GMO crops still making headlines.
Options
Replies
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »"A. What chicken eats grass?"
I need to make an important contribution to this thread:
MY chickens think that freshly mown grass thrown into their coop is nectar direct from the gods.....
But but. . . .what about the roundup you killed your weeds with?!? Lawdy, than the chicken eats the grass, and you eat the eggs?!? NO!!!!!!!!!
Lot of people would pay for roundup ready grass. Yet no one at Monsanto is working on it - possibly because more than selling more chemicals, they want their product to be effective for increasing crop yields.
Farmers would agree with Monsanto and their work. We aren't making any more farmland.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »"A. What chicken eats grass?"
I need to make an important contribution to this thread:
MY chickens think that freshly mown grass thrown into their coop is nectar direct from the gods.....
But but. . . .what about the roundup you killed your weeds with?!? Lawdy, than the chicken eats the grass, and you eat the eggs?!? NO!!!!!!!!!
The drama is real.
Nobody goes full tinfoil.....on Friday....in October.....on MFP.....only mean people do
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »SpongeBob Monopoly is even better!!
Yeah. That game is a hoot. Just don't play Monsanto Monopoly, you can die playing that game!
Seriously though people.... props for most of you not getting too personal, but a couple of you are just offending one another for pages. Accept that what works for you might not work for the next person. Just my thoughts with limited time. I'll weigh in later on my personal opinion, knowing that it's just that... opinion.0 -
catscats222 wrote: »true - companies donate millions a year to the federal government
you cannot trust anyone
coke (diet coke) is a good example
the studies on asparartame are funded by money from coke and pepsi industries themselves
private people do not pay for studies
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary#latest
The person you are replying to thinks kitchen aid mixers make a person obese.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Simply put. Organic= labeled, pay to be certified. Non-organic= label as such.. May contain GMOs, or yada yada yada. There would be no fees.
But non organic can be GMO free too.0 -
You made my day! ❤catscats222 wrote: »true - companies donate millions a year to the federal government
you cannot trust anyone
coke (diet coke) is a good example
the studies on asparartame are funded by money from coke and pepsi industries themselves
private people do not pay for studies
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary#latest
0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Simply put. Organic= labeled, pay to be certified. Non-organic= label as such.. May contain GMOs, or yada yada yada. There would be no fees.
But non organic can be GMO free too.
And if the producers of non-organic, GMO-free products would like to voluntarily incur the cost of labeling their products as such, they are free to do so.0 -
.0
-
You made my day! ❤catscats222 wrote: »true - companies donate millions a year to the federal government
you cannot trust anyone
coke (diet coke) is a good example
the studies on asparartame are funded by money from coke and pepsi industries themselves
private people do not pay for studies
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary#latest
I'm glad! I didn't come up with it...just sharing.0 -
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
I'm sorry, but the previous poster was correct. GMOs involve creating organisms that cannot actually exist in nature, no matter how many thousands of years you give them to breed, mutate, and change, no matter what direction people might try to direct that breeding. They are distinctly different than organisms created through hybridization, evolution, or cross-pollinating.
"genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather."
http://www.pbs.org/pov/hybrid/getinvolved_article.php
Things like a lemur cat (a GMO cross between a lemur and a cat, made solely for wealthy women to have as pets) or a fern spider (a GMO which is a cross of a type of tarantula and a ponga fern) is never, ever going to happen in nature.
I have a problem with GMO's not because I think they are bad for human health but because there is very little testing done on them by unbiased sources to look at safety issues for people or the environment. If they are safe and useful (like the golden rice project type of useful) then great. But we really have very little idea, because the regulatory bodies that should be policing this are not doing that great on it.
A movie like Jurassic Park may be fun to watch, but it's not so fun to live through a situation where genetically created organisms that haven't existed in our planet's history are created and, instead of being isolated, are put in positions where the chances of contaminating the environment around them is pretty high. They're putting them right in the middle of our fields where they can spread and impact the environment, and we don't actually know what that impact will be. Because they can and do spread, even in cases where they are supposed to not be able to reproduce, or 'shouldn't' have spread (like with GMO wheat: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/26/351785294/gmo-wheat-investigation-closed-but-another-one-opens )
And in some cases, if they do spread, we DO know that it could have some serious impact - http://organicconnectmag.com/project/examining-the-true-risks-of-gmo-salmon/
There is slowly growing concern over the lack of research involved in some GMO usage and its environmental impact. As an example, in 2010, a federal judge revoked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval for GMO sugar beet seed in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety on the basis that the agency violated the law by failing to perform a full environmental impact statement for the seed. Nothing happened, however. Monsanto had cornered the market and there weren't enough non-GMO sugar beet seeds to use by the farmers. The estimated reduction in crops was ruled to be high enough that the USDA allowed farmers to plant GM sugar beets anyway.
And one environmental impact that is now recognized is increasingly herbicide resistant weeds due to GMO herbicide resistant crops. (There is a National Research Council report on this, but unfortunately you have to purchase it to read it - http://nas-sites.org/hr-weeds-summit/ )
I think that our scientists could come up with some amazing things in terms of GMOs, and many may be perfectly safe for people to use and eat. But we have to figure out their impact before we start putting them into our environment, and we just aren't doing a great job on that.0 -
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
I'm sorry, but the previous poster was correct. GMOs involve creating organisms that cannot actually exist in nature, no matter how many thousands of years you give them to breed, mutate, and change, no matter what direction people might try to direct that breeding. They are distinctly different than organisms created through hybridization, evolution, or cross-pollinating.
"genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather."
http://www.pbs.org/pov/hybrid/getinvolved_article.php
Things like a lemur cat (a GMO cross between a lemur and a cat, made solely for wealthy women to have as pets) or a fern spider (a GMO which is a cross of a type of tarantula and a ponga fern) is never, ever going to happen in nature.
I have a problem with GMO's not because I think they are bad for human health but because there is very little testing done on them by unbiased sources to look at safety issues for people or the environment. If they are safe and useful (like the golden rice project type of useful) then great. But we really have very little idea, because the regulatory bodies that should be policing this are not doing that great on it.
A movie like Jurassic Park may be fun to watch, but it's not so fun to live through a situation where genetically created organisms that haven't existed in our planet's history are created and, instead of being isolated, are put in positions where the chances of contaminating the environment around them is pretty high. They're putting them right in the middle of our fields where they can spread and impact the environment, and we don't actually know what that impact will be. Because they can and do spread, even in cases where they are supposed to not be able to reproduce, or 'shouldn't' have spread (like with GMO wheat: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/26/351785294/gmo-wheat-investigation-closed-but-another-one-opens )
And in some cases, if they do spread, we DO know that it could have some serious impact - http://organicconnectmag.com/project/examining-the-true-risks-of-gmo-salmon/
There is slowly growing concern over the lack of research involved in some GMO usage and its environmental impact. As an example, in 2010, a federal judge revoked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval for GMO sugar beet seed in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety on the basis that the agency violated the law by failing to perform a full environmental impact statement for the seed. Nothing happened, however. Monsanto had cornered the market and there weren't enough non-GMO sugar beet seeds to use by the farmers. The estimated reduction in crops was ruled to be high enough that the USDA allowed farmers to plant GM sugar beets anyway.
And one environmental impact that is now recognized is increasingly herbicide resistant weeds due to GMO herbicide resistant crops. (There is a National Research Council report on this, but unfortunately you have to purchase it to read it - http://nas-sites.org/hr-weeds-summit/ )
I think that our scientists could come up with some amazing things in terms of GMOs, and many may be perfectly safe for people to use and eat. But we have to figure out their impact before we start putting them into our environment, and we just aren't doing a great job on that.
Nope. You need science based evidence or this is fear mongering from you. PBS, NPR and some organic mag website is not fact.0 -
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
I'm sorry, but the previous poster was correct. GMOs involve creating organisms that cannot actually exist in nature, no matter how many thousands of years you give them to breed, mutate, and change, no matter what direction people might try to direct that breeding. They are distinctly different than organisms created through hybridization, evolution, or cross-pollinating.
"genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather."
http://www.pbs.org/pov/hybrid/getinvolved_article.php
Things like a lemur cat (a GMO cross between a lemur and a cat, made solely for wealthy women to have as pets) or a fern spider (a GMO which is a cross of a type of tarantula and a ponga fern) is never, ever going to happen in nature.
I have a problem with GMO's not because I think they are bad for human health but because there is very little testing done on them by unbiased sources to look at safety issues for people or the environment. If they are safe and useful (like the golden rice project type of useful) then great. But we really have very little idea, because the regulatory bodies that should be policing this are not doing that great on it.
