Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Study on effects of eliminating GMOs
Replies
-
jmbmilholland wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »Excess population isn't a reason for hunger at this time, but it's a reason for severe environmental destruction partly caused by traditional modern day farming methods, which is the cause for concern. And we could eventually get to the point of not having enough good topsoil left to grow enough food for everybody. There's only so much of it. So the idea that we should just continue destroying more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, so we can destroy more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, is an absolutely terrible idea. You're worried about genocide and people dying? Then worry about that! You're right to be afraid, but your fears are completely misplaced. That's why I'm proposing two things. One is to decrease the population through birth control, and the other is to implement agroecology instead of GMO Monsanto agriculture which is actually what's going to end up killing us.
I respectfully present this opinion, and I respect it if you have a different opinion. Please don't call me woo or stupid, or talk down to me in a condescending tone, or suggest that I have no ability for rational thought, and don't accuse me of wanting to kill masses of brown skinned people. Thanks. I'll try my best to abstain from sarcasm and be the bigger person from now on, no matter how much other people are condescending to me and putting me down.
I've noticed in several of your posts, you seem to be very concerned about topsoil. Please don't conflate GMO crops with topsoil erosion. Topsoil loss is prevented (or worst case scenario heavily mitigated) by no-till farming techniques, which inject seeds and fertilizer directly into planting pockets rather than plowing, discing and harrowing entire fields. With no-till, the residue from the previous year (such as the rootballs, a few inches of stalk, and general crop detritus; along with a newly planted cover crop, ideally) is left over the winter to prevent erosion, contribute to soil fertility, and maintain friability. New seeds are planted directly into the organic detritus from the previous years, which serve as a form of mulch to prevent further erosion and evaporation. Since chemical need to be used to kill off the seeds (generally not many more chemicals than used in conventional farming), round-up ready crops like corn, alfalfa, soybeans, cotton, etc. actually lend themselves very well to this practice. It is one of the crown jewels of GMO farming, and I am surprised it has not come up earlier.
I think the reason for the bolded is that while people have very strong opinions about GMOs in this thread, it seems most of the basis for the debate is coming from google searches which are inevitably influenced by the search terms one chooses to use, in this case, a lot of searching for buzzwords to help with a particular argument. I could be wrong, but your post seems to imply that you have direct knowledge of the agriculture industry and techniques related to GMO farming. I'd say that you may be one of the only people in this thread with direct or indirect experience, so I for one, greatly appreciate your contribution.0 -
Yeah, my mistake. But I think you get my point.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But GMO foods have been around for years, unless you're saying it could just take a long time. And I don't think it would address all poverty-related food issues.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree. There are multi-million dollar homes a few miles away from where I live, while 25 miles away there are people who live in poverty (in the same county!)I also think it is kind of interesting that there is often discussion of those in third world country who are starving to death while there seems to be a blanket denial to the many in this country who are hungry on a regular basis. I spent my 9 to 5 looking directly into many of those faces.
IMO this has nothing to do with GMOs being needed to feed those who are starving.
Maybe, maybe not. If adding GMO foods makes it so the prices of food drops in any significant way then it might not have NOTHING to do with it. Time will tell.
There are kids from a local school in my area who do not usually get enough to eat on the weekends. Through my church, these kids are now being fed. And while some of this food is GMO, a lot of it is either low nutrient dense packaged food that has GMO flour as a base or non-GMO based altogether. I wouldn't really consider GMOs to be helping in that regard.
I thought GMO flour wasn't a thing currently. Packaged goods commonly have GMOs because the common GMOs used commercially are soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola.
0 -
I would encourage people not to assume that because someone is poor that they do not know how to cook. Some may not and maybe never learned, but I think that is a blanket assumption that needs to be confronted. I would make the hypothesis that more rich people do not know how to cook because it was always done for them....than poor people who often at a very young age were given some of the adult responsibilities of cooking and preparing food.
I absolutely agree. I would like to point out my use of the hedge, "so many," which doesn't specify a particular percentage of people living below the poverty line--just that there are a lot of them, probably more than 10%, and, in my interaction with the relief food distribution system, it impacts many people's abilities to make use of what they have access to. Also, I didn't deliberately specify that the lack of ability was out of ignorance. Two of the hallmarks of poverty are a breakdown in the family structure and/or a breakdown in the physical home, both of which can deal a death blow to the ability to pass on skills to make a sherry-tomato soup with eggplant puree, eggplant gratin, or ratatouille. If you are living in a box by the river--and we have a lot of people who are, you still can't cook an eggplant gratin because you are living in a box.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »Excess population isn't a reason for hunger at this time, but it's a reason for severe environmental destruction partly caused by traditional modern day farming methods, which is the cause for concern. And we could eventually get to the point of not having enough good topsoil left to grow enough food for everybody. There's only so much of it. So the idea that we should just continue destroying more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, so we can destroy more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, is an absolutely terrible idea. You're worried about genocide and people dying? Then worry about that! You're right to be afraid, but your fears are completely misplaced. That's why I'm proposing two things. One is to decrease the population through birth control, and the other is to implement agroecology instead of GMO Monsanto agriculture which is actually what's going to end up killing us.
I respectfully present this opinion, and I respect it if you have a different opinion. Please don't call me woo or stupid, or talk down to me in a condescending tone, or suggest that I have no ability for rational thought, and don't accuse me of wanting to kill masses of brown skinned people. Thanks. I'll try my best to abstain from sarcasm and be the bigger person from now on, no matter how much other people are condescending to me and putting me down.
I've noticed in several of your posts, you seem to be very concerned about topsoil. Please don't conflate GMO crops with topsoil erosion. Topsoil loss is prevented (or worst case scenario heavily mitigated) by no-till farming techniques, which inject seeds and fertilizer directly into planting pockets rather than plowing, discing and harrowing entire fields. With no-till, the residue from the previous year (such as the rootballs, a few inches of stalk, and general crop detritus; along with a newly planted cover crop, ideally) is left over the winter to prevent erosion, contribute to soil fertility, and maintain friability. New seeds are planted directly into the organic detritus from the previous years, which serve as a form of mulch to prevent further erosion and evaporation. Since chemical need to be used to kill off the seeds (generally not many more chemicals than used in conventional farming), round-up ready crops like corn, alfalfa, soybeans, cotton, etc. actually lend themselves very well to this practice. It is one of the crown jewels of GMO farming, and I am surprised it has not come up earlier.
I think the reason for the bolded is that while people have very strong opinions about GMOs in this thread, it seems most of the basis for the debate is coming from google searches which are inevitably influenced by the search terms one chooses to use, in this case, a lot of searching for buzzwords to help with a particular argument. I could be wrong, but your post seems to imply that you have direct knowledge of the agriculture industry and techniques related to GMO farming. I'd say that you may be one of the only people in this thread with direct or indirect experience, so I for one, greatly appreciate your contribution.
LOL. I'm just a hard core organic gardener but I have a deep interest in agrarian issues, both historic (don't get me started on the 8-yoke oxen plough teams covered in the Domesday book post-Norman Conquest) and current. And I'm descended from a long line of Indiana farmers; we still have a farm in the family that we have had in production since the 1870s, under management by men with ag degrees. Every family reunion at the farm involves a tour and a scientific lecture on this or that aspect of the farm. As far as GMOs are concerned, I'm a tad leery, but they definitely have a lot of strengths, and I'm not leery enough to prevent my children from eating Cheerios. I don't think it hurts Monsanto to be watched like a hawk. Likewise, farmers who grow conventional crops might harvest slightly fewer bushels per acre, but they also have fewer seed expenses, and I certainly hope they can get a premium for the non-GMO labeling they support. I've been reading about no-till as I've researched cover cropping strategies for our community garden. This year we're going to try daikon radishes that send down a deep tap root, shade out the weeds, then die off over the winter and compost in place, rather than destroying the soil structure with rototilling.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Also, how is it any less hysterical to say that we're all going to starve to death if we don't have GMOs? How did we survive for thousands of years without them?
By genetically modifying our food. Although, our ancestors didn't call it that or necessarily knew what they were doing.0 -
Look up Norman Borlaug. Nobel prize winning biologist who helped save lives with GMO.lisawinning4losing wrote: »Go Australia!
Look, here's what's really going on. Studies show that GMOs are very harmful, but big ag is using their money and power to try to push the scientific community around.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The second greatest person to ever live. Right after Tom Brady of course.0 -
I also think it is kind of interesting that there is often discussion of those in third world country who are starving to death while there seems to be a blanket denial to the many in this country who are hungry on a regular basis. I spent my 9 to 5 looking directly into many of those faces.
That!0 -
farmers in third world country are behold to those that they buy seeds from they have to buy all the pesticides from them too. A vicious cycle that keeps them poor. If they could buy seeds that do not need all those pesticides they would not have to spend money they do not have. Plus the pesticides they use are terrible for there environment. While GMO's may seem evil is it the lesser of 2 evils. People are starving for many reasons. Look at the Sudan and places like that.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, my mistake. But I think you get my point.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But GMO foods have been around for years, unless you're saying it could just take a long time. And I don't think it would address all poverty-related food issues.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree. There are multi-million dollar homes a few miles away from where I live, while 25 miles away there are people who live in poverty (in the same county!)I also think it is kind of interesting that there is often discussion of those in third world country who are starving to death while there seems to be a blanket denial to the many in this country who are hungry on a regular basis. I spent my 9 to 5 looking directly into many of those faces.
IMO this has nothing to do with GMOs being needed to feed those who are starving.
Maybe, maybe not. If adding GMO foods makes it so the prices of food drops in any significant way then it might not have NOTHING to do with it. Time will tell.
There are kids from a local school in my area who do not usually get enough to eat on the weekends. Through my church, these kids are now being fed. And while some of this food is GMO, a lot of it is either low nutrient dense packaged food that has GMO flour as a base or non-GMO based altogether. I wouldn't really consider GMOs to be helping in that regard.
I thought GMO flour wasn't a thing currently. Packaged goods commonly have GMOs because the common GMOs used commercially are soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola.
Right, the current situation is most GMOs are probably in packaged foods. I think shell is hoping that they could make produce more available/cheaper. (I am not currently optimistic about this, as I think food in the US is as cheap as one can reasonably expect, but I can see where she's coming from, and what you said didn't respond to that idea.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, my mistake. But I think you get my point.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But GMO foods have been around for years, unless you're saying it could just take a long time. And I don't think it would address all poverty-related food issues.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree. There are multi-million dollar homes a few miles away from where I live, while 25 miles away there are people who live in poverty (in the same county!)I also think it is kind of interesting that there is often discussion of those in third world country who are starving to death while there seems to be a blanket denial to the many in this country who are hungry on a regular basis. I spent my 9 to 5 looking directly into many of those faces.
IMO this has nothing to do with GMOs being needed to feed those who are starving.
Maybe, maybe not. If adding GMO foods makes it so the prices of food drops in any significant way then it might not have NOTHING to do with it. Time will tell.
There are kids from a local school in my area who do not usually get enough to eat on the weekends. Through my church, these kids are now being fed. And while some of this food is GMO, a lot of it is either low nutrient dense packaged food that has GMO flour as a base or non-GMO based altogether. I wouldn't really consider GMOs to be helping in that regard.
I thought GMO flour wasn't a thing currently. Packaged goods commonly have GMOs because the common GMOs used commercially are soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola.
Right, the current situation is most GMOs are probably in packaged foods. I think shell is hoping that they could make produce more available/cheaper. (I am not currently optimistic about this, as I think food in the US is as cheap as one can reasonably expect, but I can see where she's coming from, and what you said didn't respond to that idea.)
most GMO's will be in the form of isolated sugars from corn and soy oil/protein/lecithin, products that vary little with whether the source was GMO or not.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, my mistake. But I think you get my point.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But GMO foods have been around for years, unless you're saying it could just take a long time. And I don't think it would address all poverty-related food issues.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree. There are multi-million dollar homes a few miles away from where I live, while 25 miles away there are people who live in poverty (in the same county!)I also think it is kind of interesting that there is often discussion of those in third world country who are starving to death while there seems to be a blanket denial to the many in this country who are hungry on a regular basis. I spent my 9 to 5 looking directly into many of those faces.
IMO this has nothing to do with GMOs being needed to feed those who are starving.
Maybe, maybe not. If adding GMO foods makes it so the prices of food drops in any significant way then it might not have NOTHING to do with it. Time will tell.
There are kids from a local school in my area who do not usually get enough to eat on the weekends. Through my church, these kids are now being fed. And while some of this food is GMO, a lot of it is either low nutrient dense packaged food that has GMO flour as a base or non-GMO based altogether. I wouldn't really consider GMOs to be helping in that regard.
I thought GMO flour wasn't a thing currently. Packaged goods commonly have GMOs because the common GMOs used commercially are soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola.
Right, the current situation is most GMOs are probably in packaged foods. I think shell is hoping that they could make produce more available/cheaper. (I am not currently optimistic about this, as I think food in the US is as cheap as one can reasonably expect, but I can see where she's coming from, and what you said didn't respond to that idea.)
most GMO's will be in the form of isolated sugars from corn and soy oil/protein/lecithin, products that vary little with whether the source was GMO or not.
Again, I could be wrong, but since we are talking about future uses, I assume shell is talking about possible uses to make other kinds of produce cheaper or longer-lasting, not how they are currently used.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, my mistake. But I think you get my point.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But GMO foods have been around for years, unless you're saying it could just take a long time. And I don't think it would address all poverty-related food issues.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree. There are multi-million dollar homes a few miles away from where I live, while 25 miles away there are people who live in poverty (in the same county!)I also think it is kind of interesting that there is often discussion of those in third world country who are starving to death while there seems to be a blanket denial to the many in this country who are hungry on a regular basis. I spent my 9 to 5 looking directly into many of those faces.
IMO this has nothing to do with GMOs being needed to feed those who are starving.
Maybe, maybe not. If adding GMO foods makes it so the prices of food drops in any significant way then it might not have NOTHING to do with it. Time will tell.
There are kids from a local school in my area who do not usually get enough to eat on the weekends. Through my church, these kids are now being fed. And while some of this food is GMO, a lot of it is either low nutrient dense packaged food that has GMO flour as a base or non-GMO based altogether. I wouldn't really consider GMOs to be helping in that regard.
I thought GMO flour wasn't a thing currently. Packaged goods commonly have GMOs because the common GMOs used commercially are soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola.
Right, the current situation is most GMOs are probably in packaged foods. I think shell is hoping that they could make produce more available/cheaper. (I am not currently optimistic about this, as I think food in the US is as cheap as one can reasonably expect, but I can see where she's coming from, and what you said didn't respond to that idea.)
most GMO's will be in the form of isolated sugars from corn and soy oil/protein/lecithin, products that vary little with whether the source was GMO or not.
Again, I could be wrong, but since we are talking about future uses, I assume shell is talking about possible uses to make other kinds of produce cheaper or longer-lasting, not how they are currently used.
sorry...I wasn't paying attention and didn't read back enough.
GO GOLDEN RICE, WE'RE PULLING FOR YOU!0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »Excess population isn't a reason for hunger at this time, but it's a reason for severe environmental destruction partly caused by traditional modern day farming methods, which is the cause for concern. And we could eventually get to the point of not having enough good topsoil left to grow enough food for everybody. There's only so much of it. So the idea that we should just continue destroying more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, so we can destroy more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, is an absolutely terrible idea. You're worried about genocide and people dying? Then worry about that! You're right to be afraid, but your fears are completely misplaced. That's why I'm proposing two things. One is to decrease the population through birth control, and the other is to implement agroecology instead of GMO Monsanto agriculture which is actually what's going to end up killing us.
I respectfully present this opinion, and I respect it if you have a different opinion. Please don't call me woo or stupid, or talk down to me in a condescending tone, or suggest that I have no ability for rational thought, and don't accuse me of wanting to kill masses of brown skinned people. Thanks. I'll try my best to abstain from sarcasm and be the bigger person from now on, no matter how much other people are condescending to me and putting me down.
I've noticed in several of your posts, you seem to be very concerned about topsoil. Please don't conflate GMO crops with topsoil erosion. Topsoil loss is prevented (or worst case scenario heavily mitigated) by no-till farming techniques, which inject seeds and fertilizer directly into planting pockets rather than plowing, discing and harrowing entire fields. With no-till, the residue from the previous year (such as the rootballs, a few inches of stalk, and general crop detritus; along with a newly planted cover crop, ideally) is left over the winter to prevent erosion, contribute to soil fertility, and maintain friability. New seeds are planted directly into the organic detritus from the previous years, which serve as a form of mulch to prevent further erosion and evaporation. Since chemical need to be used to kill off the seeds (generally not many more chemicals than used in conventional farming), round-up ready crops like corn, alfalfa, soybeans, cotton, etc. actually lend themselves very well to this practice. It is one of the crown jewels of GMO farming, and I am surprised it has not come up earlier.
I think the reason for the bolded is that while people have very strong opinions about GMOs in this thread, it seems most of the basis for the debate is coming from google searches which are inevitably influenced by the search terms one chooses to use, in this case, a lot of searching for buzzwords to help with a particular argument. I could be wrong, but your post seems to imply that you have direct knowledge of the agriculture industry and techniques related to GMO farming. I'd say that you may be one of the only people in this thread with direct or indirect experience, so I for one, greatly appreciate your contribution.
This was previously posted in another GMO thread and it rings so true with what you're saying (the bolded):
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions