Are We Really Eating Healthy with GMOs in Place?
amaysngrace
Posts: 742 Member
With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?
0
Replies
-
With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?
There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are unhealthy. Also organic fruits and veggies seem to be no better than non organic in terms of nutrient density or pesticides used0 -
With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?
Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.0 -
With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?
Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.
Agreed. I'm tired of Monsanto's name being invoked as if that was some sort of valid argument that they're the antichrist. Nothing thus far supports that GMOs are dangerous. Granted that could change.
Edited to add: I however do NOT support Monsanto's business practices.0 -
There is nothing thus far intrinsically bad about GMOs in general. Basically, everything we eat has been modified from it's "natural" form. For example, wild pineapples and cucumbers are poisonous. Genetically modifying food allows us to feed more people, for longer periods during the year (like the anti-freeze tomato that allows for winter harvest.) Although there have been instances of foods altered not-for-human consumption making it into grocery stores (like certain strains of corn that have made people ill.)
That being said, nothing in the world makes me want to support the absolutely corrupt Monsanto corporation. The herbicide and pesticide resistance is leading to an increase in the necessity to use herb/pesticides. The fact that they are also avidly attacking organic farmers and producing seeds that fruit only once is disgusting. If food had to be labeled with their name, I wouldn't touch it with a stick.
http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the_future_of_food/0 -
There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are unhealthy. Also organic fruits and veggies seem to be no better than non organic in terms of nutrient density or pesticides used
There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are healthy. There is a growing body of evidence that there needs to be more study on the impacts of GMOs, but we're rapidly passing a tipping point where if we're wrong about them being safe, we won't be able to go back. It's Monsanto's stated goal to have their patented genes dominate all life on Earth, and through the use of GMOs combined with their heavy-handed treatment of farmers, we're rapidly losing the basic genetic diversity upon which all of agriculture has been based for years 93% of veggie varieties available in 1903 had gone extinct by 1983, and since then Monsanto has actively purchased and then liquidated many traditional seed vendors (Seminis being the worst loss). So, while it remains to be seen that GMOs are unhealthy, it also has yet to be proven that they are safe, and that combined with their business practices, yields an untenable situation where if the company that promised us DDT, Agent Orange, 24D, and Roundup were all safe is wrong about this one, or nature does what it always does when there's too much of one genetic line and brings in a pest/disease/whatever that takes it out, we're utterly screwed. It seems unwise to dive head first off a cliff without first checking to see if the water is more than a couple of inches deep...
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/food-variety-graphic
There is considerable evidence that organic fruits and veggies are better nutritionally. The USDA's own nutritional data shows an amazing drop in the nutrient density of foods. For example, Broccoli in 1950 had 5.8% more phosphorus, 14.3% more vitamin C, 26.7% more iron, 37.4% more riboflavin, and 59.9% more calcium than broccoli in 1999. However, the nutritional value of organic broccoli has remained unchanged.
There are similar reports for a slew of fruits and veggies here:
http://www.traditional-foods.com/nutrient-decline/
In terms of pesticides used, while organic is not the same as no pesticides (as there are some that are approved), for the most part they're less toxic, less damaging to the environment, and less likely to be used in the first place. One of the tenets of organic farming is minimal use of even organic-certified pesticides, and they're so flipping expensive, and profit margins so low, that few organic farmers apply pesticides unless there is ongoing damage that is worse than the cost of the pesticide, as opposed to, say, the conventional potato farmers near me (growing for potato chip companies), that crop dust their fields with Chlorothalonil as often as 3 times per week with no visible damage of any kind. Chlorothalonil causes liver and kidney damage, eye damage, skin irritation, loss of embryos in early pregnancy, DNA damage, kidney and stomach cancer; kills fish, frogs, beneficial soil microbes, and worms. In our region, beekeepers with hives within 2 miles of one of these potato fields have lost 70% of their hives on average (we lucked out and only lost 66% of ours!) each year.0 -
Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.
Actually, on a per acre basis, organic and traditional farming methods produce more food than modern agricultural techniques. And only one crop in one year of a GMO crop (if I remember correctly, it was a weevil-resistant corn, and it was only 1 year out of 7 in the study) outyielded a previously-available conventionally-bred crop. There are many, many instances of lower yields from the GMO crops, and still more of approximately equal yields, but far greater costs to the farmer because of inability to save seed from year-to-year and greater costs for herbicides and insecticides. It's the business practices that have lead to their overwhelming widespread acceptance, not higher yields.
However, I do agree with the sentiment that the name Monsanto does not make them the antichrist. I have met a couple of Monsanto researchers, and I believe they truly to believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of humanity, and I imagine that is the case with most of their employees.
But, like all corporations, by law they must be primarily concerned with making money for their shareholders, not protecting and feeding the world. And if the corporation itself was confident that its technology was benign, it would be lobbying in favor of labeling GMO foods, as opposed to lobbying so intently against labeling, because people would seek out GMO food.
Besides, there's also ADM and Cargil that share a great deal (perhaps an equal share) of the "antichrist" spotlight. Somehow they come off as also-rans in the public image.0 -
There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are unhealthy. Also organic fruits and veggies seem to be no better than non organic in terms of nutrient density or pesticides used
There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are healthy. There is a growing body of evidence that there needs to be more study on the impacts of GMOs, but we're rapidly passing a tipping point where if we're wrong about them being safe, we won't be able to go back. It's Monsanto's stated goal to have their patented genes dominate all life on Earth, and through the use of GMOs combined with their heavy-handed treatment of farmers, we're rapidly losing the basic genetic diversity upon which all of agriculture has been based for years 93% of veggie varieties available in 1903 had gone extinct by 1983, and since then Monsanto has actively purchased and then liquidated many traditional seed vendors (Seminis being the worst loss). So, while it remains to be seen that GMOs are unhealthy, it also has yet to be proven that they are safe, and that combined with their business practices, yields an untenable situation where if the company that promised us DDT, Agent Orange, 24D, and Roundup were all safe is wrong about this one, or nature does what it always does when there's too much of one genetic line and brings in a pest/disease/whatever that takes it out, we're utterly screwed. It seems unwise to dive head first off a cliff without first checking to see if the water is more than a couple of inches deep...
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/food-variety-graphic
There is considerable evidence that organic fruits and veggies are better nutritionally. The USDA's own nutritional data shows an amazing drop in the nutrient density of foods. For example, Broccoli in 1950 had 5.8% more phosphorus, 14.3% more vitamin C, 26.7% more iron, 37.4% more riboflavin, and 59.9% more calcium than broccoli in 1999. However, the nutritional value of organic broccoli has remained unchanged.
There are similar reports for a slew of fruits and veggies here:
http://www.traditional-foods.com/nutrient-decline/
In terms of pesticides used, while organic is not the same as no pesticides (as there are some that are approved), for the most part they're less toxic, less damaging to the environment, and less likely to be used in the first place. One of the tenets of organic farming is minimal use of even organic-certified pesticides, and they're so flipping expensive, and profit margins so low, that few organic farmers apply pesticides unless there is ongoing damage that is worse than the cost of the pesticide, as opposed to, say, the conventional potato farmers near me (growing for potato chip companies), that crop dust their fields with Chlorothalonil as often as 3 times per week with no visible damage of any kind. Chlorothalonil causes liver and kidney damage, eye damage, skin irritation, loss of embryos in early pregnancy, DNA damage, kidney and stomach cancer; kills fish, frogs, beneficial soil microbes, and worms. In our region, beekeepers with hives within 2 miles of one of these potato fields have lost 70% of their hives on average (we lucked out and only lost 66% of ours!) each year.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=13556850 -
Campylobacter contamination comes from food processing, not agricultural methods, so it is irrelevant. Why is it mentioned here?
Meanwhile:
Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.
Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
The article you give mentions that there may be a publication bias, and comes to the conclusion that consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. While it said the risk of consumption of pesticides "exceeding maximum allowed limits were small," there are (and have been over time) many instances of maximum allowed limits being well above the point where negative outcomes actually happened.
Since this is a review of existing studies, in which publication bias may be an issue, all it is saying on nutrient value is that those potentially biased studies didn't show a significant nutrient difference. The USDA data, however, is not trying to show a difference. Because it was nutritional data determined merely to show what the nutritional contents of foods are, not to study, well, anything in particular, it's more likely to be free of bias.
It would seem that what this study concludes is that organic foods appear to be healthier in terms of antibiotic resistant bacteria and pesticides, but not enough to have a clinical outcome, with the studies being potentially biased.
Based on this data, i think I'll stick with the organic. Then again, I'm an organic produce farmer, so I don't have to worry about the cost differences in the vast majority of my food, since I just eat what I grow (though I do have to suffer the lower profit margin and lack of government subsidies/crop insurance, etc...)0 -
Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.
Actually, on a per acre basis, organic and traditional farming methods produce more food than modern agricultural techniques. And only one crop in one year of a GMO crop (if I remember correctly, it was a weevil-resistant corn, and it was only 1 year out of 7 in the study) outyielded a previously-available conventionally-bred crop. There are many, many instances of lower yields from the GMO crops, and still more of approximately equal yields, but far greater costs to the farmer because of inability to save seed from year-to-year and greater costs for herbicides and insecticides. It's the business practices that have lead to their overwhelming widespread acceptance, not higher yields.
However, I do agree with the sentiment that the name Monsanto does not make them the antichrist. I have met a couple of Monsanto researchers, and I believe they truly to believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of humanity, and I imagine that is the case with most of their employees.
But, like all corporations, by law they must be primarily concerned with making money for their shareholders, not protecting and feeding the world. And if the corporation itself was confident that its technology was benign, it would be lobbying in favor of labeling GMO foods, as opposed to lobbying so intently against labeling, because people would seek out GMO food.
Besides, there's also ADM and Cargil that share a great deal (perhaps an equal share) of the "antichrist" spotlight. Somehow they come off as also-rans in the public image.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for accurate labeling requirements and all that. And I completely agree with you on the fiduciary duty thing (I honestly wish more people WOULD realize this too).
However the per acre yield thing didn't sit well. For various economic reasons it doesn't make sense; organic stuff is more expensive because OF lesser yields, and smaller supply.
I'm in grad school so I'm kind of lucky that I have "free" access to journal repositories.
Anyway I found some articles from journals (free abstracts, full reports cost) here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
If anything there's plenty of variables including geographic location, methods, which crop,etc. In any case organic yields ARE lower on a per-acre basis then standard though. How much lower is dependent upon the variable.
Edit:
word choice0 -
As an addendum:
A lot of what I do for my concentration revolves around law and policy review. Many lobby groups manipulate data pretty heavily to make it comport to their "view". For the sake of objectivity I try to evaluate their claims based on their own data. A lot of times it simply doesn't fit.
I'm actually working on a journal entry myself this summer that has to do with media influence. I know this is somewhat of a controversial topic (I'm not using this one in my work product, but there's a LOT of debate about it), but if you look at all the studies of statins; the difference in mortality rates is not statistically significant. So while overall statin usage does show "lower incidents of mortality" (I'd argue it's well within standard deviation).
This rather insignificant finding has translated to "statins lower your cholesterol, which lowers your chance of heart attack". Realistically looking at the data there's very little correlation between cholesterol level and incidence of heart disease, IE having lower cholesterol doesn't inherently lower your risk of a heart attack.
So when we hear on the news "A new study shows X is good for you because it lowers your chance of heart attack", the data may show <2% difference in experimental v. control group (which is likely to be variance). So while the news isn't exactly "wrong" it's very misleading, and not the whole story.0 -
Don't get me wrong I'm all for accurate labeling requirements and all that. And I completely agree with you on the fiduciary duty thing (I honestly wish more people WOULD realize this too).
However the per acre yield thing didn't sit well. For various economic reasons it doesn't make sense; organic stuff is more expensive because OF lesser yields, and smaller supply.
I'm in grad school so I'm kind of lucky that I have "free" access to journal repositories.
Anyway I found some articles from journals (free abstracts, full reports cost) here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
If anything there's plenty of variables including geographic location, methods, which crop,etc. In any case organic yields ARE lower on a per-acre basis then standard though. How much lower is dependent upon the variable.
Edit:
word choice
The second article is blocked by the firewall (I'm at work, and teach at a boarding school. Sometimes there's no telling what will get blocked). But I should have been more specific. I've seen similar meta-studies to the one in the first link (which I admit to just skimming - have to teach in just a minute), and they have a similar narrow focus. It tracks wheat, corn, barley, potatoes, and soybeans. Those are quite difficult to grow at large scale organically, true. However, they, especially corn, also tend to deplete soils, while an organic farmer is primarily interested in building soils. For a conventional farmer, the soil is seen as almost irrelevant, just a medium to hold roots, nutrients, water, and pesticides.
There are indeed lots of variables. But the studies that show organic farming more productive per acre take a multi-year, diversified cropping plan as their basis. And, really, when you get down to it, it's more the diversified cropping that's more productive, more than organic. Organic prejudices in favor of smaller farms growing more diversity of crops. Smaller, more diverse, farms are more productive per acre.
Also, note that the crops in the study are all commodity crops, aimed at trading, futures markets, and processing. the diversified farm is going to focus, instead, on growing food crops that are actually food - fruits and veggies. For example, while we grow a tiny bit of grain - rye, buckwheat, and oats, but mostly as cover crops and green manures to improve the soil and control weeds. The value vs. production cost on those crops is prohibitive on a small scale.
If you want to feed the world effectively, getting the most nutritional value possible out of your land, you want to grow fruits and veggies, not commodities. So, saying conventional ag yields more per acre than organic, and focusing on the major commodity grains is like saying a dump truck could drive across the US faster than a Ferrari. Of course its true if you need to haul 20 tons of gravel!
But, at any rate, the reason organic stuff is more expensive is not because the yield per acre is lower. It's a combination of several factors. The "easy" one to work around is that conventional ag has enormous supports in the form of crop insurance, financial assistance from commercial concerns, easier financing by banks, and especially subsidies. The actual dollar cost of growing, say, conventional sweet corn is actually higher than organic. But the taxpayer pays most of the cost of the conventional crop, but none of the organic. In order to get crop insurance, you have to subscribe to conventional growing processes - in many case spraying schedules are actually contractually required, but in any case, you will get declined as an organic farm. So, apply those supports to organic, or remove them from conventional, and you'll go a long way toward leveling the cost difference. But organic would still cost more.
The more difficult one to work around is that organic has a lower yield per unit of labor. Conventional requires one guy and a fleet of heavy equipment. Organic, for the most part, requires several people and a pile of hand tools and implements that haven't been manufactured in the last 30 years and are expensive and tedious to maintain.
However, that "weakness" of organic could actually be seen as a strength in a situation absent artificial controls through subsidies and whatnot. Yeah, food would cost more, but then, in America, at least, we're currently paying less for food as a percentage of income than any culture in the history of the world (unless you factor in the costs of those subsidies you pay via taxes, etc). A focus on smaller, organic farming could employ many, many more people, thus boosting the economy. More, smaller, locally-focused farms makes the food system more resilient to drought, flood, plague, contamination, terrorism, sea level rise, recession, vagaries of the commodities markets, and produces more tomatoes, broccoli, lettuce, spinach, etc. etc. per acre than conventional.
And that's before you factor in the amount of petroleum and natural gas used to power the equipment and make the chemicals for conventional ag, which is just not sustainable...0 -
As an addendum:
A lot of what I do for my concentration revolves around law and policy review. Many lobby groups manipulate data pretty heavily to make it comport to their "view". For the sake of objectivity I try to evaluate their claims based on their own data. A lot of times it simply doesn't fit.
I'm actually working on a journal entry myself this summer that has to do with media influence. I know this is somewhat of a controversial topic (I'm not using this one in my work product, but there's a LOT of debate about it), but if you look at all the studies of statins; the difference in mortality rates is not statistically significant. So while overall statin usage does show "lower incidents of mortality" (I'd argue it's well within standard deviation).
This rather insignificant finding has translated to "statins lower your cholesterol, which lowers your chance of heart attack". Realistically looking at the data there's very little correlation between cholesterol level and incidence of heart disease, IE having lower cholesterol doesn't inherently lower your risk of a heart attack.
So when we hear on the news "A new study shows X is good for you because it lowers your chance of heart attack", the data may show <2% difference in experimental v. control group (which is likely to be variance). So while the news isn't exactly "wrong" it's very misleading, and not the whole story.
Yes, indeed. Everyone tries to make data match their view, particularly lobby groups. One always hopes that he looks at the data first, then makes a decision. In truth, I imagine we all fail at that more than we would like to admit. Throw on top of that piles of conflicting studies on a topic, and it can get overwhelming - two people can come to opposite conclusions based on studies they've read, and both be accurately reporting their opinion is based on scientific studies. Then there's the whole correlation/causation conundrum...
In my particular skewed view, I'm sure I find studies supporting organic agriculture more compelling, though I find myself swayed by different arguments than others. I chose to grow organically because I could be involved in a wider variety of things at a time on my small acreage (only 35 acres, which includes pond, house, pastures, and woods in addition to garden and orchard). I get bored easily, so the wide variety helps. also, there's more resilience to a crop failure for whatever reason (if I lose my corn crop, for example, it's about 5% by square footage of just the annual food crops I'm growing, and represents about 2% of my gross farm income (corn is a money loser, but a "gotta have it" kind of crop at the market), whereas for most of the conventional farmers in the area, it would be between 30 and 100%). But the diversity also makes problems less likely to appear at unmanageable levels, because monocultures are inherently fragile and attractive to attackers. Combine that with the food just tasting better (and, again, local and fresh undoubtedly has more to do that than organic vs. conventional...), and I'm sure my evaluation of conflicting studies is skewed by experience...0 -
Oh no doubt, I'm just using this stuff as a distraction. I actually have research due Sunday so admittedly I can't spend too much time trolling journals in JSTOR, or EBSCO. It's definitely interesting, and something I'd like to look into more.
This would make a fantastic research project for my class (Environmental Law), but I already picked that about 6 weeks ago!
Really I don't have an opinion on it either way. I don't go out of my way to eat organic, but I'm not against it. I think it's a fine consumer choice issue best left to the individual. I do use both too, it depends on the product.
Arbitrarily banning things is very bad though IMO (whether it be transfat, GMO, HFCS,etc). Transparency however is an issue that I can usually agree with completely.0 -
Arbitrarily banning things is very bad though IMO (whether it be transfat, GMO, HFCS,etc). Transparency however is an issue that I can usually agree with completely.
In general, i agree that arbitrarily banning things is bad. It merely forces people to comply with someone else's conclusions about an issue.
However, in some cases with GMOs, allowing them with no restrictions, which is the current status quo, is de facto arbitrarily banning non-GMOs. For example, GM salmon. Studies by both AquaBounty (who made the GM salmon) and the national academy of sciences found that releasing just 60 GM salmon into a population of 60,000 native Atlantic salmon (which are on the endangered species list already) would find the native population extinct in just 40 generations. And yet they've been approved, because they appear to be safe. In this case, by allowing the GM version, you're essentially banning the non-GM version, and it's not reversible. Meanwhile, there's research ongoing at Purdue based on the hypothesis that it's quite possible the GM salmon could do poorly in the long run. Basically, they have a sexual advantage due to their faster growth (the big difference is they produce growth hormone year 'round, while native do so only seasonally) and hence earlier sexual maturity and larger size. but while they may be more successful mating, they also have lower sperm counts and higher mortality, and thus could lead to less successful propagation of the species. AFAIK, that's still just a hypothesis and ongoing research, nothing published, but it does give cause for concern.
There are similar concerns with many wind-pollinated crops. Until a crop failure due to last year's drought, we used to grow an endangered variety of flint corn for making corn meal. Even though it was an open-pollinated heirloom, though, we could not save and replant our seed. The isolation distance for corn is 2 miles, and our farm is never more than 2 miles from GM corn. Thus, the modified genetic material would be present in our corn, making it a violation of the certification rules for us to replant the corn we had grown. It would also be illegal for us to replant our corn, because Monsanto owns the patent on those genes, and they have repeatedly sued farmers whose crops have been contaminated by the Monsanto genes against their will, and won. Given GM corn is the new, unproven player, it would seem more appropriate to restrict the GM corn to fields more than 2 miles from any conventional corn, but that's not what we've done...
The worst part is folks afflicted aren't allowed to talk about it. The agreement you sign if you buy seed from Monsanto prohibits discussing anything about it - how it grew, what inputs needed to be used, yields, etc., as well as about any subsequent dealings with legal. And, whenever they get to litigation, they get nondisclosure agreements shoved down folks' throats as well. Even when the farmer "wins," they still keep the NDA in force, so he can't talk about what instigated the litigation, what lead to the settlement, or the terms of it.0 -
Arbitrarily banning things is very bad though IMO (whether it be transfat, GMO, HFCS,etc). Transparency however is an issue that I can usually agree with completely.
In general, i agree that arbitrarily banning things is bad. It merely forces people to comply with someone else's conclusions about an issue.
