GMO not a threat:

[Eastoff]

You guys raise some good points. And don't get my wrong, i'm not pro-Monsanto. I just think it's wrong to say "Ban all GMO food."

 

[magnifier661]

You guys raise some good points. And don't get my wrong, i'm not pro-Monsanto. I just think it's wrong to say "Ban all GMO food."

I don't want to ban gmo, I want people to have the right to not have to eat them. I also think people need to be more educated on the pros and cons.

 

[huevonkiller]

Nature gave us a lifespan of 30-40 years 300 years ago.

Even if GMO today isn't the answer, I'm sure one day science will definitively surpass all organic foods. If they're not somewhat there already. This weird experimenting thing will pay off.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Nik has a great point. Lost in this so far is the fact that as people live longer, the population is going to grow. More births than deaths means growth.

Plenty of space on the earth.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I shop at the Farmer's Market guys.

:MARIS61:

 

[blue9]

Monsanto's a bigger danger in the way that they've patented seeds, implant them in small farmers' fields, then sue the farmer for illegal growth. Farmer drowns under legal costs, Monsanto gets to buy the land at auction. Nice business model, if you can get it.

BTW, nutrient levels in GMO are nowhere close to heirloom crops. Yes, the pumpkin is bigger (for instance). But the nutrients aren't there. And the GMO plants (as said earlier) are now dependent on chemicals to eradicate "pests" (some of which are needed in symbiotic relationship with "normal" crops) and "weeds", then dependent on chemical nutrients to grow because they've sterilized the soil from giving the plants nutrients, then dependent on trucking/refrigeration/etc (all energy drains) to get them to cities where they don't actually supply the nutrients that people think they should be getting.

All of this! Also agreed on hunger being an infrastructure problem, rather than a supply problem

With that said, I'm not entirely anti-GMO. While I have no interest in eating them or supporting Big Ag, I do think that GMO research is important to our long-term survival. Once we leave this planet we'll be dependent upon GMOs. For now I think it should be confined to research labs, though. GMOs are not necessary to our earthly survival - ideally they'd be used solely for sustenance in space exploration programs.

 

[Further]

Big Ag is in the business of making profit, not feeding the world.

As I said before (and Denny underscored with a statistic) we don't have a supply problem, we have a distribution problem.

Agreed, i was talking hypothetical, as in, how can we both increase food supply and distribution and not have the result be population increase.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Agreed, i was talking hypothetical, as in, how can we both increase food supply and distribution and not have the result be population increase.

Massive agricultural subsidies in combination with forced abortions and forced contraception administered by a totalitarian state.

 

[Further]

I'm not saying you're wrong Brian, but do you have a link about lower nutrients? It seems logical, but then I know that uptake channels can be manipulated as well, so depending on what type of M we are talking about in gMo, I could certainly see it at least plausible that gmo foods become more nutritious. Right now the companies are concerned with time before spoilage, yield of product and perhaps even flavor. But that could be calibrated to increase vitamin A or C, or whatever nutrients the company decides will help them sell their product.

I agree that there is some horrible practices that Monsanto is involved with, and for the time being, I prefer organic foods myself, but se shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I do agree that labeling things as GMO, hormone free, pesticide free or Organic would be beneficial, let people make up their own minds and vote with their wallets.

 

[Further]

Massive agricultural subsidies in combination with forced abortions and forced contraception administered by a totalitarian state.

Sure, that works for me, but what about the little people.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not saying you're wrong Brian, but do you have a link about lower nutrients? It seems logical, but then I know that uptake channels can be manipulated as well, so depending on what type of M we are talking about in gMo, I could certainly see it at least plausible that gmo foods become more nutritious. Right now the companies are concerned with time before spoilage, yield of product and perhaps even flavor. But that could be calibrated to increase vitamin A or C, or whatever nutrients the company decides will help them sell their product.

I agree that there is some horrible practices that Monsanto is involved with, and for the time being, I prefer organic foods myself, but se shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I do agree that labeling things as GMO, hormone free, pesticide free or Organic would be beneficial, let people make up their own minds and vote with their wallets.

A genetically modified plant could theoretically have lower nutritional quality than its traditional counterpart by making nutrients unavailable or indigestible to humans. For example, phytate is a compound common in seeds and grains that binds with minerals and makes them unavailable to humans. An inserted gene could cause a plant to produce higher levels of phytate decreasing the mineral nutritional value of the plant (GEO-PIE). Another example comes from a study showing that a strain of genetically modified soybean produced lower levels of phytoestrogen compounds, believed to protect against heart disease and cancer, than traditional soybeans (Bakshi, 2003).

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/10/dr-don-huber-interview-part-1.aspx

"You have to realize what an herbicide, or a pesticide, is. They are metal chelators. In other words, they immobilize specific nutrients… t's a compound that can grab onto another element and change either its solubility or its availability for the critical function it has physiologically. We have herbicides and pesticides that are quite specific just for a particular essential micronutrient like copper, zinc, iron, or manganese.

Glyphosate is very unique and was first patented as a chelator by Stauffer Chemical Co. in 1964, because it could bind with any positively charged ion. If you look at the essential minerals for plants, you see calcium, magnesium, potassium, copper, iron, manganese, zinc, and all of those other critical transition elements, as well as structural components for some of them… They all have an ion associated with them. It's the micronutrient that is an ion—that is a transition element, or that element that is really critical for a particular enzyme function.

If you can chelate and, in that chelation process, essentially immobilize that essential nutrient, you have provided an opportunity to either kill a weed or damage and kill an organism—any organism… that have that particular requirement for that physiologic pathway with glyphosate or the shikimate pathway…

You have to realize that this mode of action immobilizes a critical essential nutrient. Those nutrients aren't just required by the weed, but they're required by microorganisms. They're required by us for our own physiologic functions. So if it's immobilized, it may be present if we do a regular test. But it's not necessarily physiologically available in the same efficiency that it would have been if it wasn't chelated with glyphosate…"

"It is well documented that… having that foreign gene inserted reduces the capability of that plant to take up nutrients and to translocate nutrients," Dr. Huber says. "Then, when you apply the chemical [glyphosate], you have a further compounding effect in reducing the efficiency of the plants at rates as low as 12 grams per acre."

There are many other quotes supporting Brian's claim

 

[TripTango]

soylent green

http://www.vice.com/read/rob-rhinehart-no-longer-requires-food

 

[Further]

There are many other quotes supporting Brian's claim

Thanks.

 

[magnifier661]

Thanks.

And like you know, even cancer is a mutation. And like gmo, they alter the function of cells while enhancing others.

 

[magnifier661]

I really hope you guys really look into botany. See the symbiotic relationship of microorganism and plants. When you truly understand the true component of 90% of what you eat is from "roundup ready" products; you will understand that just because the plant can withstand overloads of round up; that it isn't nutritious. That the soil is slowly dying and eventually unable to support any life. That when you eat a cow or pig feeding on round up ready corn; they absorb the same roundup and lack up taking essential minerals.

There is no surprise that abortion rates of dairy cows and pigs are at 70%; ironically since roundup ready crops circulated in almost all feed.

There will be a day when you will look back, if we aren't dead already, and say "wtf where we thinking?!"

 

[Denny Crane]

Big ag is making so much food we're letting 2/3 of it spoil or are just throwing it away.

I'd rather have 2/3 too much rather than having 2/3 too little

And if nutrition is all you care about, rice is the main nutrition of a huge % of the world's population.

 

[magnifier661]

Big ag is making so much food we're letting 2/3 of it spoil or are just throwing it away.

I'd rather have 2/3 too much rather than having 2/3 too little

And if nutrition is all you care about, rice is the main nutrition of a huge % of the world's population.

If you think rice is the only nutrient they eat; you are sadly mistaken. Most cultures eat rice with various other produce and meats.

For a science buff; you really can't see the forest through the trees

 

[magnifier661]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

The value of current independent studies is considered by some[who?][quantify] to be problematic because, due to restrictive end-user agreements, independent researchers sometimes cannot obtain GM plants for study. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".[43] Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While recognising that seed companies' intellectual property rights need to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing.[44] In February 2009, the American Seed Trade Association agreed that they "would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops." This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, but there is little optimism as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion."[43][45]

In Japan, the Consumers Union of Japan say that truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials. Independence in research has been studied by a 2011 analysis into conflicts of interest which found a significant correlation between author affiliation to industry and study outcome in scientific work published on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products

There have been some published studies that have suggested negative impacts from eating GM food. The first such peer reviewed paper to be published was in 1999 and covered research conducted by Arpad Pusztai in 1998. Pusztai had fed rats GM potatoes transformed with the Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene from the Galanthus (snowdrop) plant, allowing the GNA lectin protein to be synthesised.[125] Lectin is known to be toxic, especially to gut epithelium,[126] and while some companies were considering making GM crops expressing lectin, GNA was an unlikely candidate.[127] On June 22, 1998 a short interview was shown on Granada Television's current affairs programme World in Action, with Pusztai saying that rats fed the potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system.[128] A media frenzy resulted and Pusztai was suspended from the Rowett Institute with misconduct procedures used to seize his data and ban him from speaking publicly.[129] The Rowett Institute and the Royal Society reviewed Pusztai's work and concluded that the data did not support his conclusions.[130][131] When his work was eventually published in The Lancet it reported significant differences in the thickness of the gut epithelium of rats fed genetically modified potatoes (compared to those fed the control diet), but no differences in growth or immune system function were suggested.[125][132] The published paper was criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet, and that any rats fed only on potatoes will suffer from a protein deficiency.[133] Pusztai responded to these criticisms by stating that all the diets had the same protein and energy content and that the food intake of all rats was the same.[132] The incident became known as the Pusztai affair.[134]

 

[Denny Crane]

If you think rice is the only nutrient they eat; you are sadly mistaken. Most cultures eat rice with various other produce and meats.

For a science buff; you really can't see the forest through the trees

You said "only."

STRAWMAN.

 

[magnifier661]

You said "only."

STRAWMAN.

Lmao dude; I bet you didn't read any of the links or information. And btw; you said "if you are concerned with nutrients, eat rice"

STRAWMAN was yours. I just replied to it.

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't say that, either.

You know there's a reply with quote button, right?

 

[magnifier661]

Big ag is making so much food we're letting 2/3 of it spoil or are just throwing it away.

I'd rather have 2/3 too much rather than having 2/3 too little

And if nutrition is all you care about, rice is the main nutrition of a huge % of the world's population.

You are filled with hyperbole and strawman. You play words to try and give you outs; then when confronted; you back peddle like a chump.

 

[Denny Crane]

How about you read what I wrote.

For all the GMO being grown, much of the world gets much of their calories from rice.

Given that the RDA is 2000 calories, rice is an inexpensive way to feed people in resource challenged places. It's grown locally in many such places. It stores well, and can be shipped elsewhere as long as it's kept dry.

If your population isn't getting enough nutrition, they're starving.

So, sure mags. You should eat rice. /green font

When you mindlessly click on the reply button, take a few seconds to let these words sink in. If possible.

 

[Haakzilla]

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html
If we aren't going to put our population growth in check, we have to start looking at GMOs as part of our solution to world hunger.

...how does it go?

NOT

SWAYED!

 

[magnifier661]

How about you read what I wrote.

For all the GMO being grown, much of the world gets much of their calories from rice.

Given that the RDA is 2000 calories, rice is an inexpensive way to feed people in resource challenged places. It's grown locally in many such places. It stores well, and can be shipped elsewhere as long as it's kept dry.

If your population isn't getting enough nutrition, they're starving.

So, sure mags. You should eat rice. /green font

When you mindlessly click on the reply button, take a few seconds to let these words sink in. If possible.

Oh my mistake. You were posting off topic?

 

[Denny Crane]

Doesn't work. It's not about education it's more about economics. Your own children equal cheap labor in a subsistence based economy and and you need a lot of manual labor in places without mechanization.

Off topic?

LOL

 

[magnifier661]

Off topic?

LOL

Yep. you bring up some shit argument that you were called out on. Then you went back back peddling that it was on something else.

You argued a point and had your lunch; then said it was something else to avoid admission of utter none sense. Basically, off topic.

Oh and PS: you feed someone only rice; they will eventually die. But you already known that didn't you? So the double whammy is your concept of feeding the starving isn't solved.

 

[magnifier661]

I understand the concept of "gmo" may not be a "threat" in the general term; but one must remember who is leading the efforts in this industry. The major players aren't just Monsanto.

These are further extracts from ETC Group's recently released report, "Who Owns Nature?" These are from the section about the pesticde industry. For the full report: http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-owns-nature

According to the report, the world's six largest agrochemical manufacturers, who control nearly 75% of the global pesticide market, are also seed industry giants.

It's worth breaking this down by company.

Bayer: the world's biggest agrochemical company is also the world's seventh biggest seed company.
Syngenta: the world's second largest agrochemical company is also the world's third largest seed company.
Monsanto: the world's biggest seed company is the world's fifth largest agrochemical company.
And DuPont: the world's second biggest seed company is also the world's sixth largest agrochemical company.
All these companies are gene giants.

Weed killers (herbicides) account for about one-third of the global pesticide market, and around 80% of GM seeds involve herbicide-resistance.

The worldwide market for agrochemicals grew last year by nearly 10%.

So the concept of gmo maybe a positive future; the companies spear heading this research are biotech companies that are using this research to increase usage rates of their herbicides applied.

So what is an herbicide? It's usually an enzyme that binds certain minerals that block other enzymatic action. Agents that suffocate plants from the necessary components to survive. But this enzyme isn't a free thinking organism. It reacts with all living organisms.

It's distributed through foliar (spraying on the leaves and absorbed through the plants vascular system). So if you read reports on how this product glyphosate (round up) degrades in soil; it doesn't degrade in plant tissue, root zones or foliar. Roundup residue stays in the plant. The more you use, the more residue stays in it's system.

Also, round up doesn't effect plants. Once in contact with soil; it will destroy all living beneficial organisms. That will completely set a chain reaction to the general health of the soil; lowing cation exchange, destroying the ecosystem of the soil.

What does that mean?

It means plants become more unhealthy, the animals that eat the plants become more unhealthy, the waste the animal gives is more unhealthy. Eventually a ecology disaster takes place with a mass build up of glyphosate spreads in our streams, soil, food and wildlife.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...-of-genetically-modified-crops-in-two-charts/

The link below gives a summary of how important the ecology of the soil is.

http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/COG/COGHandbook/COGHandbook_1_3.htm

So if you think this is just "nutrient concerns"; that is only a small portion of the bigger picture. It's a concern that the land we use, livestock we eat, fish we consume and water we drink are all effected by this.

Glyphosate has a control of over 90% of all corn, soybean, canola, and cotton production. It just was deregulated for alfalfa production; which contributes to 60% of the total worlds livestock feed.

 

[Further]

While I agree that it is possible (although rare) for GMO's to end up having unintended consequences, and I certainly agree that the practices by the larger companies that specialize in GMO (like Monsanto) are dangerous to the ecosystem and destroy smaller farms through unscrupulous practices, I see a world right now that has more people than ever before. I see a world with more people living longer than ever before. I see children bigger, taller and better fed than ever before. Considering GMO foods are pervasive in modern society, I think that GMO food is plenty nutritious.

That being said, I shop at farmers markets and shop organic for produce most of the time. I would rather choose non GMO food for the reasons I specified in my first post. But Just because non-GMO is better and just because some of the corporations are evil empires, doesn't mean that GMO food is of the devil. GMO food production allows millions, perhaps billions of people a level of food quality and quantity they would otherwise not have.

 

[magnifier661]

While I agree that it is possible (although rare) for GMO's to end up having unintended consequences, and I certainly agree that the practices by the larger companies that specialize in GMO (like Monsanto) are dangerous to the ecosystem and destroy smaller farms through unscrupulous practices, I see a world right now that has more people than ever before. I see a world with more people living longer than ever before. I see children bigger, taller and better fed than ever before. Considering GMO foods are pervasive in modern society, I think that GMO food is plenty nutritious.

That being said, I shop at farmers markets and shop organic for produce most of the time. I would rather choose non GMO food for the reasons I specified in my first post. But Just because non-GMO is better and just because some of the corporations are evil empires, doesn't mean that GMO food is of the devil. GMO food production allows millions, perhaps billions of people a level of food quality and quantity they would otherwise not have.

That's the problem though. The majority of the biotech companies creating these gmo seeds are agrochemical companies. They've used the patented technology to make the food better, but stabilize the crop to survive with applications of their herbicide and pesticides.

So supporting the current gmo model will be detrimental to our environment.