of an 'investment in our human future' kind of research as a 'continue to line the pockets of those who are already rich but can't stop wanting more' kind of research.

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

lol

These problems with our "food system" are too complex to be solved on netphoria

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

ps the climate is changing and we're all going to die if we don't make everything drought resistant

Some places would become more wet and some much more dry. Humans will persist for a long time because we're excellent at survival but at what cost to the beauty and biodiversity of the world + our own health and quality of life.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I think it's good to keep plugging away at drought resistant crops as much as we can, and ones that can thrive in soils of different acidity/salinity, and also ones that are resistant to different pests, as climates become less stable.

But most of the GM research AFAIK goes into producing high yield, uniform crops. which isn't so much of an 'investment in our human future' kind of research as a 'continue to line the pockets of those who are already rich but can't stop wanting more' kind of research.

you mean free market capitalist research? oh totally.

but their system will collapse, hopefully before the demise of everyone on the planet

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Everything is genetically modified - if we eat it and it tastes good, we've messed with it already.

I had a lady come into my store asking for seeded grapes because they are "god-made, not man-made like the seedless ones."

I didn't take the time to explain to her that virtually all fruit we enjoy has been modified by artificial selection, because she had money and I had seeded grapes. But upon seeing the seeded globe grapes, she said they were "too big"-- clearly evidence of more godless and abominable tampering with nature-- and said she would try an organic store instead.

I think few people understand the difference between genetic modification through gene transfer, and genetic modification through selective breeding, the latter existing since the dawn of agriculture and, without which, apples would be balls of seeds.

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

ps the climate is changing and we're all going to die if we don't make everything drought resistant

Instead of modifying food to be drought-resistant, why don't we modify humans to be starvation-resistant?

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by ohnoitsbonnie

Among other things but the standard in the USA is not animal-derived fertilizers unless you're buying organic. Scotty why do you bother.

There's a lot of criticisms when it comes to industrial farming. My concern with genetically-modified (what a vague term) anything is not concerns to human health by the time the food is consumed.

I'm not just talking about fertilizer. There is an array of "chemicals" that are allowed on Organic crops.

you're not even reading what I posted. Most organic products in stores today are coming from large industrial organic producers and they're using some forms of chemical pesticides and herbicides that are no less "toxic" than what's derived from petro chemicals.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by ohnoitsbonnie

Round up ready?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/128224...62_summary.pdf (this can be interpreted a few ways)

Gosh, BMP is a term that grinds my gears too.

Scotty you should visit an industrial farm some time and look at the soil that has totally been broken down and is now lifeless silt due to bad practices like tilling, unnecessary herbicide and pesticide use and chemical fertilizers instead of organic (by that I mean adding organic matter via cover crops or any of those much more preferable soil management practices)

How does this guy exist because he's the most offensive and uninformed weirdo on here

Fuck you, Bonnie.

My initial comments are specifically toward whether conventional, GMO or Organically grown foods are safe to eat. They are, and there's no data to support the suggestion that GMOs or conventional crops are NOT safe to eat. Nor is there any data that shows that Organic foods are MORE healthy than conventional.

In fact, I've been to industrial farms all over the world. Canada, half the states in the USA, South America, Europe and Asia. Some years I've flown up to 100,000 miles making such visits. I'm well aware of how large scale mono crops are grown using inputs like petro chemicals and fertilizers. AND I'm aware of how organics are grown.

I recently spent a week with Organic producers in Oregon and Northern California. That included people growing poultry, cattle (mainly for dairy) and pork. As well as farms growing organic food crops, everything from soy to herbs. If you purchase some of the biggest organic brands found in natural food stores all over the country I've done business with them. I've toured their farms and their factories.

IMO conventional farming not a sustainable for the planet, not in the long term. Eventually we run out of space and all the arable land under cultivation will require massive inputs from elsewhere (like petro chemicals). My opinion is that long term the world's food supply needs to be built around farming practices that mimic natural biological systems. That would ******* things like no till farming, more sophisticated crop rotation and cover crops, use of farm animals to provide fertilizer (ie. grazing animals on crop land between crops).

[MyOneAndOnly]

here's a article that describes what I'm talking about regarding "chemicals" used throughout large scale organic farming. As well as GMOs.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...l-agriculture/

What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or serious – health risks.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I think it's good to keep plugging away at drought resistant crops as much as we can, and ones that can thrive in soils of different acidity/salinity, and also ones that are resistant to different pests, as climates become less stable.

But most of the GM research AFAIK goes into producing high yield, uniform crops. which isn't so much of an 'investment in our human future' kind of research as a 'continue to line the pockets of those who are already rich but can't stop wanting more' kind of research.

that's not accurate

there is a lot of work going on internationally to develop drought resistant crops. There's also a great deal of work going on to produce more nutritious crops. A good example is The Golden Rice project.

http://www.goldenrice.org/

there are countless other similar food crops in development all over the world. A handful of companies like Monsanto are viewed negatively for good reason by the public, but they're not a good example of what's going on generally with GMOs

[vixnix]

organic food is so 90s. It's all about biodynamic food now.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

that's not accurate

there is a lot of work going on internationally to develop drought resistant crops. There's also a great deal of work going on to produce more nutritious crops. A good example is The Golden Rice project.

http://www.goldenrice.org/

there are countless other similar food crops in development all over the world. A handful of companies like Monsanto are viewed negatively for good reason by the public, but they're not a good example of what's going on generally with GMOs

Golden rice was only pioneered to meet the Vit A needs of a population that no longer grew a range of food crops for themselves because their geopolitical situation forced them to use every available acre to plant cash crops like coffee.

