Why we need GMO
Options
Replies
-
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.
There's really no need for all that. There is compelling research on both sides of the argument. No need to resort to ad hominem attacks. "Read a book" isn't really a compelling argument. Perhaps you have a perspective of your own to add here?0 -
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.
Glowing fish have been used to detect environmental pollution. I think that's a good thing.0 -
Like I said, if the invention is useful and profitable enough, people will recreate it.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.
You, good sir, have way too much faith in the US patent system if you truly believe that patents are detailed enough to be replicated. I suggest checking out the state of tech patents...
Viagra (Sildenafil) is so profitable that other companies found a way to create similar drugs in the same class even before the patent expires.
The problem with Tech is not about barrier to recreating the technology, the problem is patents so broad that they encompass other technologies that by common sense aren't related.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/12283823298/planet-money-takes-podcasting-patent-troll.shtml0 -
Maybe the problem isn't a lack of food but a surplus of people. So if they could just genetically modify the food to reduce the fertility of the general population (because, of course, suggesting that someone in control of such technology might direct it at specific populations is offensive) it might solve the problem of feeding the world's burgeoning population. Or maybe we just need a really good plaque.
Eugenics is so 1920s.
and you flatter yourself to think you have value to the Extremely wealthy bureaucrats of this world...0 -
One of the main issues with GMO in agriculture is that they have to spray the GMO crops repeatedly and much more with insecticides than conventional crops. They are not healthy to eat and are more expensive to produce. They are outlawed in many countries due to cross pollination ruining the conventional seed supply. GMO's are just all around bad. You really need to study the subject.
That is an excellent argument against GMO crops that require more spraying. It's not a great argument against crops modified to not need spraying. Listen, there are really good reasons to exercise extreme prudence with each and every new GMO crop. I believe our government, bought and paid for by big business, has NOT exercised enough scrutiny in this area nor in myriad other practices that affect health of people and the environment. But that does not make GMO "bad all around."
Probably the earliest use of metal was to make weapons. Over time as metal production improved in efficiency, it was used to make superior farming equipment. Metal is not "bad all around" You can beat it into a sword or a plow. GMO can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, to further dastardly corporate plots or to save lives. It's a tool.0 -
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.
Glowing fish have been used to detect environmental pollution. I think that's a good thing.
oy lord defiant ignorance MUST be bliss!0 -
Glad someone said it.Need GMO's? Are you fu*king kidding me? Thousands of years of sustainable farming on earth would argue
This thread is full retard.
never go full retard...0 -
One of the main issues with GMO in agriculture is that they have to spray the GMO crops repeatedly and much more with insecticides than conventional crops. They are not healthy to eat and are more expensive to produce. They are outlawed in many countries due to cross pollination ruining the conventional seed supply. GMO's are just all around bad. You really need to study the subject.
That is an excellent argument against GMO crops that require more spraying. It's not a great argument against crops modified to not need spraying. Listen, there are really good reasons to exercise extreme prudence with each and every new GMO crop. I believe our government, bought and paid for by big business, has NOT exercised enough scrutiny in this area nor in myriad other practices that affect health of people and the environment. But that does not make GMO "bad all around."
Probably the earliest use of metal was to make weapons. Over time as metal production improved in efficiency, it was used to make superior farming equipment. Metal is not "bad all around" You can beat it into a sword or a plow. GMO can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, to further dastardly corporate plots or to save lives. It's a tool.
best argument "For" have to give u credit for that...0 -
One of the main issues with GMO in agriculture is that they have to spray the GMO crops repeatedly and much more with insecticides than conventional crops. They are not healthy to eat and are more expensive to produce. They are outlawed in many countries due to cross pollination ruining the conventional seed supply. GMO's are just all around bad. You really need to study the subject.
Really? Have you tried growing organically? I have.About Organic Produce
Organic produce has become increasingly popular in recent years, as consumers have grown more health conscious and environmentally aware. Many stores and supermarkets now have large sections devoted to organic fruits and vegetables.
WHAT MAKES PRODUCE "ORGANIC"?
Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.
So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.
Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).
ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH
When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.
Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.
This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.
ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES
Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?
A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.
It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.
When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.
WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?
For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.
Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".
As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.
WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?
The purpose in writing this article is not to discourage you from buying organic produce.
It is only meant to let you know what you are or aren't getting when you make such a purchase. Unless you know your grower personally, there is no guarantee that your produce has been grown without pesticides or other chemicals. It's a point to consider, given the substantially higher cost of organic foods.
There are many choices and decisions that we, as consumers, are asked to make. Hopefully, this has provided some new information that you will find helpful.
* * * * * * *
A formatted MS Word version of this document may be downloaded at:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organics.doc0 -
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.
Glowing fish have been used to detect environmental pollution. I think that's a good thing.
oy lord defiant ignorance MUST be bliss!
