Support NeoGAF

[G.ZZZ]

How does any of this make sense to you? GMO's don't have anything to do with crop diversity, in Argentina there are hundreds of different kinds of GMO Soy already,

Crop diversity is killed whenever a new "better" crop is found (from purely an economic standpoint). GMOs by definition are made to be better crops than the old ones, and as such they tend to supersede all that came before.
Only that this is counterproductive in the long term because losing diversity is bad for various reason (for example farmers not being able to produce niche-products because they're not economically advantageous anymore, or losing the possibility to eat delicious food).
This has little to do with GMOs being GMOs, it's just a consequence of extremely centralized power in industries and they're a way for corporation to basically kill all of the smaller industries and get monopolies (funny how the promote the "save world hunger" ideas of GMOs when basically those industries are a big part of why there's world hunger in the first place). You can see this in traditionally agriculturally diverse and rich areas like Tuscany. For now a lot of farmers survive because here people tend to actually value a lot all the difference varieties and local specialities of foods, but the economic crisis is doing a good job at killing all little local industries in favor of super mass produced goods at the lowest possible cost.

Coincidentally, this is also why i'm all for GMOs in terms of energy producing plants (algae mostly) or cattle feeding. Because there all of my concerns are not an issue (diversity not existent already, cattle feeding being basically always made of discards).

 

[SamVimes]

Do you have any idea how plant ferilization actually occurs?

Protip, its not when a lady plant loves a man plant very much and then they settle down to have little seedlings. Think more on the lines ejaculating into a fan, or a bee of some kind and and where it lands, it lands.

If that happens to be a species where hybridsation is possible or the gene changes are subtle enough to no preclude it from fertilization you have gene transfer. Then monstno come along and sue your ass.

Are you talking about the canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser?

Crop diversity is killed whenever a new "better" crop is found (from purely an economic standpoint). GMOs by definition are made to be better crops than the old ones, and as such they tend to supersede all that came before.
Only that this is counterproductive in the long term because losing diversity is bad for various reason (for example farmers not being able to produce niche-products because they're not economically advantageous anymore, or losing the possibility to eat delicious food).
This has little to do with GMOs being GMOs, it's just a consequence of extremely centralized power in industries and they're a way for corporation to basically kill all of the smaller industries and get monopolies (funny how the promote the "save world hunger" ideas of GMOs when basically those industries are a big part of why there's world hunger in the first place). You can see this in traditionally agriculturally diverse and rich areas like Tuscany. For now a lot of farmers survive because here people tend to actually value a lot all the difference varieties and local specialities of foods, but the economic crisis is doing a good job at killing all little local industries in favor of super mass produced goods at the lowest possible cost.

That's not true. At all.
Multinationals already sell most of the seeds in the world and they still sell a huge amount of varieties, there is no reason to just have one single kind of seed. It's not just about being better, you need different kinds just to have plants that will survive in different environments.
Also i lived in Tuscany one year ago, the food isn't that different from any other place in Italy.

Also the argentina data:

This is the amount of new crops that were registered from 1994 to 2006, if this doesn't disprove that the biodiversity argument is bullshit i don't know what will.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Do you have any idea how plant ferilization actually occurs?

Protip, its not when a lady plant loves a man plant very much and then they settle down to have little seedlings. Think more on the lines ejaculating into a fan, or a bee of some kind and and where it lands, it lands.

If that happens to be a species where hybridsation is possible or the gene changes are subtle enough to no preclude it from fertilization you have gene transfer. Then monstno come along and sue your ass.

They don't sue farmers for that. They never have. They sue when the farmer intentionally plants it and selects for it as it goes against the contract they signed. You don't accidentally get a whole crop in your field by accident.

 

[V_Arnold]

The argument would be that the anti-GMO scientific studies were just as scientific as the studies showing a link between autism and vaccines.

Which one is this, btw? Strawman or false equivalency? One would need to dismiss such studies after actually looking at them, otherwise it is simply an oversight, not being backed up by facts.

 

[Miletius]

I am anti-Monsanto and to some degree anti-agribusiness, but I wouldn't call myself strictly anti-GMO. I think there are reasonable and thoughtful discussions to be had on the effects of GMO companies and the consolidation of the food industry in the USA. I think that many people who get labeled "Anti-GMO" get unfairly lumped into the category of Luddite when what they really oppose is the effect of these companies on our food supply. They just aren't able to articulate it as well as others.

I also think there are some legitimately crazy people, but I feel as though most of these guys are in the minority.

Im not for or against GMO foods. I have huge problems against the copyright and reproduction of crop seeds. Its a lot of control over something that could be detrimental if the holders got abusive with pricing.

I also have a problem with this too.

 

[crazygambit]

I hope not, or else smellin like all this durian I eat is gonna make me no friends

Why the hell do you eat that? I've never actually seen durian myself, but if the reactions from the contestants and judges of Chopped is anything to go by, it can't be anything but revolting.

Maybe it could use some genetic treatment...

 

[CornBurrito]

Which one is this, btw? Strawman or false equivalency? One would need to dismiss such studies after actually looking at them, otherwise it is simply an oversight, not being backed up by facts.

Neither? Has anyone posted studies in this thread yet?

 

[V_Arnold]

Neither? Has anyone posted studies in this thread yet?

Do not know. But until we see them, it is preeeetty hard to estabilish whether they are just bullshit or actually adhere to scientific standards.

(Edit: Also, one scene from the Psycho Pass comes in mind regarding GMO's. I'd take hyperoat future, since it means less animals suffering, thank you very much!)

 

[KHarvey16]

Nothing could ever go wrong they told us.

Bullshit.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Crop diversity is killed whenever a new "better" crop is found (from purely an economic standpoint). GMOs by definition are made to be better crops than the old ones, and as such they tend to supersede all that came before.
Only that this is counterproductive in the long term because losing diversity is bad for various reason (for example farmers not being able to produce niche-products because they're not economically advantageous anymore, or losing the possibility to eat delicious food).
This has little to do with GMOs being GMOs, it's just a consequence of extremely centralized power in industries and they're a way for corporation to basically kill all of the smaller industries and get monopolies (funny how the promote the "save world hunger" ideas of GMOs when basically those industries are a big part of why there's world hunger in the first place). You can see this in traditionally agriculturally diverse and rich areas like Tuscany. For now a lot of farmers survive because here people tend to actually value a lot all the difference varieties and local specialities of foods, but the economic crisis is doing a good job at killing all little local industries in favor of super mass produced goods at the lowest possible cost.

Coincidentally, this is also why i'm all for GMOs in terms of energy producing plants (algae mostly) or cattle feeding. Because there all of my concerns are not an issue (diversity not existent already, cattle feeding being basically always made of discards).

This isn't really true. Those lines don't just disappear. You may only have a few varieties actively being planted but like I said there are tons more trying to find the next one. I have seed from over 7 years ago in the cold storage downstairs that was used just this year to try and find some rust resistance. Like I said before I believe these crops have never been more diverse, that's not thanks to the farmers but to the breeders.

 

[sohois]

Like nuclear energy, they totally showed us that all our concerns were a black swan, nothing never ever happened within the last 50 years. Also there is just one problem, black swans are very common in Australia.

And compared to nuclear energy there are way more scientists against GMO than there were ever against nuclear power.

Most scientists also agreed that nuclear power was safe and they also called every nuclear critic an idiot. Nothing could ever go wrong they told us.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume English is not your first language as you appear to be having difficulty comprehending some of my posts.

Me posting about Black Swans is not a disagreement or argument - it is a description of your position and its mechanics. I then go on to offer some criticisms of the Black Swan and its application to GMOs, which is where you can disagree if you wish. What you posted really doesn't make any sense.

GMO basically emphasize the problem of losing crop diversity, in favor of single kind of it, that may have an advantage short term in economical terms for industries and consumers (lower price) but then it mean we eat standardized flavorless shit This is a pretty big inferential leap, I'm not sure how you arrived at this assumption. and we lose lots of local crops. Happened already before, will happen again. South italy for example was ruined by this during the thirties because fascism tried to enforce mass production,This is a false equivalence which in turn destroyed all the niche agriculture industries that would've been a much better choice in the long term economically. Again I'm not seeing how this ends up occurring. What do you even mean by 'niche agriculture'?
Also mean that basically all farmers becomes dependent from multinationals even more for seeds and everything.
All this for what? More gain for corporations? Slightly lower prices for me? Yeah, i'd rather not thx. This is a argument against Corporations, it has nothing to do with GMOs in the end

BUT WE CAN SAVE WORLD HUNGER WITH GMOs! I feel I need to adress this World hunger issue to everyone: We know that enough food is already produced to feed the world and its not getting to people. The reason GMOs would be effective is that they would work all over the world, African crops would get the same benefits as American crops. What this means is that as long as the regional productivity rises in a uniform enough manner, GMOs would go a long way to solving hunger issues, as areas without enough food would know be producing far more, thus removing a lot of the distribution issues. We can already produce enough food, it's just matter of policies. Even if we could, tomorrow, plant an infinite food seed, people would still starve because companies want to make profits. You know what could solve world hunger better? Not being so dependant on those corporations, promote agricultural diversity and locality to give power to local economies, and avoid being so keen on mass-producing shit that only push small farmers away from competition and concentrate economical power even more in few hands. Again, this is not really an argument against GMOs, but rather focused on corporations, regulations and what not.

Health concerns are largely unfounded though. It's extremely hard to imagine that such things could actually do harm, even if i think it's likely that they'd be less good for your health because a lot of what does you good are the micronutrient that could disappear in such crops in favour of other proteins/ oils. All the things that do you good in artichokes are in the mg/ug range for example, and i could easily see some balance in cellular production being skewed in GMOs variants.

/put flame shield on

.

 

[G.ZZZ]

You can actually use BGH in the US because the current scientific consensus is that it doesn't have any significant health impact on humans.

Pretty cut and dry.

Except not really. BGH milk for example has less protein and more fats, and tend to get sour faster. There are doubts on its micronutrient values too.

The district court held that the composition claims were inherently misleading because "they imply a compositional difference between those products that are produced with rb[ST] and those that are not," in contravention of the FDA's finding that there is no measurable compositional difference between the two. This conclusion is belied by the record, however, which shows that, contrary to the district court's assertion, a compositional difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk ("conventional milk," as used throughout this opinion, refers to milk from cows treated with rbST). As detailed by the amici parties seeking to strike down the Rule, the use of rbST in milk production has been shown to elevate the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally-occurring hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among other things. The amici also point to certain studies indicating that rbST use induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow's "negative energy phase." According to these studies, milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins. The amici further note that milk from treated cows contains higher somatic cell counts, which makes the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality. This evidence precludes us from agreeing with the district court's conclusion that there is no compositional difference between the two types of milk.

This is an american sentence: United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued: June 10, 2010.
Decided and Filed: September 30, 2010.

Bad quality milk? I'd rather not drink it. Also while BGH may not have been proven dangerous (and i'm trusting you and not researching it here), GH of avian species were proven to actually alter the metabolism of HGH and sexual hormones (there was some famous turkey cases were man started to grow boobs here in italy in the 90).

 

[Trokil]

Bullshit.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memorandum For: Commissioner Bradford, From: David Rubinstein, Applied Statistics Branch, Subject: Probabilities That The Next Major Accident Occurs Within Proscribed Intervals, March 9, 1979, p. 1..

The probability is less than .5 that the next (i.e., the first) major accident occurs within the next 400 reactor years.
The probability is less than .05 that the next major accident occurs within the next 21 reactor years.
The probability is larger than .5 that the next major accident occurs after the next 400 reactor years. This is equivalent to statement (a).34 (Note: one nuclear reactor operating for one year equals a reactor year.)

 

[KHarvey16]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memorandum For: Commissioner Bradford, From: David Rubinstein, Applied Statistics Branch, Subject: Probabilities That The Next Major Accident Occurs Within Proscribed Intervals, March 9, 1979, p. 1..

The probability is less than .5 that the next (i.e., the first) major accident occurs within the next 400 reactor years.
The probability is less than .05 that the next major accident occurs within the next 21 reactor years.
The probability is larger than .5 that the next major accident occurs after the next 400 reactor years. This is equivalent to statement (a).34 (Note: one nuclear reactor operating for one year equals a reactor year.)

Thank you for supporting my point, that's very nice of you.

 

[SteveWinwood]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memorandum For: Commissioner Bradford, From: David Rubinstein, Applied Statistics Branch, Subject: Probabilities That The Next Major Accident Occurs Within Proscribed Intervals, March 9, 1979, p. 1..

The probability is less than .5 that the next (i.e., the first) major accident occurs within the next 400 reactor years.
The probability is less than .05 that the next major accident occurs within the next 21 reactor years.
The probability is larger than .5 that the next major accident occurs after the next 400 reactor years. This is equivalent to statement (a).34 (Note: one nuclear reactor operating for one year equals a reactor year.)

So you're proving KHarveys point?

 

[J-Rod]

It seems like there is an unusual amount of mysticism concerning human health even from the nonreligious these days. GMO paranoia just being one example.

 

[Pakkidis]

I like to take a wait and see approach. In 5-10 years when scientific data/studies come out regarding GMO's I will make an informed decision then.

 

[SecretMoblin]

I love seeing Steve in agriculture threads

 

[Kinitari]

I've been in enough of these threads to be a bit weary of them, but two things I think are important.

1. The vast majority of Anti-Monsanto language espoused is either based off misinformation, misunderstanding or outright lie. If you want to hate Monsanto, make sure you hate them for the right reasons or else you will be embarrassed.

2. All food we eat is genetically modified. Foods that are genetically modified in labs, commonly referred to GMOs, are filtered and tested much more strictly than any other foods we eat. However, 'non-GMO' foods have often been found to have developed mutations that are harmful to humans and human handling/consumption.

3.Many studies, meta studies and the like have been done to check for harmful effects in GMOs, and the vast majority have found little to no difference in the way it interacts with humans than traditionally grown crops. The 'testing' people keep clamouring for is unrealistic - as often people ask for studies where humans consume nothing but specific GMO products for x amount of years - which... doesn't work, and I am pretty sure is illegal.

4. Each and every GMO strain is different than the next - putting all GMOs under the same blanket is like putting all mushrooms under the same blanket. That's not to say that some GMOs are ridiculously poisonous or anything (nothing that's made it out of the lab at least) - but simply that you shouldn't assume that if one GMO has a positive or negative effect, that all GMOs will have that same positive or negative effect - it doesn't make sense.

edit:

5. SteveWinwood for NeoGAF GMO president.

 

[G.ZZZ]

This isn't really true. Those lines don't just disappear. You may only have a few varieties actively being planted but like I said there are tons more trying to find the next one. I have seed from over 7 years ago in the cold storage downstairs that was used just this year to try and find some rust resistance. Like I said before I believe these crops have never been more diverse, that's not thanks to the farmers but to the breeders.

I don't know. I know for sure that a lot of lines have been lost forever here, but i don't work directly in the seed industry, i've just been a supervisor of agricultural activity (agricultural activity in Italy is controlled by the public health sector).
Also lines may not have been as diverse and i trust you for sure more than the average farmer, but this for sure ain't showing in chains. You don't find white berries anymore for examples, you can't find lots of salads that were available before and you see basically only the same salads in every chain whereas before there was much more variety. Yellow tomatoes have also basically disappeared, but i know of some industries that still produce it in north italy even if here it's nowhere to be found. And this is only from my memory, and not a geezer.
How much of this is simply people wanting to eat only certain vegetables and how much is those crops not being economically viable anymore?

Also

eel I need to adress this World hunger issue to everyone: We know that enough food is already produced to feed the world and its not getting to people. The reason GMOs would be effective is that they would work all over the world, African crops would get the same benefits as American crops. What this means is that as long as the regional productivity rises in a uniform enough manner, GMOs would go a long way to solving hunger issues, as areas without enough food would know be producing far more, thus removing a lot of the distribution issues

How would african crops gain the same advantages if crops are patented? Seriously. And you really think GMOs researcher would research for african-viable crops and not just pesticide resistant crops that optimize production where the production is already? Aka not 3rd world countries for sure. Unless China seriously invest in this and use the vast expanses of bought african lands to feed itself, but then again all that food would go to China to give them food indipendence from south-american countries for example. Honestly i see no way something made of a corporation would ever go and help poor areas, unless they can exploit their workers someway.

EDIT: i'll restate: This has little to do with GMOs being GMOs, it's just a consequence of extremely centralized power in industries and they're a way for corporation to basically kill all of the smaller industries and get monopolies.
I understand that this may sounds hypocritical to a lot of people, but i value all of those agricultural workers with small productions. They make me feel like there's hope for this world not to get everything under hyper-corporative concentrated-economy and leave some real form of local producing powers to the working class.

 

[whitehawk]

all I want is proper labeling of GMO products.

 

[Like the hat?]

I (admittedly probably pretty silly) prefer nonGMOs, but I have no problem eating GMOs.

I am fully anti Monsanto, though,.

 

[marrec]

Except not really. BGH milk for example has less protein and more fats, and tend to get sour faster. There are doubts on its micronutrient values too.

Slight differences in protein and fat content are not going to impact your health.

 

[SamVimes]

How would african crops gain the same advantages if crops are patented? Seriously. And you really think GMOs researcher would research for african-viable crops and not just pesticide resistant crops that optimize production where the production is already? Aka not 3rd world countries for sure. Unless China seriously invest in this and use the vast expanses of bought african lands to feed itself, but then again all that food would go to China to give them food indipendence from south-american countries for example. Honestly i see no way something made of a corporation would ever go and help poor areas, unless they can exploit their workers someway.

Do you mean like the Papaya that was gonna be extinct in a few years if they didn't produce a GMO variety? http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PapayaRingspot.aspx

 

[Zaptruder]

One group of outcomes of a cross. A population.

Tens of thousands of crosses of a crop.

Well that makes more sense.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Slight differences in protein and fat content are not going to impact your health.

Slight difference in micronutrients are the difference between integrating pills and real vegetables. There's no comparison on the health effects and populations that regularly eat vegetables have a far better expectance of life.

 

[sohois]

I don't know. I know for sure that a lot of lines have been lost forever here, but i don't work directly in the seed industry, i've just been a supervisor of agricultural activity (agricultural activity in Italy is controlled by the public health sector).
Also lines may not have been as diverse and i trust you for sure more than the average farmer, but this for sure ain't showing in chains. You don't find white berries anymore for examples, you can't find lots of salads that were available before and you see basically only the same salads in every chain whereas before there was much more variety. Yellow tomatoes have also basically disappeared, but i know of some industries that still produce it in north italy even if here it's nowhere to be found. And this is only from my memory, and not a geezer.
How much of this is simply people wanting to eat only certain vegetables and how much is those crops not being economically viable anymore?
Also
How would african crops gain the same advantages if crops are patented? Seriously. And you really think GMOs researcher would research for african-viable crops and not just pesticide resistant crops that optimize production where the production is already? Aka not 3rd world countries for sure. Unless China seriously invest in this and use the vast expanses of bought african lands to feed itself, but then again all that food would go to China to give them food indipendence from south-american countries for example. Honestly i see no way something made of a corporation would ever go and help poor areas, unless they can exploit their workers someway.

EDIT: i'll restate: This has little to do with GMOs being GMOs, it's just a consequence of extremely centralized power in industries and they're a way for corporation to basically kill all of the smaller industries and get monopolies.
I understand that this may sounds hypocritical to a lot of people, but i value all of those agricultural workers with small productions. They make me feel like there's hope for this world not to get everything under hyper-corporative concentrated-economy and leave some real form of local producing powers to the working class.

I see you edited in what I was going to say, so all I have to reply now is that I don't see why the anti-corporation position is a reason to be anti GMO, to delay or halt research into genetic modification of foodstuffs. To me it seems that developing better regulation of the industries in question would be a far superior outcome to trying to stop development of the technology in case the companies abuse the power.

 

[Leunam]

all I want is proper labeling of GMO products.

But then that just plays into the fears of the misinformed. They could have been buying something GMO this whole time with no complaint, but once you slap a label on it it's the worst thing ever.

 

[marrec]

Slight difference in micronutrients are the difference between integrating pills and real vegetables. There's no comparison on the health effects and populations that regularly eat vegetables have a far better expectance of life.

Are you talking about humans here, or the cows?

Either way, drinking milk from BGH infused cows has not been shown to have any statistical difference from non BGH cows. I mean, that should be the standard of any evidence based organization right?

 

[G.ZZZ]

Do you mean like the Papaya that was gonna be extinct in a few years if they didn't produce a GMO variety? http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PapayaRingspot.aspx

The Hawaii are in the US. And nevertheless, this is proving my point of industries gaining more control on crop production by creating varieties that are much more viable than others.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Are you talking about humans here, or the cows?

Either way, drinking milk from BGH infused cows has not been shown to have any statistical difference from non BGH cows. I mean, that should be the standard of any evidence based organization right?

You know, eating slightly worse food has no statistical difference from eating slightly better one. But it actually make a difference.
To find actual variance from changing a single component of the incomprensibly long equation of metabolism is absurdly hard, not to talk about getting actual causation and not simple correlation. It's one of the reason because there's still so much debate on how Cannabis may be good or bad for your health even so many studies have been made on it (even if by most studies you would expect it to do good for you). It's also the reason on why there's no general consensus of what you should eat, with people advocating Paleo, mediterranean, 50/20/30, 40/30/30, red wine, no sugar, little sugar, no meat, no grains, low calories etc...

 

[marrec]

You know, eating slightly worse food has no statistical difference from eating slightly better one. But it actually make a difference.
To find actual variance from changing a single component of the incomprensibly long equation of metabolism is absurdly hard, not to talk about getting actual causation and not simple correlation. It's one of the reason because there's still so much debate on how Cannabis may be good or bad for your health even so many studies have been made on it (even if by most studies you would expect it to do good for you). It's also the reason on why there's no general consensus of what you should eat, with people advocating Paleo, mediterranean, 50/20/30, 40/30/30, red wine, no sugar, little sugar, no meat, no grains, low calories etc...

So what you're saying is that it's different, so therefore it is bad? But there's no evidence for this position.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Something people often fail to realize about GMOs: they extend beyond crops. If you take insulin due to your diabetes and you are 100% against GMOs, well, you're living a lie. Insulin used to be harvested from pigs, until GMO technology was developed in the 1970's for production of insulin from E. coli. That's right, if you take insulin to stay alive you likely have genetically modified E. coli to thank.

I think some of the laws surrounding GMOs have issues and Monsanto in general is a shit-stain on life, but GMOs as a whole are generally good and worthwhile.

Full disclosure: I'm working on my PhD with my thesis relating to the construction of GMOs that can produce valuable chemicals that would otherwise be produced through expensive chemical catalysis/reliance on fossil fuels/reliance on corn- or sugar-cane.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

<3 you soka.

 

[Kinitari]

The Hawaii are in the US. And nevertheless, this is proving my point of industries gaining more control on crop production by creating varieties that are much more viable than others.

If you want more people to enter the gmo market, then vilifying gmos or the gmo companies is not going to help. Ideally what you want is to encourage more companies to enter the market.

Consider also that gmo patents expire, and many gmo companies donate research or money towards humanitarian means - golden rice is a great example - where the pilot will essentially provide a significant amount of seed to farmers in select regions for free - at the consent of all the gmo companies who spent money on its research.

 

[SamVimes]

The Hawaii are in the US. And nevertheless, this is proving my point of industries gaining more control on crop production by creating varieties that are much more viable than others.

What you're saying is that it would be better for biodiversity if that plant went extinct?

 

[whitehawk]

But then that just plays into the fears of the misinformed. They could have been buying something GMO this whole time with no complaint, but once you slap a label on it it's the worst thing ever.

So you don't want to know what you're eating? I'm not talking about a big sticker on the front if the package, just "this is GMO product" beside the ingredients list.

 

[Leunam]

So you don't want to know what you're eating? I'm not talking about a big sticker on the front if the package, just "this is GMO product" beside the ingredients list.

Why there? GMO is a process, not something you list next to ingredients. It tells you nothing about your food beyond playing into 'frankenfood' nonsense. If you need to know the ingredients, nutritional info, or if it contains allergens then those labels already exist. It's a waste of a label and would only lead to ignorant people bemoaning how everything is a GMO nowadays with no tangible benefits.

There are implications when it comes to labels. Oh, this right here is 'made with peanuts' I'd better avoid it since I'm allergic. This label would be informative. Hey, this has a 'GMO' label, why label it if it isn't potentially dangerous? Better avoid it. This label is misleading.

It does nothing to inform because there so far GMO's haven't been shown to cause any harm.

 

[jimi_dini]

That's a completely illogical argument; the number of products which were proven to be safe and have remained safe vastly outnumbers the few which were later shown to be unsafe. Thus the weight of evidence is heavily on the side of the declaration that GMOs are safe is true.

Hey, how about US population tests out GMO products for say a few hundred years and maybe then we can talk. If anything bad happens until then, well bad luck. But at least it wasn't me that was affected.

 

[Perkel]

I think people simply fear that producers of food will just do anything for profit with GMO food.
Already we have meat that has 15% of real meat in it and most of stuff we eat is stuffed with chemicals.

GMO also mean lower price and normal food won't be able to compete with GMO counterparts.

 

[fakefaker]

Something people often fail to realize about GMOs: they extend beyond crops. If you take insulin due to your diabetes and you are 100% against GMOs, well, you're living a lie. Insulin used to be harvested from pigs, until GMO technology was developed in the 1970's for production of insulin from E. coli. That's right, if you take insulin to stay alive you likely have genetically modified E. coli to thank.

I think some of the laws surrounding GMOs have issues and Monsanto in general is a shit-stain on life, but GMOs as a whole are generally good and worthwhile.

Full disclosure: I'm working on my PhD with my thesis relating to the construction of GMOs that can produce valuable chemicals that would otherwise be produced through expensive chemical catalysis/reliance on fossil fuels/reliance on corn- or sugar-cane.

You're sure right that GMOs extend beyond the crops. Like grain that is Round-up ready to kill off the weeds competing with it, and the weeds become resistant, so in the end the farmer has to spray more in order to kill off the weeds your GMO strain can't kill off anymore. Where do you think all that extra spray goes? Does it disappear? Does it magically go away to some far away land that doesn't exist for you? How about this...it goes into your water supply, it goes into the ground where your food grows, it goes eventually into you.

As for that strain of GMO grain, you've now created a hardier, stronger, more resistant weed strain. Good luck with that. I can't wait to see what you do now to that GMO strain to make it more resistant to the weeds. It's like a war of deterrent you're going to lose, since nature is the ultimate survivalist.

GMO Herbicides

 

[KHarvey16]

Already we have meat that has 15% of real meat in it...

We do?

 

[Gannd]

There are also scientific GMO critics, because there are scientific reasons to be against GMO. Of course dismissing that is so much easier.

There really isn't. A lot of the "science" behind the anti-GMO movement is bullshit like the "science" behind vaccines. It's like saying there is a "science" movement behind global warming denials.

 

[marrec]

I think people simply fear that producers of food will just do anything for profit with GMO food.
Already we have meat that has 15% of real meat in it and most of stuff we eat is stuffed with chemicals.

GMO also mean lower price and normal food won't be able to compete with GMO counterparts.

What's wrong with chemicals?

You got a problem with science?

 

[Gannd]

I think people simply fear that producers of food will just do anything for profit with GMO food.
Already we have meat that has 15% of real meat in it and most of stuff we eat is stuffed with chemicals.

GMO also mean lower price and normal food won't be able to compete with GMO counterparts.

Citation please.


Did you fail your science classes in elementary school? Do you know how stupid you sound when you say "most stuff we eat is stuffed with chemicals" do you know what a chemical is? Water is a chemical!!!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

There really isn't. A lot of the "science" behind the anti-GMO movement is bullshit like the "science" behind vaccines. It's like saying there is a "science" movement behind global warming denials.

exactly
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/10/03/antivaccine-antigmo-agwdenial/

 

[IceCold]

Citation please.


Did you fail your science classes in elementary school? Do you know how stupid you sound when you say "most stuff we eat is stuffed with chemicals" do you know what a chemical is? Water is a chemical!!!

I'm pretty sure he's talking about stuff like antibiotics and growth hormones.

 

[Mgoblue201]

You're sure right that GMOs extend beyond the crops. Like grain that is Round-up ready to kill off the weeds competing with it, and the weeds become resistant, so in the end the farmer has to spray more in order to kill off the weeds your GMO strain can't kill off anymore. Where do you think all that extra spray goes? Does it disappear? Does it magically go away to some far away land that doesn't exist for you? How about this...it goes into your water supply, it goes into the ground where your food grows, it goes eventually into you.

As for that strain of GMO grain, you've now created a hardier, stronger, more resistant weed strain. Good luck with that. I can't wait to see what you do now to that GMO strain to make it more resistant to the weeds. It's like a war of deterrent you're going to lose, since nature is the ultimate survivalist.

GMO Herbicides

I posted a critique of the Benbrook study earlier in this thread. It covers a number of responses from actual scientists who brought up several valid questions about the methodology of the paper. Furthermore, conferring herbicide resistance to plants is not an exclusive technique of GMOs. In a broader sense, the chances that the target of a specific chemical will evolve some kind of immunity is a problem in a variety of fields, including medicine. Michael Specter, writing in The New Yorker about an anti-GMO documentary, draws this obvious analogy:

Seifert even manages to mangle the points worth stressing. He says that weeds have become resistant to glyphosate; that is, to some degree, true. It is also true of every other pesticide or drug ever used. It is explained by a process called evolution. People with H.I.V. or tuberculosis, for example, take cocktails of medications; if they took only a single drug, the bugs would become resistant to it soon enough. That doesn’t mean there is nothing to be done about resistance or pests—or that it isn’t a problem. But better farming practices, like rotating crops and using cover crops, would help. So would lessening the practice of monoculture—planting a single crop, such as ten thousand acres of corn, and nothing else—which poses an equal danger to conventional and engineered products.

 

[WorldStar]

Why the hell do you eat that? I've never actually seen durian myself, but if the reactions from the contestants and judges of Chopped is anything to go by, it can't be anything but revolting.

Maybe it could use some genetic treatment...

tastes good bro

I actually like the smell, but most people hate it

 

[OverBlood 3]

I heard they put poo on plants to make them grow.