Solid Smackdown of Anti-GMO zealotry

#2
#2
Not wholly true in and of itself either. there are more concerns than the articles go into. and while there are undoubtedly the scare tactics users, the guys saying it is harmless are paid just as much to say that. the truth is always in between the extremes. GMOs instantly cause cancer is just as invalid as GMOs are harmless. we don't know enough to say one way or the other exclusively. and a couple points the article brings up has nothing to do with their effect on humans but instead "other areas of GMO concern"
 
#3
#3
I won't claim to know much about the science behind this argument. Fraudulent statements by the anti gmo crowd are hardly surprising to hear, and makes them untrustworthy. That being said, I'm not in a huge hurry to trust the scientists who are paid for by the government which is a huge beneficiary of Monsanto's lobbyists. Besides, how many times has the FDA or USDA been caught supporting bad or fraudulent science? Who should we trust?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
I'm sure there are some GMO's that are perfectly safe, but really we don't have enough info to know the long term effects of them yet to make a claim one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
LouderVol said:
Not wholly true in and of itself either. there are more concerns than the articles go into. and while there are undoubtedly the scare tactics users, the guys saying it is harmless are paid just as much to say that. the truth is always in between the extremes. GMOs instantly cause cancer is just as invalid as GMOs are harmless. we don't know enough to say one way or the other exclusively. and a couple points the article brings up has nothing to do with their effect on humans but instead "other areas of GMO concern"
Click to expand...

Isn't this the same case with those claiming man made global warming?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
VolsSportsFan said:
Only if you really believe 97% of scientists are all paid to say man influenced climate change is real.
Click to expand...

I believe 100% of the statisticians who say 97% of the scientists say man influenced climate change are paid to say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
The issue I have is when you are careful about what you eat and what you put into your body and then GMO.

GMO is just man doing what nature would have taken several hundred years to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
And, as others have alluded to here, most of the anti-GMO folks are anti-Monsanto folks.

Monsanto is a sh1tty company, I'll give the detractors that.
 
#10
#10
Obviously GMOs are not harmless because everything can harm you, but the question is are they relatively harmless?

It's easy to get caught up with alarmists when it comes to science, but just remember that everything in the world is poison to us, it's just that specific quantities are safe. It's the case with whatever is in our food (GMO or not) and it's the same thing with vaccines, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#12
#12
n_huffhines said:
Obviously GMOs are not harmless because everything can harm you, but the question is are they relatively harmless?

It's easy to get caught up with alarmists when it comes to science, but just remember that everything in the world is poison to us, it's just that specific quantities are safe. It's the case with whatever is in our food (GMO or not) and it's the same thing with vaccines, etc.
Click to expand...

People act like GMO's are grown by injecting radioactive materials to make them mutate. From my understanding its just simple SCIENCE..like how people created different plant species (Luther Burbank).
 
#14
#14
LouderVol said:
Not wholly true in and of itself either. there are more concerns than the articles go into. and while there are undoubtedly the scare tactics users, the guys saying it is harmless are paid just as much to say that. the truth is always in between the extremes. GMOs instantly cause cancer is just as invalid as GMOs are harmless. we don't know enough to say one way or the other exclusively. and a couple points the article brings up has nothing to do with their effect on humans but instead "other areas of GMO concern"
Click to expand...

Agreed. Monsanto is one evil entity though.
 
#16
#16
FLVOL_79 said:
People act like GMO's are grown by injecting radioactive materials to make them mutate. From my understanding its just simple SCIENCE..like how people created different plant species (Luther Burbank).
Click to expand...

Mankind has been genetically modifying plants since we started favoring certain berries and vegetables. Then even more when we planted them.

That's all going to result in genetic modification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
There are only 8 crops on the world market today that are genetically engineered: alfalfa, corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, papaya, squash and sugar beets. Rice, potatoes and apples are in the works and forecast to come on line in the next year or two.

This is where those of us in the conventional agricultural industry have a problem with the non-GMO/organic movement. An overwhelming majority of the food we eat is non-GMO to begin with. So for places like Chipolte and Whole Foods to predicate their businesses on only serving/selling non-GMO ingredients they're at the forefront of "scaring" people into an unsubstantiated state of mind. You serve non-GMO cilantro Chipolte? No crap, so does every other Mexican food outlet because there's no such thing.

The organic movement is a farce as well. Organic farmers follow a set of guidelines in order to qualify for that designation. However, those guidelines go beyond stereotypical "organic". If certain crop failure situations arise and there's not an organic alternative available to remedy said situation, they're allowed to venture off those guidelines up to a certain level by using conventional inputs. There are also chemistries on the market that will go by multiple names with different labels, one for organic and one for conventional. The active ingredients are the exact same, except one costs 5x as much as the other. Very few organic farms can get by on organic inputs alone.