Likewise, I'm sure.
Make sure you shine up that tinfoil hat.0 -
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.
Glowing fish have been used to detect environmental pollution. I think that's a good thing.
oy lord defiant ignorance MUST be bliss!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418095454.htm0 -
Glad someone said it.Need GMO's? Are you fu*king kidding me? Thousands of years of sustainable farming on earth would argue
This thread is full retard.
You mean thousands of years marked by recurring famine, the rise and fall of civilizations due to crop yields, desertification of land...
The countries that have banned GMO's seem to have no fear of famine..odd, perhaps they prefer something more ethical? You see once again, it comes down to playing god..."we grow the food to keep people from starving, less people die so we need more food" and around we go...I think someone mentioned GMO's havent solved world hunger yet...0 -
Like I said, if the invention is useful and profitable enough, people will recreate it.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.
You, good sir, have way too much faith in the US patent system if you truly believe that patents are detailed enough to be replicated. I suggest checking out the state of tech patents...
Viagra (Sildenafil) is so profitable that other companies found a way to create similar drugs in the same class even before the patent expires.
The problem with Tech is not about barrier to recreating the technology, the problem is patents so broad that they encompass other technologies that by common sense aren't related.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/12283823298/planet-money-takes-podcasting-patent-troll.shtml
Broad is pretty much by definition not detailed. If it was so detailed, then the companies wouldn't be able to sue each other into the ground. When it comes to patents these days, it's less about protecting your hard-earned creation and more about writing the patent application broadly enough to be able to sue anyone who makes anything remotely close to what you've patented.
If patents were truly as detailed as they should be, you wouldn't have such patents as these ones - http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/64038
But, we're getting off-topic here, except in the broad notion of patent law.0 -
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.
Glowing fish have been used to detect environmental pollution. I think that's a good thing.
oy lord defiant ignorance MUST be bliss!
Likewise, I'm sure.
Make sure you shine up that tinfoil hat.
where does your blind faith come from, just curious? The tinfoil hat reference btw is going over my head lol, never heard it but assume its meant to insult me?0 -
I'm all for selective breeding. However, I say hell no to GMO and anything produced by Monsanto.
Did they pay the OP to post this? LOL0 -
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.
There's really no need for all that. There is compelling research on both sides of the argument. No need to resort to ad hominem attacks. "Read a book" isn't really a compelling argument. Perhaps you have a perspective of your own to add here?
I added my perspective. If you want me to add more, here you go: as you pointed out, there is already research on this topic; it's not my responsibility to write a paper for the OP just because he/she was too lazy to educate him/herself about the topic before posting in a public online forum that people who oppose GMO are "fear mongering" and that there are no negative consequences to GMO. I even suggested an introductory text so that OP can familiarize him/herself with the arguments on both sides.
OP is spreading misinformation - either knowingly (lying) or unknowingly (ignorant). This person then posted their lies or ignorance for all to see and comment on. I'm simply calling him/her out on this and offering education as a remedy to the issue.0 -
-
If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations’ selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the world—especially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africa—have hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods.
But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong. According to the version of his remarks posted online (as yet, there’s no video or transcript of the actual delivery), he opened with a bang:
I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/0 -
If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations’ selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the world—especially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africa—have hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods.
But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong. According to the version of his remarks posted online (as yet, there’s no video or transcript of the actual delivery), he opened with a bang:
I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/
Nice find, FunkyTobias.0 -
Here's my final argument. When I go shopping at the store, Id like to buy the very best that I can (both in terms of health and in terms of foot print). If I have a choice I choose fair trade coffee, hormone free dairy, and grass fed meats. One better, if I can afford it, I walk to my local organic farm and buy what is seasonal and fresh. Why go through all this effort? Because I believe that my body is made up of the things I put in it, much the same way my actions effect the world around me. Your arguments that we NEED GMO's and that they are inherently good for us, is in my opinion far too trusting. I was raised to believe that short cuts dont work. There is an ethical and human safety element to this debate that many want to undermine and ignore. This was never about feeding the poor, this was about how to make our overly processed foods and sugars (the modern fare of millions of american consumers) more accessible. In much the same way our grocery store shelves are lined with every imaginable form of "fake" food, ie cheese "flavored", empty calorie junk- our farms are now being forced to pimp and pander to big business. If company's like Monsanto want to show how their genetic alteration of plant seeds can contribute in any other way than fattening their own pockets, I'll be willing to review my opinion. In the meantime, its common sense. Never in the history of this country have we seen such record breaking obesity, why is that? Did we collectively lose our willpower? or perhaps, just perhaps we have poor diet and nutrition now that we have so many unhealthy choices being shoved at us. Its supply and demand, GMO's ensure we will never run out of the foods big businesses in this country make the most money off of.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions