Why we need GMO

Options
13567…13

Replies

  • Ophidion
    Ophidion Posts: 2,065 Member
    Options
    Is it too much to ask for full disclosure and label foods that contain GMO, apparently it is, at least in NA where 90% of GMO takes place. Just label the frikken food and let people make their own decisions on what they want to eat.
    I agree. Labeling makes sense. People can decide whether they want to pay for $1 GMO corn or $2 natural one.

    While genetic modification won't single handedly eliminate world hunger, it's one arsenal in the toolbox. There is no dispute that GMO crop is more economical (otherwise farmers won't use it), so at the very least it would make food a bit cheaper to buy.

    While there is no long term proof of the safety of consuming GMO crop, there's no proof of its danger either. While we shouldn't rush headlong into accepting GMO crop, to declare it as dangerous on principle is just as foolish.
    whilst to declare to it as dangerous on principle is just as foolish.The logic sounds pretty good but in practice If I had say a large amount of lets say something people consume and my selling point was well it has neither been declared safe nor dangerous do you think I should introduce the product onto the market, not knowing if there are adverse effects but since they can't be proved or disproved its OK and while I'm at it I have an Act pushed through government that frees me from all responsibility.
  • HappyathomeMN
    HappyathomeMN Posts: 498 Member
    Options
    I don't pretend to know the science thoroughly enough to debate it but here are some things to consider that are self explanatory

    Concerns about the social and ethical issues surrounding genetic modification include:

    The possible monopolisation of the world food market by large multinational companies that control the distribution of GM seeds
    Concerns related to using genes from animals in plant foods. For example, eating traces of genetic material from pork is problematic for certain religious and cultural groups
    Animal welfare could be adversely affected. For example, cows given more potent GM growth hormones could suffer from health problems related to growth or metabolism
    New GM organisms could be patented so that life itself could become commercial property.

    A patent is put in place to protect inventors and give them time to recoup their investments. All patents eventually expire, so eventually any invention becomes available to the world.

    Unless it's not patented and instead is chosen to be intellectual property which never expires - think Coke.
  • Ophidion
    Ophidion Posts: 2,065 Member
    Options
    I don't pretend to know the science thoroughly enough to debate it but here are some things to consider that are self explanatory

    Concerns about the social and ethical issues surrounding genetic modification include:

    The possible monopolisation of the world food market by large multinational companies that control the distribution of GM seeds
    Concerns related to using genes from animals in plant foods. For example, eating traces of genetic material from pork is problematic for certain religious and cultural groups
    Animal welfare could be adversely affected. For example, cows given more potent GM growth hormones could suffer from health problems related to growth or metabolism
    New GM organisms could be patented so that life itself could become commercial property.

    A patent is put in place to protect inventors and give them time to recoup their investments. All patents eventually expire, so eventually any invention becomes available to the world.
    I think large corporations tend to keep an eye on patent expiration dates, but hey lets patent life everything needs to be owned by a corporation right down to the DNA.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    I don't really have anything against GMO crops. It's a scientific form of husbandry, IMO, that shortens the process by a few decades.

    The thing that I'm not really thrilled with is the unknown. Unintended consequences are a *itch, and nobody really knows every consequence of changing even one gene let alone a dozen.

    I just have an irrational fear that one day in an attempt to make a crop that can feed itself better, resist all manner of poisons, and be so hardy that it's practically unkillable, the corn I eat will a sprout in my intestines and grow from my rotting corpse.

    I realize this is an irrational fear though so it won't stop me from eating GMO crops.
  • WalkingMermaid_
    WalkingMermaid_ Posts: 205 Member
    Options
    GMO = big profits for already corrupt fatcats.

    GMO + MONSANTO = something I don't want to eat.

    I want the right to choose what I eat, to choose naturally organically grown food that my body was designed to eat. I don't want some big fat money hungry organization shoving their *kitten* and their agenda down my throat. Too much to ask? :huh:
  • denise032
    denise032 Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    Is it too much to ask for full disclosure and label foods that contain GMO, apparently it is, at least in NA where 90% of GMO takes place. Just label the frikken food and let people make their own decisions on what they want to eat.

    Exactly!
  • barbaratrollman
    barbaratrollman Posts: 317 Member
    Options
    Since everybody here is always asking for "the science", I'd recommend that you give Dr. Vandana Shiva some of your attention.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi1FTCzDSck

    http://www.vandanashiva.org/

    She is a quantum theory physicist who changed her direction to focus on fighting against Monsanto and other entities like them, to protect the diversity and integrity of our living resources, especially native seed, the promotion of organic farming, and fair trade. I love the efforts she's put forth to educate people around the world and to advocate for the saving of heirloom seeds.

    There is much more to Monsanto and their evil deeds than just GMO crops. Their hands are into all kinds of very uncool things. I'm not going to write a huge essay here, on all the reasons I intend to strive toward never giving them any of my hard earned spending cash, because I assume that you all have the means to look up the arguments pro and con yourself.
  • foxgl0ve
    foxgl0ve Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    I second this. The OP has entirely missed the negative social and economic impacts of genetically modified foods. Small farmers are increasingly being squeezed into difficult positions by large multi-national companies who now own huge portions of our food supply.
    While I do not think eating GMO foods is any worse for me than eating those produced by artificial selection, I have a lot of concern about a small handful of profit-driven companies owning most of America's food supply with little oversight or accountability.
    In short, I don't think the crops themselves are bad or dangerous, but I do think that the companies that produce them are harming farmers, and reducing consumer choice in ways that are completely invisible in the supermarket.
  • barbaratrollman
    barbaratrollman Posts: 317 Member
    Options
    38856853.jpg

    LOL Sadly too familiar around these parts, and from what I read and see, everywhere around the world. There are lots of small farmers who've been shut down by Monsanto, because their crops were found to have contained GMO strains.

    It is just a travesty that the courts allow Monsanto to get away with these tactics. Their genetically modified crops are not something their farming customers can contain to their own fields. It seems to me that the plaintiffs *should* be the farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto products.
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    Options
    ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government... sounds totally legit to me, you know the power to have full immunity because your crops are so safe. I am no scientist but does this not seem slightly nefarious.
    There is no "Monsanto Protection Act" - that was a scare term created by opponents to GMOs. It doesn't grant anyone immunity either. In the event of a legal challenge regarding the safety of a previously approved GMO, it allows the USDA to grant a temporary status allowing farmers to continue to grow those crops while the legal challenge works its way through the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
  • WalkingMermaid_
    WalkingMermaid_ Posts: 205 Member
    Options
    Since everybody here is always asking for "the science", I'd recommend that you give Dr. Vandana Shiva some of your attention.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi1FTCzDSck

    http://www.vandanashiva.org/

    She is a quantum theory physicist who changed her direction to focus on fighting against Monsanto and other entities like them, to protect the diversity and integrity of our living resources, especially native seed, the promotion of organic farming, and fair trade. I love the efforts she's put forth to educate people around the world and to advocate for the saving of heirloom seeds.

    There is much more to Monsanto and their evil deeds than just GMO crops. Their hands are into all kinds of very uncool things. I'm not going to write a huge essay here, on all the reasons I intend to strive toward never giving them any of my hard earned spending cash, because I assume that you all have the means to look up the arguments pro and con yourself.

    ^THIS^
  • kcface23
    kcface23 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    .
  • shannon4health
    shannon4health Posts: 40
    Options
    I personally believe that we should have "free choice" to KNOW what is in our food and the consumer make the choice with great labeling. As natural as possible is the way I like to eat my foods...WHOLE FOODS from fresh local farmers b/c it supports their buisness and it's FRESH:)

    I am not worried about sustainable living and I don't have scarcity thinking b/c I believe God created this world and He created us to fill the earth and "Be fruitful and multiply" The Bible says it and I believe the Bible is the only Absolute truth we have in this world. We didn't just evolve from slime into monkeys and then people. We were created with unique purpose and desires and feelings and that I am grateful for.

    "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”
    Genesis 9:6-8

    We live in a day and age that people are freaking out worried that they won't have food or water or whatever it may be and they think it's b/c we use "plastic" or drive "SUV's" when in all reality the reason our foods are being ruined is from all the STUPID things that Huge Corporations are doing to our foods and Pharma company's by how they dump chemicals into the ocean etc....people get so caught up in saving plastic and being "green" that we miss the fact that our food is shipped from all over the world, which loses it's nutritional value and tomato's are "gassed" and we aren't eating foods that are full of natural sun light and good ole soil.

    This is my perspective on things:) Not trying to debate, I respect your view points and perspective and hopefully others will respect mine:)

    Have a Blessed week:)

    I am enjoying reading all the different info on GMO and Monsanto....like I shared before....I believe "less is more" Buy Fresh, Buy Local as much as possible. I buy my eggs from a family down the road that have chickens that are ACTUALLY FREE RANGE!! They are not cooped up in chicken houses and stabbed with antibiotics to keep them "healthy". The "Organic" eggs or "Free Range" eggs in the store only require that the chickens be in sunlight like an hour a day (Open windows)...So sick!

    Round UP Ready (I am no expert here) but just the thought of spraying our fields with this poision to keep bugs and disease off and it "kills" just sounds scary to me and wonders how much toxic poision we have put into our bodies.
  • kcface23
    kcface23 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    Is it too much to ask for full disclosure and label foods that contain GMO, apparently it is, at least in NA where 90% of GMO takes place. Just label the frikken food and let people make their own decisions on what they want to eat.

    agreed. everyone should have the choice, but it should be an educated decision. I, personally, would like to know exactly what I am putting into my body.
  • barbaratrollman
    barbaratrollman Posts: 317 Member
    Options
    I don't pretend to know the science thoroughly enough to debate it but here are some things to consider that are self explanatory

    Concerns about the social and ethical issues surrounding genetic modification include:

    The possible monopolisation of the world food market by large multinational companies that control the distribution of GM seeds
    Concerns related to using genes from animals in plant foods. For example, eating traces of genetic material from pork is problematic for certain religious and cultural groups
    Animal welfare could be adversely affected. For example, cows given more potent GM growth hormones could suffer from health problems related to growth or metabolism
    New GM organisms could be patented so that life itself could become commercial property.

