GMO: watcha talking about?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
magnifier661 said:
I've asked you the same question over and over again and you keep avoiding it. Are you opposed to GMO labeling and allowing the market to decide?
Click to expand...

I don't give a shit.

The food supply has been altered massively already, to the point we're all obese. Yet life expectancy has increased. There's good and bad in it all.
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't give a shit.

The food supply has been altered massively already, to the point we're all obese. Yet life expectancy has increased. There's good and bad in it all.
Click to expand...

Cool, then you are fine with the label "GMO"? Thank you…
 
tlongII said:
I don't think they should separately label GMO food. It would drive food costs up.
Click to expand...

How you figure? Separate food costs for what? Them changing their packaging to say "gmo"? Nah good companies will change their boxes and labels all the time. The prices don't change
 
Denny Crane said:
http://www.realclearscience.com/art...ust_end_the_organic_food_scam_now_106251.html

We Must End the Organic Food Scam Now

Editor’s Note: Mischa Popoff is an IOIA Advanced Organic Inspector and is the author of Is it Organic? which you can preview at www.isitorganic.ca. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mischa Popoff.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the possible "organic fraud" that could take place. Although, I deal with the organic and commercial farming industry. What I do know is they test produce and the science is pretty damn accurate. They would test my fertilizers and know to the mg if any gmo are in my end product. It's pretty quick as well.

Regardless, this isn't a "organic" vs "gmo" position. I'm fine with commercial farming. I'm not fine with GMO.
 
magnifier661 said:
How you figure? Separate food costs for what? Them changing their packaging to say "gmo"? Nah good companies will change their boxes and labels all the time. The prices don't change
Click to expand...

Essentially it's a fear mongering campaign. They are trying to convince the public that GMO foods are a health risk without any factual data to back it up. They are trying to force the food industry to stop producing GMO products and in so doing would certainly drive the price up.
 
From WebMD...

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe?

Jaffe agrees that overall, the current genetically modified crops -- which he says are generally one-gene additions -- are safe. He says no food is 100% safe -- genetically modified or not -- and the odds of having an adverse reaction to a genetically modified food are slim. "Even though we've done all of the tests and everything else, one might say, 'Yes, there is still some risk and we don't know the long-term effects.' That's true, but we have enough knowledge about the protein and where it's been introduced, how we've been exposed to it in our food supply in other ways without danger, to have confidence that this is a safe food now."
Click to expand...
 
tlongII said:
Essentially it's a fear mongering campaign. They are trying to convince the public that GMO foods are a health risk without any factual data to back it up. They are trying to force the food industry to stop producing GMO products and in so doing would certainly drive the price up.
Click to expand...

You completely went off the reply. You said good prices would go up because of labeling. I said no, then you replied it was the fear longer campaign. So what is it?
 
tlongII said:
From WebMD...
Click to expand...

Did you watch the videos I put up or are you just going to avoid them. One was an actual 3 year trial on lab rats. They requested for human trials but the unions wouldn't allow them to do them. What's wrong? They showed a very reasonable hypothesis but Monsanto and the unions won't let them study.

What do they have to hide. The clinical human trials by Monsanto are 3 month studies. Nothing substantial. If it's safe, then why so much resistance?
 
tlongII is right.

We're seeing trustworthy (for the most part) organizations like WHO and WebMD saying there's no health risk.

Creating a hysteria around food that causes people to not buy it so it rots costs money. Doing the GMO thing must make growing the food cheaper or better, or they wouldn't be doing it.
 
magnifier661 said:
[video=youtube;M8Mgvf-ULF4]

Denny, I ask you to watch this…
Click to expand...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Following Wilson and Akre's contract not being renewed, the two filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the Monsanto recombinant bovine growth hormone story."[6] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the agriculture company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[7] The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425,000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission.

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]
 
Denny Crane said:
tlongII is right.

We're seeing trustworthy (for the most part) organizations like WHO and WebMD saying there's no health risk.

Creating a hysteria around food that causes people to not buy it so it rots costs money. Doing the GMO thing must make growing the food cheaper or better, or they wouldn't be doing it.
Click to expand...

Well ain't that special?!?!

http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/usdagmeconomics.htm

There have been significant reductions in pesticide use in some cases in America, but by 2008 this had been mostly confined to Bt Cotton, which is often planted where little integrated pest management is used (an alternative approach which limits the need for the use of insecticides).

However, the 2002 USDA report had already confirmed the following:

"GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety." [p21]
"... the adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans does not have a statistically significant effect on net returns." [p23]
"...the soybean results appear to be inconsistent with the rapid adoption of this [GE] technology." [p23]
"An analysis using broader financial performance measures (including net farm income and return on assets) did not show GE crops to have a significant impact." [p23]
"Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative." [p24]
"Even more puzzling, the adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans and Bt corn has been rapid, even though we could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis." [p24]
"..the adoption of Bt corn had a negative impact on the farm financial performance..." [p25]
"…the total herbicide pounds used on [GE] soybeans actually increased as glyphosate was substituted for conventional herbicides... the data indicate that an estimated 13.4 million pounds of glyphosate substituted for 11.1 million pounds of other synthetic herbicides." [p27]
"Change in pesticide use from the adoption of herbicide-tolerant cotton was not significant." [p28 - see note to graph]
"Availability, since the 1980s, of postemergent herbicides that could be applied over a crop during the growing season has facilitated the use of no-till ... Adoption of conservation tillage for soybeans grew (at a decreasing rate) from about 25 percent of the soybean acreage in 1990 to 48 percent in 1995, the 5-year period previous to the introduction of herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Growth of conservation tillage increased further in 1996, but then appears to have stagnated between 50 and 60 percent in the following years... According to the econometric model results, using 1997 ARMS survey data, farmers using no-till for soybeans were found to have a higher probability of adopting herbicide-tolerant seed, but using herbicide tolerant seed did not significantly affect no-till adoption. This result seems to suggest that farmers already using no-till found herbicide-tolerant seeds to be an effective weed control mechanism that could be easily incorporated into their weed management program." [p28/29 - but see also footnote a) below]
Click to expand...

Yeah it really looks like it is cheaper or better!

Are you going to try and discredit the USDA as well?!?! LMAO!
 
Last edited:
And if you think there isn't something fishy; there were several studies by Iowa State University regarding GMO crops. We had them before in the early part of 2000's and the University took them down. Ironically, one of the largest contributors to Iowa State University's AG department is Monsanto.

In the end the 2002 USDA report struggled to explain why there had been such a rapid uptake of GM crops in the US, although it refers to a possible 'convenience' factor. However, a separate study funded by Iowa State University carried out in 1998 reveals that GM crop uptake can be driven as much by how well farmers believe the crops deliver, as by factual data on their real performance. In the world of commerce and marketing perception is, of course, everything.

The Iowa study confirmed that over half of farmers planting herbicide-tolerant GM soya did so because they believed that it gave them higher yields compared to conventional varieties. However, when the university analysed the harvest results of the farms concerned they found the opposite was true despite the belief of the farmers to the contrary (it is in fact now recognised that the 'glyphosate resistance' genetic modification introduced in the 1990s had actually reduced the yield potential of GM soya by inadvertently disturbing other aspects of the plant's functioning).

A subsequent study from the University looked in detail at the on-farm financial performance of soya crops in Iowa. It confirmed that after taking into account costs relating to seed, herbicides, fertiliser, all machinery operations, insurance, and a land charge "there is essentially no difference in costs between the tolerant and non-tolerant fields". However, because of their higher yields the non-GM crops made a profit for their growers, whereas the GM varieties did not.
Click to expand...

In fact, most University Studies, giving by major AG universities have taken down any or all negative results for GMO "roundup ready" crops.

Although the report cites various references, remarkably it ignores what is arguably the most rigorous scientific work ever completed in the discipline. This research carried out by the University of Nebraska confirmed the poor yield performance of the GM herbicide resistant soya introduced in the 1990s, which quickly became the world's biggest GM crop. In particular it concluded that the low yields appear to have been caused by the genetic modification itself and not by any adverse effect from the new herbicide to which it had been engineered to be resistant:

"Yields were suppressed with GR [glyphosate resistant] soybean cultivars.... The work reported here demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related to the gene or its insertion process and another 5% suppression was due to cultivar genetic differential. Producers should consider the potential for 5-10% yield differentials between GR and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate the overall profitability of producing soybean."

The NCFAP report's failure to acknowledge this study is all the more astonishing because it is one of the few tightly controlled agronomic trials of a GM herbicide resistant crop - using as near isogenic sister line controls as available - to have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (Agronomy Journal 93:408-412 (2001)). Few studies, if any, have been subjected to the same degree of scientific rigour in this field.
Click to expand...
 
Wow mags.

You keep finding this shit on holistic bullshit sites.

good find.

You might consider they cherry picked a sentence here and a sentence there to paint a very different picture than the report actually was about.
 
Oh and the ones that believe "labeling" will drive prices up is fooling themselves. Here is a economic study at the Iowa State University, that suggests RR crops and conventional farming are needed to sustain a competitive market, therefor regulating pricing by consumers. <-- Support for labeling and consumer choice.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/faculty/profiles/giancarlo_moschini/sobolevsky-moschini-lapan-ajae.pdf

The introduction of the RR technology leads to reduced prices for RR products, lower prices for producers of the conventional variety, and higher consumption prices of conventional products. Lower segregation costs reduce the prices of conventional products, increase the prices received by farmers who grow the conventional variety, and are associated with more land allocated to growing conventional soy beans, which hurts the profits received by the innovator-monopolist. This result implies a conflict of interest between the RR-input supplier and farmers who benefit from lower segregation costs. The world in general benefits from using the segregation technology at any feasible cost level, as GM-conscious consumers realize their right to choose.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about Denny and trying to debate me on Agriculture. This is my business and I work with agronomist and farmers throughout the world. This is like a Music Major trying to argue with a biologist about symbiosis.

If you think pulling WebMD articles is "credible" is laughable. The true research is being done in the AG Universities. Try searching UC Davis, Nebraska State University and Iowa State University. They are the top 3 AG schools in the nation.
 
Denny Crane said:
Wow mags.

You keep finding this shit on holistic bullshit sites.

good find.

You might consider they cherry picked a sentence here and a sentence there to paint a very different picture than the report actually was about.
Click to expand...

Cherry Picked? Does it even matter? The USDA did say that, yet you choose to ignore a sentence because you think its cherry picked?
 
This is where your argument is seriously flawed Denny, especially one that is a naturalist. Have some fucking common sense man and see the forest through the trees. I mean you would know about the symbiotic relationships between organisms that sustain life. That plants require certain microbes in order to function. That glyphosate, kills those microorganisms, therefor creating a snowball effect in the opposite direction.

A little homework Denny… Put 1 tablespoon of salt on a house plant's soil and tell me what it does? Now expand that simple test to a chemical fertilization of an entire field. Most commercial farms have that much Sodium in their soil from build up. Now you add Glyphosate into the mix and understand that it stops nutrient uptake of phosphorus, magnesium, and iron and get back to me.
 
Denny Crane said:
I look at the source. It's not the report. It's filtered with a specific bias. It's obvious.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/

2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable

For the win.
Click to expand...

LMAO Forbes is for big corporations. Talk about "cherry picking" Hahahaha. Dude you have no fucking clue about agriculture. Probably why you are oblivious about the entire problem!

The only thing you are winning Denny, is proving how short sighted you are. But the forum already knows this.
 
That link is quite good. They reviewed close to 1800 scientific papers on GMO released the past 10 years. That would include your ag schools.

In the abstract of their report, it says:

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense.
 
Denny Crane said:
That link is quite good. They reviewed close to 1800 scientific papers on GMO released the past 10 years. That would include your ag schools.

In the abstract of their report, it says:

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense.
Click to expand...

You are aware that any "patented" product must have permission by the patent owner to test? In other words, Monstanto will allow you to test, but cannot publish unless you receive permission after their review?

What does that mean Denny? Well if the results aren't in their favor, they say "No you cannot publish this study". <--- Fact
 
Denny Crane said:
I get it.

You get to cherry pick, or you choose your links accordingly.

Not fair for me to do so?

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article. A.N. acknowledges ABOCA Spa (http://www. aboca.com/it) for the financial support on manuscript preparation.
Click to expand...

LMAO! Your own link brother. Serves you right for trying to machine gun links that you have zero understanding of.

It appears that knowledge on Gene flow and GE food/feed consumption would have benefited from a higher number of publications considering their high impact on both environmental and food/feed risk assessment. The difficulties of experimental design and, in the case of Gene flow, the public opposition to field trials, may have discouraged researchers, at least in the EU.
Click to expand...

Researchers are scared to go too far into the trials because they may get cut of funding… DOH MOMENT!

researchers should take special care in following rigorous scientific standards, avoiding the publication of data not sufficiently peer reviewed by the scientific community.
Click to expand...

Oh so other researchers can't review it, to validate the study? Hahahaha

In the EU, the regulatory burdens for GE crop approval are extremely heavy (Kalaitzandonakes et al., 2007), de facto excluding the public sector and minor crops from the development of GE technology. As a result, the number of experimental releases of GE crops is rapidly decreasing (Lo ̈chte, 2012) and even large companies are abandoning GE (Dixelius et al., 2012; Laursen, 2012). This scenario is the result of the interaction of complex sociological and psychological factors, risk/benefit ratios, political aspects and an unbalanced scientific communication.
Click to expand...

Go figure?!?! I wonder why?

It may include mandatory or voluntary labeling for the foods or feeds that contain or consist of GE crops or derived products. Labeling implies the definition of a threshold value, above which the food/feed is labeled according to the regulations in force.
Click to expand...

And they even recommend GM labeling! HAHAHAHA Hey thanks Denny for your link. Guess you already got your shovel.
 
magnifier661 said:
You are aware that any "patented" product must have permission by the patent owner to test? In other words, Monstanto will allow you to test, but cannot publish unless you receive permission after their review?

What does that mean Denny? Well if the results aren't in their favor, they say "No you cannot publish this study". <--- Fact
Click to expand...

I call bullshit.

Provide a link that says anyone needs permission to test something that is patented and write about it.
 
And wow. It says "the sky is blue" and you quote that and say in your own words, "see, they say the sky is green!"

Just wow.

I'm done with you.
 
Denny Crane said:
I call bullshit.

Provide a link that says anyone needs permission to test something that is patented and write about it.
Click to expand...

Well shit Denny, you call bullshit and give me links to try and support your claim. And even in those links, you didn't read through enough before posting. All supporting studies still recommend labeling. herp derp!
 
Denny Crane said:
And wow. It says "the sky is blue" and you quote that and say in your own words, "see, they say the sky is green!"

Just wow.

I'm done with you.
Click to expand...

You're done because you thought you hit a home run, but realized it was only your dream.

The advocation of GM labeling is essential for free trade. There is a value added component to crops that aren't genetically modified. All the researchers agree. Yet your refusal for seeing this only implies you have no idea what you are talking about. You advocate free trade! Liberalism! Let the market decide! Then debate that GM labeling is wrong! Talk about fucking straddling the fence! Hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magnifier661
Politics Power of the consumer voice!!!
Replies
3
Views
810
riverman
riverman
cloudydays
My Top 5 Movie One Liners of all time
Replies
21
Views
2K
barfo
barfo
illmatic99
Damon cameo on 90s TV show
Replies
14
Views
1K
44Thrilla
44Thrilla
B
Kirsten Powers, are you just kidding?
Replies
12
Views
858
maxiep
maxiep
SlyPokerDog
Chinese corset advertisement
Replies
7
Views
454
oldmangrouch
O

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top