Organic crop yields across the board are roughly 50% of conventional yields. So whereas a conventional farmer today produces enough food/fiber to feed 165 people an organic one can only feed 85. With a population forecast to hit 9B by 2050, the organic nuts have a better shot at finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow than thinking we have a legitimate chance of feeding that number of people utilizing organic practices.

Would anyone guess that the LDS 50 of caffeine is less than glyphosate? Meaning it takes a smaller ingestion level of caffeine to kill 50% of a test population than glyphosate.

Bt in corn, cotton and soybeans is an insect resistance trait. Bt is a naturally occurring bacteria that produces a protein that serves as a natural insecticide and can be digested by EVERY living organism except one; insects.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#20
#20
bowlinggreenvol said:
There are only 8 crops on the world market today that are genetically engineered: alfalfa, corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, papaya, squash and sugar beets. Rice, potatoes and apples are in the works and forecast to come on line in the next year or two.

This is where those of us in the conventional agricultural industry have a problem with the non-GMO/organic movement. An overwhelming majority of the food we eat is non-GMO to begin with. So for places like Chipolte and Whole Foods to predicate their businesses on only serving/selling non-GMO ingredients they're at the forefront of "scaring" people into an unsubstantiated state of mind. You serve non-GMO cilantro Chipolte? No crap, so does every other Mexican food outlet because there's no such thing.

The organic movement is a farce as well. Organic farmers follow a set of guidelines in order to qualify for that designation. However, those guidelines go beyond stereotypical "organic". If certain crop failure situations arise and there's not an organic alternative available to remedy said situation, they're allowed to venture off those guidelines up to a certain level by using conventional inputs. There are also chemistries on the market that will go by multiple names with different labels, one for organic and one for conventional. The active ingredients are the exact same, except one costs 5x as much as the other. Very few organic farms can get by on organic inputs alone.

Organic crop yields across the board are roughly 50% of conventional yields. So whereas a conventional farmer today produces enough food/fiber to feed 165 people an organic one can only feed 85. With a population forecast to hit 9B by 2050, the organic nuts have a better shot at finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow than thinking we have a legitimate chance of feeding that number of people utilizing organic practices.

Would anyone guess that the LDS 50 of caffeine is less than glyphosate? Meaning it takes a smaller ingestion level of caffeine to kill 50% of a test population than glyphosate.

Bt in corn, cotton and soybeans is an insect resistance trait. Bt is a naturally occurring bacteria that produces a protein that serves as a natural insecticide and can be digested by every living organism except one; insects.
Click to expand...

Humans have farmed pretty much the same way for thousands of years up until modern times. Hundreds of years from now current farming methods will not work because nature finds a way around the chemicals and genetic mutations. So you have to keep inventing more powerful chemicals to kill the stronger superweeds and super insects that are now pervasive in Round-up Ready fields. Agri-business is using this relatively brief moment in time to reap huge yields (and profits) at the expense of the long term good of the earth and people. It will all come to a head at some point.

Fewer and fewer people keep the farms for easier and better paying work in other occupations. That centralizes production to the huge agri-businesses. Tillable land is more valuable as subdivisions so more food must be produced on less land, which can only be done chemically and genetically. It is a complex problem with no real solution other than individuals producing for themselves and control what goes into their bodies.
 
#21
#21
bowlinggreenvol said:
Your disdain for Monsanto comes from where?
Click to expand...

Plenty of places. For starters, if you buy a seed from them, grow the plant, harvest the crop, then try to use the seed from that plant to use again, Monsanto will sue you because they have a patent on it. You must buy your seed from them every planting season. And they have an army of lawyers to drive anyone out of business who they catch.

And you are correct, genetically modified corn is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. We all know that corn (in some form) is in virtually everything, so we are eating pesticide everyday. This is why they do not want the labeling changes to state GMO/non-GMO. People will change their habits when informed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
bowlinggreenvol said:
Your disdain for Monsanto comes from where?
Click to expand...

Didn't Montesano gmo corn and sue the farmers into oblivion if their crops became contaminated with their gmo's? Effectively destroying the reseed market in the process which forced farmers to rebuy their seeds annually?

Anyone remember which SCOTUS justice used to be corporate council for Montesano only to rule later that the practice described earlier was legal?
 
#23
#23
distrovol said:
Plenty of places. For starters, if you buy a seed from them, grow the plant, harvest the crop, then try to use the seed from that plant to use again, Monsanto will sue you because they have a patent on it. You must buy your seed from them every planting season. And they have an army of lawyers to drive anyone out of business who they catch.

And you are correct, genetically modified corn is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. We all know that corn (in some form) is in virtually everything, so we are eating pesticide everyday. This is why they do not want the labeling changes to state GMO/non-GMO. People will change their habits when informed.
Click to expand...

Dammit, I've really got start reading threads all the way through before replying.....
 
#24
#24
distrovol said:
Humans have farmed pretty much the same way for thousands of years up until modern times. Hundreds of years from now current farming methods will not work because nature finds a way around the chemicals and genetic mutations. So you have to keep inventing more powerful chemicals to kill the stronger superweeds and super insects that are now pervasive in Round-up Ready fields. Agri-business is using this relatively brief moment in time to reap huge yields (and profits) at the expense of the long term good of the earth and people. It will all come to a head at some point.

Fewer and fewer people keep the farms for easier and better paying work in other occupations. That centralizes production to the huge agri-businesses. Tillable land is more valuable as subdivisions so more food must be produced on less land, which can only be done chemically and genetically. It is a complex problem with no real solution other than individuals producing for themselves and control what goes into their bodies.
Click to expand...

You're so clueless. The "corporate farm" that so many ***** about (for some unknown reason) make up 13% of the farms in the U.S. the other 87% fall in the hands of single individuals or families. I've never understood this cry. Does it matter who owns the farm?

Roundup is neutralized when it hits the soil so it has no negative affect on the soil FTR. Yes, we have glyphosate resistant pigweed, marestail and water hemp right now. The answer moving forward to combat these is different modes of action for killing, not necessarily "stronger", whatever that even means. Most herbicides negatively affect enzymes, chlorophyll production or amino acids only found in plant life to begin with.

Please come and tell farmers today that they're reaping huge profits and watch them embarrass you with the reality of the situation. 2 years ago corn was roughly $7 per bushel, right now corn is at $4.25 and has dipped as low as $3.80 this year. So prices are 60% of what they were 2 years ago yet seed, chemicals and fertilizer prices have held relatively steady or gone up, resulting in an average break-even point of $4.31 per bushel. Cotton is trading for $0.65 per pound right now, yet it costs between $0.65 - $0.70 per pound just to raise it.

Let me know when you get cancer from the beef who ate the corn that had the Bt gene in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#25
#25
bowlinggreenvol said:
There are only 8 crops on the world market today that are genetically engineered: alfalfa, corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, papaya, squash and sugar beets. Rice, potatoes and apples are in the works and forecast to come on line in the next year or two.

This is where those of us in the conventional agricultural industry have a problem with the non-GMO/organic movement. An overwhelming majority of the food we eat is non-GMO to begin with. So for places like Chipolte and Whole Foods to predicate their businesses on only serving/selling non-GMO ingredients they're at the forefront of "scaring" people into an unsubstantiated state of mind. You serve non-GMO cilantro Chipolte? No crap, so does every other Mexican food outlet because there's no such thing.

The organic movement is a farce as well. Organic farmers follow a set of guidelines in order to qualify for that designation. However, those guidelines go beyond stereotypical "organic". If certain crop failure situations arise and there's not an organic alternative available to remedy said situation, they're allowed to venture off those guidelines up to a certain level by using conventional inputs. There are also chemistries on the market that will go by multiple names with different labels, one for organic and one for conventional. The active ingredients are the exact same, except one costs 5x as much as the other. Very few organic farms can get by on organic inputs alone.

Organic crop yields across the board are roughly 50% of conventional yields. So whereas a conventional farmer today produces enough food/fiber to feed 165 people an organic one can only feed 85. With a population forecast to hit 9B by 2050, the organic nuts have a better shot at finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow than thinking we have a legitimate chance of feeding that number of people utilizing organic practices.

Would anyone guess that the LDS 50 of caffeine is less than glyphosate? Meaning it takes a smaller ingestion level of caffeine to kill 50% of a test population than glyphosate.

Bt in corn, cotton and soybeans is an insect resistance trait. Bt is a naturally occurring bacteria that produces a protein that serves as a natural insecticide and can be digested by every living organism except one; insects.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it entirely possible to feed the world population organically, but it would take radical changes to culture, society and agriculture. It used to be that nearly every home had a garden and produced quite a bit of their own food. Families were not tied to central mono-cultural agriculture and the grocery store. Their gardens were generally less susceptible to disease and pests because they were poli-cultural. And they generally saved seeds, which builds crops that thrive in their environment.

There's a mini-farm in California that is growing 1000s of pounds of produce on 1/10 of an acre using strictly organic/intensive measures. They grow enough to produce 100% of their diet while supplying local restaurants with fresh produce.

Personally, I think society would be healthier (both physically and societally) if we shrank our food production and built local community by doing so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top