    "New GM organisms could be patented so that life itself could become commercial property."

    And THIS is exactly what has been happening! This argument alone is enough for me. However, unfortunately, this argument does not have to stand on its own. There are too many other good reasons to avoid GMO produce, including the other ones mentioned by this poster and others in this thread.
  • Hexahedra
    Hexahedra Posts: 894 Member
    Options
    I don't pretend to know the science thoroughly enough to debate it but here are some things to consider that are self explanatory

    Concerns about the social and ethical issues surrounding genetic modification include:

    The possible monopolisation of the world food market by large multinational companies that control the distribution of GM seeds
    Concerns related to using genes from animals in plant foods. For example, eating traces of genetic material from pork is problematic for certain religious and cultural groups
    Animal welfare could be adversely affected. For example, cows given more potent GM growth hormones could suffer from health problems related to growth or metabolism
    New GM organisms could be patented so that life itself could become commercial property.

    A patent is put in place to protect inventors and give them time to recoup their investments. All patents eventually expire, so eventually any invention becomes available to the world.

    Unless it's not patented and instead is chosen to be intellectual property which never expires - think Coke.
    It's called 'trade secret', associated with a 'trade mark'. The deal with trade secret is that anybody is free to invent and use the exact same thing, they just can't use the same trade mark. If you can somehow reverse engineer or breach the secrecy of Coke formula, nothing prevents you from creating the exact same cola, you just can't legally call it 'Coca Cola' because it's trade marked.

    Let's say Monsanto filed a trade mark for the name Supercorn but decides to keep it a trade secret instead of patenting it. By doing so other people / company can create a type of corn with identical genetic composition as Monsanto's and compete directly, they just can't call theirs Supercorn.

    If Monsanto decides to patent Supercorn, then the exact composition of that breed will be made public as soon as the patent is granted. When the patent expires, others can simply take the public information and use it to create the exact same thing.
  • ncmedic201
    ncmedic201 Posts: 540 Member
    Options
    ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government... sounds totally legit to me, you know the power to have full immunity because your crops are so safe. I am no scientist but does this not seem slightly nefarious.
    There is no "Monsanto Protection Act" - that was a scare term created by opponents to GMOs. It doesn't grant anyone immunity either. In the event of a legal challenge regarding the safety of a previously approved GMO, it allows the USDA to grant a temporary status allowing farmers to continue to grow those crops while the legal challenge works its way through the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision

    It doesn't *allow* the USDA to grant temporary status (as they already had that right), it now mandates they do it. They have taken away the process of determining whether the court order should stand or evidence suggests the temporary order should be granted. Now they will have no choice but to give a temporary order....no questions asked.
  • Hexahedra
    Hexahedra Posts: 894 Member
    Options
    I don't pretend to know the science thoroughly enough to debate it but here are some things to consider that are self explanatory

    Concerns about the social and ethical issues surrounding genetic modification include:

    The possible monopolisation of the world food market by large multinational companies that control the distribution of GM seeds
    Concerns related to using genes from animals in plant foods. For example, eating traces of genetic material from pork is problematic for certain religious and cultural groups
    Animal welfare could be adversely affected. For example, cows given more potent GM growth hormones could suffer from health problems related to growth or metabolism
    New GM organisms could be patented so that life itself could become commercial property.

    A patent is put in place to protect inventors and give them time to recoup their investments. All patents eventually expire, so eventually any invention becomes available to the world.
    I think large corporations tend to keep an eye on patent expiration dates, but hey lets patent life everything needs to be owned by a corporation right down to the DNA.
    When a patent expires it's not renewable.
  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

    See, I was actually hoping for interesting discussion rather than the monsanto haters just to reitierate that they hate monsanto without discussing anything. Oh well. Maybe I will just check back tomorrow.

    Duh, don't you see? Monsanto is the antichrist and the reason anything BAD happens in the world! Let us crucify this one corporation on the cross of ignorance!
  • Ophidion
    Ophidion Posts: 2,065 Member
    Options
    ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government... sounds totally legit to me, you know the power to have full immunity because your crops are so safe. I am no scientist but does this not seem slightly nefarious.
    There is no "Monsanto Protection Act" - that was a scare term created by opponents to GMOs. It doesn't grant anyone immunity either. In the event of a legal challenge regarding the safety of a previously approved GMO, it allows the USDA to grant a temporary status allowing farmers to continue to grow those crops while the legal challenge works its way through the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
    I stand corrected thank you, here is the actual bill...
    "In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act."

    The question on everyone's (well a lot of concerned party's anyway) how it is in favor of corporate welfare over the welfare of farmers and consumers.If it does protect farmers why are they so concerned and outraged.

    I think the OP has posted a very interesting topic and as you have shown me there are misconceptions and half truths on both sides of the arguement. I think in the end almost everyone would prefer transparency and choice. Also not having food monopolized would be a nice touch.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories