Why we need GMO
Replies
-
To the OP, thank you for your take.
Obviously, some people need and want GMO, others don't. The markets will be happy to welcome both sets of consumers.0 -
I hope, VorJoshigan, that you aren't implying that the larger of the two fish shown in your picture must have been genetically modified based on its size. I live on one of the best salmon rivers in the world, and I can assure you that the larger of the two is not even close to how large a salmon can grow. When I was a young child my father regularly brought home salmon over twice that size. When he was a child, 50 years ago, his father also fished and salmon over 1m long were fairly commonplace.0
-
IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:
While I disagree with you specifically, I do understand your point in the sense that there seems to be a general belief that educating one's self on an issue, and considering the opinions of those more experienced and educated on a subject, is not necessary. It applies here as much as it applies to people who don't bother to listen to experienced weight lifters, dieters, runners, etc. before they form their opinions as to why a specific program just won't work for them. People would rather watch a "documentary" full of hyperbole and outright lies than to listen to calm and reasoned opinions.
May I add to always be careful not to "appeal to authority." Just because someone is an expert on a particular subject, does not always mean they are right.0 -
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.
This = Common Sense
How could they stay in business and be profitable, selling to people who can't afford their product? Not to mention...GMO is ALREADY here...why are the African Children still hungry?0 -
...0
-
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.
This = Common Sense
How could they stay in business and be profitable, selling to people who can't afford their product? Not to mention...GMO is ALREADY here...why are the African Children still hungry?
Actually, they're both right. GMOs and other agricultural advancements CAN help feed the world - but world hunger is almost always political.0 -
IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:
While I disagree with you specifically, I do understand your point in the sense that there seems to be a general belief that educating one's self on an issue, and considering the opinions of those more experienced and educated on a subject, is not necessary. It applies here as much as it applies to people who don't bother to listen to experienced weight lifters, dieters, runners, etc. before they form their opinions as to why a specific program just won't work for them. People would rather watch a "documentary" full of hyperbole and outright lies than to listen to calm and reasoned opinions.
May I add to always be careful not to "appeal to authority." Just because someone is an expert on a particular subject, does not always mean they are right.
Please note the word "considering." The weight of expert opinion does matter but no, we should not be swayed by the occasional BSC "expert" such as Dr. Oz to use but one excellent, if slightly overused, example. Nor is the weight of expert opinion always 100% correct. That does not mean, however, that one should discard all expert opinion and live a life of argumentative ignorance, which is what several posters in this thread seem to have done.0 -
Do you need HFCS too?
How about animal cloning?
Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?
Yes & yes.0 -
IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:
Agree. It's easy to sit in your condo and dictate what should be grown, where it should be grown and how it should be grown so that it pleases those who choose not to grow their own food. If you want to tell me what to grow and how to grow it I welcome your labor input any day you choose to come and lend a hand.0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
How, exactly, do GMOs reduce genetic diversity?
"Natural" selection and marketing. If people are growing one strain instead of 10, that's a decrease in genetic diversity. When something goes wrong with the supercrop, and the supercrop is 98% of supply, that's not a good situation.0 -
bump. I want to read this later0
-
Do you need HFCS too?
How about animal cloning?
Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?
Metabolically speaking how does HFCS differ from sucrose?
On all the processes whereby a person metabolizes these things, I am not entirely conversant. What I can say though, is that I am terribly allergic to corn and by extension HFCS, and I am not to cane sugar. So can say pretty definitely they aren't identical. And also, those corn grower's association commercials irritate the heck out of me.0 -
Before this thread goes to hell... I agree with you, OP. People do not seem to realize that even good ol' artificial selection produces some pretty "unnatural" things, too.
While it's an intriguing experiment of what can be done with genetic modification, no amount of selective breeding will put the genes of a fish into a tomato plant.2. Roundup ready soybeans. Here the gene codes for roundup resistance, allowing the use of roundup to kill weeds. Weeding is needing, organic agriculture tills the soil, requiring a lot of work, fossil fuel and cause soil erosion. Alternative herbicides used have a much larger environmental impact. So benefit, higher yield, use of less toxic herbicide and less soil erosion. Downsides none that I can see.
As someone else pointed out, like all things in nature, the weeds are starting to become resistant to Roundup and stronger and stronger formulas are required.
There's also the fact that Monsanto produces both Roundup and Roundup Ready crops. While it may technically be legal, there is a bit of an ethical minefield to be had there, and given that there isn't really any competition in things like "Rounup Ready" compatible products, the "free market forces" kind of fall on their faces.By the way, don't shed too many tears for farmers. It IS hard, unpredictable work, but the median income of farmers who do it for a living is over $75K which is WAY over the median non-farm income. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-household-well-being/farm-household-income.aspx#.UcBWe_nVBRY
You realize that the chart in your link shows the farms lose money, and that their income comes from "off-farm", right? And the ones with the largest income from "farm related activities" are "households associated with commercial farms."
From the link:The slight decrease in farm income among intermediate farms households combined with the large increase for commercial farm households explains why median farm income for the entire farm household population decreased while mean farm income increased in 2011. Most farm income is concentrated in households associated with commercial farms, which represent 10.3 percent of the farm population. Consequently, their farm income tends to influence mean farm income more than median farm income.
In other words, the big farms are getting bigger, but the smaller ones aren't growing so much. There's also the matter that a lot of the costs of the large farms aren't actually paid for by said farms, making them look even more profitable than they should be. ( http://www.farmaid.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=qlI5IhNVJsE&b=2723877&ct=8214687 )You guys are the ones making the claim so you have to provide evidence. The burden of proofs on you.
According to the FDA, foods aren't to be sold as "food" unless they've been deemed GRAS (generally regarded as safe). To get that qualification, there has to be sufficient evidence that the food doesn't cause harm. (That's the theory, anyway. In practice, the FDA is a little weird about how much evidence is sufficient. See also: highly refined vs unrefined Stevia)
That would mean, then, that the burden of proof that GMO foods are safe is, in fact, on the GMO food producers.Don't really see what the problem is here:
If one doesn't like GMO foods, then shop where they aren't sold. That takes care of the labeling issue. If one shops where there might be (more than likely will be) GMO in the product, then expect it.
If I grow tomatoes and sell you tomatoes, but I don't tell anyone that they're GMO tomatoes, how do you know that I'm selling you GMO tomatoes? (Hint - you don't.)
That's kind of the underlying problem. If labeling isn't required, then they're not obligated to tell anyone anything on the matter.
What would happen if ingredient lists stopped being mandatory and, therefore, producers stopped printing them (after all, it saves ink to not print that)? Even on the benign end, millions of people would no longer be able to buy anything beyond produce, due to the potential for allergens. However, by requiring ingredient lists, people can make more informed decisions, and don't have to make every single item of food (and in some cases, non-food) from scratch, but can pick up even the occasional "convenience food," because they can see by the label what goes into the product and that it's safe for them.
The purpose of labels is to inform the consumer about what has gone into the things they're buying. Whether they choose to buy or not buy something due to what's on the label is up to the consumer. If artificial genetic modification is indeed harmless, then there should be no issue making it known that a given product is genetically modified. From there, let the market decide what it wants.0 -
-
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.0 -
0
-
Nah, there's got to be a plethora of correlations we can add to the list.:happy:0 -
I haven't researched enough on this issue, however, something is wrong in this country when our children, especially, have more health problems, for which the causes can't be found. Perhaps in my day (born in 1952) this stuff was around but unidentified. I, for one, being in the nutritional industry all of my working years to present, see so many miracle cures come and go, that I don't take supplements, but can see the foreign registrations requiring non-GMO, non-irradiated ingredient requirements. So, to make a long story short, I opt for non-GMO.0
-
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.0 -
LOL Sadly too familiar around these parts, and from what I read and see, everywhere around the world. There are lots of small farmers who've been shut down by Monsanto, because their crops were found to have contained GMO strains.
It is just a travesty that the courts allow Monsanto to get away with these tactics. Their genetically modified crops are not something their farming customers can contain to their own fields. It seems to me that the plaintiffs *should* be the farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto products.
There was a class action lawsuit filed recently by Farmers against Monsanto. I am sure with the MPA that this will be thrown out of court.
The USA is anything but a free country. They will force this crap upon the American people all the while other countries are telling Monsanto to kick rocks. We live in a nation of pure stupidity and ignorance.0 -
Thanks for the hogwash monsanto
See, I was actually hoping for interesting discussion rather than the monsanto haters just to reitierate that they hate monsanto without discussing anything. Oh well. Maybe I will just check back tomorrow.
Well the OP didn't cite one study suggesting gmo's were safe for consumption for humans or animals sooo? Kind shot himself in the foot there.0 -
There is no "Monsanto Protection Act" - that was a scare term created by opponents to GMOs. It doesn't grant anyone immunity either. In the event of a legal challenge regarding the safety of a previously approved GMO, it allows the USDA to grant a temporary status allowing farmers to continue to grow those crops while the legal challenge works its way through the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision‘Monsanto Protection Act’ grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government... sounds totally legit to me, you know the power to have full immunity because your crops are so safe. I am no scientist but does this not seem slightly nefarious.
Umm, where do you get that nonsense from?
There are Senators looking to get the Act overturned. It is very real.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) is pushing to introduce an amendment to an upcoming farm bill that would overturn protections that allow Monsanto and other producers of genetically modified food and seeds to continue growing food a court has deemed potentially hazardous.0 -
If you live in North America and eat anything containing any part of corn or soybeans then you are eating GMO foods unless you grew it yourself from heritage seeds. You don't need a label, unless it says otherwise (and I work with organics and know that can be a load of crap too) then assume you are eating GMO foods. There are very few farmers growing non GMO corn or beans and even if they are it all gets mixed together at the elevators anyway.0
-
Those are poor farming practices, not the fault of GMOs.
GMOs are not as yet self-aware. So nothing is truly their fault.0 -
IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:
While I disagree with you specifically, I do understand your point in the sense that there seems to be a general belief that educating one's self on an issue, and considering the opinions of those more experienced and educated on a subject, is not necessary. It applies here as much as it applies to people who don't bother to listen to experienced weight lifters, dieters, runners, etc. before they form their opinions as to why a specific program just won't work for them. People would rather watch a "documentary" full of hyperbole and outright lies than to listen to calm and reasoned opinions.
This was said much more eloquently then my original post. Gracias :flowerforyou:0 -
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.0 -
IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:
Thank you! As a farmer myself, it is really frustrating to read debates like this. I bet most on this board read one article, or talked to one person that is either for or against GMOs and that is what they base their entire decision on. Ignorance is a plague.
don't you dare enlighten us with your knowledge! just talk about how much smarter you are!
i want GMOs labeled, period.
I attempted to respond to a few, but there gets to be a point where are so many uneducated responses that it's frusterating & this was my frusterated response. Also, an online forum isn't really a reliable source to be enlighted with. However, I do understand your position where you what GMOs labeled & can support that0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions