GMO Food

Quiet

Quiet

i know nothing
MBTI
infj
Enneagram
1w9
What do you think/feel about GMO (gentically modified) food?

This has been an important and contentious issue for a while. Governments around the world are making a lot of decisions about GMO without informing and consulting their citizens.

GMO supporters claim that they can vastly improve food production, quality and output while reducing economic costs and reliance on fertilisers and herbicides.
Plants can be modified to be more:
* disease resistant
* pest resistant
* drought resistant
* cold torerant
* salinity tolerant
* herbicide tolerant
* higher in nutritional value.
* GMO Plants can also be used in a process called phytoremediation, to clean up heavy metal pollutants from soil.
* Pharmeceutical are also being bred in plants, as 'edible vaccines'.

Those that oppose GMO foods are concerned about
* unknown and adverse health risks to humans and the food chain
* incerased allergenicity
* increased tolerance to pesticides
* unitentional cross breeding of plants
* cross contamination
* patenting of dna
* ownership of dna
* loss of natural seeds and natural crops
* messy economics- hard to sell something that cant be contained once its released (kind of like copyright music and books)

Personally I am very worried about GMO. Ive had a bad feeling about it since I started I started learning about it 7 years ago. I would love to solve world hunger, but I doubt that GMO food will ever be used to do that. The health risks are worrying but I'm more terrified that corporations like Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont will try to own and control the world's food in the future.

I am admittedly biased, as Im studying naturopathy. I have also read hundreds of scientific papers (Im not joking) and considered all sides of this arguement. I just find the issue very messy.

What are your thoughts?
 
I don't think there's any evidence of adverse health effects from GMOs. The intellectual property issues and the business models of Monsanto and friends are the most worrying part of it, to me. Arguments about it being 'unnatural' and therefore bad are ridiculous, except for creationists. I have no idea how people could stop superior versions of crops from spreading all over the place.

A big reason why I don't buy into all the organic food hysteria is because of the dogmatic rejection of genetic engineering.
 
Monsanto is evil, period. There are very few people, even die-hard business executives who will deny that. We've trusted a company that went from making Agent Orange to controlling 95% of the world's seed supply... and people are ok with that for some reason?!

The number one reason I am not for and never will be for GMO food is Biodiversity. It's not just a nutcase here or there who are screaming about it, or the fringes of society who are going to be affected by it. If you haven't seen it, watch this documentary and then tell me you're indifferent to the entire process:

[video=youtube_share;IscKeTRuKv8]http://youtu.be/IscKeTRuKv8[/video]
 
Meer said:
I don't think there's any evidence of adverse health effects from GMOs. The intellectual property issues and the business models of Monsanto and friends are the most worrying part of it, to me. Arguments about it being 'unnatural' and therefore bad are ridiculous, except for creationists. I have no idea how people could stop superior versions of crops from spreading all over the place.

A big reason why I don't buy into all the organic food hysteria is because of the dogmatic rejection of genetic engineering.
Click to expand...


I understand what you mean about the dogmatic rejection stuff, it is really ignorant, annoying and doesn't add to to the debate. I think that genetic engineering in itself is fascinating and could be very useful. The hysteria of the ultraconservatives, hippies and corporations is equally annoying.

Genetic engineering needs to be treated separately from the issue of GM foods. Its not the modification of the genes that I find troubling, its the making GM food available for consumption before there is certainty that this food is safe to an ill informed public.
The people that are buying it now, either knowingly or unwittingly are the guinea pigs.
There is both evidence for and against the adverse health effects from GMO. Most of the research is complicated and confusing because its been done on animals, the doses given have been too little or too large, and the results of some studies may have been misinterpreted.
The safest position is that the effects of GM food are unknown at this time, and GM foods need further testing.
Despite the lack of evidence to support that GM food is safe, these foods are already available at the supermarket and all through our food supply chain. And crops are already being grown all over the world and are already contaminating other crops and plants.
 
Lerxst said:
Monsanto is evil, period. There are very few people, even die-hard business executives who will deny that. We've trusted a company that went from making Agent Orange to controlling 95% of the world's seed supply... and people are ok with that for some reason?!

The number one reason I am not for and never will be for GMO food is Biodiversity. It's not just a nutcase here or there who are screaming about it, or the fringes of society who are going to be affected by it. If you haven't seen it, watch this documentary and then tell me you're indifferent to the entire process:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to the doco, I havent seen that one yet.

I hate the word evil in general but its hard to know how else to describe Monsanto.
 
toska said:
I certainly haven't read hundreds of papers, but I've read articles summarizing studies that have found evidence linking GMOs to reproductive disorders in animals. Makes me wonder sometimes if it's part of a plan to reduce the human population...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm familiar with those. And then theres the spermicidal corn as well.
I too have wondered if they are planning to reduce the human population with GMO. The animal population as well- so that animals have to be bought, not bred.
The world may be overpopulated but no one has the right to tamper with reproduction on a mass scale.
 
And of course, who hasn't seen this one?

[video=youtube_share;2P1CJ7IEt0c]http://youtu.be/2P1CJ7IEt0c[/video]
 
we dont need GMO food to stop hunger, we just need to share it equally. Tons of food are wasted by capitalism that could go to hungry people. And no i dont want to get obese for eating that crap xd
 
Where do I sign up to get my tinfoil hat?

I am against big business in general. History has shown again and again that moneygrubbers are typically most concerned with money. I did see a documentary on the whole seed thing awhile back and thought it was an awful state. In general, our agriculture system is way screwed up in the United States. Given the advancements, I think decentralizing and making smaller farm productions makes better ecological and biological sense.

As far as the government trying to modify humans..... Well, the government did forcibly/without consent sterilize Native women until the 1970's in this country. I wouldn't be surprised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Lots of companies involved in GMO are really iffy, one reason to reject them, and they are using GMO's to force peasants and farmers all over the world to sell out to them, harming the free market, harming the possibility for farmers to keep doing what they do. This problem is related to patenting, and if you would get rid of patenting, that problem would be out of the way.

The remaining issue would then be the unknown health problems that could be caused. And we need to be sure that it's done by people who don't have economic interest in selling bad products that are easy to produce, we deserve good quality food.

GMO can help stop world starvation, so it's definitely technology to embrace, if we can get rid of the kinks.
 
anarkandi said:
The remaining issue would then be the unknown health problems that could be caused.
Click to expand...

The unfortunate part is, we already know the health problems. You take an area of say 10 square miles that's full of about 100 different species of insect and animal life and about 50 different plats, rake it up, burn it down, spray the entire area with toxic chemicals and then plant only 1 seed type that's been modified to resist that chemical... the health problems should speak for themselves.

Deforestation, species extinction, biodiversity, water pollution, reduced O2 production, soil erosion, no regard for natural mutations and an overall lack of natural redundancy - in other words, one parasite that develops an immunity can wipe out most of the food supply.
 
Sai said:
we dont need GMO food to stop hunger, we just need to share it equally. Tons of food are wasted by capitalism that could go to hungry people. And no i dont want to get obese for eating that crap xd
Click to expand...

That food is produced by capitalism. If you take away capitalism, the excess food goes bye-bye.
 
Lerxst said:
The unfortunate part is, we already know the health problems. You take an area of say 10 square miles that's full of about 100 different species of insect and animal life and about 50 different plats, rake it up, burn it down, spray the entire area with toxic chemicals and then plant only 1 seed type that's been modified to resist that chemical... the health problems should speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

You didn't mention any health problems, you just spat out environmentalism. You have to talk about which chemical they use as well as how much. Without both of those, you can't just say that it's toxic. There are pesticides that are used in organic farming as well.

Deforestation, species extinction, biodiversity, water pollution, reduced O2 production, soil erosion, no regard for natural mutations and an overall lack of natural redundancy - in other words, one parasite that develops an immunity can wipe out most of the food supply.
Click to expand...

Species extinction has been going on long before we've been around. Previous species have probably made other species extinct as well, so I'm not worried about it. Deforestation is due to a demand in wood. When there's a demand for wood, there's a demand for trees to be planted. The number of trees in the United States has been increasing for the past 40 years. Biodiversity is another thing we're just not responsible for. Evolution is driven by natural selection, not human selection. If we start to go extinct, nobody's going to come save us.
 
bickelz said:
You didn't mention any health problems, you just spat out environmentalism. You have to talk about which chemical they use as well as how much. Without both of those, you can't just say that it's toxic. There are pesticides that are used in organic farming as well.
Click to expand...

Are you really so dense you need me to spell it out for you word for word? Ok, I will.

Water Pollution - Look up the case against Pacific Gas and Electric (The Erin Brockovich law suit)

Deforestation and O2 production - Do you honestly think you don't need air to breathe? Where do you think that air comes from? If you want the health terms for it - Hypoxia

Soil erosion - Without soil we don't grow food, without food, we starve. Starvation was a pretty serious health issues last I checked.

Lack of redundancy - One bug or one strain of disease can infect soybeans and most of what we know as civilization will crumble to dust - ever really take a close look to see what we use soy in these days? Most of it doesn't need to be but it's there since soy is the number one crop produced by the number one seed producer in the world. Economies will crumble, soil will be to toxic to plant anything else in and famine will spread, along with violence. Death by blugeoning or getting shot is also a rather serious health issue.

Species extinction - Is only natural when it's caused by a natural process and has time to replace/replenish itself. Remove one key species such as a predator and the entire thing gets thrown off balance - they will not locate conveniently to the fringes of a development, they will scatter and leave. Number one health concern for any area around that edges of that 10 miles area - rodents!
 
Stormy1 said:
Where do I sign up to get my tinfoil hat?

I am against big business in general. History has shown again and again that moneygrubbers are typically most concerned with money. I did see a documentary on the whole seed thing awhile back and thought it was an awful state. In general, our agriculture system is way screwed up in the United States. Given the advancements, I think decentralizing and making smaller farm productions makes better ecological and biological sense.

As far as the government trying to modify humans..... Well, the government did forcibly/without consent sterilize Native women until the 1970's in this country. I wouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Yes. Decentralisation of farming! The way farming is done at the moment is wasteful and productive. Its crazy how I can buy an orange from my local supermarket from half way around the world when there's perfectly good oranges that are grown locally.
I have spent much time trying to imagine a better food production (paddock to plate system).
I love the idea of having lots of small localised community gardens where everyone can contribute and purchase the produce at an affordable 'cost' price. This will mean that people will have less variety and eat more seasonable vegetables, but I think most people will be clever enough to adapt, just as they were able to a century ago.
Larger, space consuming crops such as wheat, rice and corn should be only farmed in the most appropriate regions as these crops are very resource greedy.
Hemp and bamboo are a lot more environementally friendly and cheaper to grow than cotton or producing many synthetics. A lot of our crop choices need to be reconsidered and adapted to our current needs and better understanding of science and ethics.

Any ideas for farming and food production anyone? Be as utopian as you like, its nice to imagine what we could do.
 
I love the idea of having lots of small localised community gardens where everyone can contribute and purchase the produce at an affordable 'cost' price. This will mean that people will have less variety and eat more seasonable vegetables, but I think most people will be clever enough to adapt, just as they were able to a century ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, this.

Practically everyone I know IRL, including people who live in small urban lofts, is already growing some portion of their own food. There is land all around us and people ignore it like it is not there. You can grow much more on small plots of land than most people realize, and you can raise chickens (bit noisy) and bees, and fish in urban or (better) suburban areas. You can also hunt. (Bambi tastes delish).

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0898154154/?tag=infjs-20

When I have suggested this sort of thing in the past people have told me I'm a redneck who wants to make poor people slave away, even though I do this sort of thing myself currently. Therefore I am a little unhopeful that people will put in the amount of work required. Perhaps I am wrong.
 
I just see it as simply another way in which Mankind is learning not to adapt to hir surroudings, but to adapt their surroundings to suit themselves.

When it comes to food, bigger is better, even a farmer would tell you that.

Plus, who wouldn't want purple apples and square oranges?
 
Sai said:
No, food is produced by workers, you eat everyday thanks to the work of farmers
Click to expand...

Yes, workers who are paid money and work for money, because of capitalism.

Lerxst said:
Are you really so dense you need me to spell it out for you word for word? Ok, I will.
Click to expand...
Please do...and make sure to make a gaping asshole out of yourself while doing it for me.

Water Pollution - Look up the case against Pacific Gas and Electric (The Erin Brockovich law suit)
Click to expand...

Did I deny water pollution? And anyways, this isn't a permanent condition. Research regarding algae is promising in showing that they can break down pretty much anything but we have to figure out how to efficiently program them to do so as well as produce them in large scale production.

Deforestation and O2 production - Do you honestly think you don't need air to breathe? Where do you think that air comes from? If you want the health terms for it - Hypoxia
Click to expand...

The number of trees in the united states has been increasing for the past 40 years. When you demand trees to be cut down, you're also demanding for new ones to be planted. Trees are a renewable resource.

Soil erosion - Without soil we don't grow food, without food, we starve. Starvation was a pretty serious health issues last I checked.
Click to expand...

Another straw-man. I never said anything about soil erosion. But thank god for science. GMO and modern forms of farming can get around these problems.

Lack of redundancy - One bug or one strain of disease can infect soybeans and most of what we know as civilization will crumble to dust - ever really take a close look to see what we use soy in these days? Most of it doesn't need to be but it's there since soy is the number one crop produced by the number one seed producer in the world. Economies will crumble, soil will be to toxic to plant anything else in and famine will spread, along with violence. Death by blugeoning or getting shot is also a rather serious health issue.
Click to expand...

One bug causing soybeans to go away will cause who to starve? Vegans? Anyways, this can be solved with GM Soybeans. Thus far, you're only providing cases for GMOs.

Species extinction - Is only natural when it's caused by a natural process and has time to replace/replenish itself. Remove one key species such as a predator and the entire thing gets thrown off balance - they will not locate conveniently to the fringes of a development, they will scatter and leave. Number one health concern for any area around that edges of that 10 miles area - rodents!
Click to expand...

I took Biology 204 so I understand how delicate ecosystems can be and the removal of one organism can cause the whole thing to fall a part. But evolution is about survival of the fittest. We've developed science...we're the fittest. No doubt organism have caused the extinction of other species because of their evolution. If science is a part of our evolution as a species, where is the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top