Any views on gmo's? some gmo info....

Page 2 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Jun 2011, 5:52 pm

bergie wrote:

Orwell wrote:

You're referring to Monstanto's "Roundup-Ready" crops, right? Again, this is a failing of a specific company, and probably a place where anti-trust action would make sense. But fewer pesticides need to be used on GMO than on conventional crops, with resultant decreases in the environmental impact of agriculture

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Studies have shown that GMO plants require 2-5 times more chemicals to grow than conventional (non-organic, non-GMO) crops.

evidence please

also

Food //////// Percent Modified in US//////// Percent Modified in world

Soybeans////93% /// 77%
Corn, field // // 86% /// 26%
Cotton (cottonseed oil) /// 93% /// 49%
Hawaiian papaya // 80%
source wikipedia
if it really was that bad for you, we would all have noticed.
if it really took that many chemicals (making them more expensive), it wouldnt be economically possible (mind you this happens everywhere, not only in the us making any point about subsidation mute as it would have to be worldwide)

as stated before this is far from a black and white issue, GMO is a neccesary part of modern agriculture as our need for food means the diverse enviroment needed to maintain a good disease resistance simply cant happpen.
it is now virtually impossible to grow non gmo papaya on hawaii because of a specific virus that evolved to target the non-GMO plant.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

19 Jun 2011, 7:28 pm

Orwell wrote:

Except that the opposite is actually true. By genetically engineering crops with pest resistance, you have much less need to use pesticide.

You should read more carefully. The original post is about Monsanto's "Roundup ready" crops. Contrary to your assertion, they aren't engineered to have pest resistance; rather, they are engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's own herbicide, Roundup. That encourages farmers to use more chemicals, not less, on their crops.

Of course, the pest resistant crops may be even worse for us, because they are basically modified to produce pesticides biologically. Sure, those pesticides affect insects more than they affect humans, but that doesn't mean they don't affect humans at all. Perhaps it just takes a couple decades before we notice the effects. By the time we've figured out the problems, it may be too late.

Even then, I wouldn't necessarily take issue with it if it were controllable and reversible. If the genetic modifications could be kept out of the crops of farmers who didn't want them, then those of us playing it safe could stick to unmodified crops. The problem is, that's not possible. Once genetically modified crops are planted, they cross fertilize with unmodified crops. Ultimately, those modifications end up being forced on everyone, whether we want them or not. That's what I have a problem with.

psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

19 Jun 2011, 7:37 pm

Oodain wrote:

if it really was that bad for you, we would all have noticed.

Not necessarily. For example, if the fertility problems in livestock mentioned in some of the original links apply to humans as well, it could take years to notice, since infertility is difficult to identify. It would take years or decades more to figure out it was the genetically modified crops at fault. And of course, it would take more years or decades if the issue were that it caused infertility in animals and people exposed in childhood, since people would have to grow to adulthood and try to have children before they noticed.

Quote:

if it really took that many chemicals (making them more expensive), it wouldnt be economically possible (mind you this happens everywhere, not only in the us making any point about subsidation mute as it would have to be worldwide)

To the contrary. The whole point of using herbicides is because they are cheaper than using people to do the weeding. These chemicals are used because they save money by saving on labor costs.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Jun 2011, 7:49 pm

psychohist wrote:

Oodain wrote:

if it really was that bad for you, we would all have noticed.

Quote:

To the contrary. The whole point of using herbicides is because they are cheaper than using people to do the weeding. These chemicals are used because they save money by saving on labor costs.

it might be cheaper to use herbicide than people, but it will allways be cheaper to use less herbicide than more, which is what gmo in these cases is for, maybe not in that exact crock case but for some crops gmo is the standard.

sure there will be some risks, but they arent universal to every modification, on the contrary they are very individual.
think of the risks that normal plants pose, there are many that are allergic, some pose serious health risks if eaten in the wrong amount, yet people use them as a stable food source nonetheless.
i think there should be every cause for being carefull, but we also have a lot of changes to cope with that we brought on ourselves and we cannot use purely natural breeding to compensate anymore.

i would love for a fully organic food economy but it simply wont happen in the world we have today and in some cases gmo crops pose a much healthier alternative than normal crops *(please remember that you cannot generalize, at all, about a subject this complex,)

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Jun 2011, 9:48 pm

psychohist wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Except that the opposite is actually true. By genetically engineering crops with pest resistance, you have much less need to use pesticide.

It is you that need to read more carefully, not I. I specifically addressed Monsanto's Roundup-Ready crops.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 12:59 am

Orwell wrote:

Quote:

There has not been nearly enough testing of these "foods" for them to be considered even remotely safe.

There has been plenty of testing. No doubt testing will continue, but the results of those tests will be irrelevant in the face of some paranoid hippy's confirmation bias.

Quote:

If GMOs are safe, why do the food corporations spend so much money fighting against efforts to require that GMO foods be labeled on packaging?

To avoid having to deal with misinformed alarmists, presumably. And you are yet again conflating the actions of a company with the potential of a technology. Stop this.

Point to 1 long-term, scientific study, not funded by the huge food conglomerates, that proves that GMO foods are safe. And no, 15 years of treating consumers as human guinea pigs is not enough testing.

Way to dodge the labeling question. Your answer of "people are too stupid to decide what to put into their own bodies" is not a sufficient answer.

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 1:02 am

Oodain wrote:

it is now virtually impossible to grow non gmo papaya on hawaii because of a specific virus that evolved to target the non-GMO plant.

So you are saying that it would be profitable for a corporation to create a crop disease that would kill all of the competition's crops and give them a monopoly? Yeah, that makes me feel so much better...

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jun 2011, 1:04 am

bergie wrote:

Way to dodge the labeling question. Your answer of "people are too stupid to decide what to put into their own bodies" is not a sufficient answer.

I didn't dodge it, and you are (yet again) putting words into my mouth. I did point out that it is a ridiculous red herring to point to the business practices of a specific corporation here. Monsanto's failings are not the failings of all GMO. Get that through your head.

But for the record, many people are too stupid to decide what to put into their own bodies. See the popularity of homeopathic "medicine," herbal remedies, and other ridiculous quackery.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jun 2011, 1:05 am

bergie wrote:

Oodain wrote:

it is now virtually impossible to grow non gmo papaya on hawaii because of a specific virus that evolved to target the non-GMO plant.

Fun with conspiracy theories now?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

20 Jun 2011, 5:00 am

Orwell, I most certainly do not have anywhere near enough knowledge on the GMO subject to debate you, however I will say this. It seems a bit disingenuous of you equating the addition of foreign genes into a cell with generations of selective 'breeding' . Also with regard to the inability to feed the masses without the increased production production provided by chemical fertilisers and GMO's , your assertion is only correct if you ignore the real reason for food shortages I.E. the mismanagement of arable land. For example the often quoted figure that it takes 20 kg of grain to produce 1 Kg of beef to sate our rapacious appetite for meat.

I for one am very concerned about the use of GMO's. We do not know the effect some of the more exotic modifications will have and yet we are at risk of these modifications being irreversible

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 20 Jun 2011, 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Moog
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

20 Jun 2011, 5:05 am

Woo, not eating any more papayas!

Quote:

And you are yet again conflating the actions of a company with the potential of a technology.

Very easy to do when the most visible use of GM crops appears to turning out like something from a dystopian sci-fi horror novel.

I understand the knee jerk response. People are very very worried. They're human.

When I see something solid that confirms a real beneficial use of GM products, then I'll be more impartial. You've mentioned potential. All I've seen so far is the destructive potential.

_________________
Not currently a moderator

Moog
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

20 Jun 2011, 5:17 am

Orwell wrote:

But for the record, many people are too stupid to decide what to put into their own bodies. See the popularity of homeopathic "medicine," herbal remedies, and other ridiculous quackery.

Now you're conflating. It's nonsense to put herbalism in the same box as homeopathy and generic quackery. Herbalism is well proven and is the basis of pharmacology. Aspirin is made of the same stuff you find in a willow tree. Is aspirin a quack medicine?

_________________
Not currently a moderator

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Jun 2011, 6:14 am

Moog wrote:

Woo, not eating any more papayas!

Quote:

And you are yet again conflating the actions of a company with the potential of a technology.

if all youve seen of GMO's is destructtion then you have either had a biased view or havent looked hard enough.

a higher percentage of the worlds soybeans is gmo than pappaya.

as for equating it with selective breeding, it is pretty much excactly the same process on another timescale.

if you want to relate to gmo in a realistic way then you have to judge every single mutation individually.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Moog
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

20 Jun 2011, 6:40 am

Oodain wrote:

Moog wrote:

Woo, not eating any more papayas!

Quote:

And you are yet again conflating the actions of a company with the potential of a technology.

if all youve seen of GMO's is destructtion then you have either had a biased view or havent looked hard enough.

This is your opportunity to provide some cogent material. So you can bias us the other way. :wink:

Of course my view is biased, It is biased by information flow and access, my natural proclivities and existing worldview, among other things. An unbiased human view does not exist.

Quote:

a higher percentage of the worlds soybeans is gmo than pappaya.

I know, I don't eat that either, for a number of reasons.

Quote:

if you want to relate to gmo in a realistic way then you have to judge every single mutation individually.

As ever it is not the technology that is inherently dangerous, but it seems it is being abused. User error.

_________________
Not currently a moderator

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Jun 2011, 7:13 am

Moog wrote:

Quote:

if you want to relate to gmo in a realistic way then you have to judge every single mutation individually.

As ever it is not the technology that is inherently dangerous, but it seems it is being abused. User error.

yup, though i do think there are plenty of mutations that are harmfull as well,
even some types could prove extremely dangerous, think rampant growth hormones.

as for evidence, the majority of that evidence is actually in the lack of desicive evidence against gmo's as a whole,
there is evidence that some types of GMO is harmfull but if that was true for any and all GMO's then you would have heard almost infinitely more.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jun 2011, 10:59 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

My point was that in the case of corn (and to a lesser extent wheat) the allegedly "natural" strains are in fact the result of foreign genes being introduced- not simple selective breeding. The crops that have fed humanity through all of recorded history are already "Frankenfoods."

Seriously, if these organic-only hippies knew anything about plant genetics they would be terrified to eat anything.

Quote:

Also with regard to the inability to feed the masses without the increased production production provided by chemical fertilisers and GMO's , your assertion is only correct if you ignore the real reason for food shortages I.E. the mismanagement of arable land. For example the often quoted figure that it takes 20 kg of grain to produce 1 Kg of beef to sate our rapacious appetite for meat.

7 billion people will not be well fed with conventional methods- not even with the massive improvements in conventional agriculture during the Green Revolution. And there are competing demands on land, so we will not be able to farm every single acre of arable land anyways.

A kilogram-to-kilogram comparison of grain to beef is grotesquely dishonest. Meat has much higher energy density than plant matter. Compare calorie to calorie for a more honest comparison. You will still find that grain is cheaper for the calories, of course, but it is not 20:1.

Moog wrote:

When I see something solid that confirms a real beneficial use of GM products, then I'll be more impartial. You've mentioned potential. All I've seen so far is the destructive potential.

I already gave an example in golden rice. I tend to think that saving children in developing countries from blindness is a good thing. Perhaps you disagree.

Quote:

You are equivocating on the meaning of "herbalism" and I think you know it. Plant-based remedies that were tested and found to be effective are now called "medicine." The stuff that is referred to (and marketed as) "herbal" is useless BS on the same level as homeopathy. Actually, it's worse; some quack "herbal" remedies have the potential to do serious harm, while homeopathy is just expensive water.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Page 2 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Any views on gmo's? some gmo info.... Post Reply New Topic

Any views on gmo's? some gmo info....