The research is funded by corporations with profit motives. Government funding to universities is drying up all over the world.

[Elphenor]

That's why I'm skeptical of GMO's

It's excellent if properly monitored and regulated for the benefit of mankind but it's also potentially horrific when in the hands of profit driven machines

[Elphenor]

The millions going into lobbying to prevent labeling should at least make you to do a double take

[ohnoitsbonnie]

I'll come back to this. It would be easier if I could remember my password

[Elphenor]

I'm interested in your opinion

[Elphenor]

Whoa Poots speaking the truth for once

[MyOneAndOnly]

Most of those raising a Monsanto crops in North America aren't real farmers. They're nothing but a commodity crop manufacturer. most "farmers" today who grow conventional soy and corn (which isn't designed for human consumption) wouldn't know how to run a real farm. IE. a farm that uses biological systems with multiple crops, livestock, etc.

While he does sometimes dabble in woo, Michael Pollan's books The Omnivore's Dilema and In Defense of Food are good reads on the subject.


“They’re organic by the letter, not organic in spirit… if most organic consumers went to those places, they would feel they were getting ripped off.” - Michael Pollan

[MyOneAndOnly]

There's no way the Earth will be able to support 10,000,000,000 people living through rapid climate change without GMO foods. And there won't be many people left a few hundred or thousand years from now if the methods of food production aren't designed around biological systems, rather than mono cultures that require chemical inputs to survive (which BTW includes today's organics).

[duovamp]

IF THE PROBLEM IS FARMING GMOS THEN THE FUCKING PROBLEM IS NOT GMOS IT'S FARMING. FUCK.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Golden rice was only pioneered to meet the Vit A needs of a population that no longer grew a range of food crops for themselves because their geopolitical situation forced them to use every available acre to plant cash crops like coffee.

The research is funded by corporations with profit motives. Government funding to universities is drying up all over the world.

This.

Originally Posted by Poots

Companies like Monsanto want to create seed patents that will take over the world. When their patented GMO varieties cross-pollinate with natural varieties, they can and will sue independent farmers for copyright infringement. The endgame is that one day, inevitably, since pesky things like wind and bees carry patented pollen around the world, huge seed copyright owners will control the world's food supply whether farmers want it or not.

I was going to make some pedantic correction on the distinction between patent and copyright, but considering that we're talking about DNA and gene expressions, the term "copyright" is actually surprisingly apt.

[D.]

This thread has been informative.

Originally Posted by hnibos

You gonna try to educate them or just leave it alone for the sake of harmony?

I mean, we have a few songs about people eating shitty fast food but like my brother is always broke so he eats fast food and we have a pro-vegan song even though only our drummer is vegan. etc etc

now that i'm writing most of the lyrics, i'll probably start veering towards other subjects or just do nihilism and apathy in general.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by duovamp

IF THE PROBLEM IS FARMING GMOS THEN THE FUCKING PROBLEM IS NOT GMOS IT'S FARMING. FUCK.

this is GMOs fuck

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Disco King

I had a lady come into my store asking for seeded grapes because they are "god-made, not man-made like the seedless ones."

I didn't take the time to explain to her that virtually all fruit we enjoy has been modified by artificial selection, because she had money and I had seeded grapes. But upon seeing the seeded globe grapes, she said they were "too big"-- clearly evidence of more godless and abominable tampering with nature-- and said she would try an organic store instead.

I think few people understand the difference between genetic modification through gene transfer, and genetic modification through selective breeding, the latter existing since the dawn of agriculture and, without which, apples would be balls of seeds.

Instead of modifying food to be drought-resistant, why don't we modify humans to be starvation-resistant?

hello, I like you. I hope you are not a fascist

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Poots

Companies like Monsanto want to create seed patents that will take over the world. When their patented GMO varieties cross-pollinate with natural varieties, they can and will sue independent farmers for copyright infringement. The endgame is that one day, inevitably, since pesky things like wind and bees carry patented pollen around the world, huge seed copyright owners will control the world's food supply whether farmers want it or not.

Their idea for terminator seeds (which was only stopped a few years ago through worldwide outcry) shows you how they think. This is old school monopolist capitalism that would make John D. Rockefeller blush.

This is 100% true, but it's completely distinct from the argument pertaining to adverse effects on human health

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Poots

Most of the health studies about GMOs are done by companies like Monsanto or the FDA which is nothing but former VPs of big agri-businesses. I'm sure RJ Reynolds has some great peer reviewed research on tobacco that could turn some heads.

that's not true

[noyen]

well, an informed opinion doesn't form by getting all "facts" from one source, so i'm sure there's some truth in everyone's opinion. because even scotty, you dont know everything for sure 100% because long term studies cant be really done until times goes on and on and on and by the time we think we know something we're all dead and the damage is done.