GMO Food Products

eatcleanNtraindirty

Let's not get into this game of making outlandish claims and use apocalyptic imagery to scare people. Resident Evil is a movie, not real life. If you do not understand the science behind GMO products, that's okay. But what's not right is to spread misinformation just because you fear the unknown. Each product by Monsanto and alike, is developed as a result of years, sometimes decades, of research. As many as hundreds of people and dozens of PhD's who specialize in that field can be involved. After they have a potential product, it still has to go through endless regulatory testing to ensure safety.

The way I see it, they are doing the world a service. Just because you have three grocery stores with thousands of different products on shelves so conveniently packaged for you to buy all within walking distance, doesn't mean everyone else does, nor that you will continue to have that luxury. Planet Earth is experiencing a population explosion. There simply is not enough land and resources to feed everyone - not so far into the future.

The best way to guarantee mankind a future without famine is to work diligently to make agriculture more productive. Better harvest, higher crop turnover, etc... Go do some real research and find out how much improvement people in less fortunate geographies have benefited from the fruits of GMO development. Think about this the next time you put an apple down at the grocery store because it's not pretty enough.

P.S. "you" in this article refers to the generic you. Not the author of this thread specifically. Many people are guilty of spreading this propaganda, often out of ignorance but sometimes out of malice.

Reeeeelax. The OP wasn't saying that finding new ways to enhance production of agriculture is negative. Just that this "new" strain that makes insects stomachs explode is over the top. Admit it, GMO stuff is not as good for you as Non-GMO stuff back 100s of years ago.

Also yes modern advance in medicine are great. Of course. But you saying:

"Each product by Monsanto and alike, is developed as a result of years, sometimes decades, of research. As many as hundreds of people and dozens of PhD's who specialize in that field can be involved. After they have a potential product, it still has to go through endless regulatory testing to ensure safety."

Is completely dumb. Sure they go through rigorous testing, but that doesn't ensure that it is safe. Have you ever heard the side effects of some DOCTOR PRESCRIBED AND RIGOROUSLY TESTED pharmaceuticals that can have various side effects such as: Chrohns disease, memory loss, dementia, breast cancer, stroke, heart attack, oh and INSTANT DEATH SYNDROME?

Those are real side effects of commonly prescribed pharmaceuticals. Pretty sure having the possible side effect of instant death syndrome is bad. Just sayin

You cannot compare the two - they are very different worlds. That aside, You are obfuscating two separate issues. Generally speaking, drugs are commercialized with KNOWN side effects that must be made clear to the consumer. This is very different than side effects that do not get identified during clinical and post-clinical trials. As for those, you can no deduce by analogy that the same applies to GMO, because it doesn't work that way. Why? I'm too lazy to explain but with the proper research you can find out.

I can absolutely compare the two. And I just did. They are both made a in laboratory, go under thorough testing, and both have acute positive effects and both can have negative long term side effects.

I'm not deducing that the same side effects can be said for both GMO and pharmaceuticals. I am deducing that both can have NEGATIVE and unknown side effects. So, yes it does work that way. Anyway my point was that the poster whom I quoted and replied to was that even if there are intelligent people with PhDs who develop and put the product under rigorous testing to "ensure safety" doesn't ensure that it is actually safe to consume on a widespread scale.

ArroganceInStep

Perhaps some of us would like to believe we can change things from the inside at that businesses need to have an influx of rational minded, ethical people. We even discussed in class one time that there's a calculated risk between doing something illegal and making a profit versus the costs you will incur should you get caught. I didn't say I agreed with everything I was learning, and that is taken heavily out of context, so please do not think I attend a school that is encouraging unethical behavior, because they aren't, we went on to discuss the social implications of such actions, to show that regardless of the bottom dollar the costs on society are too high. Discussions on corporate responsibility and things like that. But in simple numbers game? Sometimes a desperate CEO can make a poor decision to boost the stock price.

Not trying to speak ill of your school, it was an honest question. I recognize I'm being highly sarcastic but it's 3PM and I'm sadly stuck at work (I work in finance, I wake up every morning thinking 'hmmmmm, how can I steal your grandmother's retirement savings today?'). I do think I understand your point (admittedly I think it's a bit too altruistic to be practical, but I can respect the intentions behind that belief). It should be mentioned that I don't think it's quite as bad as you might make it out to be. I think, even though everyone's pretty much out to make a living at the end of the day, there are some genuinely good people, a ton of decent people, and some downright crappy folks in business (big and small). Some of the problems we have are the result of actively unethical practices, some are the result of negligence, some because we just didn't know any better, and some things end up sucking just because.

Well said

The joke

---

>







Your head

---

>

hikeout470

To whomever called me a stupid head, why don't you go perform "research" on your own family and leave mine alone.

*sigh*

No one called YOU a stupid head. He was commenting on you basically calling 76 a stupid head with your "ignorant" comment.

Whatever. You sound like a re SEARCH ing person.

rml_16

To whomever called me a stupid head, why don't you go perform "research" on your own family and leave mine alone.

*sigh*

No one called YOU a stupid head. He was commenting on you basically calling 76 a stupid head with your "ignorant" comment.

Whatever. You sound like a re SEARCH ing person.

If we're stooping to this level, I'd like to stick my tongue out at you, but that particulat emoticon never quite looks right to me. So we'll have to settle for this, I suppose:

hikeout470

Sorry, I do not speak *****

rml_16

Sorry, I do not speak *****

Really? You've done an awesome job in this thread. You must be a savant.

ArroganceInStep

To whomever called me a stupid head, why don't you go perform "research" on your own family and leave mine alone.

Actually, I was responding to your comment directed at me, and not calling you anything of the sort:

Really, This is what you believe? Another "researcher" trying to justify their job, Blech... Ignorant. Boring.

Is just name calling.

Please re-read my comment:

I remember when I first won a debate by calling someone a big stupid head. It was so satisfying, and far easier than actually making a valid point.

Whatever. You sound like a re SEARCH ing person.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

hikeout470

Verbosity is a gift of some but you still will be regarded by the majority as an idiot if you are such,

BogQueen1

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think I love you now.

vim_n_vigor

There is no need for the GMO's to be produced for USA consumption, where the department of agriculture pays USA farmers to "not produce" The whole thing is crap and the Dept of agriculture is much larger than it was when it actually produced agriculture A load of doo doo. To the Researchers, I feel for you, but do not try to justify your job here. Go do something worthy. And don't go there, with the world food population either. We all KNOW it is about politics. There is plenty of food, and plenty of bad leaders out there that control the food so the they can control their people.

If they didn't pay the farmers to not produce (or let fields lay fallow), then we would have fields that are depleted of resources and no longer capable of growing good crops. It is actually a very good farming technique not to plant the same crops in the same fields every year and to skip a year or two of planting in those fields on a rotating basis.

Mokey41

Personally, I plan on boycotting as many products as I can find that are GMO and I buy my corn ONLY from companies that refuse to carry it. I also write to businesses and indicate this is my choice.

You do realize we're talking about corn in general not the couple of cobs of sweet corn you buy for your Sunday BBQ? The billions of tons used for animal feed, sweeteners, cereal, pet food (oh no, they got Fluffy too!), thickeners, oils, etc not just the bit you buy fresh? As far as I know there's only one sweet corn that is BT registered at this time.

FredDoyle

Sorry, I do not speak *****

Really? You've done an awesome job in this thread. You must be a savant.

Touché :laugh:

testease

GMO has been going on my 1000's of years. Selective breeding is a form of GMO. Best believe that apple you are eating today in no way reflects when was eaten 3000 years ago.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

To set the record straight, I did not say GMO's cause cancer. I think toxins cause cancer, and they are everywhere. Some crap produced in a lab classifies as this. And that is what a GMO is..

In addition to this said above..................Monsanto is the company that produced DDT (Agent Orange) and we all know how that worked out, right?

Most of these comments disgust me to no end putting Monsanto and Dow Chemical companies up on this pedestal like they are saving people from famines and such.............they are doing nothing but slowly killing people off.

They feed organic food to their employees at the Corporate office in St Louis. They don't even want to eat their own crap.

auroranflash

GMO has been going on my 1000's of years. Selective breeding is a form of GMO. Best believe that apple you are eating today in no way reflects when was eaten 3000 years ago.

Selective breeding is to genetic modification what 'light cleaning' is to powerlifting.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

GMO has been going on my 1000's of years. Selective breeding is a form of GMO. Best believe that apple you are eating today in no way reflects when was eaten 3000 years ago.

Genetic Modification is NOT the same as selective breeding.

hsidky

I am currently working on my MBA. We have to take many classes on ethics. Open the Wal Street journal sometime and you will see my compelling reason to believe that the second statement is more accurate the the first. Every corporation out there, if given a chance, will take a short cut in order to increase profits, regardless of who it hurts, who it steps on, or what the long term implications of that are. It's basic finance 101. A dollar earned today is worth more then a dollar earned 10 years from now. The basic definition of a coporation includes 'increasing value to shareholders' which has been taken to mean increasing the bottom line. It's what they do. It's the reason for their existence. Profit, pure and simple. How many companies took short cuts on waste disposal of toxic byproducts of manufacturing and poisoned our environment? How many people lost their entire retirement when Enron decided to take shortcuts with their accounting and got busted for it? The responsible corporation is a rarity. Even the darling of wall street, Apple, was revealed to have taken 'short cuts' and produces their product overseas, paying sub par wages.

I do not need to open the Wall Street Journal. I am a researcher at such a company. I can assure you, whether you believe it or not, that myself and every single person I work with or have interacted with, genuinely wants to deliver a product that is beneficial to society. The cost and profit of it all? I leave that up to the MBA's and business folk.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Hah. People are so hostile here!

I am aware that GMO has been going on for a long time. From what I understood this is a new 'strain'. And yes I do try and avoid corn as much as possible thanks. Unfortunately they sneak it into damn near everything anymore.

If you think there's no problems with it then why do you think that? Why do you dismiss it so easily as something that doesn't affect you in the slightest?

People simply don't care what is put into their food. If people actually woke up then they would have to realize that the packaged, boxed and frozen foods they eat are actually killing them and they don't care.

May I borrow that enormous brush? I have to paint the side of a gigantic barn, and it would do just fine. Thanks.

I don't have to paint a broad brush, the proof is there.

Everytiime we shop, we vote with your money. If people cared about whether they were eating GMO's and such........companies such as Kelloggs, General Mills, Kraft, Nabisco, etc would not be big conglomerate companies.

They would vote with their dollars to the companies that produce non-GMO products.

testease

GMO has been going on my 1000's of years. Selective breeding is a form of GMO. Best believe that apple you are eating today in no way reflects when was eaten 3000 years ago.

Genetic Modification is NOT the same as selective breeding.

denoting or derived from an organism whose DNA has been altered for the purpose of improvement or correction of defects

Hmm sounds like selective breeding fits that term.

PRMinx

Really, This is what you believe? Another "researcher" trying to justify their job, Blech... Ignorant. Boring.

I remember when I first won a debate by calling someone a big stupid head. It was so satisfying, and far easier than actually making a valid point.

I am currently working on my MBA. We have to take many classes on ethics. Open the Wal Street journal sometime and you will see my compelling reason to believe that the second statement is more accurate the the first. Every corporation out there, if given a chance, will take a short cut in order to increase profits, regardless of who it hurts, who it steps on, or what the long term implications of that are. It's basic finance 101. A dollar earned today is worth more then a dollar earned 10 years from now. The basic definition of a coporation includes 'increasing value to shareholders' which has been taken to mean increasing the bottom line. It's what they do. It's the reason for their existence. Profit, pure and simple. How many companies took short cuts on waste disposal of toxic byproducts of manufacturing and poisoned our environment? How many people lost their entire retirement when Enron decided to take shortcuts with their accounting and got busted for it? The responsible corporation is a rarity. Even the darling of wall street, Apple, was revealed to have taken 'short cuts' and produces their product overseas, paying sub par wages.

How many reasons would you like me to list?

If businesses are so bad, why are you getting a masters degree in Business Administration?

It's far more complicated than you make it out to be. Businesses are made up of people. Their actions are furthered by people, be it the employee, the employer, the customer, or the investor. The actions of big business that you seem to detest so much are a reflection of us as a society. If I slack off at work and game the system, that waste has an impact. If I'm too lazy to hit the ATM for cash and go to a subway for lunch since they take credit rather than the deli on the corner, THAT has an impact. Folks are starting to care more about the actions of businesses, and to account for that companies are starting to advertise the good things that they do for the community. It's not ALL evil, though it is almost exclusively driven by profit. That's the nature of a capitalist society though.

Perhaps some of us would like to believe we can change things from the inside at that businesses need to have an influx of rational minded, ethical people. We even discussed in class one time that there's a calculated risk between doing something illegal and making a profit versus the costs you will incur should you get caught. I didn't say I agreed with everything I was learning, and that is taken heavily out of context, so please do not think I attend a school that is encouraging unethical behavior, because they aren't, we went on to discuss the social implications of such actions, to show that regardless of the bottom dollar the costs on society are too high. Discussions on corporate responsibility and things like that. But in simple numbers game? Sometimes a desperate CEO can make a poor decision to boost the stock price.

Oh here we go with the businesses are evil claim....

Like anything in life, there are good businesses and there are bad businesses. For every business that has acted unethically, I bet you could find 3 that have done something awesome. What we read in the news, or learn in the classroom, are sensational cases. Why? The media needs to entertain and teachers need an extreme example to clearly teach a lesson.

With all due respect, do you think you are the only person in the world who decided to get into business to "change things"? I take offense to that. There are a lot of good, honest, hardworking, smart and ethical people with MBAs already making a run at it. And, as a result, there are a lot of good companies. Good for you for getting your MBA to do something good - but lets not disparage the good ones who already have skin in the game.