I'm not a supporter, and I don't know much of anything about GMO, otherwise I would have probably posted my opinion, I am simply irritated by bias against whatever is deemed to be "unnatural".
GMO Food
- Thread starter Quiet
- Start date
I'm not a supporter, and I don't know much of anything about GMO, otherwise I would have probably posted my opinion, I am simply irritated by bias against whatever is deemed to be "unnatural".
Hi Bickelz, Im not trying to blow smoke up your ass but I really appreciate your contributions. You and I disagree on most points but I really like how you always conrtibute to discussion, are passionate, and really seem to care about issues, albeit in a different way from me. Ive noticed you sit on the different side of the fence to many on this forum, and that is really important in order for us to have healthy discussion and truly learn.
These controversial threads are so awesome. I get to learn so much.
Don't forget to provide sources for me.
Don't forget to provide sources for me.
Damn, GMOs will always be sketchy but it all boils down to the fact that growing only and just organic vegetables/fruits/grains/what have you, the output will not be enough to feed the population of planet Earth. GMOs will be the only way out to feed the planet, unless the population growth will stop and the total amount of humans inhabiting this rock will start gradually decline.
Its a pain in the ass trying to find free, quality, neutral literature online unfortunately, especially recent studies. So many of them are so outdated- from the 80s! There are a lot of great online journal resources but you need a membership to look at full articles. The papers that I have been looking at have been through my uni databases and library. Im not allowed to upload them unfortunately, but I'll try to make a list of the ones I thought were decent. It is very important to look at the actual research papers, especially in a controversial issue such as this, because the data and conclusions tend to be interpreted and manipulated by both anti-gmo and pro-gmo parties to serve their own purposes.
Here are some links to get started
Food, Inc is a great documentary to get orientated. It is anti gmo but is very well researched and critically acclaimed. A lot of public libraries stock this.
[video=youtube_share;5eKYyD14d_0]http://youtu.be/5eKYyD14d_0[/video]
These two docos are free online, but once again have an anti-gmo position. They can be found at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com
Can GM Food Save The World
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/can-gm-food-save-the-world/
Genetically Modified Food: Panacea or Poison
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/genetically-modified-food/
GM Watch is a good website that is current, and fairly well researched, once again anti-gmo though
This is the position paper of American Academy of Environmental Medicine, also anti-gmo
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
Here are some free online articles from a science magazine that I read regularly. Some of these articles are tagged as opinion pieces, news, features, and commentaries. Some of these are neutral, others are pro-gmo
GM crops: solution to world food crisis
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/2269/gm-crops-solution-world-food-crisis
Brave new wheat
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/5079/brave-new-wheat
Seeds of salvation
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/4207/seeds-salvation?page=0,4
Mystery of the dying bees
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1087
Greenpeace destroys CSIRO wheat GM trial
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/4522
Organic food exposed
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1567/organic-food-exposed?page=1
GM plants detect landmines and turn red
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2151/genetically-modified-plants-detect-landmines
Chicken eggs make human drugs
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/966/chicken-eggs-make-human-drugs
Lerxst has also uploaded some videos earlier in the thread
Oh, absolutely, it's near impossible to avoid anymore. If you buy any prepackaged food at all you've consumed GMO food. Anything soy or canola unless otherwise noted = GMO. You'd literally have to make everything from scratch to avoid it. If you regularly consume any of the "big names" in prepackaged food like Kraft, you're definitely consuming GMOs.
Yeah the regulations and labelling laws for food in general and GMOs suck.
http://truthinlabelingcoalition.org/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm
Here are a couple of links to some articles some of you might find of interest... These are more to the tone of being against GMO, and admittedly I do tend to lean on that side myself...but here they are none the less. I don't necessarily put a ton of faith in these articles, but all the same I find them sort of disturbing. It causes me to wonder what information one can really trust. It could be true, and it could be doctored information to push an agenda. Then again I feel that way when I read pretty much anything these days...
http://themomu.wordpress.com/2011/0...k-between-gmo-feed-and-infertility-in-cattle/
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/10/dr-don-huber-interview-part-1.aspx
http://themomu.wordpress.com/2011/0...k-between-gmo-feed-and-infertility-in-cattle/
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/10/dr-don-huber-interview-part-1.aspx
GMO food is TERRIFYING.
And even more terrifying are the corporations behind them. Monsanto is one cold-blooded corporation with no conscious.
If I had the time, I'd write more, because this topic gets me jazzed...if you haven't seen FoodInc., go rent it. Now.
And even more terrifying are the corporations behind them. Monsanto is one cold-blooded corporation with no conscious.
If I had the time, I'd write more, because this topic gets me jazzed...if you haven't seen FoodInc., go rent it. Now.
I am anti-GMO food. I buy organic when I can. I buy local when I can. I grow what I can but gardening isn't my forte. I do not buy processed foods. I cook my meals from scratch. If they want to sell GMO food I think it should be required to be labeled as such, and also grown in such a way as to not cross contaminate non-GMO crops. (It was in one of the documentaries that somone's already posted I think, about the canola farmers ending up sued because the GMO crop cross-polinated with theirs, and they were sued over it.) That's not right on so many levels. One we should be able to choose, two he shouldn't have been sued for something he had no way of preventing. I'm ready to stop eating ANY corn just to avoid it. I would be sad because I really like corn, but I have enough health issues that I don't want to risk it. I already don't use canola, or soy (I'm allergic to it.) If I make something with soy for someone else, like my husband, I make sure I buy organic. People think I'm crazy because I can't eat so many things and will voluntarily cut out others as well. I still manage quite well. Most Americans eat more corn and soy than they realize, and supplement that with wheat, sugar, potatoes, meat and tomato sauce or ketchup, as well as all the chemicals that go into the processed foods. It makes me sad that so many people would rather eat a "store bought" cake that has a shelf life of weeks, than a home made cake that lasts only a few days but has real ingredients. I'm getting off track here so I'll stop, but I do not think GMO should be released as "safe" when there's no proof. Remember ephedra? or aspartame? coke? I'd rather not be invited into a class action suit 20 years down the road attributing my infertility/cancer/other health ailments to GMO products, because I'd rather not have the issues.
Wow, I am very nearly bewildered by all the wild speculation regarding GMO. That is not to say that everyone's concerns are not valid, they are just related issues and not directly to do with GMO. Monsanto business practices, environmental issues, dietary beliefs and practices, health and fitness, politics, religious views and whatnot are associated topics and very valid concerns, but have little to do with the science behind genetically engineered organisms/food.
Try talking to a type 1 diabetic regarding their thoughts on recombinant-DNA technology. Did you forget that we have human beings whose sole survival is dependent on a GMO product? Does that make them genetically engineered organisms as well and do you have the same fears regarding them?
If I were able to manipulate the chemical bonds of molecules and break down highly dangerous chemical compounds into their constituent parts and then recombine all the available hydrogen and oxygen into water molecules, would you determine that water to be unnatural. Artificial is not the same as unnatural. Let's not forget about the classic dihydrogen monoxide hoax.
Try talking to a type 1 diabetic regarding their thoughts on recombinant-DNA technology. Did you forget that we have human beings whose sole survival is dependent on a GMO product? Does that make them genetically engineered organisms as well and do you have the same fears regarding them?
If I were able to manipulate the chemical bonds of molecules and break down highly dangerous chemical compounds into their constituent parts and then recombine all the available hydrogen and oxygen into water molecules, would you determine that water to be unnatural. Artificial is not the same as unnatural. Let's not forget about the classic dihydrogen monoxide hoax.
The resulting water would still be water containing two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule. Corn that is genetically modified is not the same (by definition even) as unmodified corn. Yes, it's a fun concept to think that this crop won't be subject to diseases, will have a longer shelf life, will stand up to the strongest herbicides, and can grow in miserable conditions, but what does that really mean? Getting something to grow in depleted soil may look pretty, but then where are the nutrients coming from? Chemical based fertilizers? I'm sorry, but considering that there are people who homestead on as little as a quarter of an acre and manage to produce almost all the food their families need, I think localizing is best. Forget about eating meat, it takes too much space and too many resources to sustain a person and doesn't contain enough nutrition. Cities can have rooftop and patio gardens. Those who produce more than they'll use can sell it to those who don't grow quite enough. People communicating about what is or isn't working in their particular area for a particular crop can help others avoid the same problem. Right now so few people garden it's difficult to find information about what crops do best. GMO is not necessary. As for your type 1 diabetes example, products being used for medicinal purposes may be necessary, but the person using it can be informed about what it is, what it may do as side effects, and can choose to be treated or not. If GMO foods came with the same type of pamphlet (potential side effects, etc.) then we could make an informed decision, but they won't sell it that way because people DO want to avoid GMO products. People that buy Kosher food look for a symbol that tells them it qualifies. Perhaps, if GMO food producers won't label their food, we need to have the non-GMO food providers label theirs, making it a premium product. I need to stop right now, but I think at the very least we need to be well informed with research studies as to how this food will react in our bodies cumulatively and over time.
Here is a potential solution to a lot of these issues.
I always thought converting sky scrapers into farming buildings was a good idea.
A 20 story building with no rooms, just open floor on top of floor each with window walls. They would get plenty of sunlight that way. And If you designed the building accordingly then you could set it up with all kinds of neat gizmos and systems to efficiently transport the dirt and harvest the crops. You would have total environmental control so you could grow whatever the hell you want. Even grow a different crop on each floor if you wanted. Plus it would pretty much eliminate exposure to pests or disease all together meaning growing everything organically would be not only easier but more cost effective since you wouldn
I always thought converting sky scrapers into farming buildings was a good idea.
A 20 story building with no rooms, just open floor on top of floor each with window walls. They would get plenty of sunlight that way. And If you designed the building accordingly then you could set it up with all kinds of neat gizmos and systems to efficiently transport the dirt and harvest the crops. You would have total environmental control so you could grow whatever the hell you want. Even grow a different crop on each floor if you wanted. Plus it would pretty much eliminate exposure to pests or disease all together meaning growing everything organically would be not only easier but more cost effective since you wouldn
Last edited:
If we wanted to really be efficient in debating and coming up with viable solutions to these issues it would be wise to start creating lists so everything can be properly organized and adequately dealt with.
What are the objectives we wish to reach?
What are the problems that need to be overcome?
What are the political and civil concerns/protest we need to be aware of?
What are the necessities for dealing with these issues?
The many answers to each of these questions will bring to light numerous new issues. But that is the price one pays when dealing with reality. All things are consequences of their constituents. The end conclusion and final solution to these issues will resemble an immense spider web of researched conjecture.
We may want to call in a few TJs for this. Lol
What are the objectives we wish to reach?
What are the problems that need to be overcome?
What are the political and civil concerns/protest we need to be aware of?
What are the necessities for dealing with these issues?
The many answers to each of these questions will bring to light numerous new issues. But that is the price one pays when dealing with reality. All things are consequences of their constituents. The end conclusion and final solution to these issues will resemble an immense spider web of researched conjecture.
We may want to call in a few TJs for this. Lol
That's partly my point. By definition, it would be artificial water which is semantically misleading. Again, all your related concerns about environmental and political issues are very valid and, in my opinion, a more interesting avenue of discussion. Nobody is creating organisms that are not theoretically natural, simply artificially made and sustained, even if they are were not already naturally occuring. Science uses natural laws to manipulate an artificial creation, nobody is breaking any natural laws. Organic products and GMO products are both broken down to the same constituent parts.
Type 1 diabetics are dependent on insulin produced through recombinant-DNA technology to survive, so they have no choice in the matter unless they choose to die rather than take the insulin.
It wouldn't be artificial water though. It would be a forced process, but the end result would be the same. If there's no difference between the organic and GMO products, how did the GMO companies prove that neighboring canola farmers were "using" (through cross pollination) their GMO seeds?
I do like @Orus Ull 's idea
It wouldn't be artificial water though. It would be a forced process, but the end result would be the same. If there's no difference between the organic and GMO products, how did the GMO companies prove that neighboring canola farmers were "using" (through cross pollination) their GMO seeds?
I do like @Orus Ull 's idea
Hi,
I know where you are coming from. I was under the some of the same impression when I started researching this topic. Thanks for stating your points.
Just wanted to clarify a few points.
As you are saying- eveything on this planet is natural- because all matter is based on the natural atoms. There are many natural chemicals, compounds and substances that are dangerous and posionous. Some substances may be perfectly safe for one organism, yet catastrophic for another. All substances have potential for toxicity if taken in a dose that is too large or if taken in an inappropriate manner - including oxygen and water.
In regards to GMO- this technology does not use the same process as natural selection or selective breeding
Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.
GMO technology involves inserting dna from one organism into a different organism. This process is not exacting or precise, and involves much trial and error. It is hard for scientist to predict which genes will sucessfully cross and what proteins that may be produced as a result. These organisms may be different species and may not be able to cross genes in a natural, unmanipulated scenario. So this is selective breeding than can only be done in a labratory. Neither traditional selective breeding nor GMO can precisely predict results or potential effects of any cross breeding. And even traditional selective breeding can produce undesirable traits. But with selctive breeding, organisms can only be bred with like organisms, not with those that are too varied in species. GMO technology has been able to create a frost resistant tomato by crossing dna from a fish and tomato together. That would not normally happen in the natural environement. Or perhaps it could happen, it would just take a lot longer- thousands/millions or years of random mutations and natural selection.
GMO producers are not using the same mechanisms as natural selection. In in essence it is 'unatural selection', because they are not breeding for survival but for termination. GMO is bred primarily for profit. It will significantly effect biodiversity which will have grave consequences on ecology and the normal process of natural selection.
And I just wanted to restate- the safety of GMO food on human health has not been proven. However, there is enough evidence of adverse health effects to halt GMO food production asap and take it off the shelves. It is as irresponsible to stock shelves with gmo as it is to stock shelves with cigarettes. Atleast cigarettes are sold with a warning, and their uncontrolled and mismanaged production does not harm every species on this planet.
It is not the unaturalness of gmo food that I think we should have an issue with- it is the unproveness and potential for harm. It should have been studied in a controlled environment for much longer before it became common place on our supermarket shelves, and millions of ignorant people in our population unwittingly unvoluntarily made themselves and their potential offspring lab rats for GMO companies and irresponsible governments to exploit.
There is so much gmo propoganda under the guise of 'scientific factual' information on the internet that it is enough to make my head spin! Dont take anything I say for granted, just do your own homework and see what you can find. Ofcourse everyone is selling something, and will say or believe whatever they need to, including scientists that are employed by GMO companies and government health organisations that have been taught to tow the line and keep their head down. Its literally an information (misinformation/disinformation) war out there that is based on very little scientific evidence or logical arguement. This is an issue we all need to become invested in, as it is going to effect all of us whether we like it or not.