Why we need GMO

Espressocycle

Lol, good point, but I just dont understand arguing FOR scientists in a lab playing god with crops seeds. Who reaps the benefits? Is it our kids nutrition. Lets remember we have a childhood obesity problem in this country and no one ever asks "COULD IT BE THE FOOD?" people dont want to grow fresh anymore, they want easy and quick. I worked on an organic farm this summer and let m tell you, theres nothing easy about farming. Its so hard, and these farmers get so little out of it, pretty soon there will be no farms and we will be growing our food in test tubes..I cant imagine arguing for industries that take the Food out of farming.

Technology and hybridization (and pesticides and fertilizers) have increased food production while requiring fewer and fewer farmers. Organic farming can feed the world, but only if everybody quit their jobs and farmed instead. Might be a better world, but I don't think it's one most people want.

Thats just it, what happens to family farms? The backbone of America? hmm did you know its illegal in a lot of towns to grow your own food on your own property?

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/illegal-gardening-zwfz1211zrob.aspx#axzz2Wb11YnnI

Why on earth would we want family farms? Some kids might want to grow up to be farmers, but not all of them. And are family farms an efficient use of resources? Is the son of a farmer automatically the most intrinsically talented farmer?

In the future, solar-powered robots will do all our farming, build our consumer goods, drive trucks, etc. Us humans can live like the lords and ladies of old, pursuing philosophy, scientific discovery, artistic development or, heck, if we want to we can become smallholders and farm for fun, breed delicious new varieties of apples or whatever.

jwdieter

So in and of itself, it can make you fat regardless of total caloric intake?

If human being is machine with calorie scanner, human being eat calorie.

If human being eat food volume, human being eat more calorie with HFCS injection.

Carnivor0us

GMO has the potential to save the environment though less intensive/harmful farming, biofuels, carbon sequestration... the possibilities are endless. Monsanto is not a great corporate steward, but the technology itself has loads of potential.

hmmm idk about that. And I think a lot of farmers would disagree.

Speculation based on tinfoil had nonsense =/= evidence.

The only actual farmer in this discussion disagrees with you.

My best friend for 20 years is a wheat farmer in Montana. The local farmers in Conrad are not pro GMO. laziness does not constitute forward thinking. Since when did everyone decide to buy what big business was selling?

Well, you don't become big business without selling things people want to buy.

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

anyone that argues for gmos is a nut.

No, I just don't believe in your religion.

religion? its called common sense. I dont want genetically ALTERED food tyvm

Calling someone a 'nut' because they disagree with you isn't exactly common sense. It's inflammatory and if you don't want genetically altered food then that's fine. I don't care, just get out of my face if I do want genetically altered food.

Lol, good point, but I just dont understand arguing FOR scientists in a lab playing god with crops seeds. Who reaps the benefits? Is it our kids nutrition. Lets remember we have a childhood obesity problem in this country and no one ever asks "COULD IT BE THE FOOD?" people dont want to grow fresh anymore, they want easy and quick. I worked on an organic farm this summer and let m tell you, theres nothing easy about farming. Its so hard, and these farmers get so little out of it, pretty soon there will be no farms and we will be growing our food in test tubes..I cant imagine arguing for industries that take the Food out of farming.

Perhaps over consumption is the cause of obesity?

and perhaps its also whats IN the food we eat?

So if that was the case, there would be plenty of evidence of people eating in a deficit or maintenance yet getting fatter solely due to what's in their foods. Now is there such evidence?

There is corn, corn syrup in just about everything. Im sorry, I meant genetically modified corn and corn syrup...

So in and of itself, it can make you fat regardless of total caloric intake?

Im more concerned with the prevalence of GMO in our foods and the possibility that it has negative health effects. Stop trying to make it a math equation, your missing my point

bumblebums

Maybe we do, but they don't:



The world's population growth is currently on a trajectory where we will soon not be able to sustain everyone's food needs using traditional agriculture. In case you haven't noticed, problems in other parts of the world have a way of coming back around and biting the West in the *kitten*. I don't mind eating some meat substitutes and GMO yams if it means everyone else gets some, too.

Bahahahahahahaahaha!!!!! The argument that GMOs will solve world hunger is the most RIDICULOUS thing ever! Have you no sense of economics or even basic political systems? People don't starve because there isn't enough food in the world. People starve because of economic inequality. I'm betting someone has never looked into dumpster diving. We waste an incrdible amount of food in the US. Increasing crop yield will only lead to more waste, not put happy faces on sad bloated African children. So delusional.

I am glad my delusions are so amusing to you, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should try to maintain a certain level of discourse.

percom74

I am not into debating anyone, but I find it ironic that we genetically modify plants for food and it is okay, we give growth hormones to animals and its okay, but if an athlete or body builder puts a needle in his/her arm for basically the same reason we call it wrong. I know people will say it is not health and makes men's wieners shrink a dink, so what is shrinking on the animals and plants? Nutrition, proteins, vitamins....I don't know I am just wondering....

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

GMO has the potential to save the environment though less intensive/harmful farming, biofuels, carbon sequestration... the possibilities are endless. Monsanto is not a great corporate steward, but the technology itself has loads of potential.

hmmm idk about that. And I think a lot of farmers would disagree.

Speculation based on tinfoil had nonsense =/= evidence.

The only actual farmer in this discussion disagrees with you.

My best friend for 20 years is a wheat farmer in Montana. The local farmers in Conrad are not pro GMO. laziness does not constitute forward thinking. Since when did everyone decide to buy what big business was selling?

Well, you don't become big business without selling things people want to buy.

uh huh...carry on then

bumblebums

GMO has the potential to save the environment though less intensive/harmful farming, biofuels, carbon sequestration... the possibilities are endless. Monsanto is not a great corporate steward, but the technology itself has loads of potential.

The radical thought that Monsanto is not the sole purveyor of genetically modified foods does not seem to have occurred to some people in this thread.

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

GMO has the potential to save the environment though less intensive/harmful farming, biofuels, carbon sequestration... the possibilities are endless. Monsanto is not a great corporate steward, but the technology itself has loads of potential.

The radical thought that Monsanto is not the sole purveyor of genetically modified foods does not seem to have occurred to some people in this thread.

actually the whole food industry is whacked.

Espressocycle

Im more concerned with the prevalence of GMO in our foods and the possibility that it has negative health effects. Stop trying to make it a math equation, your missing my point

On the other hand, maybe we could make a genetically engineered corn that actually had fewer calories so that I could eat an entire box of corn flakes and not gain weight. (I really like corn flakes).

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

So in and of itself, it can make you fat regardless of total caloric intake?

If human being is machine with calorie scanner, human being eat calorie.

If human being eat food volume, human being eat more calorie with HFCS injection.

zactly! the food we eat has been tampered with

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

Im more concerned with the prevalence of GMO in our foods and the possibility that it has negative health effects. Stop trying to make it a math equation, your missing my point

On the other hand, maybe we could make a genetically engineered corn that actually had fewer calories so that I could eat an entire box of corn flakes and not gain weight. (I really like corn flakes).

If thats the case lets make a pill where we dont ever have to eat (and poop lol) again! I always hate having to stop what Im doing to eat...

Espressocycle

actually the whole food industry is whacked.

Most industries are wacked. Socialism now! (I'm not kidding, I think the end goal of human development should be a post-scarcity world in which resources are allocated via a form of socialism, since work will no longer be required)

Carnivor0us

actually the whole food industry is whacked.

Most industries are wacked. Socialism now! (I'm not kidding, I think the end goal of human development should be a post-scarcity world in which resources are allocated via a form of socialism, since work will no longer be required)

Yes, I liked Star Trek too.

downinaggieland98

People using an app to track food intake do not need GMO.

GMO provides some interesting nutritional opportunities for some locations. Reducing genetic and production diversity also puts the food supply at risk.

How, exactly, do GMOs reduce genetic diversity?

Creates farms of nothing but monocultures, which is not good for the soil nor the environment. Crops are meant to be rotated each year.

Monocrops and monocultures are ruining the soil.

Those are poor farming practices, not the fault of GMOs.

Farmers are being FORCED into this, not by choice, but my force.

Again, what does that have to do with GMOs?

You know good and well that it has to do with the companies making the GMO seed. GMO's have not been deemed safe nor unsafe and they are protected by federal law to not have to prove either way.

This proves they have something to hide and are buying their protection to keep us in the dark.

You keep saying that. Will you please link to the actual law you're talking about? Federal laws are public record, so if it exists, I'm sure you can produce it...

The Monsanto Protection Act. Yes, it is public record, so look it up for yourself.

Tinfoil hat much? No "Monsanto Protection Act" in the federal register or other listing of our laws

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/

"United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation.

On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.

In light of approval from the House and Senate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on, an item that has since been widely referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”"

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

actually the whole food industry is whacked.

Most industries are wacked. Socialism now! (I'm not kidding, I think the end goal of human development should be a post-scarcity world in which resources are allocated via a form of socialism, since work will no longer be required)

socialism would be fine if we could just find a dictator to implement it successfully!

iAMsmiling

Just want to leave this here:

Carry on.

FunkyTobias

Relevant:

"Confronted with the lack of scientific evidence to support their dire warnings about the health risk posed by GM foods, environmentalists will quickly alter their angle of attack and point to the social risks posed by biotechnology."


"The environmentalist campaign against a faceless, powerful multinational 'monster' like Monsanto can strike a chord with a large section of public opinion today because, as Monbiot rightly says, food scares are not based on science but express a sense of people losing control of their lives. But it is worth asking whether the strident denunciations of big corporations made by environmental campaigners represent an attempt to take back control over our lives. Or is this a campaign that makes a virtue of ignorance, feeding off the fear of an unknown future? The evidence suggests that the environmentalists' campaign against GM foods is part of the problem, not part of the solution. "

"Denouncing big corporations is heady language, but if the alternative is small-scale farming then it is empty rhetoric. In practice, small-scale farming is quite as exploitative as agribusiness. When peasant cultivators numbered two-thirds of the labouring population of the globe, those peasants were more susceptible to exploitation, not less."


"The environmentalists and their anti-corporate message sometimes look like a curious mirror image of the fundamentalist right-wing 'militias' in America. Where the American right complains of the Zionist Occupation Government, the environmentalists sketch a paranoid fantasy about big corporations pulling the strings behind the scenes"


http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/0704.htm

Hexahedra

I don't pretend to know the science thoroughly enough to debate it but here are some things to consider that are self explanatory

Concerns about the social and ethical issues surrounding genetic modification include:

The possible monopolisation of the world food market by large multinational companies that control the distribution of GM seeds
Concerns related to using genes from animals in plant foods. For example, eating traces of genetic material from pork is problematic for certain religious and cultural groups
Animal welfare could be adversely affected. For example, cows given more potent GM growth hormones could suffer from health problems related to growth or metabolism
New GM organisms could be patented so that life itself could become commercial property.

A patent is put in place to protect inventors and give them time to recoup their investments. All patents eventually expire, so eventually any invention becomes available to the world.

Unless it's not patented and instead is chosen to be intellectual property which never expires - think Coke.

It's called 'trade secret', associated with a 'trade mark'. The deal with trade secret is that anybody is free to invent and use the exact same thing, they just can't use the same trade mark. If you can somehow reverse engineer or breach the secrecy of Coke formula, nothing prevents you from creating the exact same cola, you just can't legally call it 'Coca Cola' because it's trade marked.

Let's say Monsanto filed a trade mark for the name Supercorn but decides to keep it a trade secret instead of patenting it. By doing so other people / company can create a type of corn with identical genetic composition as Monsanto's and compete directly, they just can't call theirs Supercorn.

If Monsanto decides to patent Supercorn, then the exact composition of that breed will be made public as soon as the patent is granted. When the patent expires, others can simply take the public information and use it to create the exact same thing.

And that's how we get generic drugs - the patent expires.
Trade secrets or intellectual property never expire - no matter how many knock offs are created they still aren't the same as the original. Even with reverse engineering you might get a nearly similar end result but you still don't get the same thing. Oftentimes the process is part of the secret and the process may make all the difference.
My point is that through trade secret protection there are parts of the process in creating these GMO's that may never be known. (and realistically many people, myself included, wouldn't understand all the parts of the process) The end result can be available via patent expiration, but the start is still hidden.
Patents and trade secrets are valuable tools but to assume the exiration of a patent gives all the necessary information to recreate the original is false.

GMO companies rely on patents, not trade secret. It's relatively easy and cheap to read the DNA composition of any organism these days.

A patent by nature has to be detailed enough so it can be replicated by other people. The purpose of patent is both to protect the inventor and to eventually benefit society at large. If the invention is useful and profitable enough, the information in the patent is always enough to create a copy.

bumblebums

actually the whole food industry is whacked.

Most industries are wacked. Socialism now! (I'm not kidding, I think the end goal of human development should be a post-scarcity world in which resources are allocated via a form of socialism, since work will no longer be required)

socialism would be fine if we could just find a dictator to implement it successfully!

Yes, perhaps we can persuade the King of Norway to come and help us out with that one.