General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPost removed
Recursion
(56,582 posts)For instance, I see a difference between on the one hand altering an existing genotype for a specific reason, and on the other hand grafting large sections of foreign genome into that genotype.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)We don't know how a potato behaves with a significant section of salamander DNA in it. It could be fine, but large unknowns mean large-tail risks, which are always hard to evaluate.
So, for example, "golden rice" has saved literally millions of lives over the past decades. That's a demonstrated reward. We should just be cautious about introducing modified species into the biome without a high level of payoff like that.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thus, you're claim seems pointless.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... than other forms of hybridization, which is why your post makes no sense.
Can we agree on that?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Those are what worry me more than deliberate point alterations (even significant ones).
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If you have anything that's more thoughtful and science based, let me know.
MADem
(135,425 posts)construct--or refute the one you're advancing.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's technology.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What is "genetically modified" to you? What are we talking about? A hybrid tea rose created by granny in the garden, a cross-bred tomato that resists insect infestation, or a carrot crossed with an iguana?
Do you want people to comment, or do you want to hold court?
"It's technology" isn't a cogent answer.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it. When you're done with those, let me know.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am not playing games--you are. And you're being a real jerk to everyone, too. You're insulting people, calling them names, looking for a fight.
Well, go fight with yourself. You obviously don't have anything useful to impart to me or anyone else, by the look of your rude and confrontational responses.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If you don't know jack about these issues, well, you're not going to learn about it at DU. If you want to know how to learn about it, then PM me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The idea behind discussion boards is to discuss--not to "PM" and get super-secret opinions.
Why can't you answer my questions? Why are you hurling insults? Not just at me, at a lot of people--try rereading this thread like you're coming on it anew, you are not coming off well at all.
It helps anyone to know what the parameters of a conversation are. And "It's technology" is not an answer.
You may not be "an idiot," but you're pretty rude and nasty to people.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Ouch.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And I guess you're not going to provide it, either. You're going to continue to snark and be rude.
This thread has been instructive in one regard, anyway. I never perceived you as a "mean kid" before this. You've opened my eyes!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thus, it's not something anyone can say is bad or good. Each product must be looked at individually. Just like any other form of genetic modification to plants.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is not one single thing.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)But that would take a long background in weakly electric organisms' tissues which you may not have (and the other readers almost certainly don't).
My only complaint, this entire time, has been with the collection of all modifications of genomes under the rubric "GMO". I'm agreeing with you, incidentally, if you could chill long enough to see that. There is not one single technology or industrial process that is "genetic engineering" or "genetic modification". Alterations to organisms should be handled individually as the breakthroughs are made.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm good with that. You still have to prove your shit.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I'm starting to think that you're not about science at all. You clearly thrive on this.
mathematic
(1,439 posts)Genetic engineering changes a small digit's worth of genes, compared to conventional breeding which changes tens of thousands of genes. One type of genetic modification is to switch off genes. The type you refer to is an insertion of genes. The inserted genes can be from the same type of plant or it can come from a different organism altogether.
It's also useful to note that the genes aren't "salamander" or "fish" or anything like that. Those are classifications that only make sense at the organism level. They're genes that code for a protein. They're "XX protein" genes, etc.
You're in India right? You should be aware of the amazing success that BT cotton has had. Over the past 10 years India has gone from initial approval to nearly completely BT cotton and they've doubled their cotton output. This success really puts the lie to the activist literature that makes diehard claims about the failure of BT.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Generally, yes. That's exactly the kind of improvement I am ecstatic about.
You're in India right? You should be aware of the amazing success that BT cotton has had. Over the past 10 years India has gone from initial approval to nearly completely BT cotton and they've doubled their cotton output.
Yes, BT cotton is a complete success story (I do some NGO work on sustainable ag, and this is a huge part of that at least for Maharashtra and Kerala.) I think I came across as more GMO-skeptic than I am, for which I apologize. There have been some large-scale foreign-codon introductions that were quite literally taken wholesale from other organisms. Specifically given our lack of understanding of "junk" DNA, this -- and this alone -- worries me about the practice of genetic engineering.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... over other corporations... yeah, I'm not cool with that.
http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it's fucked up trying to force people to but or eat it without their consent or knowledge.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You don't even take the time to challenge your preconceptions.
My goodness.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Look, I came into this thread looking to learn a bit more. I am not a fan of people creating frankenfood--what good is a square tomato or watermelon that stays fresh longer, ships easier, and tastes like shit?
That said, if they can make crops that resist infestation, taste good, don't hurt people or have "side effects," why not? People have been doing that for years before "science" by doing simple cross breeding.
Now, should these foods be labeled? Sure, why not? Will people initially resist? Probably--but less so if the producers bother to "brand" that tomato, call it a cute name, and then tell people what they did with it to make it better--then people may actually seek it out, especially if it tastes better than other tomatoes.
I have no idea who came up with "grape" tomatoes, but I can tell you this--when I was a kid, a zillion years ago, there were no "grape" tomatoes. In the "teeny tomato" universe, there were CHERRY tomatoes, and that was IT. There were big fat tomatoes on the vine, and there were green tomatoes, and plum tomatoes--but that was pretty much it. So...back to my grape tomatoes. Are they "GMO?" Are they mini plum tomatoes? I can buy ORGANIC grape tomatoes--can GMO stuff be "organic?"
I'm just a consumer. I like tomatoes. I like lots of food that could potentially be in the GMO universe. It would be nice to discuss these things in a positive as opposed to a name-calling way. Maybe we all could learn something...
Response to MADem (Reply #64)
Post removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)You are easily the rudest and most uncivil poster I've come across in a long, long while.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it!!!!!
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's no discussion, there's just derision coming from YOU.
I didn't say anything to deserve the nasty shit you hurled at me--for no good reason.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You have offered nothing but feigned ignorance, after you were called out for your baseless attacks. You might want to pay attention to the full story next time. My OP asked for genuine discussion points, and none were offered.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And what "baseless attacks" have I made?
Are you seriously trying to insist that you haven't been rude to people in this thread?
It's impossible for a person to provide "genuine discussion points" without having a grasp of the parameters of the conversation. I SAID that at the outset, and you replied with insults, and you've continued to insult me without let up.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)personally nasty to everyone who does not agree with you. Way to promote your cause- keep it up, they'll outlaw GMOs if the likes of you is who promotes them, LOL.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--mention terminator genes.
The golden rice thing could work, but the major reason it hasn't gotten very far is that beta-carotene is NOT Vitamin A. Unless you get enough fat in your diet, you can't absorb eta-carotene and transform it to Vitamin A. Levels are pretty low to be useful, but improved strains may do better. What I like about it is that the work is being done by a non-profit which will distribute seeds for free and encourage seed-saving--a far cry from Monsanto practices.
Resisance
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26999.cfm
That pretty much describes the situation last year, according to a new report from the agribusiness research consultancy Stratus. Since the 2010 growing season, the group has been polling "thousands of US farmers" across 31 states about herbicide resistance. Here's what they found in the 2012 season:
Nearly half (49%) of all US farmers we surveyed said they have glyphosate resistant weeds on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in 2011.
Resistance is still worst in the south. For example, 92% of growers in Georgia said they have glyphosate resistant weeds.
But the mid-south and mid-west states are catching up. From 2011 to 2012 the acres with resistance almost doubled in Nebraska, Iowa and Indiana.
It's spreading at a faster pace each year: total resistant acres increased by 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.
And the problem is getting more complicated. More and more farms have at least two resistant species on their farm. In 2010 that was just 12% of farms, but two short years later 27% had more than one.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17666-millions-against-monsanto-on-the-road-to-victory
After enjoying a year of maximum profits, record stock prices, the defeat of a major GMO labeling campaign in California, pro-industry court decisions, and a formidable display of political power in Washington, D.C. including slipping the controversial Monsanto Protection Act into the Federal Appropriations bill in March - the Biotech Bully from St. Louis now finds itself on the defensive.
It is no exaggeration to say that Monsanto has now become the most hated corporation in the world.
Plagued by a growing army of Roundup-resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant superpests spreading across the country, a full 49 percent of American farmers are now frantically trying to kill these superweeds and pests with ever-larger quantities of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including glyphosate (Roundup), glufosinate, 2,4D (Agent Orange), dicamba, and neonicotinoids (insecticides linked to massive deaths of honey bees).
Reacting to this dangerous escalation of chemical farming, toxic residues on foods and environmental pollution, over a million consumers and organic farmers have pressed the Obama administration to reject a new generation of GE Agent Orange and dicamba-resistant crops, forcing the USDA to postpone commercialization of these crops, at least temporarily. ...............
GMO Bt Cotton Crop Failure Leads to Cotton Ban: Sorry Rockefellers
http://www.nationofchange.org/gmo-bt-cotton-crop-failure-leads-cotton-ban-sorry-rockefellers-1397140543
Following crop failure in seven different districts in Karnakata, where cotton growers faced devastating losses, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.s (Mahyco) GMO Bt cotton has been permanently banned. Though not one of the biggest biotech companies, the news is still a remarkable blow back to the Big Ag monopolies trying to take root around the world.
Mahyco was founded by a man who dared to venture beyond visible possibilities and showed immense confidence in his vision. Post independence, when India was still in the process of fortifying her weak economic strength, Badrinarayan Ramulal Barwale sowed the first seeds of economic development, or so says their website. But it also goes on to mention that funding was provided by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.
The order was issued by the Director of Agriculture after, the Bt cotton hybrid MRC-7351 and Nikki Plus supplied by Mahyco failed to give expected yields during kharif (pulses harvest) 2013. In Karnataka, 54,157 farmers who have grown Bt cotton supplied by Mahyco in 58,195 hectares suffered yield loss of more than 50 percent, reports the Indian newspaper, The Hindu.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17666-millions-against-monsanto-on-the-road-to-victory
It is no exaggeration to say that Monsanto has now become the most hated corporation in the world.
Plagued by a growing army of Roundup-resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant superpests spreading across the country, a full 49 percent of American farmers are now frantically trying to kill these superweeds and pests with ever-larger quantities of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including glyphosate (Roundup), glufosinate, 2,4D (Agent Orange), dicamba, and neonicotinoids (insecticides linked to massive deaths of honey bees).
US farmers may stop planting GMs after poor global yields
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/2013/137518/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields.htm#.UW0FGkb9SGd.twitter
Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts.
Farmers in the USA pay about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from using GMs.
"It's all about cost benefit analysis," said economist Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company AgResource.
"Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which are no better than 10 years ago. They're starting to wonder why they're spending extra money on the technology."
One of the biggest problems the USA has seen with GM seed is resistance. While it was expected to be 40 years before resistance began to develop pests such as corn rootworm have formed a resistance to GM crops in as few as 14 years.
Terminator genes
http://www.banterminator.org/The-Issues/Biosafety/Terminator-Technology-and-Genetic-Contamination
Terminator could be a biosafety hazard with serious consequences for Indigenous peoples, local communities, peasants and small-scale farmers
If Terminator were to be accepted under the guise of biosafety, it would have devastating consequences for farmers, food security and food safety. Irrespective of any capacity to produce sterile seeds, pollen movement from Terminator crops would take place and lead to contamination of other (open pollinated) plants nearby, at least in the first generation. Seeds (e.g. grain for food) from those plants would contain the initial trait gene (e.g. pharma gene, herbicide resistance gene or Bt-endotoxin gene) plus the Terminator genes intended to make them sterile. This contamination would affect related crops as well as wild relatives.
Terminator would have serious impacts on food security and food sovereignty for farmers and communities. Farmers who saved their seeds for replanting and whose crops had been cross-pollinated by Terminator plants grown in the area, could find that a percentage of their seeds did not germinate. This percentage could translate into significant yield loses. Farmers would not be able to identify the Terminator seeds until they replanted seed from the first harvest, and found that the seed does not germinate. People who depend on humanitarian food aid would risk particularly devastating crop losses if they kept food aid seed that contained Terminator genes for re-planting.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Come on, if you want to discuss the matters, that's awesome, but you have to be fully up front and honest, and you can't start off with the good old Gish gallop.
Oh, and on edit, you can't push BS sources. I'm trying to actual science, not pseudoscience.
eridani
(51,907 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)There are no terminator genes on the market.
eridani
(51,907 posts)And they haven't quit trying, either.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Biotech companies are still trying to sell terminator genes. All you say is that they haven't succeeded so far. How about an article disproving the proposition that they are still pushing the technology?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm too old for that shit. Buck up.
eridani
(51,907 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The poster is fighting with everybody and doesn't even want a conversation.
Very odd.
You know that I've provided plenty in the past. You know that you could educate yourself. But you don't.
Cha
(297,187 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)good one
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Hmmmmmmmm.
You have to have actual science behind you, not the usual anti-GMO crap. Thus, the question goes: Do you give a shit about reality or not? If you don't, then you can go with that. If you do, then things get much more difficult... and the real world is damn difficult.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Apparently, you think bad propaganda is "thoughtful." When will you challenge your preconceptions?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why do you lie?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Thanks for your dishonesty.
eridani
(51,907 posts)There was no such research referenced in the OP.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)I put up URLs. Where are yours?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You do realize that "superweeds" were an issue before GMOs, right?
If you didn't, then sit back down.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Since when has actual knowledge about a subject ever been required to spout off on said subject?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm old fashioned, I guess.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I've gotten nothing but the usual thoughtlessness. Is this all DU can offer?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You've never succeeded. Can you do it? Go for it.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)at least in your own mind.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I actually love being prove wrong, it's just that you can't do it.
JVS
(61,935 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)and draw their own conclusions.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The labeling campaign is all about one set of corporations trying to con you, via fear, into spending more money on their food products. Wake up, dude.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thanks.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Because your preconceived notions might not be supported by the actual science? By reality?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)It's amazing to me how viciously and condescendingly you chose to attack a person who was simply advocating for clear labeling. You also made unfounded assumptions about what I think.
You are not worth interacting with on this or probably anything else.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)What does DU stand up for...?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And the fail goes on and on and on and on and on.
What is it about this topic that makes you unable to be civil and reasonable?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You do offer up a persona attack. Hmmm....
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And no matter what I write, you never have any other response than "Wrong11!!!, But LOGIC!!1, SCIENCE!"
To recapitulate, my reasons why I don't consume GMO products are the same as ever, the long term effects are not yet apparent (how could they be, so shortly after introduction to the market), GMO plants are mostly overexposed to toxins since they're designed to withstand them, etc, etc. I've made many more points in previous threads.
Being against GMO labeling is anti-democratic, anti-transparent, anti-consumer and anti-regulated-market. All of which doesn't sound very liberal to me.
Plus, there is almost no independent research on GMOs. Pharma uses it's patent rights to deny independent research, which is an absurd practice and a dangerous precedent.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Yeah, see I'm not going to go along with that. I'm an actual progressive. Science means we don't push BS!
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And you wonder why people don't even care to respond civilly or with careful argumentation? How very unscientific of you.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I've spent plenty of time addressing the minute details at DU, and the anti-science responses ignore reality.
You seem to think that I'm an idiot. PM me, and try me.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)idiot. And I really don't think that you are an idiot. But you are nasty, uncivil, rude and unwilling to even discuss this topic. Plus you are very confused about science. And your thinking is very binary. While that isn't idiotic per se, it also falls far short of the kind of objectivism that you claim for yourself but refuse to ascribe to anyone else.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I get better arguments out of classic anti-GMO facebook pages.
Really? That's all you have to offer?
Ouch.
Response to Post removed (Original post)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Yeah!!!! DU!!!! We hate science!
Response to HuckleB (Reply #68)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to A-Schwarzenegger (Reply #72)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #75)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can't help but confess your anti-science BS.
It's called pro science. Get a clue.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I know there are still a few DUers who care about the real world. And I appreciate all of you! You give me hope. Alas, the mass of ignorance that provides most of the responses to pro-science posts at DU makes my hope go down desperately.
DU administration have made it clear that they don't care. And that sucks. It just sucks.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)take the whining of rude and uncivil posters seriously. Which is perfectly reasonable. You're very quick to dish out but quite delicate about receiving. Not a very healthy combination.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Unfortunately, the reality is that the admins killed DU's chance to be a force in the public eye.
THAT FUCKING SUCKS@!
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Would you like to lecture them about anything else?
Is this like your self-destruct OP or something?
djean111
(14,255 posts)You honestly think the admins are the only reason you cannot get DU to become a cheerleader for GMOs? Bwah!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Did they unpizza him?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Maybe, if ALL GMOs are so wondrous, label the GMO stuff and explain just what was manipulated.
As far as the wonders of Bt cotton in India - a closer look here:
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/in-india-gm-crops-come-at-a-high-price/
Though of genetically modified agriculture, as well as some independent studies, say that higher yields offset the costs of the seeds, farmers have seen other costs rise as well. The Hussainpur farmers said their crops were now affected by aphids, which replaced the bollworms that Bt cotton was designed to resist. The new pesticides require fewer applications, they said, but are far more expensive.
The old pesticide used to cost us 200 rupees per liter, said Mr. Reddy, who has been planting Bt cotton for six years. Now I have to pay between 2,000 to 3,000 rupees. And I need to apply it more and more every year.
Some critics of genetically modified seeds see a cycle of rising costs and debts for farmers.
Farmers buy the seeds, and the costs of the pesticides, which they buy from the same companies, are probably tenfold what they used to pay, said Shivani Shah, a campaigner for Greenpeace in India. So its creating a system of dependency. It is a deliberate idea of increasing costs and increasing royalties there is no intention of reducing those costs through economies of scale.
Dependency is the ultimate aim of Monsanto.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Response to Post removed (Original post)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)BTW- HuckleB is now "flagged for review" without having 5 hides. It seems that admins have finally caught on.
I have participated in 6 such threads by HuckleB and I never, ever have gotten a serious or civil response out of him no matter how carefully or friendly I responded. He insults everyone, even the people he agrees with. I don't see how his behavior isn't that of a classic troll, just under the clever cloak of being "pro-science".
Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #103)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Huge Agribusiness corporations are paying me a buttload of cash to post their profit driven propaganda here.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I'm pro-Nuke! Here's why:
HugeNuke corporations are paying me a buttload of cash to post their profit driven propaganda here.
BESIDES NUCLEAR ENERGY IS SCIENCE YOU ANTI SCIENCE FREAKS.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)Questions I seem to have. For example in the article they use the example of a tomato they've spliced with fish genes to help with cold resistance. Well in reading another article it mentioned soybeans in the 90s that contained a gene from a Brazil nut and ended up causing allergic reactions. I'm curious would people with seafood allergies have a similar reaction to the tomatoes.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)If not outright pulling those from the shelves.
djean111
(14,255 posts)That's why I believe we need GMO labeling, with-an explanation of just what, exactly, was manipulated.
Sure, nature is, over the course of millennia, a master hybridizer. But I doubt nature inserted nut or lizard genes into plants.
That's the big lie from the GMO pushers - that nature does the same thing.
And nature likes a variety. That's why we fuck things up by introducing things like kudzu. If Monsanto could turn a buck by introducing kudzu all over the world, they would cheerfully do so, and then charge up the butt for kudzu herbicide.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)I mean people choose foods by label everyday whether it be nutrition labels or brand name gmo foods shouldn't be exempt. Who knows down the line gmo foods will be as common as microwave popcorn and such and we could be looking back and go I can't believe this was a big deal. But I'd definitely like to use some caution especially since there are a lot of questions left to be answered
djean111
(14,255 posts)I stopped buying it initially because I pretty much have cut corn and corn products out of my diet. Corn is just another carb I don't need. Used to buy it for an occasional snack for grandson, but now I read that the innards of the bag are quite harmful.
http://blog.aarp.org/2012/03/22/microwave-popcorns-health-problem-its-the-bag-not-the-corn/
The problem is the chemicals used in the lining of the bag, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
PFOA is also used to make Teflon and other stain- and stick-resistant materials, including pizza boxes. Its part of a number of compounds that have caused liver, testicular and pancreatic cancer in animals. The chemicals may also be linked to infertility in women, according to a recent study at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Science guided by profit. The gift that keeps on giving.
eta - popcorn is most likely a GMO food now.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)1.
GMO's have not been shown to increase production.In fact, some genetically modified produce does NOT have the ability to reproduce on its own. This forces farmers into a contract to buy seed from Monsanto year after year, effectively making the population's food supply reliant on one company rather than the Earth itself.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html
2.
GMO's have had anything but a positive impact on nutrition. GM foods have been linked to cancer and many other ailments. Look into the French Rat Study. Monsanto spent millions and fought adamantly to fight the legitimacy of this study by claiming the rats were of a different breed that were prone to cancerous tumors. But, the rats that were used were the exact same breed used in Monsanto's own, self-funded study. Funny how the results differed so greatly in an independently funded study. Controversy continues to stir surrounding this study, although I implore those with any doubts to contact a professional or local university to conduct the study themselves. Make all information public. Monsanto will have a hard time denying 100s of French Rat studies with identical results.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825
3.
Former Monsanto executives are now serving on the board of the FDA, and the Monsanto Protection Act was recently passed, essentially putting Monsanto and its activities past, present, or future ABOVE the law. This stands in stark contrast to current president Obama's campaign promise to label GMO's and country of origin immediately after taking office. http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
Monsanto owns the patent for these GMO seeds. If a patented seed blows from a factory farm to an organic farm, Monsanto will sue the organic farm to effectively force them to accept these GM seeds or be put out of business. There is a fantastic documentary entitled, "The Future of Food" that outlines the whole dilemma. It is of note, that Monsanto sends scouts out at night to search for the "patent infringement."
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
4
Monsanto spent millions to defeat prop 37 in California, which would have forced food manufacturers to label GM ingredients. Strangely enough, public opinion polls say that 82% of Americans are in favor of knowing what is in their food. This leads many to question the legitimacy and financial influence involved in our democratic system.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/gmo-poll_n_2807595.html
5
Monsanto's GMO's have been banned in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, South Australia, Russia, France, and Switzerland. Please do your part to extend this wise decision to the United States as well.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/03/23/monsanto-has-been-removed-and-banned-by-austria-bulgaria-germany-greece-hungary-ireland-japan-luxembourg-madeira-new-zealand-peru-south-australia-russia-france-and-switzerland/
Edit: Add Hawaiis Big Island to the list! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/big-island-biotech-ban_n_4395521.html
6
Over 800 scientists from around the world recently published an open letter to end the dangerous GMO experiment and the patenting of bio-organisms. Paragraph 2 states It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world. The open letter can be read at the following link with cited sources for their claims.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
7
Annston, Alabama PCB's: Monsantos Anniston, Alabama plant contaminated thousands of citizens with PCB runoff the agri-giant neglected to tell them about. Men, women, and children all fell ill and suffered greatly. Monsanto really followed through on their pledge to respect the religious, cultural, and ethical concerns of people throughout the world. The safety of our employees, the communities where we operate, our customers, consumers, and the environment will be our highest priority.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm
8
GM crops are becoming even more ineffective as some Iowa corn rootworms have already evolved an immunity to GM corn. The largest of the root worms survive eating this corn and therefor have already evolved a population of larger, more robust, toxin-resistant specimens.
http://gizmodo.com/what-are-gmo-foods-and-are-they-okay-to-eat-1524547249/1547154883
9
Lastly, if Monsanto is proud of their "safe and healthy" products, why do they spend so much money and time fighting tooth and nail to prevent their labeling?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/prop-37-donors-revealed-f_n_2065789.html
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Let me see if I can give you a response he would be proud of:
That's not science that's propaganda! You can't come up with anything but dubious sources like scientists and peer reviewed journals! Only MY propaganda is science!
for the impaired.
How did I do?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Javaman
(62,521 posts)it's the licensing and trademarking of a genetic mutation that I'm against.
the ability of a giant corporation being able to sue a farmer because of natural cross pollination, to me goes against everything within the fiber of my being.
and the strong arm tactics of giant corporations employed to keep farmers from saving their seeds is just criminally wrong.
this is why I hate gmo's.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but sellers of GMO foods don't want to have to label, because you might boycott.
Funny how this is ignored in the OP's talk of research.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Trash in, trash out. Bub bye.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)or your argument with this horrific mess.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Whether they are selling pesticides that kill the bees, suing farmers who happened to be adjacent to their crops, or patenting a wide variety of existing seeds which they can't legitimately claim responsibility for, Monsanto are horrible corporate citizens who consistently put profit ahead of the safety of their customers, the environment, and the well-being of farmers.
I don't see tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants to be a dealbreaker in and of itself, but Monsanto has demonstrated recklessness and outright malevolence repeatedly and consistently, so as long as they are the market leader carrying the banner of GMO's, I'll be growing and buying organic.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Not so much.
Label it, honestly disclose testing results, let the consumer decide if they want Frankenfood or not...
Simple.