GMO Tropes vs. GMO Science

Post Reply New Topic

Sure, so let's all agree on the need for better antitrust laws. And patent reform while we're at it.


Because there are things that conventional selective breeding can't do, at least not on the timescales we need it done. See my post referencing Vitamin A deficiency, and spend five minutes Googling to understand how desperate a humanitarian crisis that is. There are children dying, and we can use science to save their lives. That is what this issue ultimately boils down to.

Irrationality is a luxury. Expect those who can afford it to treasure it and flaunt it.

Alright well I will look that up, as well as research your claim that organic farms all use crude poisons that kill anything...but I have a hard time trusting that some multi-national corporation is actually taking care to limit any negative environmental impact. And well if all organic food came from farms using crude poison, you'd think the soil would go bad and there wouldn't be so much organic stuff being grown....of course some stuff labeled 'organic' isn't even organic and may have used nasty pesticides so even with that you have to research even where your organic food comes from...and if sustainable farming was truly used for instance.

Also I though lots of accumulated information has been pointing to our dependence on GMO foods being a negative thing...and finding that there are some undesirable aspects of it, hence lots more people are coming to prefer organic and other non-gmo food that didn't just come out of nowhere. Also sure maybe GM technology in itself isn't bad, but are you saying it can't have negative impacts under any circumstances? I mean I'd think screwing around with plant genetics could have some negative or unwanted effects. Also not sure why people are convinced if somethings not GMO its going to be misshapen and gross looking when I have observed quite the opposite.

That sounds good initially, but then if the starvation is alliviated....will these people have the right to grow any of their crops on the land used for this rice? Or will said rice ruin the nutrient quality of the soil forcing them to depend on whoever produces the GMO rice to keep them alive?...If all those negatives would not occur and this rice would provide needed nutrients and alleviate a crisis then I'd have no opposition.

Not sure why it is irrational to question the intentions of some multi-national corporation or is it that if someone disagrees with you they are irrational?

I didn't say "all." But the classes of pesticides that are permitted on farms that call themselves "organic" is limited and excludes more modern pesticides. The old pesticides were abandoned either because they didn't work well enough or they weren't safe enough.


They may not be, beyond the point to which protecting the environment is also good for their own bottom line in the long run. Good thing not all GM research is done by multinational corporations. Some is done by universities or non-profits or governments, and they typically have clearer humanitarian or environmental aims. And of course there is also the route of appropriate tax and regulatory incentives to influence corporate behavior as well.


I increasingly have the impression that you aren't overly familiar with the agricultural system in general, or organic farming in particular.

For the record, organic farming is much less sustainable than conventional farming using modern science. Organic farms generate far lower crop yields, meaning you need to convert more land to agricultural use if you still want the same amount of food. If you want to eat organic, then you have to choose between letting the poor starve and clear-cutting some rain forest.


Of course it can. Any technology can, but that's a vacuous statement. Sure, someone could probably splice some genes around to make a variety of corn that produced high levels of cyanide. There's no reason they would, but it's technically possible.


Possible in principle, but less likely than unwanted effects from traditional crop breeding.

Why do you assume my post was about you and reply by putting words in my mouth to make me look bad?

I have to say I care more about sustainable food...than if it says 'organic' or anything else. So I suppose that should be the focus. Also perhaps 'organic' needs to be defined better and have actual standards since upon reading up a little it would seem its kind of non-specific and misleading in a lot of cases not to mention does not imply that less pesticides or less harmful ones where used...per say. And just as an example of it being a loose term...if you're talking about marijuana growing for instance 'organic' means you grew it in the dirt, whilst hydroponic means you've used a man-made system of watering/feeding your plants nutrients. Apparently when it comes to food the difference is not nearly so clear cut...and organic vs. regular crops has nothing to do with sustainability(that is on individual farms or whatever)...so I guess supporting those specific farms/sources is a better approach than just assuming organic is more often going to come from something like that. That said still don't trust this Monsanto company and think it needs to be knocked down a few notches as to be less monopolizing since in my opinion they're just in the way(at the very least) and distract from any potential positive use of anything genetically modified.

But yes there is plenty on this topic I don't know for sure or have all the facts...but thus far that is my position on it.

Because mine didn't match other opinions expressed here...and usually when people bring up 'irrationality' its about the person who doesn't agree with the status quo, but perhaps I am guilty of some over-thinking/assuming because now thinking back that seems like far to much analysis. If anything now I look bad for misunderstanding....that can't make you look bad.

This thread needs more Vladimir Putin with regards to bees & Monsanto...

"Sustainable foods" seems like a buzz-phrase to me. What does it mean to you?

"Organic" means carbon-based to anyone who's taken STEM courses. All foods are carbon-based, except water. So when I hear "Organic Food", I think that someone is being redundant. And when I hear "Organic Water", it invokes a mental image of swamp-water - green with algae, and with little multi-legged critters swimming in it.

In engineering terms, topsoil is referred to as "Regolith", or loose rock material that lies above the more solid geology of deeper layers. "Hydroponic" means a method of plant production by means of suspending the plant roots in a solution of nutrient-rich, oxygenated water. So, I propose a new term: "Regoponic", meaning a method of plant production by means of suporting the plant roots in an aggregate of nutrient-rich sand, clay, and gravel.

Then we could refer to "Natural" or "Augmented" methods. "Natural" meaning without manufactured nutrients, pesticides, or herbicides. "Augmented" could then be used to indicate the use of artificial or manufactured nutrients, pesticides, or herbicides.

But what about Ammonia (NH₃)? It is exactly the same substance whether it is produced naturally or by combining one part Nitrogen with three parts Hydrogen in a factory reaction vessel. Ammonia is used to fertilize crops that require large amounts of Nitrogen to grow, and is cheaper to manufacture in large quantities.

As I've stated many times, the labelling of something as "Organic" is often motivated more by profit than by ethical consideration for growing methods. Just as your local "Farmers' Market" may not have any real farmers in it, those misshapen and spotted foods being sold in the farmers' market may bear the "Organic" label only because the seller wants to sell the produce to environmentally-conscious people at a significant markup over chain-store produce.

Yeah, lack of competition does limit one's choices; but if that's all that really matters, then this whole "Organic" issue becomes an over-used "Red Herring".

I keep digging for facts - claims that are backed up by vetted data - and I try to ignore the deceptive scare tactics being used by the anti-GMO crowd.

One of my pet peeves is when someone claims that GMO and selective breeding are equivalent. Some particularly ignorant people even go so far as to claim that selective breeding results in GMOs.

First of all, the term GMO was explicitly coined to refer to organisms who's genome has been altered by certain modern genetic engineering. Prior to the development of those techniques, there were not GMOs. It would have been absolutely impossible for GMOs to exist without those techniques.

In most cases, the techniques of modern genetic engineering are used to introduce genes from entirely different organisms, not to try to advance genes from within the organism's genome. To compare that to selective breeding, you would be talking about things like trying to cross corn with bacillus thuringiensis instead of with other strains of corn.

The only time you could legitimately compare GMOs with selective breeding was if you were using the genes within the same or very closely related organisms. For example, if you used those genetic engineering techniques to extract genes from one organisms and introducing those genes into closely related organisms which could be crossed with the source organism.

That said, I'm not sure about whether you could make that claim if you were using GMO techniques to try to remove genes from the genome of a plant. I suspect that it would be invalid unless there were closely related plants without the gene or genes you are attempting to remove. One example of this would be if you tried to remove the allergens from peanuts by using genetic engineering. (Having developed allergies to peanuts about twenty years ago, I would really like to see this done -- I miss being able to eat peanuts.)

By the way, don't assume that I'm anti-GMO because of this. The fact is that I find it abominable that someone would resort to such ignoble tactics to try to argue the point. It would be like trying to argue that George Washington was a great President by making up lies about how good he was -- we don't need the lies.

I've read that organic farmers are permitted to use a variety of pesticides and chemicals on their crops and still call them "organic".

Most people probably don't realize that Monsanto also sells non-GMO seeds as well.

... as long as those substances are not produced by Monsanto, I'd wager ...

Bt-corn was developed to reduce the amount of pesticides necessary to control the corn borer beetle. So it is likely that the corn has had fewer pesticides applied rather than more.