To GMO or Non-GMO
Replies
-
Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.
Which species do they own?
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
http://www.seedsavers.org/
Name a species that Monsanto owns that you can't find in this catalog.
Who controls it owns it in every meaningful sense of the word. If Mr. Harl is correct, that is one behemoth of a monopoly and in a sane world would not be allowed to exist.
Which species does Monsanto control?0 -
It must suck being so scared of food.
I'm not scared of food I'm scared of billion dollar industries and their associated lobbyists
This.
Vague overgeneralized demonization of a tool that is foundational to medicine and research serves no one.
Well, this is the exact reason I have for hating hammers. They really hurt when I smash my thumb with them and they could potentially kill someone. I'll demonize the crap out of that tool.
Also, table saws... those things are crazy scary.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
I wouldn't disagree with you on this. I would consider myself "pro-stem cell research", "pro-vaccincation" and even "pro-golden rice" etc. Because these are relevant and useful tools to all of society. If GMOs were used to create food for developing nations - awesome I'm all for it. Instead it is being used in the north american food industry, hamburgers, increased shelf life etc - all which could exist without GM foods.
My problem is that these crops were created and grown for profit - humans see absolutely no benefit from GMO's in their food production. Studies have shown that GMOs do not directly improve yield, despite what you may think. Monsanto specifically is in this for money. Genetic modification is a useful tool - no doubt about it. But I think there should be strict regulation, and should not be taken lightly.
If there is no benefit, farmers will stop buying their seeds and the problem goes away on it's own.0 -
People buy billions of dollars worth of their products, so I'm going to go with "yes."
Okay so I'll be specific, Do you think monsanto SPECIFICALLY has any merit to society at all? Because I see it as a billion dollar company, whose lobbyists affect government regulations, allowing them to basically answer to no one?
It's funny that you can see the "billion dollar company" but apparently not see that that billion dollars comes from people who see their products as valuable.0 -
Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.
Which species do they own?
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
http://www.seedsavers.org/
Name a species that Monsanto owns that you can't find in this catalog.
Who controls it owns it in every meaningful sense of the word. If Mr. Harl is correct, that is one behemoth of a monopoly and in a sane world would not be allowed to exist.
Which species does Monsanto control?
You're talking species, I'm talking strains. I know what you're trying to say, but you also know the point I'm making.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Let's all learn the words of the "Internationale" too!
Yay, Stalin!0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Let's all learn the words of the "Internationale" too!
Yay, Stalin!
Nothing wrong with dealing the death blow to a corporate person that deserves it. Also, Stalin wasn't a Marxist worthy of the name. And Einstein was a socialist, while we're name dropping.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Yeah don't go thinking they are a seed company, they are first and foremost a chemical company working in agriculture0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.
My point isn't that the medicine isn't important, my point is the vast majority of people are not going to refuse medicine they need even if it has a GMO label.0 -
Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.
Which species do they own?
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
http://www.seedsavers.org/
Name a species that Monsanto owns that you can't find in this catalog.
Its not that you can't by corn number 2 at a seed store, its that if their seeds drift onto your lot, the can sue the pants off of you for having their highly specific type of seed and making money off it
Then I would suggest not applying the herbicide to your crops when you discover the strain in your fields, harvesting and reusing the seeds, then telling Monsanto about it.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.
We are "myopically focused on Monsanto" because they are the main biotech company in the food industry. and since this post was centred around food, and this is a food and nutrition based website, that is the main concern here...
Hooray for medicine! there SHOULD be a way to separate legislation for the food industry and medicine0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.
My point isn't that the medicine isn't important, my point is the vast majority of people are not going to refuse medicine they need even if it has a GMO label.
::facepalm:: Honestly I'm starting to feel a little bad about completely derailing this guys thread so I think I'm going to bow out here but I want to make my point as clear as I can.
I am not concerned about labels in terms of individual customers making choices, I am concerned about the STIGMA that is on GMOs as a whole being justified by a government response of mandated labeling. The government mandating labeling would put legitimacy on the idea that GMOs are something to fear when quite honestly there is no legitimacy there. It says "Yes, GMOs are something to be concerned by, afraid of, worried by". We don't just mandate labeling to sate peoples curiosity about a manufacturing process (name one thing we do that for), we mandate labeling of active ingredients that have potential health effects based on dosage. To label GMOs is to suggest that just being a GMO is somehow a problem, or that being a GMO in and of itself is an active ingredient at which there is a dosage threshold.
The very act of labeling is to divide, to segregate...to suggest that these are the bad things over here and these are the good things. I've seen what that sort of attitude does to research funding, I've seen funding agencies change their pipes to new less "controversial" things over less than a labeling thing.
You act like somehow labeling isn't a big deal...whats the harm basically. Well, think about it. What happens to research funding when anything that contains anything remotely GMO is "labeled". You think research funding isn't all interconnected? That somehow investments in GMO development cycle is limited to specific industries?
If you have a problem with Monsanto then aim your guns at Monsanto...that is all I am saying. I do not get this scorched earth policy where suddenly all of GMOs need to get a yellow star pinned to them so we can identify them from a distance.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Yeah don't go thinking they are a seed company, they are first and foremost a chemical company working in agriculture
Ok. And I use Roundup sparingly to take care of the poison ivy in my backyard.0 -
We are "myopically focused on Monsanto" because they are the main biotech company in the food industry. and since this post was centred around food, and this is a food and nutrition based website, that is the main concern here...
Hooray for medicine! there SHOULD be a way to separate legislation for the food industry and medicine
The lines will, however, blur between food and medicine as far as GMOs are concerned.
What if a strain of banana is eventually created that will help people resist malaria? Could happen. I still say labeling is a non-issue in that case, though. If I were at risk of getting malaria if I didn't eat the banana, I'd eat the banana.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.
We are "myopically focused on Monsanto" because they are the main biotech company in the food industry. and since this post was centred around food, and this is a food and nutrition based website, that is the main concern here...
Hooray for medicine! there SHOULD be a way to separate legislation for the food industry and medicine
My issue is with people making blanket statements about GMOs. If you want to talk specifically about ethical issues with particular Monsanto products go right ahead, but there is no reason to overgeneralize and in fact its reckless and dangerous to do so ESPECIALLY when it comes down to establishing laws.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Let's all learn the words of the "Internationale" too!
Yay, Stalin!
Nothing wrong with dealing the death blow to a corporate person that deserves it. Also, Stalin wasn't a Marxist worthy of the name. And Einstein was a socialist, while we're name dropping.
It was Stalin and Mao who led the major nationalization efforts. Which should tell you something about nationalization.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.
My point isn't that the medicine isn't important, my point is the vast majority of people are not going to refuse medicine they need even if it has a GMO label.
::facepalm:: Honestly I'm starting to feel a little bad about completely derailing this guys thread so I think I'm going to bow out here but I want to make my point as clear as I can.
I am not concerned about labels in terms of individual customers making choices, I am concerned about the STIGMA that is on GMOs as a whole being justified by a government response of mandated labeling. The government mandating labeling would put legitimacy on the idea that GMOs are something to fear when quite honestly there is no legitimacy there. It says "Yes, GMOs are something to be concerned by, afraid of, worried by". We don't just mandate labeling to sate peoples curiosity about a manufacturing process (name one thing we do that for), we mandate labeling of active ingredients that have potential health effects based on dosage. To label GMOs is to suggest that just being a GMO is somehow a problem, or that being a GMO in and of itself is an active ingredient at which there is a dosage threshold.
The very act of labeling is to divide, to segregate...to suggest that these are the bad things over here and these are the good things. I've seen what that sort of attitude does to research funding, I've seen funding agencies change their pipes to new less "controversial" things over less than a labeling thing.
You act like somehow labeling isn't a big deal...whats the harm basically. Well, think about it. What happens to research funding when anything that contains anything remotely GMO is "labeled". You think research funding isn't all interconnected? That somehow investments in GMO development cycle is limited to specific industries?
If you have a problem with Monsanto then aim your guns at Monsanto...that is all I am saying. I do not get this scorched earth policy where suddenly all of GMOs need to get a yellow star pinned to them so we can identify them from a distance.
Okay, now I see what you're saying. However, the stigma wouldn't exist if these companies weren't so prone to and so capable of buying politicians and preventing any meaningful regulation, testing, and oversight. So the solution isn't to encourage ignorance, it's to take away the power of these companies to corrupt regulators.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Let's all learn the words of the "Internationale" too!
Yay, Stalin!
Nothing wrong with dealing the death blow to a corporate person that deserves it. Also, Stalin wasn't a Marxist worthy of the name. And Einstein was a socialist, while we're name dropping.
It was Stalin and Mao who led the major nationalization efforts. Which should tell you something about nationalization.
That they failed miserably at Marxism? This I know. Doesn't make Marx wrong. Or Einstein. Einstein knew issues existed with centralized control, though.0 -
Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.
Which species do they own?
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
http://www.seedsavers.org/
Name a species that Monsanto owns that you can't find in this catalog.
Who controls it owns it in every meaningful sense of the word. If Mr. Harl is correct, that is one behemoth of a monopoly and in a sane world would not be allowed to exist.
Which species does Monsanto control?
You're talking species, I'm talking strains. I know what you're trying to say, but you also know the point I'm making.
I didn't introduce the term species into the conversation.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Let's all learn the words of the "Internationale" too!
Yay, Stalin!
Nothing wrong with dealing the death blow to a corporate person that deserves it. Also, Stalin wasn't a Marxist worthy of the name. And Einstein was a socialist, while we're name dropping.
It was Stalin and Mao who led the major nationalization efforts. Which should tell you something about nationalization.
That they failed miserably at Marxism? This I know. Doesn't make Marx wrong. Or Einstein. Einstein knew issues existed with centralized control, though.
Did I say anything about Marxism? Cause I thought we were talking about power grabs in the name of the "greater good"0 -
I didn't introduce the term species into the conversation.
Actually neither did I. Next time I poke my nose into a debate two other people are having, I better clarify definitions. The thing is, for all I know, Monsanto does own whole species of something by the strict definition, but if they do, I can't find anything on it. So I'll go with strains.0 -
Did I say anything about Marxism? Cause I thought we were talking about power grabs in the name of the "greater good"
We're talking about the death penalty for a for-profit corporation that is corrupting our government even more than it already was, then nationalizing it for the greater good, no quotation marks required.0 -
I get some people are paranoid about GMOs and what could be done by companies driven by a profit line. I do get that and I do think there should be regulation as with any product.
Here is my own brand of paranoia. Back in the 90s the United States had gotten onto the cutting edge with research associated with the study of stem cells. Some people found out that the source of stem cells for research purposes was cord blood. They had ethical issue with the idea of using "baby-parts" (their view of it not mine) for research and complained bitterly about it. Here is the thing though, that is just one possible source and just one way of doing things. Yet what happened, public attention was drawn to it, it got national news coverage, it became a debate on ethics and on fear of run-away science blah blah nothing actually having to do with what it could mean for medicine. So what happens? Well some laws get passes specifically about the embryonic cells. Whats the harm in that? Well the harm is there is limited research funding out there and people do risk-benefit analysis and with the public opinion and general fear over woooo stem cells out there the research funding dried up and the U.S. stem cell research withered and died. Not just the embryonic based...pretty much all of it.
So I'm really not sure why taking your concern about Monsanto, making it about GMOs and then calling for labeling laws is somehow not exactly the same thing and would not most likely cause a similar reaction if it caught on. If you have a real reason to be concerned about GMOs other than a generic "who knows what will happen" wooo fear response then okay but if thats it then I'd prefer we keep the research going because of the evident good we can do here.
Alright rant over.
Thank you Meerata I've enjoyed the discussion and bear you no ill will (hope you didn't think I was upset). I just think since this is MFP and all I should probably stop posting on this as it is pretty off topic for what MFP is about. We agreed from the beginning that GMOs have nothing to do with weight loss so after that was said really had nothing else to say on the OPs topic or anything that would concern the MFP community.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.
My point isn't that the medicine isn't important, my point is the vast majority of people are not going to refuse medicine they need even if it has a GMO label.
::facepalm:: Honestly I'm starting to feel a little bad about completely derailing this guys thread so I think I'm going to bow out here but I want to make my point as clear as I can.
I am not concerned about labels in terms of individual customers making choices, I am concerned about the STIGMA that is on GMOs as a whole being justified by a government response of mandated labeling. The government mandating labeling would put legitimacy on the idea that GMOs are something to fear when quite honestly there is no legitimacy there. It says "Yes, GMOs are something to be concerned by, afraid of, worried by". We don't just mandate labeling to sate peoples curiosity about a manufacturing process (name one thing we do that for), we mandate labeling of active ingredients that have potential health effects based on dosage. To label GMOs is to suggest that just being a GMO is somehow a problem, or that being a GMO in and of itself is an active ingredient at which there is a dosage threshold.
The very act of labeling is to divide, to segregate...to suggest that these are the bad things over here and these are the good things. I've seen what that sort of attitude does to research funding, I've seen funding agencies change their pipes to new less "controversial" things over less than a labeling thing.
You act like somehow labeling isn't a big deal...whats the harm basically. Well, think about it. What happens to research funding when anything that contains anything remotely GMO is "labeled". You think research funding isn't all interconnected? That somehow investments in GMO development cycle is limited to specific industries?
If you have a problem with Monsanto then aim your guns at Monsanto...that is all I am saying. I do not get this scorched earth policy where suddenly all of GMOs need to get a yellow star pinned to them so we can identify them from a distance.
While I think that is a valid argument that many people have, I think consumers have a right to know and make their own choices. And I think that's more important than huge companies seeing a small net loss in profit. Not to mention we label cigarette packs with gross looking lungs, and we tell consumers about the side effects of drugs. How is a small label on the back of a package - for those interested - any different?0 -
I get some people are paranoid about GMOs and what could be done by companies driven by a profit line. I do get that and I do think there should be regulation as with any product.
Here is my own brand of paranoia. Back in the 90s the United States had gotten onto the cutting edge with research associated with the study of stem cells. Some people found out that the source of stem cells for research purposes was cord blood. They had ethical issue with the idea of using "baby-parts" (their view of it not mine) for research and complained bitterly about it. Here is the thing though, that is just one possible source and just one way of doing things. Yet what happened, public attention was drawn to it, it got national news coverage, it became a debate on ethics and on fear of run-away science blah blah nothing actually having to do with what it could mean for medicine. So what happens? Well some laws get passes specifically about the embryonic cells. Whats the harm in that? Well the harm is there is limited research funding out there and people do risk-benefit analysis and with the public opinion and general fear over woooo stem cells out there the research funding dried up and the U.S. stem cell research withered and died. Not just the embryonic based...pretty much all of it.
So I'm really not sure why taking your concern about Monsanto, making it about GMOs and then calling for labeling laws is somehow not exactly the same thing and would not most likely cause a similar reaction if it caught on.
Public attention never would have been drawn to it if politicians hadn't needed the religious vote. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety or efficacy. Again, the issue is not with safety, not with regulation, it's with our corrupted system. If you really want the sciences to progress by leaps and bounds (and I know I do) we have to change our political system drastically. And needless to say, boot the worst of the rascals out of power.0 -
I get some people are paranoid about GMOs and what could be done by companies driven by a profit line. I do get that and I do think there should be regulation as with any product.
Here is my own brand of paranoia. Back in the 90s the United States had gotten onto the cutting edge with research associated with the study of stem cells. Some people found out that the source of stem cells for research purposes was cord blood. They had ethical issue with the idea of using "baby-parts" (their view of it not mine) for research and complained bitterly about it. Here is the thing though, that is just one possible source and just one way of doing things. Yet what happened, public attention was drawn to it, it got national news coverage, it became a debate on ethics and on fear of run-away science blah blah nothing actually having to do with what it could mean for medicine. So what happens? Well some laws get passes specifically about the embryonic cells. Whats the harm in that? Well the harm is there is limited research funding out there and people do risk-benefit analysis and with the public opinion and general fear over woooo stem cells out there the research funding dried up and the U.S. stem cell research withered and died. Not just the embryonic based...pretty much all of it.
So I'm really not sure why taking your concern about Monsanto, making it about GMOs and then calling for labeling laws is somehow not exactly the same thing and would not most likely cause a similar reaction if it caught on. If you have a real reason to be concerned about GMOs other than a generic "who knows what will happen" wooo fear response then okay but if thats it then I'd prefer we keep the research going because of the evident good we can do here.
Agreed, but I wouldn't call labelling laws on food products paranoia. I think it's a completely different argument. its not like I want to ban GMOs, a small G in a circle on the back of a bag of chips is not likely to damage vaccinations or other medical endeavours0 -
I get some people are paranoid about GMOs and what could be done by companies driven by a profit line. I do get that and I do think there should be regulation as with any product.
Here is my own brand of paranoia. Back in the 90s the United States had gotten onto the cutting edge with research associated with the study of stem cells. Some people found out that the source of stem cells for research purposes was cord blood. They had ethical issue with the idea of using "baby-parts" (their view of it not mine) for research and complained bitterly about it. Here is the thing though, that is just one possible source and just one way of doing things. Yet what happened, public attention was drawn to it, it got national news coverage, it became a debate on ethics and on fear of run-away science blah blah nothing actually having to do with what it could mean for medicine. So what happens? Well some laws get passes specifically about the embryonic cells. Whats the harm in that? Well the harm is there is limited research funding out there and people do risk-benefit analysis and with the public opinion and general fear over woooo stem cells out there the research funding dried up and the U.S. stem cell research withered and died. Not just the embryonic based...pretty much all of it.
So I'm really not sure why taking your concern about Monsanto, making it about GMOs and then calling for labeling laws is somehow not exactly the same thing and would not most likely cause a similar reaction if it caught on.
Public attention never would have been drawn to it if politicians hadn't needed the religious vote. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety or efficacy. Again, the issue is not with safety, not with regulation, it's with our corrupted system. If you really want the sciences to progress by leaps and bounds (and I know I do) we have to change our political system drastically. And needless to say, boot the worst of the rascals out of power.
Then go after THEM, not GMOs. That is all I am saying. Anyways, I keep trying to bow out and fail to do so, maybe I will just look away for a bit. Cheers.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
Actually, in developing countries, yes.
Check out the Golden Rice Project, for instance. GMO rice that contains beta carotene to prevent lethal vitamin A deficiency in women and children in developing countries whose main subsistence crop is rice.
Also in developed countries. Where do you think we get insulin? We aren't milking pancreases in a barn.
GMOs also produce insect and weather-resistant crops in order to maintain a food supply that could actually feed everyone in the world if not for the problem of food distribution (which is the actual cause of hunger around the world, not that there isn't enough food to go around). GMO's reduce the reliance on seasonal and/or organic crops which are necessarily transported great distances through the use of pollutants like fossil fuels because crops can be produced locally.0
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