A movie like Jurassic Park may be fun to watch, but it's not so fun to live through a situation where genetically created organisms that haven't existed in our planet's history are created and, instead of being isolated, are put in positions where the chances of contaminating the environment around them is pretty high. They're putting them right in the middle of our fields where they can spread and impact the environment, and we don't actually know what that impact will be. Because they can and do spread, even in cases where they are supposed to not be able to reproduce, or 'shouldn't' have spread (like with GMO wheat: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/26/351785294/gmo-wheat-investigation-closed-but-another-one-opens )
And in some cases, if they do spread, we DO know that it could have some serious impact - http://organicconnectmag.com/project/examining-the-true-risks-of-gmo-salmon/
There is slowly growing concern over the lack of research involved in some GMO usage and its environmental impact. As an example, in 2010, a federal judge revoked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval for GMO sugar beet seed in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety on the basis that the agency violated the law by failing to perform a full environmental impact statement for the seed. Nothing happened, however. Monsanto had cornered the market and there weren't enough non-GMO sugar beet seeds to use by the farmers. The estimated reduction in crops was ruled to be high enough that the USDA allowed farmers to plant GM sugar beets anyway.
And one environmental impact that is now recognized is increasingly herbicide resistant weeds due to GMO herbicide resistant crops. (There is a National Research Council report on this, but unfortunately you have to purchase it to read it - http://nas-sites.org/hr-weeds-summit/ )
I think that our scientists could come up with some amazing things in terms of GMOs, and many may be perfectly safe for people to use and eat. But we have to figure out their impact before we start putting them into our environment, and we just aren't doing a great job on that.
Sorry, nope. Transgenics happen in nature. Genes do transfer across species. You, as a human being, are a transgenic organism.
And if that is the issue, why are cisgenic organisms treated the same as GMOs?
The 2010 lawsuit is about court posturing, not science.
I have serious problems with anti-GMO sources can't get their story straight with salmon. Either the gene will flourish and spread, or it would be detrimental to the salmon population - it can't do both! Genes that are detrimental don't spread! That's how evolution works. If your genes make something worse at surviving the genes diminish in the population. If the genes spread, it can only be because they have a positive benefit for the organism.
Herbicide resistance is not a surprise. Anti-GMO people act like it is a huge surprise to scientists that products that make an herbicide more useful would cause more weeds to resist it. Sorry, you don't get to that level of biology to do transgenics and not know about natural selection. The only surprises have been in the timelines of how quickly they have developed herbicide resistance.
What cheeses me off is that I've seen people who are the most intellectually honest anti-GMO people try to deceive people about herbicide resistance. On the IQ debates one scientists talked about super weeds and about how they break equipment - except that has nothing to do with herbicide resistance! That is resistance to the mechanical removal from generations of being mechanically removed. It didn't show up because of using herbicides. Spray herbicides do the opposite if anything - they encourage evolution for herbicide chemical resistance and cause resistance to mechanical weeding to become a waste of energy.0 -
There are a lot of traditional crosses that have been done by humans that never would happen in the wild, and many domestic plants and animals that would not survive in the wild too.
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
I'm sorry, but the previous poster was correct. GMOs involve creating organisms that cannot actually exist in nature, no matter how many thousands of years you give them to breed, mutate, and change, no matter what direction people might try to direct that breeding. They are distinctly different than organisms created through hybridization, evolution, or cross-pollinating.
"genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather."
http://www.pbs.org/pov/hybrid/getinvolved_article.php
Things like a lemur cat (a GMO cross between a lemur and a cat, made solely for wealthy women to have as pets) or a fern spider (a GMO which is a cross of a type of tarantula and a ponga fern) is never, ever going to happen in nature.
I have a problem with GMO's not because I think they are bad for human health but because there is very little testing done on them by unbiased sources to look at safety issues for people or the environment. If they are safe and useful (like the golden rice project type of useful) then great. But we really have very little idea, because the regulatory bodies that should be policing this are not doing that great on it.
A movie like Jurassic Park may be fun to watch, but it's not so fun to live through a situation where genetically created organisms that haven't existed in our planet's history are created and, instead of being isolated, are put in positions where the chances of contaminating the environment around them is pretty high. They're putting them right in the middle of our fields where they can spread and impact the environment, and we don't actually know what that impact will be. Because they can and do spread, even in cases where they are supposed to not be able to reproduce, or 'shouldn't' have spread (like with GMO wheat: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/26/351785294/gmo-wheat-investigation-closed-but-another-one-opens )
And in some cases, if they do spread, we DO know that it could have some serious impact - http://organicconnectmag.com/project/examining-the-true-risks-of-gmo-salmon/
There is slowly growing concern over the lack of research involved in some GMO usage and its environmental impact. As an example, in 2010, a federal judge revoked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval for GMO sugar beet seed in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety on the basis that the agency violated the law by failing to perform a full environmental impact statement for the seed. Nothing happened, however. Monsanto had cornered the market and there weren't enough non-GMO sugar beet seeds to use by the farmers. The estimated reduction in crops was ruled to be high enough that the USDA allowed farmers to plant GM sugar beets anyway.
And one environmental impact that is now recognized is increasingly herbicide resistant weeds due to GMO herbicide resistant crops. (There is a National Research Council report on this, but unfortunately you have to purchase it to read it - http://nas-sites.org/hr-weeds-summit/ )
I think that our scientists could come up with some amazing things in terms of GMOs, and many may be perfectly safe for people to use and eat. But we have to figure out their impact before we start putting them into our environment, and we just aren't doing a great job on that.
As for the invasive species worry- that's not just an issue of GMOs, it's an issue of any plant. In my own yard I deal with three- vinca, scotch broom, and Himalayan blackberries. If you want to worry about invasive species that is fine, but they are not something specific to GMOs, and is really just an issue with all plants and animals. Don't blame GMOs, blame people who let the plants/pests escape or didn't make sure that they didn't transport them. (Like the clams that are a problem at Tahoe, because hobby boaters didn't clean their boats between sites.)
0 -
I have a problem with GMO's not because I think they are bad for human health but because there is very little testing done on them by unbiased sources to look at safety issues for people or the environment. If they are safe and useful (like the golden rice project type of useful) then great. But we really have very little idea, because the regulatory bodies that should be policing this are not doing that great on it.
I'm not going to get into the debate about which sources of evidence are more accurate, but overall I like that you seem open minded about the discussion regardless. And that is why I snipped everything but the above paragraph.
There are a number of major humanitarian organizations that have openly stated that without GMO's, we would have never produced enough food to feed the world. At this point we have excess food, and the problems are logistics. I personally consider this a useful purpose. And thought I have not found any evidence to support it, even if GMO crops did have negative effects on a human, it certainly could be no more negative than starving to death.
And I'd gladly dig up some links to support the above about food volume if anyone is interested.
0 -
IdoScience wrote: »
From the majority (ie "weight of evidence") science I have seen, GMO's are safe.
Unlike people who pretend to be curious or interested because they want to fight, I'm genuinely interested here and am not trying to start (nor will I enter into) some crazy online fight.rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods
This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
What do you think is harmful in the GMO food?
I don't mean Why do you hate Archer Daniels Midland (or Monsanto or whoever you may or may not hate), but what is it about the food, itself, that worries you?
I've yet to see anyone explain why they avoid these foods based on the foods themselves.
If there is something we should know, please share it. I don't mean that in a mean way. It is unfortunate that I always have to add these disclaimers, lol, but I know people ask questions all the time because they want to fight about the answers. Really not doing that.
The bolded above seems really passive aggressive, snarky and almost seems like it is inviting a response. I hope this forum is not full of these types
You nailed it ! @IdoScience0 -
so now we're creating non-feathered velociraptors that were much larger than they existed in nature by adding a gene that allows a plant to break down glyphosphate?0
-
"A. What chicken eats grass?"
I need to make an important contribution to this thread:
MY chickens think that freshly mown grass thrown into their coop is nectar direct from the gods.....
I freeze grass clippings to give the chickens in Winter. It's a nice treat for them when everything green is covered in snow.0 -
I believe that a free market benefits everyone. If companies want to use GMO ingredients that is fine with me.
I also believe consumers have the right to know what ingredients are in a product they buy. Mandatory labeling laws would give everyone what they want.
Manufacturers can use the ingredients and consumers can choose if they want to buy products with those ingredients.
Unfortunately the manufacturers don't want you to know the ingredients and pay millions of dollars to politician to prevent mandatory fair labeling laws.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 951 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions