GMO Food
- Thread starter Quiet
- Start date
wow [MENTION=751]Peppermint[/MENTION]. really? you felt you had to bad rep me for an opinion?
Your ignorance behind your own food is frightening, but indicative of most of the modern world.
A slow, long term process that can only work if there's a reduction int the pollution in the first place. I've seen it at work, I've seen the tanks, the algae, the entire process from start to finish. If you don't add more pollution to the already polluted water, then it can work, but soil-based chemicals will do nothing but constantly add to that pollution.
Let me start with large, old-growth trees in the US are in short supply. No one (especially a former wildland firefighter) will deny the vegetation in the countryside is increasing, but the large trees have been stunted by small shrubs and overgrown grasses thanks to laws passed in the US in the early 1900's committing the government to fight any fire sighted in the wild. Natural fires (lightning strikes) haven't been allowed to burn and clear out the underlayer - unbeknowst to most people a fast-moving grass fire will not burn down an old, solid tree. But a few shrubs don't replace the 100 foot tall deciduous forests that have been destroyed for years.
Second - the most oxygen producing trees in the wold aren't located in the US, they're in the tropical zones/rainforests. Those areas are being destroyed daily by local farmers to plant, guess what... GMO crops!
Third - since primordial days, the number one oxygen producer in the world has come from the oceans. In fact, most physicists will agree that's the reason our atmosphere even has oxygen to begin with. This just amplifies the consequences of water pollution.
You took Biology? Where do plants get their nutrients from? Remove the soil or quality of that soil and what happens to those nutrients... and the plants? Of course you can add fertilizer... and continues with the pollution of the water table.
Try growing a garden in sand or clay, void of biological matter. Try watering the garden with chemicals that seeped into the water table from pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Or watch that video I already posted "Dirt".
"You are what you eat" and personally, I'd rather not eat a bunch of toxic chemicals with each meal.
Another ignorance argument.
Read food labels - Soy Lecithin, soybean oil, soy protein, not to mention the 80%+ of the crops that go towards livestock feed. No more soy in a world dependent on soy, that's owned primarily by one single company is going to be just a small problem for the 1% of vegans only, right?
Can you honestly use those two points in the same paragraph?? We've destroyed more of the biosphere on this planet than our science has even bothered to research. Species have gone extinct before they could even be studied. And if you recall, it's been thanks to a naturally occurring and growing mold that we've been able to produce some of our most potent antibiotics. If those organisms went extinct before they could be researched, where would be be right now?
Extinction and evolution are two separate things. Evolution hasn't caused an extinction of another species, but the extinction of one has caused the extinction of another. Millions of years ago a large rock hit the Earth and caused a reaction that killed off some of the smallest organisms on the planet that were dependent on temperature and sunlight. The effect cascaded up to the top of the food chain and killed off the top predators at the time.
We're doing the exact same thing to ourselves, only we're bypassing the luck factor of an asteroid and just spewing out ways to kill off some of the smallest, most beneficial organisms on the planet. And for what? The luxury of being able to eat berries in the winter or have a t-bone steak ever week?
A slow, long term process that can only work if there's a reduction int the pollution in the first place. I've seen it at work, I've seen the tanks, the algae, the entire process from start to finish. If you don't add more pollution to the already polluted water, then it can work, but soil-based chemicals will do nothing but constantly add to that pollution.
Let me start with large, old-growth trees in the US are in short supply. No one (especially a former wildland firefighter) will deny the vegetation in the countryside is increasing, but the large trees have been stunted by small shrubs and overgrown grasses thanks to laws passed in the US in the early 1900's committing the government to fight any fire sighted in the wild. Natural fires (lightning strikes) haven't been allowed to burn and clear out the underlayer - unbeknowst to most people a fast-moving grass fire will not burn down an old, solid tree. But a few shrubs don't replace the 100 foot tall deciduous forests that have been destroyed for years.
Second - the most oxygen producing trees in the wold aren't located in the US, they're in the tropical zones/rainforests. Those areas are being destroyed daily by local farmers to plant, guess what... GMO crops!
Third - since primordial days, the number one oxygen producer in the world has come from the oceans. In fact, most physicists will agree that's the reason our atmosphere even has oxygen to begin with. This just amplifies the consequences of water pollution.
You took Biology? Where do plants get their nutrients from? Remove the soil or quality of that soil and what happens to those nutrients... and the plants? Of course you can add fertilizer... and continues with the pollution of the water table.
Try growing a garden in sand or clay, void of biological matter. Try watering the garden with chemicals that seeped into the water table from pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Or watch that video I already posted "Dirt".
"You are what you eat" and personally, I'd rather not eat a bunch of toxic chemicals with each meal.
Another ignorance argument.
Read food labels - Soy Lecithin, soybean oil, soy protein, not to mention the 80%+ of the crops that go towards livestock feed. No more soy in a world dependent on soy, that's owned primarily by one single company is going to be just a small problem for the 1% of vegans only, right?
Can you honestly use those two points in the same paragraph?? We've destroyed more of the biosphere on this planet than our science has even bothered to research. Species have gone extinct before they could even be studied. And if you recall, it's been thanks to a naturally occurring and growing mold that we've been able to produce some of our most potent antibiotics. If those organisms went extinct before they could be researched, where would be be right now?
Extinction and evolution are two separate things. Evolution hasn't caused an extinction of another species, but the extinction of one has caused the extinction of another. Millions of years ago a large rock hit the Earth and caused a reaction that killed off some of the smallest organisms on the planet that were dependent on temperature and sunlight. The effect cascaded up to the top of the food chain and killed off the top predators at the time.
We're doing the exact same thing to ourselves, only we're bypassing the luck factor of an asteroid and just spewing out ways to kill off some of the smallest, most beneficial organisms on the planet. And for what? The luxury of being able to eat berries in the winter or have a t-bone steak ever week?
Pretty much agree with this in regards to why I oppose it. Also, heard about terminator seeds? Scary thought....
Essentially yes. Although if given the choice I would probably pick food that is not genetically modified over modified food.
edit***
As far as I know, unmodified is the kind that I grow in my garden and I would appreciate it if Monsanto was able to be sued for contaminating my food with their frankenfoods, just as they are able to sue career farmers when the Monsanto products end up growing on their farms. I hope that made sense haha.
Last edited:
I'm getting tired of being called ignorant by you. Can't we just a have a calm discussion about this WITHOUT YELLING. It's exhausting...these threads are all my mind has been thinking about when I'm not on the forum.
Not if they sequester the the pollutants. They literally eat the chemicals and break them down into less harmful chemicals. We have enough from all the polluting we've done the past century, we don't need more to be able to use algae. Soil-based chemicals can help to end world hunger and depending on the chemical, it might not even hurt the environment. Everything is made up of chemicals, you have to talk about which ones in specific are toxic and at what levels. Every human has a bit of uranium in us yet nothing bad happens. Why does "chemical" when mixed with "food" bring about negative connotative thoughts.
I understand that these trees hold loads of carbon in them. Some of these trees hold as much carbon as any one person does in a lifetime. But I don't hear about people cutting down old growth trees. The biggest area of old growth trees are in Washington State and Oregon and I think they're owned by the government. The danger with cutting down old growth trees is that they release a lot of CO2 in the air when cut. The effects of CO2 on the environment is a whole different issue though.
Would it be so much better if they were organic? What if the organic pesticides used are more harmful than the synthetic ones? Is it really so bad that we chop a few trees down so that we can live there? Certainly we aren't going to cut every last tree down...we don't need that much room. After all, the way humans have adapted is to mold our environment. Many native tribes burned down entire forest and cut down trees to make space for cabins and we're still here.
Considering that life started out in the ocean, that's not overly surprising that oxygen came from there. Oceans are also the largest carbon pools.
And if we get most of our oxygen from the ocean, is that not an excuse to cut down more trees? We're not running out of oxygen anytime soon, we're surrounded with vegetation. Even if it's not as good at converting CO2 into O2, I'm not suffocating down here at sea level. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Cambrian explosion maxed out at over 7000ppm. That's not a typo.
They get their nutrients from the soil. I understand the basics. But if we can invent ways for these nutrients to replenish themselves quicker through methods like GMO, why is it so bad to use in our food so long as there are no negative side-effects. And the way you're using pollutant is very broad. Pollutant has negative connotations to it that aren't always true. Again, you have to talk about what chemicals and how much of them before you talk about toxicity. If I try to smoke as much crack as you can weed before you pass out, you would die. A little bit of pollution here or there doesn't hurt and we can't just assume because it's a big amount that the world will end. We have to think through things rationally and let science come up with the answers. Sulphates generally don't do great things for the environment in any quantity but we can figure out ways to replace them.
Wouldn't the fertilizer residue help my garden if it's healthy fertilizer? You can't grow a garden in sand or clay and I don't know who is trying to nor do I understand the connection to GMO. If we can produce things that will let us plant plants and trees in places with no rainfall, we can get the water cycle going again. I read somewhere that they can get the water cycle going fully within 20 years just by planting a few trees.
I'm not going to argue tastes and preferences with you. If you really like doing these things, I'm all for you dong them. Different strokes for different blokes. But if the science says something other than what you're saying, then at least admit that. There was a Penn and Teller about GMO's and they were outside a grocery store where Greenpeace was handing out flyers saying how bad GMOs are and how they're not tested by the government. Then some random guy who wasn't even a part of the show chewed them out and talked about how the FDA regulates GMOs and studies their effects intensely. The EPA regulates their environmental concerns and there's another big branch that regulates something else, but it's slipping me at the moment.
Idk if my food has any of this. But these are all derivatives of soy. The reason they use soy I'd imagine is because it's really easy to mess with the chemical structure. If something bad were to happen, I'd imagine we would survive. But, if anything, this is a case for GMOs because we can make them resistant to these sorts of things. GMO can ensure that there are no more famines.
If our science hasn't bothered to research all of our biosphere, how can you be sure about how bad things are? We don't fully understand these systems yet and giving up things that make our lives better and safer in the name of some cause that hasn't been proven isn't the answer: it's hysteria.
Extinction and evolution are a part of the same timeline. But because some extinctions have caused others doesn't mean that we will go extinct if we don't "save the planet".
Exactly! Do you want to starve to death because of going back to the ancient methods of organic farming that cost countless lives because of famines caused by crops that fail for no apparent reason? We're not trying to kill these organisms on purpose, we're trying to create better living conditions for ourselves.
If you want to buy non GMO food, go ahead. If you want to live in a commune, then go do it. By all means, do what you want, I don't care and nobody should ever stop you from doing what you want. Be the change in the world you want to see. I'm not being condescending here, I honestly believe that you should do what you preach if you believe so passionately about it. And I know you live by many of these beliefs because I've seen pics you've posted of your dinners. But I'm going to do what I want as well and if the science says its safe, then I have to go by it. I'm not going to question science because it's convenient or fashionable. GMO food has already saved lives and will continue to in the future. It can end world hunger and ensure that everybody goes to bed full at the end of the day. Alternative methods simply cannot do this for the world.
I am by no means an expert on this topic, but I certainly have mulled over it a lot and done my fair share of homework. There are a few additional points I want to make. Please dont take my word on them and do your own research.
*GMO is not the same as selective breeding. These processes are very different and have different results.
*A lot of GMO research is funded/done by the GMO corporations. There is vested interest in the research.
*Science is not an ivory tower. The scientific method may be pretty immune to corruption, but scientists are not.
*All the health related research has been done on animals, and the doses that were used may be questionable.
*There are no GMO food clinical human trials.
*Scientific research has not proved that GMO food is safe or unsafe. GMO safety is unproven.
*GMO foods are designed by corporations to be as profitable as possible. They are engineering GMO food because they want to grow it exclusively and sell it. This means that the traits that they are breeding are different to the ones that would be chosen by natural selection. They are not trying to engineer the 'best', but the most 'profitable.
*GMO will reduce biodiversity. This can cause famine in the case of a mutated virus, insect attack etc.
*GMO crops are currently being grown on farms and have already caused harm to other crops and the environment
*GMO food is not labelled very well in most countries. People may be consuming GMO products without their knowledge
*GMO effects everyone in the present, everyone in the future and the entire Earth. It can potentially effect every single organism and life form on this planet. If GMO is allowed to continue, everyone will be effected whether they like it or not. No one will end up having a choice.
*GMO will change the way that all food is farmed and produced. It will effect the world economy on a grand scale.
I have no problem with GMO as long as it is grown safely in a secure labrotary in a secure compund where it can't effect the external environment. If GMO food is proven safe than I will accept that. I dont hate it just because.
There is still many deepy disturbing issue with GMO that we need to resolve ASAP before its literally too late. Its already on our lands, on our shelves, in our bodies and we havent even discussed it yet! This is something that effects all of us and we all need to make an informed decision
*GMO is not the same as selective breeding. These processes are very different and have different results.
*A lot of GMO research is funded/done by the GMO corporations. There is vested interest in the research.
*Science is not an ivory tower. The scientific method may be pretty immune to corruption, but scientists are not.
*All the health related research has been done on animals, and the doses that were used may be questionable.
*There are no GMO food clinical human trials.
*Scientific research has not proved that GMO food is safe or unsafe. GMO safety is unproven.
*GMO foods are designed by corporations to be as profitable as possible. They are engineering GMO food because they want to grow it exclusively and sell it. This means that the traits that they are breeding are different to the ones that would be chosen by natural selection. They are not trying to engineer the 'best', but the most 'profitable.
*GMO will reduce biodiversity. This can cause famine in the case of a mutated virus, insect attack etc.
*GMO crops are currently being grown on farms and have already caused harm to other crops and the environment
*GMO food is not labelled very well in most countries. People may be consuming GMO products without their knowledge
*GMO effects everyone in the present, everyone in the future and the entire Earth. It can potentially effect every single organism and life form on this planet. If GMO is allowed to continue, everyone will be effected whether they like it or not. No one will end up having a choice.
*GMO will change the way that all food is farmed and produced. It will effect the world economy on a grand scale.
I have no problem with GMO as long as it is grown safely in a secure labrotary in a secure compund where it can't effect the external environment. If GMO food is proven safe than I will accept that. I dont hate it just because.
There is still many deepy disturbing issue with GMO that we need to resolve ASAP before its literally too late. Its already on our lands, on our shelves, in our bodies and we havent even discussed it yet! This is something that effects all of us and we all need to make an informed decision
I understand what you mean. Its hard to know whether or not people will be able to put in the amount of work required. I have been talking to people about it for a while too and Ive noticed that they seem more and more keen over the last two years. Food is getting more expensive and more people are becoming health conscious, what with the obesity and disease epidemics. There is a community garden around the corner from my house thats thriving. I suppose that people that dont want to put in any effort simply just pay more, which seems fair enough.
Oh come on, I didn't even write anything in the rep, even though I strongly disagree with her opinion and could say pretty scathing things about it. Isn't everything people write on forums opinions anyway, and why should that mean they shouldn't be neg repped? Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it didn't ruin her day and she only said it as an attempt to make me feel bad about it.
Yeah, everything on forums being opinions is what prompted me to say what I did. You were just expressing an opinion, as was she, just the same as any positive rep or post. Any negative rep is going to be an opinion that's contrary to the opinion expressed in the offending post - although, it's always possible, as in your case, that the negative reputation given has its basis in what the "neg repper" believes to be strong, readily available evidence that could refute what was in the negatively repped post.
If you could say pretty scathing things about her position, then why not post them so that she could better understand where you're coming from?
Because I didn't want to derail the tread with a comment irrelevant to the scale of discussion, and with something that would most certainly evolve into an unproductive argument, and I'm not sure if her reaction would be any different, than to think I'm picking I'm on her. But for the record, I'm rather put off by people who denounce anything "unnatural" and "freaky", and prejudice toward GMO is one of those things.
What is your opinion Peppermint? I would love to hear more opinions, particulary For GMO, as I want to understand the reasoning and arguement of supporters better.