However, in some cases with GMOs, allowing them with no restrictions, which is the current status quo, is de facto arbitrarily banning non-GMOs. For example, GM salmon. Studies by both AquaBounty (who made the GM salmon) and the national academy of sciences found that releasing just 60 GM salmon into a population of 60,000 native Atlantic salmon (which are on the endangered species list already) would find the native population extinct in just 40 generations. And yet they've been approved, because they appear to be safe. In this case, by allowing the GM version, you're essentially banning the non-GM version, and it's not reversible. Meanwhile, there's research ongoing at Purdue based on the hypothesis that it's quite possible the GM salmon could do poorly in the long run. Basically, they have a sexual advantage due to their faster growth (the big difference is they produce growth hormone year 'round, while native do so only seasonally) and hence earlier sexual maturity and larger size. but while they may be more successful mating, they also have lower sperm counts and higher mortality, and thus could lead to less successful propagation of the species. AFAIK, that's still just a hypothesis and ongoing research, nothing published, but it does give cause for concern.
There are similar concerns with many wind-pollinated crops. Until a crop failure due to last year's drought, we used to grow an endangered variety of flint corn for making corn meal. Even though it was an open-pollinated heirloom, though, we could not save and replant our seed. The isolation distance for corn is 2 miles, and our farm is never more than 2 miles from GM corn. Thus, the modified genetic material would be present in our corn, making it a violation of the certification rules for us to replant the corn we had grown. It would also be illegal for us to replant our corn, because Monsanto owns the patent on those genes, and they have repeatedly sued farmers whose crops have been contaminated by the Monsanto genes against their will, and won. Given GM corn is the new, unproven player, it would seem more appropriate to restrict the GM corn to fields more than 2 miles from any conventional corn, but that's not what we've done...
The worst part is folks afflicted aren't allowed to talk about it. The agreement you sign if you buy seed from Monsanto prohibits discussing anything about it - how it grew, what inputs needed to be used, yields, etc., as well as about any subsequent dealings with legal. And, whenever they get to litigation, they get nondisclosure agreements shoved down folks' throats as well. Even when the farmer "wins," they still keep the NDA in force, so he can't talk about what instigated the litigation, what lead to the settlement, or the terms of it.
So, does the Monsanto employees and CEO's, abide by their own rules, or is just the general public and the farmers subjected to these obligations and restrictions? You know, kind of like the cop that breaks his own rule by going past the speed limit to catch a driver who is speeding. Do you get what I am saying? Furthermore, why is the U.S. the only country who has not banned the GMO? Every other country has banned it and will not buy our meat either, from what I heard.0 -
BUMP for later.0
-
Facts:
100% of smokers die.
100% of people who eat broccoli die.0 -
Ummm...as far as I can remember, the last 3 outbreaks of solmenella and e coli have been from "organic" products. If you don't like GMO, then avoid it. In my lifetime, I have seen peanut butter, milk, red meat (and the list goes on) all painted by one group or another as the evil of all evils. And yet somehow, people are living longer all the time. My advice...forget it. Just eat and live life the best you can. Just my opinion.0
-
With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?
There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are unhealthy. Also organic fruits and veggies seem to be no better than non organic in terms of nutrient density or pesticides used
that's because they haven't been tested, because Monsanto won't test their products and the FDA doesn't require it.
it's a flaw in the system. there isn't proof they're dangerous, and there isn't proof they're NOT dangerous. There's no proof of anything, and that's the problem.0 -
With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?
Yea go vegan. Sorry couldn't resist. I saw your other thread. You've been busy today.0 -
Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.
Actually, on a per acre basis, organic and traditional farming methods produce more food than modern agricultural techniques.
Didn't need to read the rest of this post when BS of this magnitude started it right off the bat.0 -
Don't get me wrong I'm all for accurate labeling requirements and all that. And I completely agree with you on the fiduciary duty thing (I honestly wish more people WOULD realize this too).
However the per acre yield thing didn't sit well. For various economic reasons it doesn't make sense; organic stuff is more expensive because OF lesser yields, and smaller supply.
I'm in grad school so I'm kind of lucky that I have "free" access to journal repositories.
Anyway I found some articles from journals (free abstracts, full reports cost) here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
If anything there's plenty of variables including geographic location, methods, which crop,etc. In any case organic yields ARE lower on a per-acre basis then standard though. How much lower is dependent upon the variable.
Edit:
word choice
For a conventional farmer, the soil is seen as almost irrelevant, just a medium to hold roots, nutrients, water, and pesticides.
Another grossly inaccurate statement.0 -
Quite funny how I am studying for this topic at university right now, and I came on MFP to take a break and here it is haha.
On a more serious note, I believe that GMOs are the future, research well and let them lead the way...
Because we're not doing well as a globe to feed 7 billion now, and it's only going to get harder. The small scale organic farm is a romantic and lovely little idea, but we are probably going to develop a lot more diseases and won't be able to produce an amount large enough that will be sustainable for such a population.
My vision: GMO, diverse range of crops, an increase in the use of CAM plants (such as desert cactai) because water is going to be even more scarce, and the land more desertified, these do better than your standard maize monocultures, and as for meat production, free ranges of big herds used for pooping all over that land surface to make it fertile. NB: organic meat animals can't be treated with antibiotics, and my veterinarian friend tells me that is a shame because so animals just get left sick/disease spreads. The benefits of administering the antibiotics outweighs the cons.
And before anyone cries to me that the only solution is to go vegan, have a little look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI and let me know what you think. 0 -
Let's not forget that Monsanto's seeds were approved illegally.
And, as others have mentioned, it is unstudied. We're basically subsidizing a great experiment that, even if it turns out all wrong, there won't be anything we can do. It's unstoppable.
So while non-GMO, organic or sustainably raised food may not be better for you (but the jury's still out on that), it's certainly better for the animals we're raising and the planet we have to live on.0 -
Also, got sidetracked in the GMO argument, but let it be known, I think GMOs are a great idea. HOWEVER I think a big company such as Monsanto placing a monopoly on the whole gene copyrighting thing is a very bad thing indeed.0
-
Any farmers/peeps in agri feel free to add me I would love love love to discuss further!0
-
Also, got sidetracked in the GMO argument, but let it be known, I think GMOs are a great idea. HOWEVER I think a big company such as Monsanto placing a monopoly on the whole gene copyrighting thing is a very bad thing indeed.
the idea on its own certainly has merit. just a shame they aren't tested before being released to the public.0 -
Also, got sidetracked in the GMO argument, but let it be known, I think GMOs are a great idea. HOWEVER I think a big company such as Monsanto placing a monopoly on the whole gene copyrighting thing is a very bad thing indeed.
I definitely agree here.
Granted I don't know much about IP/patent/copyright law (that's its own little world), I think the whole idea of them suing individual farmers is insane.
If I had to speculate I'd say it's probably because the big agricultural companies are able to fund politicians better. Most people don't think of judges as being politicians, but they are.
Despite being a libertarian I don't actually have a good answer (or even a theory) regarding regulatory oversight. It's kind of a catch-22 in that over-regulation and laissez faire are essentially the same thing (neither of which are ideal). Federal regulators are "industry experts" which means they came from private business in the sector that's being regulated. Many still have financial stakes in their said industry, defeating the purpose of regulation.0 -
I got chills reading your post. The last time I went to the grocery store I decided not to get any cereals for my boys because of GMOs. But really it is in so much it is difficult to eat healthy. I guess if you just eat out of your own garden it is healthy but them there are also chemtrails(geo-engineering) falling on everything too. Just do what you can to eat as least processed foods as you can. Stay Fit-Angela0
-
For a conventional farmer, the soil is seen as almost irrelevant, just a medium to hold roots, nutrients, water, and pesticides.
Another grossly inaccurate statement.
Let me quote a conversation from two days ago:
Me: Hey, Larry. Saw you spraying yet again yesterday, and you haven't even planted yet. Whatchagonna plant in that field this year?
Larry: Popcorn
Me: Really? Two years in a row?
Larry: I got a 10 year lease. I'm going to plant popcorn until the lease is up. Longer if I can renew.
Me: Won't that cause problems with weavils and nitrogen depletion? We're already on nutrient-poor sand
Larry: Doesn't matter. It's all about the inputs.
Very typical conversation here in the state that grows more Monsanto crops than any other in the country. That explains why another neighbor crop-dusts his potatoes 3 times a week all summer. His rotation (potatoes-corn-soy) is the exact opposite of what an organic farmer would choose if growing those three crops (soy-corn-potatoes would make more sense, though organic soy and field corn are money loosers, so you'd probably sub peas or a different edible bean for the soy, and sweet corn for the corn. The beans fix nitrogen, which corn consumes massive quantities of. The corn residues inhibit several nematodes that are damaging to potatoes, and the soil work involved in the potatoes reduces weed issues for the beans. The potatoes also provide a decent amount of organic matter for the soil, helpful for the beans.)
While it's not true of every conventional farmer, it is far from a "grossly inaccurate statement," which is obvious to anyone who spends some time as an organic farmer surrounded by a sea of conventional farmers.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions