Why we need GMO

Options
12357…13

Replies

  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    This goes beyond GMO. Monsanto is killing off our farmers and dominating an industry that can't survive under these conditions. Watch Food Inc.

    I COULD watch food inc. OR I could do my own independent research and utilize my critical thinking skills. GMO aren't a perfect technology, but they don't deserve the demonization being heaped their way.

    Nobody is "killing off our farmers". Farming as career sucks a lot, which is why people have been leaving that profession for over a century, including most of my family.

    By the way, don't shed too many tears for farmers. It IS hard, unpredictable work, but the median income of farmers who do it for a living is over $75K which is WAY over the median non-farm income. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-household-well-being/farm-household-income.aspx#.UcBWe_nVBRY
    Actually, suicide is prevalent in India among farmers because they cannot afford the cost of Monsanto seeds and they cannot afford to leave the farming industry. Monsanto is killing people in a roundabout way.
    Well, the post you responded to was referring to the US. But farmer suicide in India predates GMO crops. "Agriculture in India is often attributed as gambling with monsoons because of its almost exclusive dependency on precipitation from monsoons. The failure of these monsoons can lead to a series of droughts, lack of better prices, and exploitation of the farmers by middlemen, all of which have led to a series of suicides committed by farmers across India." Two scholarly articles concluded that while the costs of Monsanto products may have been a factor in a few specific instances of suicide, the overwhelming cause was due to socioeconomic and weather related factors.

    To add

    farmer-suicides2.jpg

    http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907
  • dawningr
    dawningr Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    Do you need HFCS too?
    How about animal cloning?

    Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    Options
    I agree. Most of the issues with GMOs are issues with conventional crops too. For example, wheat became more allergenic through conventional hybridization, and genes always have the potential to spread to wild plants, whether they're from GMO crops or conventional crops. There is a lot of potential for good in using GMOs, whether it's creating more nutritious crops, gaining higher yields without using more land, or enabling farmers to grow crops under harsh climate conditions.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Do you need HFCS too?
    How about animal cloning?

    Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?

    Metabolically speaking how does HFCS differ from sucrose?
  • ahviendha
    ahviendha Posts: 1,291 Member
    Options
    IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:

    Thank you! As a farmer myself, it is really frustrating to read debates like this. I bet most on this board read one article, or talked to one person that is either for or against GMOs and that is what they base their entire decision on. Ignorance is a plague.

    don't you dare enlighten us with your knowledge! just talk about how much smarter you are!



    i want GMOs labeled, period.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Options
    Do you need HFCS too?
    How about animal cloning?

    Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?

    That's an amazing piece of reasoning there.
  • dawningr
    dawningr Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    Do you need HFCS too?
    How about animal cloning?

    Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?

    Metabolically speaking how does HFCS differ from sucrose?

    I'm at work, so I can't share links, but would be happy to do so later.
  • RCottonRPh
    RCottonRPh Posts: 148
    Options
    I think it's fine for us to HAVE GMO's....but I think consumers need to HAVE the choice! These should ALL be labeled!
  • Onesnap
    Onesnap Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    There's the good and the bad GMOs just like any variation of crop or plant. For example, I like the roses from 50+ years ago because they smell better. They are not bred to be disease resistant or bug resistant but they are superior (just require more work).

    As for various GMOs in the US (because I know some countries--Germany as an example--are against GMOs like corn) there's some interesting findings in recent years.

    The one that stands out to me is folks that have a gluten allergy/ sensitivity. There's this super fermented heirloom wheat bread sold at a farmer's market in CA. Followers of that baker (and fans) discovered pretty quickly that it's the only bread they can eat (if they have an issue with gluten). It turns out that because the grains are stone ground, heirloom, and super fermented (I think 20+ days?) they are able to eat this bread and no other. This has led to the discussion that maybe there's an increase in gluten sensitivity and allergies due to bread no longer being super fermented (it's an old practice) and no longer being all heirloom.

    Here's the article: http://www.wholeliving.com/183942/our-daily-bread
  • dawningr
    dawningr Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    Do you need HFCS too?
    How about animal cloning?

    Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?

    That's an amazing piece of reasoning there.

    Well, aren't you a charmer? :noway:
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    To the OP, thank you for your take.

    Obviously, some people need and want GMO, others don't. The markets will be happy to welcome both sets of consumers.
  • howekaren
    howekaren Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    I hope, VorJoshigan, that you aren't implying that the larger of the two fish shown in your picture must have been genetically modified based on its size. I live on one of the best salmon rivers in the world, and I can assure you that the larger of the two is not even close to how large a salmon can grow. When I was a young child my father regularly brought home salmon over twice that size. When he was a child, 50 years ago, his father also fished and salmon over 1m long were fairly commonplace.
  • rjmudlax13
    rjmudlax13 Posts: 900 Member
    Options
    IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:

    While I disagree with you specifically, I do understand your point in the sense that there seems to be a general belief that educating one's self on an issue, and considering the opinions of those more experienced and educated on a subject, is not necessary. It applies here as much as it applies to people who don't bother to listen to experienced weight lifters, dieters, runners, etc. before they form their opinions as to why a specific program just won't work for them. People would rather watch a "documentary" full of hyperbole and outright lies than to listen to calm and reasoned opinions.

    May I add to always be careful not to "appeal to authority." Just because someone is an expert on a particular subject, does not always mean they are right.
  • MistyEE
    MistyEE Posts: 67
    Options
    Maybe we do, but they don't:

    pop-1a.jpg

    The world's population growth is currently on a trajectory where we will soon not be able to sustain everyone's food needs using traditional agriculture. In case you haven't noticed, problems in other parts of the world have a way of coming back around and biting the West in the *kitten*. I don't mind eating some meat substitutes and GMO yams if it means everyone else gets some, too.

    Bahahahahahahaahaha!!!!! The argument that GMOs will solve world hunger is the most RIDICULOUS thing ever! Have you no sense of economics or even basic political systems? People don't starve because there isn't enough food in the world. People starve because of economic inequality. I'm betting someone has never looked into dumpster diving. We waste an incrdible amount of food in the US. Increasing crop yield will only lead to more waste, not put happy faces on sad bloated African children. So delusional.

    This = Common Sense

    How could they stay in business and be profitable, selling to people who can't afford their product? Not to mention...GMO is ALREADY here...why are the African Children still hungry?
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Options
    ...
  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    Options
    Maybe we do, but they don't:

    pop-1a.jpg

    The world's population growth is currently on a trajectory where we will soon not be able to sustain everyone's food needs using traditional agriculture. In case you haven't noticed, problems in other parts of the world have a way of coming back around and biting the West in the *kitten*. I don't mind eating some meat substitutes and GMO yams if it means everyone else gets some, too.

    Bahahahahahahaahaha!!!!! The argument that GMOs will solve world hunger is the most RIDICULOUS thing ever! Have you no sense of economics or even basic political systems? People don't starve because there isn't enough food in the world. People starve because of economic inequality. I'm betting someone has never looked into dumpster diving. We waste an incrdible amount of food in the US. Increasing crop yield will only lead to more waste, not put happy faces on sad bloated African children. So delusional.

    This = Common Sense

    How could they stay in business and be profitable, selling to people who can't afford their product? Not to mention...GMO is ALREADY here...why are the African Children still hungry?

    Actually, they're both right. GMOs and other agricultural advancements CAN help feed the world - but world hunger is almost always political.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Options
    IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:

    While I disagree with you specifically, I do understand your point in the sense that there seems to be a general belief that educating one's self on an issue, and considering the opinions of those more experienced and educated on a subject, is not necessary. It applies here as much as it applies to people who don't bother to listen to experienced weight lifters, dieters, runners, etc. before they form their opinions as to why a specific program just won't work for them. People would rather watch a "documentary" full of hyperbole and outright lies than to listen to calm and reasoned opinions.

    May I add to always be careful not to "appeal to authority." Just because someone is an expert on a particular subject, does not always mean they are right.

    Please note the word "considering." The weight of expert opinion does matter but no, we should not be swayed by the occasional BSC "expert" such as Dr. Oz to use but one excellent, if slightly overused, example. Nor is the weight of expert opinion always 100% correct. That does not mean, however, that one should discard all expert opinion and live a life of argumentative ignorance, which is what several posters in this thread seem to have done.
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    Do you need HFCS too?
    How about animal cloning?

    Natural foods are pretty amazing things, why screw with that?

    Yes & yes.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzJk8rhVt050D9N914eBGZMQ_3JV55HvZdZXhnt77AbSMRjE5SQcAYdxRj2g
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    IMO - People who have weren't raised on a farm, been on a farm long enough to understand all working components, or driven a planter - please leave this forum, your ignorance is annoying me :huh:

    Agree. It's easy to sit in your condo and dictate what should be grown, where it should be grown and how it should be grown so that it pleases those who choose not to grow their own food. If you want to tell me what to grow and how to grow it I welcome your labor input any day you choose to come and lend a hand.
  • 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.
    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.

    And that's how we get generic drugs - the patent expires.
    Trade secrets or intellectual property never expire - no matter how many knock offs are created they still aren't the same as the original. Even with reverse engineering you might get a nearly similar end result but you still don't get the same thing. Oftentimes the process is part of the secret and the process may make all the difference.
    My point is that through trade secret protection there are parts of the process in creating these GMO's that may never be known. (and realistically many people, myself included, wouldn't understand all the parts of the process) The end result can be available via patent expiration, but the start is still hidden.
    Patents and trade secrets are valuable tools but to assume the exiration of a patent gives all the necessary information to recreate the original is false.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories