MonroeTalks.com

Categories => Health => Topic started by: livewire on August 13, 2013, 09:43:26 AM

Title: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 13, 2013, 09:43:26 AM
I am hearing a lot of things from uninformed people regarding the pros and cons of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's), but even more specifically, GM corn.  Monsanto is evil, and wants to kill everyone, etc.

What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on August 13, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
Monsanto is evil and wants to kill everyone!  That's my thought!  :P
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Flanders on August 13, 2013, 10:13:29 AM
I don't see what the big deal is.  I'd much rather eat disease resistant corn than one covered with anti-fungal or whatever spray.

These people do realize that bananas (yellow sweet) are also a mutant strain as well... ?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: excelsior on August 13, 2013, 10:51:26 AM
It was not that long ago when it was called cross breeding plants.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: old salt on August 13, 2013, 11:29:37 AM
Good in that they are disease resistant.  Bad, in that you cannot grow your own seed corn, making you beholding to Monsanto year after year.

Please correct me if this is incorrect.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 13, 2013, 04:44:34 PM
Good in that they are disease resistant.  Bad, in that you cannot grow your own seed corn, making you beholding to Monsanto year after year.

Please correct me if this is incorrect.

This is correct, Old Salt.  Well, sort of...

If you want to spend 15 or 20 years, and millions of dollars developing the cross strains that are similar to the varieties that are being used today, no one will stop you.

Or, you could simply buy a seed variety that is not a product of years of development, although it won't have any of the qualities in today's modern seed, such as glyphosate resistance, disease resistance, and insect resistance.  Then you can save your seed from year to year.  Your yields would be comparable to yields from 30 years ago, and you would be quickly out of business.

And now there are other companies that are doing what Monsanto has done, so they will have some competition.

As a farmer, I don't look at it as being "beholden to Monsanto".  I have options, if I want.  I choose to buy Roundup Ready VT3 corn hybrids because they perform well, and they are worth the price.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: BigRedDog on August 14, 2013, 08:25:34 AM
When I was little it was somewhat common practice to use last year's harvest for this year's seed.  Some farmers would go 2 or 3 years without buying new seed but my Dad would only go the first year.  Seems like he would refer to the seed as one or two years 'from certified'.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 15, 2013, 07:52:14 AM
That's true, BRD.  When I was farming in the 80's, I was a seed dealer for a company called Pro-Seed, on Sugar Street in Blissfield.  Their soybean seed was nothing but soybeans out of the combine, treated with extreme care, for seed.  Their corn varieties were almost all hybrids - so they were one or two generations away from the parent seed variety.  Those were "expensive".  They sold for around $70 to $85 a bag.  That was before the days of Roundup Ready corn.  Corn seed today sells for $250 to $500 a bag.

Today's RR varieties are slightly different.  They are genetically changed to have certain traits in the variety.  Corn seed is still the product of cross breeding several varieties, over 12 years or more.  So if you saved the corn from your harvest, it will grow, but it may not yield anywhere near what the original seed did, even though the genetic traits will be passed down to the next generation of seed.  Besides, these days if you DID save RR corn or beans for seed, it is illegal, and pretty stupid, if you ask me.  But back in the 80's it happened all the time.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on August 15, 2013, 08:18:59 AM
Besides, these days if you DID save RR corn or beans for seed, it is illegal, and pretty stupid, if you ask me.  But back in the 80's it happened all the time.

Why is it illegal?  Just curious...  don't see where it would hurt anyone except the yields of the farmer that planted them.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on August 15, 2013, 08:21:00 AM
That's the big thing about GMO's.  They can put any dang thing they want in the seed, which then goes in our animals or straight to our stomach! That is too scary to think about! :(

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 15, 2013, 02:48:55 PM
Why is it illegal?  Just curious...  don't see where it would hurt anyone except the yields of the farmer that planted them.

The technology itself is patented.

Monsanto, Syngenta, and other companies that pour millions of their dollars, as well as decades of research into a certain trait in a plant (like resistance to glyphosate, certain insects or diseases), protect that investment carefully.  And I don't blame them.

It's like if you were to take an iPhone apart, reverse engineer it, and start your own production of them... I think Apple would have something to say about that, and rightly so, IMO.

Certain varieties of RR1 soybeans (the first Roundup Ready plants that Monsanto produced) are having their patent expire in 2014 and 2015.  There is a lot of buzz in the farming community that now some farmers would want to save those beans, legally, for use as seed the following year.  But the general consensus is that those varieties are already 20 years old, and saving that seed is false economy.  The new varieties available today far out-yield those old varieties, to the point that it's much more economical to pay the big bucks for current production seed.

For the record, I agree with that thinking.  All of my seed is the best I can buy.  It's like putting cheap gas in your car.  Doesn't make sense.


That's the big thing about GMO's.  They can put any dang thing they want in the seed, which then goes in our animals or straight to our stomach! That is too scary to think about! :(

True. 

But that's also true of NON-GMO food as well.  Any time you are not watching EVERY stage of development of the food we eat, you have no real idea what you are eating.  What is FAR more scary to me are things like McDonald's hamburgers.  Do you know what is in that "hamburger"?  How about those tasty little chicken McNuggets?  If you knew, you would never eat there again.

All of us have been eating GMO food for decades.  Did you know that?

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows GMO foods of any kind harming people or animals.  Ever.

But I'm curious, Erie... what could they put in the seed that would be harmful?  What are you afraid of?  That is the crux behind why I started this thread.  I know some people are afraid of GMO's, and I want to know their thoughts on it.  I see people fearing something that I see as a huge benefit for the world.

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on August 15, 2013, 04:17:39 PM
Monsanto, Syngenta, and other companies that pour millions of their dollars, as well as decades of research into a certain trait in a plant (like resistance to glyphosate, certain insects or diseases), protect that investment carefully.  And I don't blame them.

It's like if you were to take an iPhone apart, reverse engineer it, and start your own production of them... I think Apple would have something to say about that, and rightly so, IMO.

So it would be a patent violation to buy a seed, harvest, and plant seeds from your harvest?

I don't think the iPhone analogy works.  The purpose of an iPhone is not to replicate itself.  That is the purpose of a seed.....  and I give the credit for that miracle to God....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 15, 2013, 10:32:57 PM
So it would be a patent violation to buy a seed, harvest, and plant seeds from your harvest?
Yes.

There has also been problems with the Roundup ready seed requiring more and more pesticide to kill the weeds because the weeds are becoming resistant. Much like infections becoming resistant to penicillin.

There are many more problems with GMO as outlined here.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on August 16, 2013, 06:29:35 AM
http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/05/12/nestle-folds-to-consumer-pressure-over-gmos-in-south-africa/#.Ug39tm38k7k

This is what scares me Livewire.  What are we putting into the mouth of our children?  And thankfully, I have not had any fast food since last September, but I do eat out and who knows what is in the burger or chicken that I have ate??  Even the corn??  Scary!
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: BigRedDog on August 16, 2013, 08:00:02 AM
When I was little my dad had a small apple orchard on our farm.  Various varieties...   I remember a tree blowing over in a storm but the following spring there was a new little tree growing out of the stump of the old tree.  When it got big enough to produce apples again the apples were a completely different apple than what it had produced prior to the storm. 

My dad explained 'grafting' to me...  and that's something the Chinese developed about 4000 years ago so the concept of modifying the foods we eat has been around a long, long, long time.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 16, 2013, 08:38:43 AM
So it would be a patent violation to buy a seed, harvest, and plant seeds from your harvest?

I don't think the iPhone analogy works.  The purpose of an iPhone is not to replicate itself.  That is the purpose of a seed.....  and I give the credit for that miracle to God....

Yes.  It's not the seed itself that is patented - it's the technology that went into it.

I agree with you that the miracle of life should be credited to God.  But God gave man the ability to change things to make his life better.  Is it God's will for us to use fertilizer?  What kinds?  Only manure?  What about chemical fertilizers?  Does he allow mechanical cultivation of weeds, to improve the growing of the crop?  Herbicides?  Insecticides?  Where do we draw the line?  We are not creating life.  That is impossible.  We are taking a seed and altering the traits of a plant.  This has been done for hundreds of years, and at the genetic level for decades.

As BRD has mentioned grafting (excellent example), is it God's will for man to alter a plant, or a tree, by using a method such as grafting?  If no, why not?  What about cross breeding two different varieties of corn to create a hybrid?  This has been done for almost a century with all kinds of crops - not just corn.

Honestly, MN, I don't think God would be at all upset with us over these things.  If you disagree, please tell me why.



There has also been problems with the Roundup ready seed requiring more and more pesticide to kill the weeds because the weeds are becoming resistant. Much like infections becoming resistant to penicillin.


That is absolutely true, in some areas.  It's called natural selection, and it's to be expected.  But the resistance isn't caused by the genetic modification of the plant.  It's caused by the exclusive use of glyphosate herbicide.  Quite honestly, non-farmers need to know a few things... glyphosate (Roundup) is a very safe herbicide to use.  It's mode of action is MUCH safer, compared to other herbicides on the market that use other modes of action to kill weeds.

I still use Roundup, and it is very effective.  Actually, I use a generic version of it (MUCH cheaper), since the patent on Roundup has expired a long time ago.  So Monsanto doesn't actually get any of my money.  Maybe that will make some people sleep better, I don't know.

Your penicillin example is a good one, though.  Just because penicillin was discovered, and it was a beneficial technology, it was used widely.  If the internet was available back then, there may have been discussions similar to this one as to whether it should be used or not.

So, does all this mean that we should never have widely used penicillin, just because the infections eventually became immune to it?  Is that a reason to NOT use a product, or a technology?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on August 16, 2013, 08:58:58 AM
Honestly, MN, I don't think God would be at all upset with us over these things.  If you disagree, please tell me why.

Nope.  Totally agree.  God told us:

Quote
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.”

I think that pretty well says we are going to till, fertilize, weed, etc.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 16, 2013, 09:01:46 AM
There are many more problems with GMO as outlined here.

[url]http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html[/url]


Ok, I read the article in this link, but I didn't go research EVERY link listed in this article.

Looking at this article on it's face, I have already debunked many of the evils mentioned here.  Most things in this article are simply not true.

I don't have time to review every item, but here are some highlights:

One Roundup Ready crop, though, alfalfa, has been removed from the market.

That is not true.

https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/products/alfalfa/genuity-roundup-ready/



The article says Most Roundup Ready crops are considered safe for consumption.

Most?  Really?  So, which ones are NOT safe for consumption?  The article doesn't say.



The "lack of increased yield" is also a lie.  If there was no benefit, farmers wouldn't use it.  I have seen the increased yield - not from the plant, but as a RESULT from the modifications... fewer weeds, fewer insects, fewer diseases equals higher yields.  They're playing with words.  The seeds don't create more yield by themselves, but the END RESULT is higher yields, because the modifications allow farmers to grow a healthier crop.


I've already discussed herbicide resistance, so I won't bother talking about that again.


I will end this post with a quote from this article:

"Most agree that it is very challenging to quantify the effect releasing a new organism into an environment will be. The ultimate effects of such an introduction are hard to predict, and careful analysis to minimize the risk associated is necessary."


I agree with that.  But this article in the link gave NO information where GMO's were harmful.  Like anything else, sure, someone may be harmed by food produced from a GMO, somewhere down the line (like the mention of allergies in the article).  But that is not a direct result of the GMO food.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 16, 2013, 09:10:03 AM
[url]http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/05/12/nestle-folds-to-consumer-pressure-over-gmos-in-south-africa/#.Ug39tm38k7k[/url]

This is what scares me Livewire.  What are we putting into the mouth of our children?  And thankfully, I have not had any fast food since last September, but I do eat out and who knows what is in the burger or chicken that I have ate??  Even the corn??  Scary!


Ok, I read this article, Erie.

Maybe I'm just stupid, I don't know.  But I didn't see ANYWHERE in this article where they showed the harm from GMO foods.  It talked at length about this food having this percentage of GM maize, and that food having that percentage of GM maize.  But it NEVER mentioned WHY that was harmful.


Again - WHAT, specifically, is so scary?  What are people afraid of?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 16, 2013, 09:14:04 AM
So, does all this mean that we should never have widely used penicillin, just because the infections eventually became immune to it?  Is that a reason to NOT use a product, or a technology?
When a product no longer functions as it was intended (penicillin) did we just continue to use larger doses or did we try and find something more effective?

Also, GMO seeds are contaminating others crops. It is now virtually impossible for farmers to grow non-genetically engineered Canola in Canada.

Roundup Ready seeds have what is known as "terminator technology;" seeds that are grown for a second generation are sterile. Farmers need to purchase seeds from Monsanto each year if they want to continue to use their crops. Many cite the terminator technology as restricting and preventing farmers from reusing their best seed, requiring them to rely on the newest strain of Roundup Ready seed each year. Monsanto, however, argues that the terminator technology is used to help prevent the spread of the glyphosate (Roundup) resistance to other species.

Who you believe is up to you, however, the eventual cross pollination of RR seed and other farmers seed, will not only prevent those farmers from being able to use their own seed (because of patenting laws) but also because their seed will no longer germinate after a few generations.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 16, 2013, 09:28:38 AM
I don't have time to review every item, but here are some highlights:

One Roundup Ready crop, though, alfalfa, has been removed from the market.

That is not true.

[url]https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/products/alfalfa/genuity-roundup-ready/[/url]


You are correct in that the seed is now available once again, however it was removed in the past., as the site I had used was not updated. Here is the entire history of RR alfalfa.

Quote
Roundup Ready Alfalfa History
   

Divider

In 2005, USDA deregulated alfalfa genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup®. A lawsuit challenging USDA's decision was subsequently filed. As a result, several actions were taken by the court and APHIS. This page describes the chronological history of the court’s and APHIS’ actions.

February 2, 2011
APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the record of decision and determination of nonregulated status, based on the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) published December 16, 2010, for Roundup Ready® alfalfa (RR alfalfa), is available.

January 27, 2011
APHIS announced its decision to grant nonregulated status for RR alfalfa. APHIS was required to wait at least 30 days after the EIS was published in the Federal Register before issuing its decision. APHIS made its decision after conducting a thorough and transparent examination of alfalfa through a multi-alternative EIS and several public comment opportunities, and determining that RR alfalfa does not pose a plant pest risk.

December 16, 2010/December 23, 2010
APHIS makes available for public viewing the final EIS that evaluates the potential environmental effects of deregulating two lines of alfalfa genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, known commercially as Roundup ®. The Environmental Protection Agency publishes the final EIS in the Federal Register.

January-February 2010
APHIS holds four public meetings to gather feedback on the Draft EIS.

December 14, 2009
APHIS makes the Draft EIS available for public viewing.

September 2, 2008
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA upheld March 30, 2007 decision to halt the selling and planting of seed for the Monsanto Company's line of alfalfa genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup® pending the completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS).     

December 18, 2007
APHIS issued a supplemental administrative order which clarifies and replaces the July 12, 2007 Administrative Order. The revised order specifies mandatory practices that must be implemented by Roundup Ready® alfalfa producers.

July 23, 2007
The California District Court issued an Amended Order on its May 3, 2007 Permanent Injunction regarding the court's ruling in February 2007 to vacate APHIS’ 2005 decision to deregulate Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready® alfalfa. The order describes details on how growers and distributors will store GE alfalfa, label containers, and clean equipment. It also describes how APHIS will manage the disclosure of location data. The July 23 Amended Order is the final order that will be enforced by the court.

May 3, 2007
The judge issued a permanent order in a lawsuit concerning genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa.  The permanent order stated that the alfalfa is once again a regulated article, requiring an APHIS permit for future plantings. Future harvesting or sale of alfalfa already planted will be allowed under certain conditions.  APHIS must issue an administrative order describing the conditions within 45 days. Within 30 days, Forage Genetics must supply all known alfalfa seed production locations for public disclosure.

March 23, 2007
APHIS published in the Federal Register a notice that the Agency will return to regulated status alfalfa lines J101 and J163 that are genetically engineered by the Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate. APHIS is taking this action due to a California U.S. District Court decision on February 13, to vacate APHIS' June 2005 determination of nonregulated status of the alfalfa lines.
The court made its decision in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety --along with several other nonprofit organizations and alfalfa growers--challenging APHIS' decision to deregulate the alfalfa lines (referred to as Roundup Ready® alfalfa). The court ruled that the deregulation may have significant environmental impacts that require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and that APHIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by preparing an environmental assessment (EA) instead of an EIS.

March 12, 2007
The court issued a preliminary injunction order that all sales of Roundup Ready® alfalfa seed are prohibited pending the Court's issuance of permanent injunctive relief. The court decided that growers who have already planted Roundup Ready® alfalfa will not be required to remove the plants. Additionally, they will be permitted to harvest, use, and sell such Roundup Ready® alfalfa. The court also prohibited all future planting of Roundup Ready® alfalfa beginning March 30, 2007. Growers who intended to plant Roundup Ready® alfalfa before that date and who had already purchased the seed prior to the March 12, preliminary injunction order may plant the seed. Growers who intended to plant alfalfa after March 30, or who did not purchase Roundup Ready® alfalfa seed prior to March 12, must plant non-genetically engineered alfalfa.

February 13, 2007
The court issued an order requiring APHIS to develop an environmental impact statement for the lines of deregulated Roundup Ready® alfalfa.

June 27, 2005
APHIS advised the public in a Federal Register notice (70 FR 36917-36919, Docket No. 04-085-3) of its determination to grant nonregulated status to the alfalfa lines. As a result a lawsuit was subsequently filed.


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/alfalfa_history.shtml
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on August 16, 2013, 07:01:30 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/p480x480/970565_636420123052641_1236786156_n.jpg)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Professor H on August 16, 2013, 09:36:14 PM
I have some seeds from the late 70's, that the Fuzz would love - just wondered if they would germinate after all those years...   ;)


I know that even certain perennial plants/flowers now have the "patent" warning on their labels, that they can't be reproduced. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 16, 2013, 10:30:42 PM
When a product no longer functions as it was intended (penicillin) did we just continue to use larger doses or did we try and find something more effective?


When that happened with penicillin, we did both.  We at first increased the dose, then found other antibiotics.  That is exactly what is happening with RR crops, only the amount used is not going up, from what I have seen.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 16, 2013, 10:36:35 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/p480x480/970565_636420123052641_1236786156_n.jpg)


Sorry Erie, but that picture is a lie, too.  I know of no farmers that wear those yellow suits.  Corn breeders wear them to avoid incorrect pollination, but its easier to poke fun at farmers, than to understand the truth.  Whoever created that photo, with that caption, is ignorant.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Professor H on August 17, 2013, 08:33:29 AM

Sorry Erie, but that picture is a lie, too.  I know of no farmers that wear those yellow suits.  Corn breeders wear them to avoid incorrect pollination, but its easier to poke fun at farmers, than to understand the truth.  Whoever created that photo, with that caption, is ignorant.
I watched a group of likely college kids a few weeks ago,
they were in a field that likely was breeding.   Interesting how they cut the rows
It looked like a large certified seed operation - in the Canadian Lakes area.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on August 17, 2013, 08:48:59 AM
How about this list Live?  I find #3 very true.

http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on August 17, 2013, 06:52:00 PM
I have some seeds from the late 70's, that the Fuzz would love - just wondered if they would germinate after all those years...   ;)

Yes, they will but at a lower germination rate.   ;)

Being a connoisseur,   ;D ;D, the seeds available today are much more potent than those ones from the late 70's that came in nickle and dime bags (terminology that may ring a bell).

Interesting thread.....and funny how it parallels the growing industry outside of LiveWire's 100 acre fields. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 17, 2013, 07:38:09 PM
How about this list Live?  I find #3 very true.

[url]http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html[/url]


Every claim made in this article is not only unsubstantiated, some things I know are simply untrue. Many of the claims are outright lies, in fact.

I'm posting from my phone now... But I will be happy to shoot holes in this link, later. In the mean time, i would like someone to show me scientific proof that would back up any claims made in this article.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 17, 2013, 07:46:13 PM
How about this list Live?  I find #3 very true.

[url]http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html[/url]


Regarding the third reason...

Who ever said GM plants have LESS genetic diversity?

How can a GM plant that is designed to repel a certain insect, be LESS capable of "handling" insects than a "natural plant"?  That makes no sense.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on August 17, 2013, 08:39:22 PM
I am hearing a lot of things from uninformed people regarding the pros and cons of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's), but even more specifically, GM corn.  Monsanto is evil, and wants to kill everyone, etc.

What are your thoughts?
Not sure why you're so obnoxious...sure hope it's not common amongst gun owners much like false bravado, and poor judgment.

Anyway it seems the right eschews science...and yet here you are...advocating science.

Guess it's like anything else...pick and choose.

I recall reading about farmers that tried to get away from using GM seed...but got sued.

I found a few things about the subject...but of course for anyone on the right, validity is suspect unless it comes from Fox News.

On Monday, a federal appeals court dismissed organic farmers’ lawsuit against the biotech firm Monsanto Company — but extracted a binding promise from Monsanto that they would not sue farmers whose crops were inadvertently contaminated with their product. Monsanto, which owns the patents to the vast majority of genetically modified staple crops in the U.S., devotes $10 million a year and a staff of 75 specifically to investigate and sue farmers who use their GM technology without paying royalties. To date, they have pursued more than 800 patent infringement cases.

Organic farmers sued Monsanto in 2011, fearing the company could unleash their enormous legal power on farmers whose crops were accidentally contaminated with their patent-protected technology. Given that seeds are scattered easily by wind, animals, and birds, traces of genetically modified DNA often intermingles with non-GM crops. A study of non-GM crops in the U.S. found that 50 percent of traditional corn seed, 50 percent of soy, and 83 percent of canola was contaminated with GM material.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/11/2133121/appeals-court-monsanto-not-sue-farmers/

============

LOL... okay here's one from INFOWARS....but they're morons:

GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage
http://www.infowars.com/gmo-feed-turns-pig-stomachs-to-mush-shocking-photos-reveal-severe-damage-caused-by-gm-soy-and-corn/

============

GMO Myths and Truths

An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

===========

10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

==========

http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/gmo-harms-dangers/

==========

Frankenseeds
http://sierrapermaculture.com/?p=129
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: old salt on August 20, 2013, 10:42:43 AM
Not sure if this discovery will be disease resistant, but it sure could be helpful in reducing fertilizers.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/18/scientists-unlock-self-fertilizing-crops/ (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/18/scientists-unlock-self-fertilizing-crops/)

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2013/july/world-changing-technology-enables-crops-to-take-nitrogen-from-the-air-.aspx (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2013/july/world-changing-technology-enables-crops-to-take-nitrogen-from-the-air-.aspx)

Of course, my favorite quote:

"This is yet another reminder of the folly of predicting future trends based on current technology. The pace of technological innovation is growing, and that acceleration isn’t just affecting consumer technology like smartphones or laptops, it’s producing potential solutions like this one to some of the world’s more pressing future problems."
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 25, 2013, 01:52:27 PM
There is still the problem of genetically modified seed pollinating non genetically modified seed causing the non modified seed to become sterile. GMO crops are designed not to be able to reproduce so that farmers have to buy their seed year after year, and can pass this modifications to Non GMO fields.

Many countries will not allow GMO's to be imported because of this and other reasons.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on August 25, 2013, 02:39:31 PM
Many countries will not allow GMO's to be imported because of this and other reasons.

Many countries also have a large portion of their populace that is starving.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 25, 2013, 02:45:24 PM
Many countries also have a large portion of their populace that is starving.
I think the EU is doing pretty good. But here is a listing of some countries that have banned them.
Quote
In Australia: Several Australian states had bans on GM crops but most of them have since lifted them. Only South Australia still has a ban on GM crops, though Tasmania has a moratorium on them until November of 2014.

In Japan: The Japanese people are staunchly opposed to genetically modified crops and no GM seeds are planted in the country. However, large quantities of canola are imported from Canada (which is one of the world’s largest producers of GM canola) and there is now GM canola growing wild around Japanese ports and roads to major food oil companies. Genetically modified canola such as Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola have been found growing around 5 of the 6 ports that were tested for GM contamination.

In New Zealand: No GM foods are grown in the country.

In Germany: There is a ban on the cultivation or sale of GMO maize.

In Ireland: All GM crops were banned for cultivation in 2009, and there is a voluntary labeling system for foods containing GM foods to be identified as such.

In Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Luxembourg: There are bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs.

In France: Monsanto’s MON810 GM corn had been approved but its cultivation was forbidden in 2008. There is widespread public mistrust of GMOsthat has been successful in keeping GM crops out of the country.

In Madeira: This small autonomous Portugese island requested a country-wide ban on genetically modified crops last year and was permitted to do so by the EU.

In Switzerland: The country banned all GM crops, animals, and plants on its fields and farms in a public referendum in 2005, but the initial ban was for only five years. The ban has since been extended through 2013.

In India: The government placed a last-minute ban on GM eggplant just before it was scheduled to begin being planted in 2010. However, farmers were widely encouraged to plant Monsanto’s GM cotton and it has led to devastating results. The UK’s Daily Mail reports that an estimated 125,000 farmers have committed suicide because of crop failure and massive debt since planting GM seeds.


http://naturalrevolution.org/list-of-countries-that-ban-gmo-crops-and-require-ge-food-labels/ (http://naturalrevolution.org/list-of-countries-that-ban-gmo-crops-and-require-ge-food-labels/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 25, 2013, 06:00:28 PM
Most of the countries listed in your link, Dan, have limited ag resources to begin with, because of their geography or size (India and Australia being a couple exceptions).  But most buy GM products from the U.S., as well as other countries.  In my mind, that's kind of hypocritical of them to ban GMO cultivation, but freely buy GM products for consumption.  GM products are here to stay, whether we like them or not.

The US exports about 25% of our entire pork production, with most of it going to Japan.  Pigs eat soy meal, practically all of it GM, grown here in the states.

Japan is looking for non-GM soybeans, but the market is small, and shrinking. Japan buys thousands of metric tons of American corn and soybeans - 
Each and every WEEK. 
All genetically modified.

http://www.agweb.com/usda_weekly_exports_corn_sales_dip_below_the_10_week_average/ (http://www.agweb.com/usda_weekly_exports_corn_sales_dip_below_the_10_week_average/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 25, 2013, 06:11:59 PM
Well, so much for the EU banning GM corn.




Monsanto’s SmartStax maize ‘to be approved for growth in October’ in EU

http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/ (http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 25, 2013, 06:28:24 PM
Well, so much for the EU banning GM corn.




Monsanto’s SmartStax maize ‘to be approved for growth in October’ in EU

[url]http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/[/url] ([url]http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/[/url])


Yeah I think I saw that in one of my searches too. But my main question is still regarding this.

There is still the problem of genetically modified seed pollinating non genetically modified seed causing the non modified seed to become sterile. GMO crops are designed not to be able to reproduce so that farmers have to buy their seed year after year, and can pass this modifications to Non GMO fields.

Many countries will not allow GMO's to be imported because of this and other reasons.

Don 't you see any problem with this?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: sammy on August 25, 2013, 06:49:44 PM
Yeah I think I saw that in one of my searches too. But my main question is still regarding this.
Don 't you see any problem with this?
If GMO seeds are made not to reproduce, why did Monsanto just win a judgement against a farmer who planted seeds from his previous years crop? would he have planted seed which would not reproduce? If he did , he would have no crop, and Monsanto would have no case.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 25, 2013, 09:00:07 PM
Yeah I think I saw that in one of my searches too. But my main question is still regarding this.
Don 't you see any problem with this?

First of all, if GM corn was designed to be sterile, why do farmers still have a problem with volunteer corn in beans, the year after RR corn was grown there?  Can't be that sterile, if it germinates and produces an ear. There are examples of this all over Monroe county. Yes, the second generation from any hybrid will be less productive, but that has nothing to do with genetic modifications, such as being Roundup Ready. That's the nature of hybrids. It has been that way for decades prior to GM.

Also, what Sammy said is a very valid point.

IF cross pollination from one variety (GM) to another (non-GM) DOES OCCUR, then it's also likely that the opposite has occurred. The non-GM variety has also cross pollinated with the GM variety. This means that those certain traits were passed to the planted crop. I see no reason to worry about this. In many cases, the seed companies are deliberately putting refuge (non-GM) seed in the bag.

I honestly don't see a problem with cross pollination. Someone please tell me why it is bad, or how does it harm anyone.

What am I missing?

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: sammy on August 25, 2013, 09:15:47 PM
What you're missing is the message from the antis;Organic good, GMOs/bad. They have no evidence, only that progress, especially if it may benefit millions of starving people, has to be bad. Buy local, buy organic, buy grass-fed, eat grass. You know the arguments.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 26, 2013, 12:07:42 AM
By Erin Hayes
ABCNEWS.com


R E E D,   Ky.,   Aug. 2 — This is how it has worked for centuries: farmers harvest a crop and hold back some of the seeds to plant next year’s crop.
     In nature’s cycle, one harvest creates the next. But science has come up with a method to stop that cycle and to make crops sterile. It is the result of genetic engineering. Researchers have found a way to implant a kind of genetic switch in crops that can terminate their ability to reproduce. Its critics have dubbed it “terminator technology” and they are appalled by it. Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists calls it, “a technology that doesn’t improve yields, doesn’t increase the nutritional value of food, but does only one thing. And that is it sterilizes the plants. It produces dead seed.”
     But big agribusiness companies are very interested in it. “We believe this technology has the potential for agricultural biotechnology in terms of gene control devices in plants,” says Jack Watson of Monsanto.
     Companies such as Monsanto want that control. They argue they spend millions on research, creating genetically altered crops and that their profits come from selling farmers the seed. To protect those profits, Monsanto now patents much of that seed, actually making it illegal for farmers to save and reuse it. When farmer David Chaney did just that, Monsanto sent a private detective to his farm. Monsanto sued him and dozens of other farmers. They also bought radio time to warn others that offenders stand to lose hundreds of dollars per acre.

Banned by World Bank
But if the seed-sterilizing technology gets approved, Monsanto would not need to investigate or sue. It would have a genetic lock, guaranteeing farmers would have to buy its seed every season. That has many alarmed. The World Bank’s agricultural network has banned the technology fearing that sterile seeds could spell disaster for millions of farmers and creating the possibility of a localized famine.
     “The small farmers in the developing world who still rely extensively on their ability to hold back their seeds … who can get wiped out by one bad season, would suddenly find themselves with no seeds for the next year and no money to buy new seeds,” says Ismael Serageldin of World Bank.
     Another concern: the potential for the sterilized crops to sterilize normal crops. “If cross-pollination occurred and my neighbor was to go using genetically engineered crops with the Terminator genes, they could destroy my crops,” says one farmer. Another says, “I don’t think it’s in the best interests of mankind.”
     But what has farmers really upset is that the United States Department of Agriculture actually helped invent the genetically altered seed.



 Government Gets Cut of Royalties
It’s not a subject they like to discuss, but when pressed, Eileen Kennedy of the USDA admitted “We were part of the research group developing that. Absolutely.”
     The primary reason: to help companies protect their bottom line. “Recoup a part of their investment that private sector R&D [research and development] money is going into the development of that seed,” says Kennedy.
     Monsanto has promised to call for public debate on the merits of the technology. “And until that takes place in the public realm and until we have an opportunity to analyze those impacts, we will not commercialize the technology,” says Watson.
     What will the federal government stand to gain? Well, consider: By contract, if the genetically altered seed goes commercial, agriculture officials could make a lot of money. “Twenty-five percent of those royalties would go to the individual investigators,” says Kennedy. “To USDA scientists.”
     To some, the promise of opportunity. To others, a threat that could, at the very least, irrevocably alter life on the farm.

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 27, 2013, 07:56:06 PM
And my question goes unanswered.

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 27, 2013, 09:02:53 PM
First of all, if GM corn was designed to be sterile, why do farmers still have a problem with volunteer corn in beans, the year after RR corn was grown there?  Can't be that sterile, if it germinates and produces an ear. There are examples of this all over Monroe county. Yes, the second generation from any hybrid will be less productive, but that has nothing to do with genetic modifications, such as being Roundup Ready. That's the nature of hybrids. It has been that way for decades prior to GM.

Also, what Sammy said is a very valid point.

IF cross pollination from one variety (GM) to another (non-GM) DOES OCCUR, then it's also likely that the opposite has occurred. The non-GM variety has also cross pollinated with the GM variety. This means that those certain traits were passed to the planted crop. I see no reason to worry about this. In many cases, the seed companies are deliberately putting refuge (non-GM) seed in the bag.

I honestly don't see a problem with cross pollination. Someone please tell me why it is bad, or how does it harm anyone.

What am I missing?
How about those organic farmers who are trying to sell their product as "organic" and "GMO" free and are having their fields contaminated? It harms them wouldn't you say?


And you don't see a problem with seed companies deliberately putting in "refuge" seed in your product? I would consider that fraud.

Monsanto has created the "terminator" seed, and says that they won't introduce it into the field, but why would they create it in the first place? What happens if it accidentally gets out?

Here is another article describing how GMO technologies have devastated Indian farmers.

Quote
The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. Five things changed with Monsanto’s entry: First, Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements, and concentration over the seed sector increased. Second, seed which had been the farmers’ common resource became the “intellectual property” of Monsanto, for which it started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs of seed. Third, open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO hybrids. A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented commodity. Fourth, cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with food crops now had to be grown as a monoculture, with higher vulnerability to pests, disease, drought and crop failure. Fifth, Monsanto started to subvert India’s regulatory processes and, in fact, started to use public resources to push its non-renewable hybrids and GMOs through so-called public-private partnerships (PPP).

In 1995, Monsanto introduced its Bt technology in India through a joint-venture with the Indian company Mahyco. In 1997-98, Monsanto started open field trials of its GMO Bt cotton illegally and announced that it would be selling the seeds commercially the following year. India has rules for regulating GMOs since 1989, under the Environment Protection Act. It is mandatory to get approval from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee under the ministry of environment for GMO trials. The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not start the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002.
And, after the damning report of India’s parliamentary committee on Bt crops in August 2012, the panel of technical experts appointed by the Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops.

But it had changed Indian agriculture already.

Monsanto’s seed monopolies, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of superprofits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of monocultures has created a context for debt, suicides and agrarian distress which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control has been intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the cotton belt.

An internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January 2012 had this to say to the cotton-growing states in India — “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.”

The highest acreage of Bt cotton is in Maharashtra and this is also where the highest farmer suicides are. Suicides increased after Bt cotton was introduced — Monsanto’s royalty extraction, and the high costs of seed and chemicals have created a debt trap. According to Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent rural debt is due to purchase inputs. As Monsanto’s profits grow, farmers’ debt grows. It is in this systemic sense that Monsanto’s seeds are seeds of suicide.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947)

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 28, 2013, 03:43:50 PM

How about those organic farmers who are trying to sell their product as "organic" and "GMO" free and are having their fields contaminated? It harms them wouldn't you say?


I am having difficulty debating the issue with you, because you aren't answering my questions... except with more questions directed at me.  I have made an attempt to answer every one of your questions, and will do so once again.

No, I would not say that the existence of GMO's would harm organic farmers.  The "organic" market is very small, and is mostly comprised of fresh vegetables.  Almost no one grows "organic" field corn, or soybeans for feed.  So cross pollination doesn't occur much, if at all.  How could it?  The only exception I could envision would be organic sweet corn cross pollinating with field corn.  GMO or not, that would be a bad thing for the sweet corn, and would even if the field corn was non-GMO, it would ruin the sweet corn.  Any farmer knows this, and would take steps to prevent cross pollination.



And you don't see a problem with seed companies deliberately putting in "refuge" seed in your product? I would consider that fraud.


No, I don't see a problem with refuge seed.  It has many benefits.

Why do you consider it fraud?  The seed companies aren't keeping it a secret - they readily describe their product that contains refuge seed.



Monsanto has created the "terminator" seed, and says that they won't introduce it into the field, but why would they create it in the first place? What happens if it accidentally gets out?


I guess I won't have to spray for volunteer corn, because it won't exist.  Win!


Now PLEASE give me direct answers to my questions, to support your position.

Again, why do you consider refuge seed fraud?

How does GMO corn and soybeans harm you, or anyone else?  Please be specific.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 29, 2013, 01:20:14 AM
I gave the answers, however it seems you would rather ignore them than acknowledge them. You asked about GMO seeds in general, and now are being more specific regarding soybean and field corn, narrowing the field of discussion considerably.

You stated that you don't see a problem with cross polinization


Quote
I honestly don't see a problem with cross pollination. Someone please tell me why it is bad, or how does it harm anyone.


Then you acknowledge that it can be harmful

Quote
The only exception I could envision would be organic sweet corn cross pollinating with field corn.  GMO or not, that would be a bad thing for the sweet corn, and would even if the field corn was non-GMO, it would ruin the sweet corn.  Any farmer knows this, and would take steps to prevent cross pollination.


I am having difficulty debating the issue with you, because you aren't answering my questions... except with more questions directed at me.  I have made an attempt to answer every one of your questions, and will do so once again.
I agree about having difficulty in debating with you as I see you evading answering questions or blowing them off as a joke.


Quote

No, I would not say that the existence of GMO's would harm organic farmers.  The "organic" market is very small, and is mostly comprised of fresh vegetables.  Almost no one grows "organic" field corn, or soybeans for feed. 
I believe you already stated that Japan is looking for non GM soybeans to buy. So there is a market for it. Just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Quote
So cross pollination doesn't occur much, if at all.  How could it? The only exception I could envision would be organic sweet corn cross pollinating with field corn.  GMO or not, that would be a bad thing for the sweet corn, and would even if the field corn was non-GMO, it would ruin the sweet corn.  Any farmer knows this, and would take steps to prevent cross pollination.


No, I don't see a problem with refuge seed.  It has many benefits.

Why do you consider it fraud?  The seed companies aren't keeping it a secret - they readily describe their product that contains refuge seed.


I guess I won't have to spray for volunteer corn, because it won't exist.  Win!


Now PLEASE give me direct answers to my questions, to support your position.

Again, why do you consider refuge seed fraud?

How does GMO corn and soybeans harm you, or anyone else?  Please be specific.
I consider it fraud if a company states it is selling you one thing but delivers another, evidently you do not.

As far as your final question goes, I gave my reply in the highlighted area in my two prior posts as far as I can see you have not addressed those issues. And you have changed your question as to include only soybeans and field corn.

Here's an article about how GMO corn feed killed the cows that ate it.

http://www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/14/brazilian-farmers-win-2-billion-judgment-against-monsanto/ (http://www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/14/brazilian-farmers-win-2-billion-judgment-against-monsanto/)

Final question for you.
How do you know, for sure, that these GMO's are safe? Is it because Monsanto says it's okay, or because your government says it's okay?

Because frankly, I don't trust either one.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 29, 2013, 08:27:23 AM
Yes, of course I started talking about GM corn and soybeans, because that's what I grow.  It's not that I was trying to "narrow the field of discussion".  You want to talk about GM cotton?  Go right ahead.

As for your link, some cows on one farm were fed GM corn, and they got sick.  The article failed to say what their symptoms were, but it DID say that no reason for the illnesses and deaths in the cows was found.  According to the article, "Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn variety expresses an insecticidal Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) derived from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and a gene conferring resistance to glufosinate herbicides.

Lots of mighty big words in there, huh?  But let's take a close look at it, shall we?

Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria that has been commercially produced and used in farming for DECADES, all over the world.  It is a naturally occurring organism.  It is NOT man made.  It has been proven time and time again to be safe.  If you refuse to believe that, so be it.

The other item in the corn was a gene that gives the plant a resistance to glufosinate herbicides.  This is similar to the Roundup Ready trait, but a different mode of action.  It is NOT a chemical.  It is a gene modification in the plant that allows the farmer to use a chemical that is usually less harmful to the environment and cheaper than chemicals needed if the gene was not included in the corn variety.  Most people don't understand this.

Your article did NOT show that the GM corn was the thing that harmed those cows, on that ONE farm in Germany.

What about the millions of cows that are CURRENTLY BEING FED (and have been for DECADES) genetically modified corn TODAY?
They aren't dying.  They aren't getting sick.

Just because a few cows died on ONE farm in Germany does NOT prove that GM corn is harmful.  That science is so flawed it makes me sick.

Try again.  How has GM plants of ANY kind harmed you or anyone else?  Please be specific.

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 29, 2013, 12:18:01 PM
Quote
Yes, of course I started talking about GM corn and soybeans, because that's what I grow.  It's not that I was trying to "narrow the field of discussion".  You want to talk about GM cotton?  Go right ahead
I already pointed out the problem that I had with GM cotton, you haven't replied to it.

I already pointed out the problem regarding GM plants contaminating non-GM plants, you blew it off because it wasn't what you were growing and went to GM corn and soybeans, I thought the topic you created was GMO's good or bad, meaning all GMO's. My mistake.

My final point was that how do you know, for sure, that eating GMO food, or eating the animals that eat GMO food is really truly safe? Because you know, back in the 50's no one thought that smoking cigarettes was bad for you, and we all know how that turned out 20 to 30 years after the fact.

So I will ask my question once again.

How do you know, for sure, that these GMO's are safe? Is it because Monsanto says it's okay, or because your government says it's okay?

Because frankly, I don't trust either one.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 29, 2013, 02:18:32 PM
Sorry Dan, I thought I answered your question already, but I evidently did a poor job of explaining myself.  Let me try again. 

Your premise is based on bad science.

And no, I do NOT trust the government, and I do NOT trust Monsanto, or any other big corporation.

But I do trust my common sense, and my experience.

If a person dies after eating a BLT sandwich, does that mean bacon killed them? No, of course not.  Your example from Germany is flawed.


Now, how do I know GMO's are safe?

Well, they are just as safe as any other organism that we may put into our bodies.

Mankind has been genetically modifying various foods for hundreds, if not thousands of years.  Any time we choose the best, biggest, most tolerant fruits to save for seed, we are taking advantage of genetic modifications (natural mutations) that nature has handed us.  Since then, yes, people have died.  Was it the food that killed them?  Um, no.  When the Aztecs saved certain grasses that had larger than normal seeds, and used them for seeds the next year, they began to develop what we know as corn.  When they died, was it the genetic modifications that killed them?  lol



I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but my point is that we have been genetically modifying foods through natural selection for thousands of years, and genetically engineering specific food traits for several decades now, and NO undesirable side effects have been linked to it.  EVER. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 29, 2013, 02:35:10 PM
I found this article on National Geographic's website.  It's old, written 11 years ago, but most points are still relevant.  As I have said, no, I don't trust our government, nor do I trust big businesses like Monsanto.  But I do look closely at the findings of certain scientists.  In this article are many findings from a plant biochemist at Michigan State University named Dean DellaPenna.  He discusses the pros and cons of GMO's.

No, we don't have all the answers.  I never said we did.  But it is clear that GM foods are here to stay, and there's no real way to completely avoid them.  Science (and my personal experiences) have shown me that the use of GM crops is much safer to the environment.  I have farmed since 1980, before the days of RR corn and beans.  The chemicals used back then were MUCH more harmful than what is used today.  Now, with various triple stack corn varieties, in many cases pesticide use is completely eliminated.  THAT is good for the economy, the farmer, and the environment, if you ask me.  And we have GMO's to thank for that.





Republished from the pages of National Geographic magazine
Written by Jennifer Ackerman
May 2002

Scientists continue to find new ways to insert genes for specific traits into plant and animal DNA. A field of promise—and a subject of debate—genetic engineering is changing the food we eat and the world we live in.

In the brave new world of genetic engineering, Dean DellaPenna envisions this cornucopia: tomatoes and broccoli bursting with cancer-fighting chemicals and vitamin-enhanced crops of rice, sweet potatoes, and cassava to help nourish the poor. He sees wheat, soy, and peanuts free of allergens; bananas that deliver vaccines; and vegetable oils so loaded with therapeutic ingredients that doctors "prescribe" them for patients at risk for cancer and heart disease. A plant biochemist at Michigan State University, DellaPenna believes that genetically engineered foods are the key to the next wave of advances in agriculture and health.

While DellaPenna and many others see great potential in the products of this new biotechnology, some see uncertainty, even danger. Critics fear that genetically engineered products are being rushed to market before their effects are fully understood. Anxiety has been fueled by reports of taco shells contaminated with genetically engineered corn not approved for human consumption; the potential spread of noxious "superweeds" spawned by genes picked up from engineered crops; and possible harmful effects of biotech corn pollen on monarch butterflies.

In North America and Europe the value and impact of genetically engineered food crops have become subjects of intense debate, provoking reactions from unbridled optimism to fervent political opposition.

Just what are genetically engineered foods, and who is eating them? What do we know about their benefits—and their risks? What effect might engineered plants have on the environment and on agricultural practices around the world? Can they help feed and preserve the health of the Earth's burgeoning population?

Q: Who's eating biotech foods?
A: In all likelihood, you are.

Most people in the United States don't realize that they've been eating genetically engineered foods since the mid-1990s. More than 60 percent of all processed foods on U.S. supermarket shelves—including pizza, chips, cookies, ice cream, salad dressing, corn syrup, and baking powder—contain ingredients from engineered soybeans, corn, or canola.

In the past decade or so, the biotech plants that go into these processed foods have leaped from hothouse oddities to crops planted on a massive scale—on 130 million acres (52.6 million hectares) in 13 countries, among them Argentina, Canada, China, South Africa, Australia, Germany, and Spain. On U.S. farmland, acreage planted with genetically engineered crops jumped nearly 25-fold from 3.6 million acres (1.5 million hectares) in 1996 to 88.2 million acres (35.7 million hectares) in 2001. More than 50 different "designer" crops have passed through a federal review process, and about a hundred more are undergoing field trials.

Q: How long have we been genetically altering our food?
A: Longer than you think.

Genetic modification is not novel. Humans have been altering the genetic makeup of plants for millennia, keeping seeds from the best crops and planting them in following years, breeding and crossbreeding varieties to make them taste sweeter, grow bigger, last longer. In this way we've transformed the wild tomato, Lycopersicon, from a fruit the size of a marble to today's giant, juicy beefsteaks. From a weedy plant called teosinte with an "ear" barely an inch long has come our foot-long (0.3-meter-long) ears of sweet white and yellow corn. In just the past few decades plant breeders have used traditional techniques to produce varieties of wheat and rice plants with higher grain yields. They have also created hundreds of new crop variants using irradiation and mutagenic chemicals.

But the technique of genetic engineering is new, and quite different from conventional breeding. Traditional breeders cross related organisms whose genetic makeups are similar. In so doing, they transfer tens of thousands of genes. By contrast, today's genetic engineers can transfer just a few genes at a time between species that are distantly related or not related at all.

Genetic engineers can pull a desired gene from virtually any living organism and insert it into virtually any other organism. They can put a rat gene into lettuce to make a plant that produces vitamin C or splice genes from the cecropia moth into apple plants, offering protection from fire blight, a bacterial disease that damages apples and pears. The purpose is the same: to insert a gene or genes from a donor organism carrying a desired trait into an organism that does not have the trait.

The engineered organisms scientists produce by transferring genes between species are called transgenic. Several dozen transgenic food crops are currently on the market, among them varieties of corn, squash, canola, soybeans, and cotton, from which cottonseed oil is produced. Most of these crops are engineered to help farmers deal with age-old agriculture problems: weeds, insects, and disease.

Farmers spray herbicides to kill weeds. Biotech crops can carry special "tolerance" genes that help them withstand the spraying of chemicals that kill nearly every other kind of plant. Some biotech varieties make their own insecticide, thanks to a gene borrowed from a common soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt for short.

Bt genes code for toxins considered to be harmless to humans but lethal to certain insects, including the European corn borer, an insect that tunnels into cornstalks and ears, making it a bane of corn farmers. So effective is Bt that organic farmers have used it as a natural insecticide for decades, albeit sparingly. Corn borer caterpillars bite into the leaves, stems, or kernels of a Bt corn plant, the toxin attacks their digestive tracts, and they die within a few days.

Other food plants—squash and papaya, for instance—have been genetically engineered to resist diseases. Lately scientists have been experimenting with potatoes, modifying them with genes of bees and moths to protect the crops from potato blight fungus, and grapevines with silkworm genes to make the vines resistant to Pierce's disease, spread by insects.

With the new tools of genetic engineering, scientists have also created transgenic animals. Atlantic salmon grow more slowly during the winter, but engineered salmon, "souped-up" with modified growth-hormone genes from other fish, reach market size in about half the normal time. Scientists are also using biotechnology to insert genes into cows and sheep so that the animals will produce pharmaceuticals in their milk. None of these transgenic animals have yet entered the market.

Q: Are biotech foods safe for humans?
A: Yes, as far as we know.

"Risks exist everywhere in our food supply," points out Dean DellaPenna. "About a hundred people die each year from peanut allergies. With genetically engineered foods we minimize risks by doing rigorous testing."

According to Eric Sachs, a spokesperson for Monsanto, a leading developer of biotech products: "Transgenic products go through more testing than any of the other foods we eat. We screen for potential toxins and allergens. We monitor the levels of nutrients, proteins, and other components to see that the transgenic plants are substantially equivalent to traditional plants."

Three federal agencies regulate genetically engineered crops and foods—the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA reviews data on allergens, toxicity, and nutrient levels voluntarily submitted by companies. If that information shows that the new foods are not substantially equivalent to conventional ones, the foods must undergo further testing. Last year the agency proposed tightening its scrutiny of engineered foods, making the safety assessments mandatory rather than voluntary.

"When it comes to addressing concerns about health issues, industry is being held to very high standards" says DellaPenna, "and it's doing its best to meet them in reasonable and rigorous fashion."

In the mid-1990s a biotech company launched a project to insert a gene from the Brazil nut into a soybean. The Brazil nut gene selected makes a protein rich in one essential amino acid. The aim was to create a more nutritious soybean for use in animal feed. Because the Brazil nut is known to contain an allergen, the company also tested the product for human reaction, with the thought that the transgenic soybean might accidentally enter the human food supply. When tests showed that humans would react to the modified soybeans, the project was abandoned.

For some people this was good evidence that the system of testing genetically engineered foods works. But for some scientists and consumer groups, it raised the specter of allergens or other hazards that might slip through the safety net. Scientists know that some proteins, such as the one in the Brazil nut, can cause allergic reactions in humans, and they know how to test for these allergenic proteins. But the possibility exists that a novel protein with allergenic properties might turn up in an engineered food—just as it might in a new food produced by conventional means—and go undetected. Furthermore, critics say, the technique of moving genes across dramatically different species increases the likelihood of something going awry—either in the function of the inserted gene or in the function of the host DNA—raising the possibility of unanticipated health effects.

An allergy scare in 2000 centered around StarLink, a variety of genetically engineered corn approved by the U.S. government only for animal use because it showed some suspicious qualities, among them a tendency to break down slowly during digestion, a known characteristic of allergens. When StarLink found its way into taco shells, corn chips, and other foods, massive and costly recalls were launched to try to remove the corn from the food supply.

No cases of allergic response have been pinned to StarLink. In fact, according to Steve L. Taylor, chair of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of Nebraska, "None of the current biotech products have been implicated in allergic reactions or any other healthcare problem in people." Nevertheless, all new foods may present new risks. Only rigorous testing can minimize those risks.

Often overlooked in the debate about the health effects of these foods is one possible health benefit: Under some conditions corn genetically engineered for insect resistance may enhance safety for human and animal consumption. Corn damaged by insects often contains high levels of fumonisins, toxins made by fungi that are carried on the backs of insects and that grow in the wounds of the damaged corn. Lab tests have linked fumonisins with cancer in animals, and they may be potentially cancer-causing to humans. Among people who consume a lot of corn—in certain parts of South Africa, China, and Italy, for instance—there are high rates of esophageal cancer, which scientists associate with fumonisins. Studies show that most Bt corn has lower levels of fumonisins than conventional corn damaged by insects.

Should genetically engineered foods be labeled? Surveys suggest that most Americans would say yes (although they wouldn't want to pay more for the labeling). Professor Marion Nestle, chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University, favors labeling because she believes consumers want to know and have the right to choose. However, no engineered foods currently carry labels in the U.S. because the FDA has not found any of them to be substantially different from their conventional counterparts. Industry representatives argue that labeling engineered foods that are not substantially different would arouse unwarranted suspicion.

Q: Can biotech foods harm the environment?
A: It depends on whom you ask.

Most scientists agree: The main safety issues of genetically engineered crops involve not people but the environment. "We've let the cat out of the bag before we have real data, and there's no calling it back," says Allison Snow, a plant ecologist at Ohio State University.

Snow is known for her research on "gene flow," the movement of genes via pollen and seeds from one population of plants to another, and she and some other environmental scientists worry that genetically engineered crops are being developed too quickly and released on millions of acres of farmland before they've been adequately tested for their possible long-term ecological impact.

Advocates of genetically engineered crops argue that the plants offer an environmentally friendly alternative to pesticides, which tend to pollute surface and groundwater and harm wildlife. The use of Bt varieties has dramatically reduced the amount of pesticide applied to cotton crops. But the effects of genetic engineering on pesticide use with more widely grown crops are less clear-cut.

What might be the effect of these engineered plants on so-called nontarget organisms, the creatures that visit them? Concerns that crops with built-in insecticides might damage wildlife were inflamed in 1999 by the report of a study suggesting that Bt corn pollen harmed monarch butterfly caterpillars.

Monarch caterpillars don't feed on corn pollen, but they do feed on the leaves of milkweed plants, which often grow in and around cornfields. Entomologists at Cornell University showed that in the laboratory Bt corn pollen dusted onto milkweed leaves stunted or killed some of the monarch caterpillars that ate the leaves. For some environmental activists this was confirmation that genetically engineered crops were dangerous to wildlife. But follow-up studies in the field, reported last fall, indicate that pollen densities from Bt corn rarely reach damaging levels on milkweed, even when monarchs are feeding on plants within a cornfield.

"The chances of a caterpillar finding Bt pollen doses as high as those in the Cornell study are negligible," says Rick Hellmich, an entomologist with the Agricultural Research Service and one author of the follow-up report. "Butterflies are safer in a Bt cornfield than they are in a conventional cornfield, when they're subjected to chemical pesticides that kill not just caterpillars but most insects in the field."

Perhaps a bigger concern has to do with insect evolution. Crops that continuously make Bt may hasten the evolution of insects impervious to the pesticide. Such a breed of insect, by becoming resistant to Bt, would rob many farmers of one of their safest, most environmentally friendly tools for fighting the pests.

To delay the evolution of resistant insects, U.S. government regulators, working with biotech companies, have devised special measures for farmers who grow Bt crops. Farmers must plant a moat or "refuge" of conventional crops near their engineered crops. The idea is to prevent two resistant bugs from mating. The few insects that emerge from Bt fields resistant to the insecticide would mate with their nonresistant neighbors living on conventional crops nearby; the result could be offspring susceptible to Bt. The theory is that if growers follow requirements, it will take longer for insects to develop resistance.

It was difficult initially to convince farmers who had struggled to keep European corn borers off their crops to let the insects live and eat part of their acreage to combat resistance. But a 2001 survey by major agricultural biotech companies found that almost 90 percent of U.S. farmers complied with the requirements.

Many ecologists believe that the most damaging environmental impact of biotech crops may be gene flow. Could transgenes that confer resistance to insects, disease, or harsh growing conditions give weeds a competitive advantage, allowing them to grow rampantly?

"Genes flow from crops to weeds all the time when pollen is transported by wind, bees, and other pollinators," says Allison Snow. "There's no doubt that transgenes will jump from engineered crops into nearby relatives." But since gene flow usually takes place only between closely related species, and since most major U.S. crops don't have close relatives growing nearby, it's extremely unlikely that gene flow will occur to create problem weeds.

Still, Snow says, "even a very low probability event could occur when you're talking about thousands of acres planted with food crops." And in developing countries, where staple crops are more frequently planted near wild relatives, the risk of transgenes escaping is higher. While no known superweeds have yet emerged, Snow thinks it may just be a matter of time.

Given the risks, many ecologists believe that industry should step up the extent and rigor of its testing and governments should strengthen their regulatory regimes to more fully address environmental effects. "Every transgenic organism brings with it a different set of potential risks and benefits," says Snow. "Each needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But right now only one percent of USDA biotech research money goes to risk assessment."



http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/food-how-altered.html (http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/food-how-altered.html)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 29, 2013, 11:59:15 PM
Sorry Dan, I thought I answered your question already, but I evidently did a poor job of explaining myself.  Let me try again. 

Your premise is based on bad science.
That is your opinion.

Quote

And no, I do NOT trust the government, and I do NOT trust Monsanto, or any other big corporation
Okay, we do agree here.
Quote
But I do trust my common sense, and my experience.
Just as I trust my common sense and experience,

Quote
If a person dies after eating a BLT sandwich, does that mean bacon killed them? No, of course not.  Your example from Germany is flawed.
It does if they are allergic to pork.
Quote

Now, how do I know GMO's are safe?

Well, they are just as safe as any other organism that we may put into our bodies.
Opinion not fact.
Quote
Mankind has been genetically modifying various foods for hundreds, if not thousands of years.  Any time we choose the best, biggest, most tolerant fruits to save for seed, we are taking advantage of genetic modifications (natural mutations) that nature has handed us.
Yes, but we didn't go around inserting bacterial DNA into them for the last 100's or 1000's of years either. Huge difference
Quote
Since then, yes, people have died.  Was it the food that killed them?  Um, no.  When the Aztecs saved certain grasses that had larger than normal seeds, and used them for seeds the next year, they began to develop what we know as corn.  When they died, was it the genetic modifications that killed them?  lol
I appreciate your decision to try and employ a little levity into your argument, however invalid it may be.

Quote

I'm not trying to be sarcastic,
Really?

Quote
but my point is that we have been genetically modifying foods through natural selection for thousands of years, and genetically engineering specific food traits for several decades now,
Again, natural selection and gene manipulation are two totally different animals.
Quote
and NO undesirable side effects have been linked to it.  EVER.

I disagree and so do others.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes)

At least Monsanto has given up their drive to get GMO's into Europe. Nobody wants it there.

http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/ (http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/)

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on August 30, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
It really doesn't matter what some think about GMO's.

They are not going to go away.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 30, 2013, 06:00:25 PM

At least Monsanto has given up their drive to get GMO's into Europe. Nobody wants it there.

[url]http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/[/url] ([url]http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/[/url])


Really?  That is your opinion.  But not fact.

Same website, ten weeks later:

Controversial genetically modified super-maize from Monsanto is set to be approved for cultivation across the European Union by late October, officials tell RT.


http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/ (http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/)


It really doesn't matter what some think about GMO's.

They are not going to go away.


Absolutely TRUE.

As I sit here, eating some fresh sweet corn.   ;D
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on August 30, 2013, 06:05:52 PM
Good in that they are disease resistant.  Bad, in that you cannot grow your own seed corn, making you beholding to Monsanto year after year.

Please correct me if this is incorrect.

You are incorrect.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 31, 2013, 01:54:52 PM
Really?  That is your opinion.  But not fact.

Same website, ten weeks later:

Controversial genetically modified super-maize from Monsanto is set to be approved for cultivation across the European Union by late October, officials tell RT.


[url]http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/[/url] ([url]http://rt.com/news/smartstax-maize-germany-approval-428/[/url])


Absolutely TRUE.

As I sit here, eating some fresh sweet corn.   ;D
My statement was

Quote
At least Monsanto has given up their drive to get GMO's into Europe. Nobody wants it there.


Now that Germany has allowed GM corn, well at least for now, as stated in the same post that you cited:

Quote
While Monsanto look likely to win this round, the corporation has dropped its bid to get more genetically modified crops onto the European market, due to “widespread popular opposition.”


So therefore the only part of the statement that was incorrect was that Nobody wants it there. Obviously Monsanto does.


Also from the article you posted.
Quote
SmartStax GM maize was developed in the US by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences. It combines the genes of two already genetically modified maize varieties. SmartStax is resistant to two types of herbicides and poisons against six different species of insects, such as the European corn borer. The seed includes eight artificially added genes – previously, the biggest number of such genes added to a single plant was three.

The original GM varieties of maize that SmartStax was engineered from were tested in a 90-day trial of GM plants being fed to humans. Reportedly, SmartStax has never been scientifically tested on animals in Europe and therefore “the risk assessment performed by the EFSA is actually not adequate to sufficiently exclude adverse effects on humans, animals and the environment,” Testbiotech says on its website.

Independent European experts say that the cultivation of SmartStax is extremely controversial, because long-term tests of the new maize have not been conducted.

“This case shows that decisions made by the Commission on permitting genetically engineered plants in food and feed are not sufficiently based on science but on economic pressure. Just because US companies want unrestricted import of these types of maize into Europe, the EU Commission is continuing the authorization process and refusing to acknowledge the actual risks,” said Christoph Then, a representative of Testbiotech.

“This is a serious threat to consumers and the protection of health and the environment,” said Then, who also is Greenpeace Germany’s expert on agriculture genetic engineering. “No other already approved plant contains so many genetically modified ingredients. It is completely unclear how they interact and what consequences this has long-term.”
So they did a 90 day evaluation test, but have no idea what the long term effects are.

To me, that is like saying "Go smoke 10 cigarettes a day and after 90 days, if you are still alive, then there are no adverse affects".

You are incorrect.


You can grow your own seed corn, provided that you do not use the corn grown from Monsanto seeds. If you do, you will be forced, in a court of law, to pay royalties to Monsanto.

It really doesn't matter what some think about GMO's.

They are not going to go away.


While this may be true, California has stepped towards requiring that GMO foods be labeled as such, which would allow those who do not want to consume such foods the knowledge of which foods contain GMO's and which do not.

And yes, given the opportunity to decide whether or not to purchase food that have GMO's or not, I would gladly pay more for foods that are not grown from GMO's.

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on August 31, 2013, 09:26:49 PM
And yes, given the opportunity to decide whether or not to purchase food that have GMO's or not, I would gladly pay more for foods that are not grown from GMO's.

I can believe that.

There are already plenty of people that line up to pay extra for things labeled "organic."

I have friends that pay extra for "organic" beef....  whatever that is.  They claim no hormones......

I buy from a farmer out in Milan....  tastes better, isn't labeled anything but cow....  they sell three or four a year.

I guess my point is if you spend money on packaging and make claims lots of consumers think they are getting something special and throw money at you..
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 01, 2013, 08:56:39 AM

At least Monsanto has given up their drive to get GMO's into Europe. Nobody wants it there.

[url]http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/[/url] ([url]http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/[/url])



Well, of course Monsanto is going to stop trying to get their products in the EU.  Because now it's THERE.




So therefore the only part of the statement that was incorrect was that Nobody wants it there. Obviously Monsanto does.



And of course, since you say no one wants it there, besides Monsanto, that means that no European farmers will buy their product.  Why would they buy something that they don't want?

I'm sure they'll all just stick with the seed they've been using, since no one wants Monsanto's seed.   8*
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 01, 2013, 09:14:21 AM
Well, of course Monsanto is going to stop trying to get their products in the EU.  Because now it's THERE.



And of course, since you say no one wants it there, besides Monsanto, that means that no European farmers will buy their product.  Why would they buy something that they don't want?

I'm sure they'll all just stick with the seed they've been using, since no one wants Monsanto's seed.   8*
You obviously avoided the rest of my post, especially this part here.

Quote
While Monsanto look likely to win this round, the corporation has dropped its bid to get more genetically modified crops onto the European market, due to “widespread popular opposition.”
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 01, 2013, 09:33:25 AM
You obviously avoided the rest of my post, especially this part here.



I didn't avoid it.  It was just blatantly obvious that Monsanto has just won this huge battle, and once the farmers in Europe try the Smartstax corn, the rest will sell itself.

I see that, Monsanto sees that.  Why can't you?

Do you REALLY believe the stories you post, saying that NO ONE wants those GM products?

Do you REALLY believe that no European farmers will buy that Smartstax corn seed?






(http://img1.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/18312/18312814d2ab9b34e55de850fdd608b4f13421ec.jpg) (http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=18312814&showlnk=0)


Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 01, 2013, 01:18:16 PM
I didn't avoid it.  It was just blatantly obvious that Monsanto has just won this huge battle, and once the farmers in Europe try the Smartstax corn, the rest will sell itself.

I see that, Monsanto sees that.  Why can't you?

Do you REALLY believe the stories you post, saying that NO ONE wants those GM products?

Do you REALLY believe that no European farmers will buy that Smartstax corn seed?






([url]http://img1.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/18312/18312814d2ab9b34e55de850fdd608b4f13421ec.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=18312814&showlnk=0[/url])
I'm sorry Live, I see now that with my prior post I have fallen into the trap of attacking my opponent rather than debating the issue, which in turn caused you to do the same.

Again, I apologize.

Do I believe the stories I post? I believe that there are people that do not want those GM products. I am one of them.

Do I believe that no European Farmers will buy that seed? No, of course not. But I do believe that informing people of the possible problems that these GMO's may create is the prudent thing to do.

As far as the picture that you found, I believe that is a sword that cuts both ways. You may want to thing about that yourself.

As far as this topic goes, I believe that all the useful debating is done, and that from here on out there would be nothing more than the vicious free for all that occurs in any other topic that is debated here.

I bid you good day, and happy posting.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 01, 2013, 11:40:47 PM
I guess time will tell, whether GMO's ever will harm humans.

Quite honestly, I think this world has a lot more serious problems.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on September 02, 2013, 10:00:33 AM
I guess time will tell, whether GMO's ever will harm humans.

Quite honestly, I think this world has a lot more serious problems.

I agree - like people dying of starvation.

I am pretty sure they would "risk" eating a GMO.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 02, 2013, 10:59:32 AM
I agree - like people dying of starvation.

I am pretty sure they would "risk" eating a GMO.

People dying of thirst would also drink salt water or even motor oil.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Will Sweat on September 02, 2013, 12:36:29 PM
I don't have enough understanding of GMO's to advocate one way or the other but do want to say that I am enjoying reading both sides - thanks. 

But if someone can explain why my cucumbers sucked so much this year I would appreciate it!  LOL . . .
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 02, 2013, 12:52:57 PM
People dying of thirst would also drink salt water or even motor oil.

Huh? 

Do you really believe that? 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 02, 2013, 12:59:27 PM
I don't have enough understanding of GMO's to advocate one way or the other but do want to say that I am enjoying reading both sides - thanks. 

But if someone can explain why my cucumbers sucked so much this year I would appreciate it!  LOL . . .

A lot of the vegetables in this area were not very good this year because of the excessive rain.  Tomatoes suffered from Blossom End Rot, and had little flavor.  The same was true with other vegetables... depending on the soil where they were growing.  A lot of the crops were yellower than usual.  That's because the rain leached a lot of the nitrogen away.

The one exception to that is soybeans.  They produce their own nitrogen.  They just need heat, water, and some potassium and phosphorus (and some other micronutrients).  Most soybeans are very dark green this year.  Almost a bluish green.  Beans should yield high in this area.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 02, 2013, 01:45:04 PM
Huh? 

Do you really believe that?


When you are hungry (or thirsty) you'd be surprised at what some people will do. People who survived a plane crash ate the people who died.

So my question is, Why don't you believe it?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: MorningStar on September 02, 2013, 02:17:09 PM
You are a "Class Act" Dan Hamilton! You debate your opinion without trying to "bully" and manipulate and get your way. Too bad a few of the other MT posters do not follow your lead, as it would, surely, elevate MT to a much more respectable and enjoyable forum.  I have enjoyed your posts on this subject matter.  They can say what they want, however, I will continue to purchase NON Gmo products as much as possible. I am tired of the Greed in this Country - no matter what harm these products may bring to humans. I am confident the GMO laden foods will go the way of China products that have been forced upon us - we are now seeing more and more USA made products in the stores - and without all the harmful chemicals.


I'm sorry Live, I see now that with my prior post I have fallen into the trap of attacking my opponent rather than debating the issue, which in turn caused you to do the same.

Again, I apologize.

Do I believe the stories I post? I believe that there are people that do not want those GM products. I am one of them.

Do I believe that no European Farmers will buy that seed? No, of course not. But I do believe that informing people of the possible problems that these GMO's may create is the prudent thing to do.

As far as the picture that you found, I believe that is a sword that cuts both ways. You may want to thing about that yourself.

As far as this topic goes, I believe that all the useful debating is done, and that from here on out there would be nothing more than the vicious free for all that occurs in any other topic that is debated here.

I bid you good day, and happy posting.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 02, 2013, 02:20:22 PM

When you are hungry (or thirsty) you'd be surprised at what some people will do. People who survived a plane crash ate the people who died.

So my question is, Why don't you believe it?

Because it is common knowledge that drinking sea water will get you sick at least, possibly kill you.  It is also common knowledge that drinking motor oil will kill you.

People who eat humans to survive after a plane crash were not risking their lives - they were saving them.  They didn't drink the engine oil - they ate meat to survive.  Big difference.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on September 02, 2013, 02:25:21 PM
Wow.

Comparing a GMO to drinking salt water or motor oil.

Really? 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 02, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
You are a "Class Act" Dan Hamilton! You debate your opinion without trying to "bully" and manipulate and get your way. Too bad a few of the other MT posters do not follow your lead, as it would, surely, elevate MT to a much more respectable and enjoyable forum.  I have enjoyed your posts on this subject matter.  They can say what they want, however, I will continue to purchase NON Gmo products as much as possible. I am tired of the Greed in this Country - no matter what harm these products may bring to humans. I am confident the GMO laden foods will go the way of China products that have been forced upon us - we are now seeing more and more USA made products in the stores - and without all the harmful chemicals.

Welcome to the discussion, MorningStar.

Who has tried to bully or manipulate to get their way?  Where?

Care to elaborate on your opinion that GMO products will disappear?  What evidence do you have of this?

Of course, it is your right to purchase non-GMO foods all you want.  But you do realize that GM foods of some sort is in almost everything we eat, right?

Also, what USA made products are you referring to, without all the harmful chemicals?

Did you know that GMO's actually reduce (if not eliminate) many chemicals that were used on agricultural products these days?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on September 02, 2013, 02:32:35 PM
I am tired of the Greed in this Country - no matter what harm these products may bring to humans. I am confident the GMO laden foods will go the way of China products that have been forced upon us - we are now seeing more and more USA made products in the stores - and without all the harmful chemicals.

I am tired of greed too!

 ;D

Don't know what that has to do with GMO's.  I think they are about improving crop yields and feeding people.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Will Sweat on September 02, 2013, 02:36:21 PM
Wow.

Comparing a GMO to drinking salt water or motor oil.

Really? 

I think it was a comparison that people will eat them (GMO's) if they are starving and have no choice.  Just as people would consume salt water and urine if they are dehydrated and have no other choice. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on September 02, 2013, 02:52:54 PM
I think it was a comparison that people will eat them (GMO's) if they are starving and have no choice.  Just as people would consume salt water and urine if they are dehydrated and have no other choice.

Will eating a GMO result in death?

That is the insinuation of the comparison.

Hence - I don't find it valid.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on September 02, 2013, 05:26:39 PM
I'm willing to try GMO pot seeds next year!
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 02, 2013, 05:28:14 PM
I think it was a comparison that people will eat them (GMO's) if they are starving and have no choice.  Just as people would consume salt water and urine if they are dehydrated and have no other choice.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make.

Just because starving people would be willing to eat the food, is not an endorsement that it is safe.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on September 02, 2013, 05:49:23 PM
Back in the 50's the doctors convinced just about every pregnant women that the pill to prevent morning sickness was just fine to take.  Then all these babies came out with birth defects . . . .

I won't be around, but I wonder how things will be 50 years from now . . .
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on September 02, 2013, 07:49:05 PM
I'm willing to try GMO pot seeds next year!

Does Monsanto sell those?

I am assuming you get 10 times the yield, and don't need the heat lamps?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 03, 2013, 08:42:40 AM
Back in the 50's the doctors convinced just about every pregnant women that the pill to prevent morning sickness was just fine to take.  Then all these babies came out with birth defects . . . .

I won't be around, but I wonder how things will be 50 years from now . . .

FDA and USDA testing was practically non-existent back then, Erie, and the negative results of that medicine were known within months.  Genetically modified food has been in our food supply for hundreds of years, and food that has been engineered in the laboratory with specific genes has been in our food supply for decades.  EVERYONE has been eating it.  Yet, people haven't gotten sick from it, crop yields continue to rise, farmers are feeding more and more people, and hunger is now a political problem, rather than due to the lack of food.

I don't know how things will be 50 years from now, either.  The world population will probably be double what it is now, or pretty close to it. 

Where will all that food come from?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 03, 2013, 01:45:19 PM
Aspartame is GMO Poop

The patent for aspartame is now online, and it reveals how the artificial sweetener is made. Genetically modified E. coli bacteria are cultivated in tanks. They defecate proteins that contain aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid segments. That feces is collected and then treated through many chemical processes including methylation, which adds the toxic alcohol, methanol, to the mix.That's how aspartame is made. It might be time to rethink diet foods as healthy options.

The Resident: Aspartame is GMO Poop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5EgmNzZV54#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 03, 2013, 05:38:37 PM
GMO poop?

Okie dokie.    8*
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 03, 2013, 06:49:55 PM
I know a lot of people are concerned and confused about GMO's, and the big, bad companies that produce them.  But the fact is that by the year 2050, the world's population will be over 9 BILLION people.  The world has 219,000 new people in it - EVERY DAY.

Can the world's farmers boost agricultural production by 70% in the next 40 years or so?  Think about that.

Organic farming won't do it.  Non-GMO foods can't do it.  Even WITH all of today's latest technology, we will not be able to feed all those people.

The answer lies with improved technology, that will come from the biggest chemical and agricultural research companies in the world.

Very interesting article posted today on the Progressive Farmer website:


http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=0353b2fa-34a2-481b-912d-1cb46058ad3a (http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=0353b2fa-34a2-481b-912d-1cb46058ad3a)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 06, 2013, 06:18:07 AM
Neither you nor I will be here to worry about it.  Obviously, the WHO needs to start handing out more rubbers or IUD's.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 15, 2013, 02:37:47 PM
LOL...here's something from a right-wing site:

Quiet Extension of the Monsanto Protection Act

While we've been trying to constrain our government in other areas, House Republicans have quietly included a 3 month extension for the Farmers Assurance Provision in the new spending bill — or as it's popularly known, the Monsanto Protection Act protested by 100's of thousands in May has been prolonged.

Quiet Extension of the Monsanto Protection Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYlwZGa8IvI#)

====

Washington farmer says GM crops contaminated his fields

Earlier this month, a local farmer reported to the Washington State Department of Agriculture that his hay was rejected for export because it tested positive for a genetically modified trait that was not supposed to be in his crop. Now, authorities are trying to figure out whether these claims are true and, if so, how the GM materials got into that crop. RT Correspondent Meghan Lopez takes a closer look at the case and its financial implications.

Washington farmer says GM crops contaminated his fields (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsCPtTUBR04#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 17, 2013, 10:00:05 AM
And a little something for the anti-Obama crowd:

Monsanto More Powerful Than The U.S. Government

It's called the Monsanto Protection Act among activists and concerned citizens who have been following the developments on the issue, and it consists of a legislative 'rider' inside (Farmer Assurance Provision, Sec. 735) a majority-wise unrelated Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill. You may already be aware of what this rider consists of, but in case not you will likely be blown away by the tenacity of Monsanto lobbyist goons.

If this rider passes with the bill, which could be as early as this week, Monsanto would have complete immunity from federal courts when it comes to their ability to act against any new Monsanto GMO crops that are suspected to be endangering the public or the environment (or considered to be planted illegally by the USDA). We're talking about courts that literally can do nothing to Monsanto if it's found that their newest creation may be promoting cancer, for example. Whether it's a GMO banana or an apple, Monsanto could continue planting the food abomination all it wants under court review.

Monsanto More Powerful Than The U.S. Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBwYKK85oeA#)

====

Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act,' Frankenfish heads to US market

Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act,' Frankenfish heads to US market (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao7ECASd5pc#)

====

Inside Story Americas : The controversial Monsanto Protection Act

It can be dificult to make an informed judgement on the safety of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), such is the impassioned reaction that greets each new study. At the very least, there is general agreement that much more research is required on a case by case basis into any potential health risks of GMOs. With that in mind the European Union has strict controls over their use while doubts persist, however here in the US, President Barack Obama last week approved a law giving the production and sale of GMOs and genetically modified food immunity.

Inside Story Americas - The controversial Monsanto Protection Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb4sDw4vqb4#)

====

Obama Signs The Monsanto Protection Act - Seeds Of Death- Full Movie

Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act! It's Time to Label GMOs! We regret to inform you that President Barack Obama has signed H.R. 933, which contained the Monsanto Protection Act, into law. President Obama knowingly signed the Monsanto Protection Act over the urgent pleas of more than 250,000 Americans who asked that he use his executive authority to veto it. President Obama failed to live up to his oath to protect the American people and our constitution.

Today we're calling on President Obama to issue an executive order to call for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Not only is GMO labeling a reasonable and common sense solution to the continued controversy that corporations like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical have created by subverting our basic democratic rights, but it is a basic right that citizens in 62 other countries around the world already enjoy, including Europe, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.

Obama Signs The Monsanto Protection Act - Seeds Of Death- Full Movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_XtCcMeWrw#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 28, 2013, 12:00:48 PM
Monsanto Protection Act stripped from Senate spending bill

The Monsanto Protection Act will expire at the end of this week, but its extension faces an uncertain future. The act - a provision quietly inserted into a spending bill signed into law last spring - was designed to allow Monsanto and other biotechnology companies to continue spreading genetically modified organisms despite a court ruling that those seeds may not meet certain environmental tests The effect of the law was to essentially make the GMO seed industry exempt from the US court system. The House, in the same spending bill that defunded Obamacare, extended the Monsanto Protection Act, but the Senate, which is currently working on its own spending bill, will not include an extension on the act. RT's Sam Sacks tells us how GMOs may affect the potential government shutdown next week.

Monsanto Protection Act stripped from Senate spending bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN_AaylZ4X8#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 28, 2013, 12:11:25 PM
Monsanto Protection Act stripped from Senate spending bill

The Monsanto Protection Act will expire at the end of this week, but its extension faces an uncertain future. The act - a provision quietly inserted into a spending bill signed into law last spring - was designed to allow Monsanto and other biotechnology companies to continue spreading genetically modified organisms despite a court ruling that those seeds may not meet certain environmental tests The effect of the law was to essentially make the GMO seed industry exempt from the US court system. The House, in the same spending bill that defunded Obamacare, extended the Monsanto Protection Act, but the Senate, which is currently working on its own spending bill, will not include an extension on the act. RT's Sam Sacks tells us how GMOs may affect the potential government shutdown next week.

Monsanto Protection Act stripped from Senate spending bill ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN_AaylZ4X8#[/url])



This was originally signed into law by your lord, Obama, in March of this year.  So why are you against it?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 28, 2013, 12:21:48 PM

This was originally signed into law by your lord, Obama, in March of this year.  So why are you against it?
Don't forget that I created the topic: Obama: The most polarizing moderate ever
http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25464.0 (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25464.0)

Which contains many examples of where I felt Obama took positions that are contrary to progressive principles.

So having the Senate strip the act was a good thing.

Giving corporations free reign without recourse to anyone that may be harmed is wrong.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on September 28, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
Ya know, I really can't think of a more polarizing president/moderate than what he has turned into.  I really got suckered in by his "Change" platform (even though I didn't vote for him nor his major party opponent) when in fact, it is WORSE than usual.  I really do think this guy has helped make a bad situation worse in polarizing leaders I have ever seen.  I can't even watch him on TV without thinking "F'ing Liar"!
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 28, 2013, 05:47:18 PM
Ya know, I really can't think of a more polarizing president/moderate than what he has turned into.  I really got suckered in by his "Change" platform (even though I didn't vote for him nor his major party opponent) when in fact, it is WORSE than usual.  I really do think this guy has helped make a bad situation worse in polarizing leaders I have ever seen.  I can't even watch him on TV without thinking "F'ing Liar"!

Agreed.

And yet, he got re-elected.  That's why I think this country is doomed. 

People are lied to, and they eat it up.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on November 10, 2013, 01:19:19 PM
Monsanto denies link between GMOs and cancer, birth defects in Argentina

Agriculture giant Monsanto entered Argentina in 1996. Since then, the South American country has become the world's largest soybean producer, and nearly all of them are genetically modified. Monsanto provides the majority of the pesticides used in Argentina. Now, a new AP report says that the chemicals are affecting the 12 million people who live in the country's farm belt, where the AP documented dozens of cases where agricultural poisons were applied to crops in ways that are contrary to existing laws. Pesticides are showing up in drinking water and the soil. A government report found that 80 percent of children surveyed had pesticides in their blood. Cancer rates are well above the national average and birth defects have risen dramatically. Monsanto disputes that they are responsible for Argentina's health problems. RT's Ameera David talks with Elizabeth Kucinich, director of policy for the Center for Food Safety and the executive producer for the documentary "GMO OMG," about how GMOs are affecting both Argentinians and Americans alike.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY16uNIjzKk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY16uNIjzKk#)

====

Corporate cash sways voters on GMO foods

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdegc6RgGA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdegc6RgGA#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on May 14, 2014, 01:05:00 PM
Interesting article describing the GMO issue.  Basically, it's a bunch of concern over nothing.



WASHINGTON (AP) — Genetically modified foods have been around for years, but most Americans have no idea if they are eating them.

The Food and Drug Administration says they don't need to be labeled, so the state of Vermont has moved forward on its own. On Thursday, Gov. Peter Shumlin signed legislation making his state the first to require labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

What about the rest of the country? And does labeling matter?

There's a lot of confusion about genetically modified foods and their safety.

Some people feel very strongly about GMOs. Opponents, who at times have protested in the streets, say consumers have the right to know whether their food contains GMOs. The Vermont law is their first major victory.

The food industry and companies that genetically engineer seeds have pushed back against the labeling laws, saying GMOs are safe and labels would be misleading.

"It's really polarizing," says New York University's Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies. "There's no middle ground."

A look at the debate and some of the facts about genetically modified foods:

___

WHAT THEY ARE

GMOs are not really a "thing," Nestle says, and that's hard for the average consumer to grasp. You can't touch or feel a GMO.

Genetically modified foods are plants or animals that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA. It's not a new idea — humans have been tinkering with genes for centuries through selective breeding. Think dogs bred to be more docile pets, cattle bred to be beefier or tomatoes bred to be sweeter. Turkeys were bred to have bigger breasts — better for Thanksgiving dinner.

What's different about genetically modified or engineered foods is that the manipulation is done in a lab. Engineers don't need to wait for nature to produce a desired gene; they speed up the process by transferring a gene from one plant or animal to another.

What are the desired traits? Most of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically engineered to resist pests and herbicides. A papaya in Hawaii is modified to resist a virus. The FDA is considering an application from a Massachusetts company to approve a genetically engineered salmon that would grow faster than traditional salmon.

___

IN YOUR GROCERY CART

Most of the genetically modified corn and soybeans are used in cattle feed, or are made into ingredients like corn oil, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup or soybean oil.

Even in some of those products, the manufacturing process itself may eventually remove some of the modified genes.

A few fruits and vegetables are engineered — the Hawaiian papaya and some squash and zucchini, for example. Only a small amount of sweet corn, the corn we eat, is genetically modified.

But there's no genetically modified meat or fish, like the fast-growing salmon, currently in the market for human consumption; the Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve any.

___

THE RISKS

The vast majority of scientific research has found genetically engineered foods to be generally safe.

An Italian scientist's review of 10 years of research, published in 2013, concluded that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected "any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."

One French research team raised safety questions, but their much-criticized 2012 study linking genetically modified corn to rat tumors was retracted in 2013 by the scientific publisher, who cited weak evidence supporting the conclusions.

Even the food police say they are safe: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a well-known critic of food companies and artificial and unhealthy ingredients in foods, has not opposed genetically modified foods, on the basis that there's no evidence they are harmful.

Though what we are eating now appears safe, the main concerns for the future would be new genetically engineered foods — from the United States or abroad — that somehow become allergenic or toxic through the engineering process. The FDA says the foods they have evaluated to this point have not been any more likely to cause an allergic or toxic reaction than foods from traditionally bred plants.

Unlike animals, the FDA is not required to approve genetically engineered crops for consumption. However, most companies will go through a voluntary safety review process with FDA before they put them on the market.

____

THE BENEFITS

There are clear benefits for the agricultural industry — the crops that are engineered to ward off pests or to tolerate herbicides, for example. And companies like Monsanto that produce modified seeds say their technologies will be needed to feed a rising world population as they engineer crops to adapt to certain climates and terrains.

While most modified foods have so far been grown to resist chemicals, pests or disease, advocates envision engineering crops to make them more nutritious as well. Food animals have been engineered to be bred to be free of diseases, be cleaner in their environments or grow more efficiently, though none has yet been approved in the United States.

____

THE POLITICS

There is an escalating political fight between the labeling advocates and the food industry, which has dug in against labeling. In the absence of a federal labeling standard, GMO opponents have gone to the states to try to get a patchwork of labeling laws approved — a move that could eventually force a national standard.

Ballot measures in California and Washington state failed, but the legislative effort prevailed in Vermont. Maine and Connecticut also have passed laws requiring labels, but they don't take effect unless other states follow suit. The food industry is widely expected to challenge the Vermont law in court.

The state efforts aren't slowing down. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are 85 pending GMO labeling bills in 29 states.

In Congress, the food industry is pushing a House bill that would head off efforts to enact mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients by proposing new voluntary labels nationwide — an attempted end run around the state-by-state laws.

Currently, the FDA says labeling of genetically modified foods isn't needed because the nutritional content is the same as non-GMO varieties.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/genetically-modified-foods-confuse-consumers (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/genetically-modified-foods-confuse-consumers)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: sammy on May 14, 2014, 01:18:00 PM
Interesting read. I've never been particularly worried about GMOs in food.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 14, 2014, 10:00:21 PM
Maybe we should discuss roundup ready alfalfa too???
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: sammy on May 14, 2014, 10:23:17 PM
I don't eat alfalfa.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 14, 2014, 10:32:44 PM
I don't eat alfalfa.

Unless you are a vegetarian you sure do.  You most likely eat DDG  and you might be eating processed sewage as well....  Including GMO's if fed as a ration.

All points to ponder if you consume commercial beef, swine or polutry.

That meat you buy at the grocery was probably raised to market weight in a feedlot operation and could have consumed any or all the above 'ingredients'...... ;D

Even being a vegeterian don't mean you are exempt either.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 14, 2014, 10:36:24 PM
I really need to trade in this laptop and get a new one, the keyboard sucks.....  I apologize.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on May 15, 2014, 07:28:50 AM
Maybe we should discuss roundup ready alfalfa too???

It is just another GMO, and is very common across the country. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on May 18, 2014, 11:41:25 PM
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10402635_10152881137328327_4766136903340498178_n.jpg)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on May 19, 2014, 07:52:20 AM
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10402635_10152881137328327_4766136903340498178_n.jpg)

A Democrat politician making a false claim about comments that a governmental organization received, about a COMPANY that has corrupted "the political process".

Yeah, I'll believe THAT.

Good Lord, liberals will believe anything.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 19, 2014, 09:01:31 AM
Dennis is an idiot and always has been.  He does have a hot old lady though.

At least he didn't run for President last time around thought he mighr have actually been better......
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on May 19, 2014, 09:53:05 AM
Voters in Washington state have already begun casting their ballots to decide whether to label genetically modified foods. The official vote on the initiative is on Nov. 5. Twenty-three other states are considering something similar. It’s a good time to ask whether labeling is a good idea — both in general and, in this case, in particular.

Washington’s initiative would require products made using genetic engineering to clearly declare as much in a visible place — that is, a “front of the box” label. It has been in the news because it’s a case of direct democracy. Since voters rather than legislators are choosing, the debate has taken place in the media, in the form of both journalism and advertising. The ad buys have been massive on both sides — but bogglingly more massive from those campaigning against the measure.

There are good arguments against labeling: It fails to identify a genuine hazard, it could drive up prices, and it may reduce consumer choice. These are all legitimate complaints, and I agree with them, in the main. Then there are the complaints specific to the Washington law: There are better solutions, it’s imperfectly written, it will use taxpayer money, and it could lead to frivolous lawsuits. Again, I agree.

I’ll address these points in greater detail below. Nonetheless, I support labeling. You might ask: Huh?

For me, it all comes down to transparency, but not for the same reasons repeated ad infinitum in this fight. People have the right to know what’s in their food, the argument goes; but that only takes us so far. Access to information is only relevant when that information can be put to use. How would knowledge of transgenic ingredients be useful? Well, it would be useful to know about GM ingredients if they end up being hazardous — but after reviewing the evidence, I’ve come to think that’s highly unlikely.

There’s another way, however, that this kind of transparency would be useful: It could help heal the rift of misunderstanding and mistrust between food producer and food consumer. It might not provide information that would allow an individual to make better choices at a grocery store, but it would provide precisely the sort of information needed to span this divide. And that would allow all of us to make better food policy choices.

In a famous paper on risk perception, published in Science in 1987, Paul Slovic pointed out that people judge voluntary, controllable actions as much less risky than those that are involuntary and out of their control. Similarly, people see the unknown as much more risky than the known. Genetically engineered foods are, for most people, both unknown and uncontrollable.

There’s a simple, almost magical, solution to both these problems: labeling. Labeling makes the unknown known; it puts people in control of what is currently uncontrollable. It removes dread fear from the debate. Once GM food is labeled, the risk that people ascribe to it should drop precipitously. People see voluntary hazards (like skiing) as 1,000 times more acceptable than hazards they are forced to accept, Slovic wrote.

If the rhetoric and emotions surrounding this issue cooled off we could begin a reasoned and overdue discussion about what tools we want to use to meet the agricultural challenges of the future. We haven’t had that discussion, largely because city-folk haven’t been interested in agriculture for much of the last half century. Now that’s changed: City people want to know everything about the food we eat.

Farmers, aggies, and plant scientists are understandably perplexed by this. “We’ve been doing all sorts of crazy **** to your food for the last 50 years,” I imagine them complaining. “All you ever say is, ‘Cheaper please!’  And now all of a sudden you’re all worked up about this one tiny thing we’re doing called genetic engineering. Snap out of it! You’re being irrational!”

It’s true that we’re being irrational, in one sense. If we were approaching labeling with purely rational motivations, GMOs would be fairly low on our list of concerns. First, we’d be looking to label foods produced with the herbicide paraquat, or grain made via mutation breeding (a method more likely to cause unintended consequences than genetic engineering).

But in another sense, it’s perfectly reasonable to protest when you lose trust in the people you’ve deputized to procure your food. And it’s perfectly reasonable to attach that protest to something that already has some political momentum, like the backlash against GM food.

For most people, I suspect, GMOs are a metaphor — a stand-in for of all that is vaguely frightening in our food system. People attach their mistrust of agribusiness and fear of the unknown to this metaphor. So let’s defuse the metaphor: We can disarm the emotional and political triggers in GM food by labeling it.

Once you detach the fear of unknown technology we can directly address the fear of corporate oligarchy. That, I think, is a legitimate fear. There are real problems with the consolidation of our crop innovation into just a few big companies: Group think and patent thickets can hinder innovation. Big businesses tend to be less responsive to the needs of their customers. And corporate consolidation yields a consolidation of the money needed to conduct democracy by the dollar. For all these reasons, people might want to use the GMO label to avoid these companies’ products, or even boycott them –  that’s the other side of democracy by the dollar.

Those are the arguments for labeling, but is that enough to outweigh the arguments against? Let’s look at those in a little more detail.

Labeling GM food fails to identify a genuine hazard.

I think that the actual hazard associated with the GM foods is somewhere between negligible and non-existent. But that’s the point: Labeling would help people let go of their inflated perceptions of risk.

But it’s confusing! People will assume GM food is bad if they see what looks like a warning label.

Nah. We have other examples where the government has required a label that can be interpreted subjectively: Orange juice has to be labeled “Fresh,” or “From Concentrate”; foods are labeled by their country of origin; farmed fish in Washington must be marked as such. None of these labels has caused panic.

Labeling will drive up prices.

I thought this piece hit the nail on the head: Yes, some prices will surely go up as food processors replace commodity ingredients with non-GM variants, but the original, commodity food should continue to be available as well.

Oh really? Just look at Europe, where it’s harder to get GM foods.

I’m not sure which way the arrow of causality points here. Much of Europe has both labeling and less GM food because attitudes there are different. But this does give me pause. Labeling might not be worth it if it has to be financed by charging the poor higher food prices.

But this Washington law is bad, and there are better solutions.

You could just create a new app that tells people what’s in each food. Or you could come up with a better way of labeling, or you could address the actual problem rather than the metaphor. To these points, I say, “Great! Go do it.” But these aren’t reasons to oppose the law on their own. Politics is hard work. It’s all very well to spout off what seems like a better idea from your armchair, but it’s very hard to make these things actually happen.

OK, but this particular law says weird things.

True, there is some odd, misleading verbiage in the Washington bill about GM food causing problems. For example: “The genetic engineering of plants and animals is an imprecise process and often causes unintended consequences.” This is not exactly false, but not really true either. It’s a matter of scientific debate if GE is any less precise than normal breeding. In some ways it’s more precise. But that language is just the preamble (section 1). It’s not legally binding, and I have no problem ignoring it.

The law will drain the public coffers.

Washington estimates that it will take more than five employees working full time to administer the law by 2015. This gives me pause as well. It’s not all that much money relative to the state budget, but I can think of better uses. Still, if it cools the debate and helps us begin a reasoned discussion about what we really want in a sustainable food system, it will have been money well spent.

This will lead to frivolous lawsuits.

I take this concern very seriously — I’d hate to hurt small businesses and assist in lawyer shakedowns. This proposition contains some of the same language on enforcement as California’s Prop 65, which requires businesses to post warnings about chemicals. That law generated enough bad lawsuits that the legislature recently revised it. But Washington’s law is critically different because it doesn’t award damages to lawyers. There’s still the chance the lawyers could use the law to harass businesses, but there’s not the same incentive.

The movement to label foods is a natural outgrowth of consumers demanding to know what they are eating. In response, growers should be saying, finally! For years, by demanding nothing but lower prices, customers have squeezed some farmers out of business and pushed others to focus on yield to the exclusion of all else. It’s a predicament that serves neither the eaters nor the producers of food.

This is a chance to get together and close this gulf. This is a chance to talk honestly about what we value, and what we’re willing to pay for, in our food.

http://grist.org/food/gmo-labeling-trick-or-treat/ (http://grist.org/food/gmo-labeling-trick-or-treat/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on May 19, 2014, 10:04:46 AM
Are GMO Foods Safe?

To put it bluntly, no one can really answer that question. Monsanto, the corporation that owns patents on many GMO seeds, assures us that these foods are harmless and points to studies – many of which the company has conducted itself – demonstrating that. These studies, however, have been widely criticized for their obvious bias, and I agree with those assessments. The Monsanto studies only prove that data can be manipulated, not that the products are safe. So, without high-quality, objective information, the debate quickly turns into a he said/she said standoff, leaving us with more questions than answers.

Meanwhile, although these foods are being sold in the U.S., GMO foods are either banned or severely limited throughout much of Europe, including the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France, and Germany. And a long list of other countries are following suit, including Japan, China and Brazil. In fact, Monsanto has virtually stopped lobbying for GMO planting in Europe due to low demand by farmers and consumers.

Here is another concern: Monsanto has spent millions of dollars defeating legislation in states like California that would have required foods containing GMOs to be labeled. In addition, a recently passed Farm Assurance law, commonly referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act”, essentially grandfathers farmers’ rights to utilize existing planting of GMO seeds and plants, even if we learn at a later date that these products have serious health consequences.

The company’s unwillingness to allow labeling and the fact that the Monsanto Protection Act has become law – in spite of a tremendous number of consumers who petitioned the government to veto the bill – certainly does not give me confidence that these foods are safe to consume. In fact, it suggests the company has something to hide. And Monsanto’s apparent “profits before people” attitude shows the reckless disregard the company has for consumers.

Meanwhile, the shocking outcome of a European study with lab animals has created even more questions. Rats in the study that were fed a popular GM corn developed horrifically oversized tumors and organ damage. That study has been widely criticized. But so have studies done by the industry showing that GMOs are safe.

The fact remains that there are no long-term studies demonstrating that GMO foods are healthy – or unhealthy. But given the results of studies I’ve seen, I avoid GMO products whenever possible for myself and my family, and I recommend that you do the same.

http://www.newportnaturalhealth.com/2013/07/gmos-the-pros-cons-of-genetically-modified-food/ (http://www.newportnaturalhealth.com/2013/07/gmos-the-pros-cons-of-genetically-modified-food/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on May 19, 2014, 10:47:21 AM
If GMo's are harmless, what is the problem in having a label on the product?  What are they so afraid of?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on May 19, 2014, 04:21:35 PM
If GMo's are harmless, what is the problem in having a label on the product?  What are they so afraid of?

I really don't think there is a "problem", exactly, other than the cost, which I think is ridiculously unnecessary.

The article Lilly posted (up three posts) is a good one, actually.  It makes some very good points. 

That said, personally I think most people that are against labeling are of the opinion that they KNOW GMO's aren't bad, and they see labeling as a waste.  A waste of money, as well as being uninformative, since there is no risk, and the fact that MOST food items will end up having the label put on them. 

What good does a "label" do, if it doesn't identify any risks, and it is on almost all products?  It's like a label on clothing that says, "These clothes contain cloth", or a label on cars that says, "This vehicle burns gas".

It's just silly.

It would be more informative to require labels on foods that contain NO GMO's.

That list would be a tiny fraction of the size of foods that DO contain GMO's, and would be much easier to regulate.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Hearshear on May 19, 2014, 04:44:08 PM
I just want to see mandatory labeling nationwide, really shouldn't we be able to decide for ourselves whether or not we consume GMO's. This way I can try to avoid it and live in his unflinching belief can switch to a pure diet of it. Knowledge is always a good thing, consumers deserve to be informed.
The cost of printing new labels? Really is that a joke or do you believe that to be an actual hurdle?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on May 19, 2014, 04:55:53 PM
Whatever floats your boat, Hearshear.  Do you eat all non-GMO foods now?

And no, the added cost doesn't pertain only to the cost of printing new labels. 

Is THAT a joke?  Or were you serious?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: nails on May 19, 2014, 04:59:17 PM
I really don't think there is a "problem", exactly, other than the cost, which I think is ridiculously unnecessary.

That said, personally I think most people that are against labeling are of the opinion that they KNOW GMO's aren't bad, and they see labeling as a waste.  A waste of money, as well as being uninformative.
What good does a "label" do, if it doesn't identify any risks, and it is on almost all products?

With all the labels on food and every other product, proclaiming "new" "ultra" "fat free" "gluten free" etc. etc., you'll never convince me that an extra label or line on an existing label is the deciding factor.
And I think most labels contain waste. 

There might be a lot of reasons for and against the label, but that isn't it.

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Hearshear on May 20, 2014, 05:26:41 AM
No I don't eat all non GMO products now, precisely because our products are not labeled in a way for me to tell. They should be.
I know this has become a political pipedream in America. Monsanto and the GMA have purchased way to many politicians. What's funny is that your plugging for them for free. Reminds me of something Ron White says.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on May 20, 2014, 09:50:35 AM
I'm thinking the title of this thread is very misleading.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on June 06, 2014, 11:01:07 AM
Agribusiness turns from GMOs to mutagenesis

Genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) aren't the only unregulated way to modify the genetics of crops. As GMOs get more bad press and lobbying movements against them, chemical companies are increasingly turning to mutagenesis, a process that changes the genetic information of an organism in a stable way, resulting in a genetic mutation.

Agribusiness turns from GMOs to mutagenesis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx_Adug04-4#)

====

GMO foods up for debate: To label or not to label

GMO foods up for debate: To label or not to label (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vdmeUxw0Q#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on June 06, 2014, 10:19:37 PM
Agribusiness turns from GMOs to mutagenesis

Genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) aren't the only unregulated way to modify the genetics of crops. As GMOs get more bad press and lobbying movements against them, chemical companies are increasingly turning to mutagenesis, a process that changes the genetic information of an organism in a stable way, resulting in a genetic mutation.

Agribusiness turns from GMOs to mutagenesis ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx_Adug04-4#[/url])

====

GMO foods up for debate: To label or not to label

GMO foods up for debate: To label or not to label ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vdmeUxw0Q#[/url])


They could be in that tubesteak you so like to suck on..........
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on July 31, 2014, 02:04:12 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-brazil-corn-pests-idUSKBN0FX1YG20140728?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-brazil-corn-pests-idUSKBN0FX1YG20140728?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews)

I know that we haven't talked about this in a while, but I thought this looked . . . appetizing! :)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 28, 2014, 12:30:32 PM
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-brazil-corn-pests-idUSKBN0FX1YG20140728?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews[/url] ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-brazil-corn-pests-idUSKBN0FX1YG20140728?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews[/url])

I know that we haven't talked about this in a while, but I thought this looked . . . appetizing! :)


Just saw this...

Brazilian farmers are producing two corn crops per year. Practically non-stop farming. No winter. Then these guys actually failed to plant refuge corn in the GM corn fields. Recipe for disaster. Now, instead of the GM corn, they will be forced to spray very toxic chemicals to control the bugs.

I'd take GM corn over toxic chemicals any day!!! Lol
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on September 28, 2014, 06:41:13 PM
I seem to remember hearing farmers talk about crop rotation and that corn was one that would really zap the nutrients out of the soil. 

Is that not the case anymore Cowboy, or have the fertilizers helped on overcoming that requirement?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: sammy on September 28, 2014, 06:58:02 PM
I seem to remember hearing farmers talk about crop rotation and that corn was one that would really zap the nutrients out of the soil. 

Is that not the case anymore Cowboy, or have the fertilizers helped on overcoming that requirement?
IMO, crop rotation is always a good idea. Some  of the good rotation crops, like alfalfa, have been phased out on a lot of farms, because they no longer have cattle to eat the hay. Still, corn-wheat-beans is better than corn-corn-corn.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 28, 2014, 11:15:09 PM
Generally, crop rotation is a good idea.

However, there are farmers that grow continuous corn, successfully.  Yes Fuzz, corn does take a lot of nutrients out of the ground - but most farmers fertilize accordingly, so the nutrients aren't depleted in the ground.  Soybeans take a lot of nutrients too, but not as much as corn.  Even a basic corn - soybeans rotation, like what I do, works well.  Doesn't do much for the nutrients, but it breaks the cycle for many pests - insects, weeds and diseases, which increases yields.  The farmers in Brazil are planting continuous corn, TWO crops a year, which will allow insects and diseases to build from crop to crop, without even a winter to stop the cycle. On top of that, they are using GM seed in the wrong way, with no refuge seed.  This forces the insects to adapt the the BT corn trait, and become immune to it.  That forces the farmers to use some really nasty chemicals to control the insects. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on September 29, 2014, 08:36:15 AM
Thanks......makes sense.

Oh....The basement stair well rocks.  Good job.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 29, 2014, 09:33:51 AM
Thanks......makes sense.

Oh....The basement stair well rocks.  Good job.

Oh, thanks!  I'm sorry it took so damn long.  I have far too many irons in the fire. 

I REALLY appreciate your patience!

I'm planning on finishing it tomorrow.  I painted the doors and sides here at the shop last week.  It should look awesome when it's done.

It's strong enough, you can drive a truck down there.  LMAO!
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Professor H on September 29, 2014, 09:39:09 AM
We do Wheat, Corn, Beans rotation - and sometimes you can double crop beans after wheat - (not this year - too late)
It all depends on how much you want or are willing to pay for fertilizer.

I often wondered how the corn maze people did corn corn corn corn... 

And Fuzz...   I gotta admit of all the fun places to do it - I never considered the basement stairs  ;D
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on September 29, 2014, 08:06:22 PM
If it's strong enough to drive a truck through it, then it sure as hell will support a sex swing.   ;D
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Greg Chamberlain on October 01, 2014, 06:52:31 PM
If GMo's are harmless, what is the problem in having a label on the product?  What are they so afraid of?

They aren't afraid of anything, as long as the label is accurate and truly reflects the nature of the ingredients. So, a label along the lines of...

"Contains ingredients from biotech enhanced crops approved by the USDA, FDA and EPA"

...would be acceptable. A big label that just says "GMO", would not.

GMOs are an interesting demonstration in the hypocrisy of the so-called "science left". These are the people who, despite not understanding a damn thing about climate science, demand that electric cars and solar/wind replace our current dependence on fossil fuels ASAP. That isn't to say I disagree with the current mainstream climate science, just that I don't wish to associate with people for whom the issue is political and not scientific.

You see the fact is there is just as much of a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe for human consumption as there is that human activity is driving up the global average temperature. And just as the petroleum and coal industry try desperately to paint climate science as ideology-drive, the organic food lobby (which is huge btw) tries very hard to paint scientists the same way.

Now, this doesn't say Monsanto are a bunch of angels. There are legitimate concerns over their commoditization of biology into intellectual property. Something we should all be concerned about, but can't get much attention when the anti-science left keeps accusing them of poisoning us.

GMOs are safe. An overwhelming majority of the scientific literature shows they are safe. The few studies that have shown them to be dangerous, have all been shown to be non-repeatable. Labeling them is silly when there are things like gluten which people are legitimately allergic to, and foods are not mandated to be labeled such.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on October 02, 2014, 12:04:56 AM
A person who owns a retail produce and vegetable outlet (who will remain nameless because I don't want to impact their business told me earlier this year that (and I quote)....

People want organically grown produce, fruits and vegetables until they see it and then  buy the commercially grown (with herbicides, perticides and genetically mutated) because the organic stuff don't look good compared to.....

That came right from a retailer. btw.

The greenies dance the dance but when the rubber meets the road, waffle.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on October 02, 2014, 06:11:37 AM
Cargill's GMO hypocrisy

Can you have your hypocrisy and eat it, too?

I don't think so, but Cargill Inc. is doing its damndest to get away with its version of the old admonition that eating your cake today means not having it tomorrow. Cargill, the $2.3 billion-a-year food conglomerate, is a huge producer and user of food ingredients that contain genetically manipulated organisms. But it has a marketing problem – by huge margins, consumers here and around the world do not want to put those GMO Frankenfoods on their families' tables.

Thus, Cargill has been a ferocious, deep-pocket opponent of every state law and ballot initiative that would mandate the labeling of any product containing GMOs. Better that families be kept in the dark about what they're buying and eating, says Cargill – better for its profits, that is. Indeed, the chairman of the conglomerate's board is also on the executive committee of the industry lobbying front that goes all out to kill every right-to-know provision for consumers. Any such label, he scolds, would be "misleading."

But – whoa, what's this? It's a press release from Fortress Cargill, proclaiming that the diehard giant is now marketing a non-GMO soybean oil that – voila! – announces on its label that the product is GMO-free. Has the diehard had a change of heart?

Excuse me, but corporations don't have hearts. They have bottom lines, period. And the bottom line is that Cargill's terminally-hypocritical honchos see dollars laying on the ground that they're not getting. So, weasels a company man with the cumbersome title of Food Ingredients Commercial Manager, "Despite the many merits of biotechnology, consumer interest in… non-GMO ingredients is growing, creating opportunities… for food manufacturers."

That is the clearest expression you'll ever get of corporate integrity.
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/8418#.VC0koPldW31 (http://www.jimhightower.com/node/8418#.VC0koPldW31)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on October 02, 2014, 06:12:22 AM
Genetically modified food has quietly become second nature in the U.S., and it may surprise you just how many foods you are eating that you never knew contained a genetically modified ingredient.

Experts say 60% to 70% of processed foods on U.S. grocery shelves have genetically modified ingredients. The most common genetically modified foods are soybeans, maize, cotton, and grapeseed oil. That means many foods made in the U.S. containing field corn or high-fructose corn syrup, such as many breakfast cereals, snack foods, and the last soda you drank; foods made with soybeans (including some baby foods); and foods made with cottonseed and canola oils could likely have genetically modified ingredients. These ingredients appear frequently in animal feed as well.

If this shocks you, a new USDA-funded survey shows you're not alone. Researchers from the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers' Cook College found that only 52% of Americans realized that genetically modified foods are sold in grocery stores and only 26% believed that they have ever eaten genetically modified foods -- a modest 6% increase since 2001.

But what exactly is genetically modified food? Is it safe to eat? Why isn't it labeled in the U.S.? The European Union and the U.S. are boxing it out.

The U.S. government's position: Genetically engineered crops are safe, resist disease better, and can provide much-needed food in starving nations.


The EU position: Keep it out. We prefer organic, which is much healthier. The risk of genetically modified foods to health and the environment outweigh the benefits. Only the multinational biotech companies will benefit, dominating the world food supply and squeezing out traditional farmers.

The U.S. is the largest producer of genetically modified crops.

More than a dozen countries around the world have latched on to the technology, including Argentina, Canada, China, Australia, India, and Mexico.

'Frankenfood' Fears
The term genetically modified food (also known as biotech or genetically engineered food) refers to crop plants that have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Experts say this science, like any other, has no guarantees. Risks include:

Introducing allergens and toxins to food
Accidental contamination between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods
Antibiotic resistance
Adversely changing the nutrient content of a crop
Creation of "super" weeds and other environmental risks
Benefits include:

Increased pest and disease resistance
Drought tolerance
Increased food supply
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat (http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on October 02, 2014, 06:17:50 AM
Danm...  Dickweed can't sleep and/or just got in from a bar binge....

Here we go with the usual cut-n-pasta, I'm excited.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on October 08, 2014, 09:06:32 AM
New scientific review concludes GMO feed has no adverse effects


An article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Animal Science concludes feeding livestock diets that contain genetically engineered (GE) crops has no impact on the health or productivity of those animals. In a thorough review of scientific literature and field data sets, the article documents evidence that the performance and health of food-producing animals fed GE crops are comparable with those of animals fed non-GE crops.

Since their introduction in 1996, GE feed crops have become an increasing component of livestock diets. Today, more than 95 percent of U.S. food-producing animals consume feed containing GE crops. Studies that involve feeding GE crops to livestock are used to evaluate the safety of these crops.

Recently, University of California, Davis researchers reinforced the consistency of these studies in an unprecedented review article that examines nearly 30 years worth of livestock-feeding studies, representing more than 100 billion animals.

In the review, posted online September 24 in the Journal of Animal Science, Alison Van Eenennaam, Cooperative Extension Specialist in Animal Biotechnology in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, and research assistant Amy Young examine feeding data from 1983 (13 years before GE crops were introduced) through 2011 (when GE feed use exceeded 90 percent).

The review also examines the composition of products derived from animals fed diets containing GE feeds. "No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals," state the authors.

The review, entitled "Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations," will appear in print and open-access in the October 2014 Journal of Animal Science. Due to the high level of interest in the article, ASAS has elected to make the full article immediately available in open-access form at www.asas.org (http://www.asas.org).


https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Content/Technology/New_scientific_review_concludes_GMO_feed_have_no_adverse_effects/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Michigan+Farm+NEWS (https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Content/Technology/New_scientific_review_concludes_GMO_feed_have_no_adverse_effects/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Michigan+Farm+NEWS)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on October 08, 2014, 09:48:30 AM
There was an article on AgWeb concerning GMO's and the growing push to curtail them as well as some comments about Monsanto.  Didn't link it.....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on October 10, 2014, 10:30:28 AM
New scientific review concludes GMO feed has no adverse effects


An article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Animal Science concludes feeding livestock diets that contain genetically engineered (GE) crops has no impact on the health or productivity of those animals. In a thorough review of scientific literature and field data sets, the article documents evidence that the performance and health of food-producing animals fed GE crops are comparable with those of animals fed non-GE crops.

Since their introduction in 1996, GE feed crops have become an increasing component of livestock diets. Today, more than 95 percent of U.S. food-producing animals consume feed containing GE crops. Studies that involve feeding GE crops to livestock are used to evaluate the safety of these crops.

Recently, University of California, Davis researchers reinforced the consistency of these studies in an unprecedented review article that examines nearly 30 years worth of livestock-feeding studies, representing more than 100 billion animals.

In the review, posted online September 24 in the Journal of Animal Science, Alison Van Eenennaam, Cooperative Extension Specialist in Animal Biotechnology in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, and research assistant Amy Young examine feeding data from 1983 (13 years before GE crops were introduced) through 2011 (when GE feed use exceeded 90 percent).

The review also examines the composition of products derived from animals fed diets containing GE feeds. "No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals," state the authors.

The review, entitled "Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations," will appear in print and open-access in the October 2014 Journal of Animal Science. Due to the high level of interest in the article, ASAS has elected to make the full article immediately available in open-access form at [url=http://www.asas.org]www.asas.org[/url] ([url]http://www.asas.org[/url]).


[url]https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Content/Technology/New_scientific_review_concludes_GMO_feed_have_no_adverse_effects/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Michigan+Farm+NEWS[/url] ([url]https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Content/Technology/New_scientific_review_concludes_GMO_feed_have_no_adverse_effects/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Michigan+Farm+NEWS[/url])
That's on livestock
Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations
Conclusions
Commercial livestock populations are the largest consumers of GE crops, and globally, billions of animals have been eating GE feed for almost 2 decades. An
extensive search of peer-reviewed literature and field observations of animals fed diets containing GE crop products have revealed no unexpected perturbations or disturbing trends in animal performance or health indicators. Likewise, it is not possible to distinguish any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products following consumption of GE feed. Animal agriculture is currently highly dependent on GE feed sources, and global trade of livestock feed is largely supplied by countries that have approved the cultivation of GE crops. Supplying non-GE-fed animal products is likely to become increasingly expensive given the expanding global planting of GE crops and the growing number of countries that raise them. The market for animals that have not consumed GE feed is currently a niche market in the United States, although such products are available to interested consumers via voluntary process-based marketing programs. The cost of these products is higher than conventionally produced products due to both the higher cost of non-GE feed and the costs associated with certifying the absence of GE crops in the production process and product segregation. There is currently a pipeline of so-called “second generation” GE crops with improved output traits for livestock production. Their approval will further complicate the sourcing of non-GE feedstuffs. Additionally, recent developments in techniques to induce precise genetic changes in targeted genes offer both tremendous opportunities and a challenge for global regulatory oversight. Given these developments, there is an urgent need for international harmonization of both regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of advanced breeding techniques to prevent widespread disruptions in international trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future.
https://www.asas.org/docs/default-source/jas-files/final.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (https://www.asas.org/docs/default-source/jas-files/final.pdf?sfvrsn=0)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on October 13, 2014, 08:26:25 AM
The mendacity of GMO purveyors

Tenacity can be a virtue. But the persistent push by giant food conglomerates to deceive us consumers has turned their tenacity into raw mendacity.

Brand-name food peddlers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbyists, lawyers, campaign donations, PR hypesters, and political manipulators so they can genetically (and dangerously) alter the dinner we put on our family tables, without bothering to tell us which items they've messed with. With practically no public notice, their first deception was to get Washington to okay the production and introduction of genetically modified organisms into corn, canola, soy, and other crops. Then they quietly pushed to prevent federal regulators from requiring that these tampered Frankenfoods be labeled as containing GMOs. Next, they tried a grand deception insisting that foods tainted with GMOs qualify for the national "organic" label.

Even our usually-submissive regulators balked at that one – but, look out, for here they come again! Big Food's industry front group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, is now demanding that foods with genetically-engineered ingredients be allowed to use the word "natural" on their packages.

Natural? Let's see – one, these biotech mutations are not products of nature, but of corporate technicians; and two, the plants are manufactured in corporate labs by extracting genes from a foreign plant or even an animal, then splicing those genes into the manufactured creature. The very DNA of this man-made "food" is altered, with no understanding of the long-term environmental or health consequences.

A Twinkie is more natural than that! They're perverting both our language and nature's reality. To oppose these profiteers' tenacious mendaciousness, contact the Environmental Working Group: www.ewg.org (http://www.ewg.org).
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/8452#.VDvEm_nF_bJ (http://www.jimhightower.com/node/8452#.VDvEm_nF_bJ)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on May 19, 2015, 12:46:24 AM
GMOs: Should they be on our shelves?

The benefits and safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are causing a major debate within the healthcare and scientific communities, as well as the public. Ameera David and Manuel Rapalo speak with Alexis Baden-Mayer of the Organic Consumers Association and Peter Davies, professor of Plant Biology at Cornell University, discussing the pros and cons with regards to GMOs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqQLrRR-0U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqQLrRR-0U)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on May 22, 2015, 11:37:24 AM
Obsolete science behind ‘safe’ GMO claims?

Despite the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of non-browning GMO fruits and vegetables, many remain unconvinced of their safety. All-natural activists are calling into question the techniques used by the government in evaluating produce, claiming that their methods are outdated and not at all equipped to test GMOs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAiDIHmC8Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAiDIHmC8Q)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on May 23, 2015, 07:47:54 AM
Obsolete science behind ‘safe’ GMO claims?

Despite the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of non-browning GMO fruits and vegetables, many remain unconvinced of their safety. All-natural activists are calling into question the techniques used by the government in evaluating produce, claiming that their methods are outdated and not at all equipped to test GMOs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAiDIHmC8Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAiDIHmC8Q)

Dude, you are using information based solely on opinions formulated by "All-Natural Activists", compiled and distributed by RT News, which is about as left wing flaming liberal as you can get, in order to support your claim that GMO's are somehow "bad" for us.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on May 23, 2015, 10:59:28 AM
Dude, you are using information based solely on opinions formulated by "All-Natural Activists", compiled and distributed by RT News, which is about as left wing flaming liberal as you can get, in order to support your claim that GMO's are somehow "bad" for us.

Pathetic.
I don't recall taking a position on it either way.

I'm merely sharing the info that I stumbled upon that seemed related to the subject.

Not really sure why the right is so opposed to education.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 23, 2015, 11:01:59 AM
Opinions are like a'holes, everyone has one and some stink.  Dig deep enough and you'll uncover the stinky ones....

Dig enough and you can find counter opinions to anything.  Does that mean its gospel, probably not but it makes for good copy for those that are gullible enough to want it to be......
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 23, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
I don't recall taking a position on it either way.

I'm merely sharing the info that I stumbled upon that seemed related to the subject.

Not really sure why the right is so opposed to education.

Education and opinion are two different things.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on May 23, 2015, 11:33:56 AM
Education and opinion are two different things.
And it's the right that constantly demands nothing but opinions on MT.

The folks on those videos made some very goods points.

While the opinions of the righties on this forum are of the stinky variety you recently spoke of.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on May 23, 2015, 11:47:28 AM
Personally, I have not seen enough studies or facts to form an opinion either way regarding GMO.  Technology has brought about many good things, some found later and after the fact of implementation that was not good.

Long term studies and monitoring will tell the story in the end on this subject, but as it stands it is the seed and chemical companies profiting probably more than the farmers are.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on May 23, 2015, 11:49:55 AM
Yep...and now the news is that Roundup is probably carcinogenic.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate- (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on May 24, 2015, 07:58:20 AM
Yep...and now the news is that Roundup is probably carcinogenic.
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-[/url] ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-[/url])



PROBABLY carcinogenic? ? ? ? ? ?

So is bacon.

So is coffee.

So is sunlight.

Should these things be banned?

There is NO proof from any legitimate regulatory agency that says Glyphosate is carcinogenic.


What most people fail to understand is this:  The use of GMO crops (Roundup Ready soybeans, corn, etc.), as well as GM corn that uses a naturally occurring bacteria to fight against insect damage, allows farmers to grow crops using SAFER herbicides (Glyphosate) and in many cases NO insecticides to battle rootworms.  Before Roundup Ready crops, farmers used a variety of VERY nasty chemicals to battle weeds and insects.  Most of the old chemicals used to fight insects were deadly to beneficial insects as well.  GM crops allow farmers to use SAFER chemicals - safer for the crops, safer for the farmer, safer for the environment, and safer for the consumer.

Will Roundup cause cancer?  I suppose so, if you drink the stuff every day.  Many of the old chemicals were KNOWN to cause cancer.  GM crops have allowed us to prevent their use.

Genetically Modified crops have been around for decades, with NO sign of harm to anyone.

The world is a better place with GMO's in it, and I haven't seen ANY proof to the contrary.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on May 24, 2015, 08:18:30 AM

What most people fail to understand is this:  The use of GMO crops (Roundup Ready soybeans, corn, etc.), as well as GM corn that uses a naturally occurring bacteria to fight against insect damage, allows farmers to grow crops using SAFER herbicides (Glyphosate) and in many cases NO insecticides to battle rootworms.  Before Roundup Ready crops, farmers used a variety of VERY nasty chemicals to battle weeds and insects.  Most of the old chemicals used to fight insects were deadly to beneficial insects as well.  GM crops allow farmers to use SAFER chemicals - safer for the crops, safer for the farmer, safer for the environment, and safer for the consumer.


I figured there had to be some economic benefits, and environmental advantages for the farming industry.  Those make sense, Cowboy......thanks for pointing that out.

We have polluted our food chain for so long with processed foods that the only way one could consume 100% safe food is to go the fresh only and organic route.  Not sure many have the time in today's world to do that.  Oh yes, the price we pay for conveniences is a dog eat dog world.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 24, 2015, 02:59:30 PM
The ingredient labels on most prepared stuff today reads like a chemical factory handbook.  Hell, I cannot even pronounce some of the stuff.

I like the pharmaceutical ads on TV nowdays.  Take this to relieve that but you have all these side effects.  But don't forget to consult your doctor.

I saw one ad and the disclaimer part sounded like a car salesman spewing his lines on a one of those Hundai commercials....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on May 26, 2015, 11:04:17 PM

PROBABLY carcinogenic? ? ? ? ? ?

So is bacon.

So is coffee.

So is sunlight.

Should these things be banned?

There is NO proof from any legitimate regulatory agency that says Glyphosate is carcinogenic.


What most people fail to understand is this:  The use of GMO crops (Roundup Ready soybeans, corn, etc.), as well as GM corn that uses a naturally occurring bacteria to fight against insect damage, allows farmers to grow crops using SAFER herbicides (Glyphosate) and in many cases NO insecticides to battle rootworms.  Before Roundup Ready crops, farmers used a variety of VERY nasty chemicals to battle weeds and insects.  Most of the old chemicals used to fight insects were deadly to beneficial insects as well.  GM crops allow farmers to use SAFER chemicals - safer for the crops, safer for the farmer, safer for the environment, and safer for the consumer.

Will Roundup cause cancer?  I suppose so, if you drink the stuff every day.  Many of the old chemicals were KNOWN to cause cancer.  GM crops have allowed us to prevent their use.

Genetically Modified crops have been around for decades, with NO sign of harm to anyone.

The world is a better place with GMO's in it, and I haven't seen ANY proof to the contrary.
Who said anything about banning?

Last I heard...some people just want to be able to informed decisions.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on August 05, 2015, 11:08:26 AM
Meet the top politicians being paid to make GMO labeling illegal

New documents from OpenSecrets claim that House of Representatives lawmakers who voted for the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, a law which would stop any labeling of GMO foods, were paid at least three times as much by food industry lobbyists compared to other members of the chamber.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MjEXmem7a4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MjEXmem7a4#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on August 30, 2015, 02:02:11 PM
Scientists call for new review of herbicide, cite 'flawed' U.S. regulations

U.S. regulators have relied on flawed and outdated research to allow expanded use of an herbicide linked to cancer, and new assessments should be urgently conducted, according to a column published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

There are two key factors that necessitate regulatory action to protect human health, according to the column: a sharp increase in herbicide applied to widely planted genetically modified (GMO) crops used in food, and a recent World Health Organization (WHO) determination that the most commonly used herbicide, known as glyphosate, is probably a human carcinogen.

The opinion piece was written by Dr. Philip Landrigan, a Harvard-educated paediatrician and epidemiologist who is Dean for Global Health at the Mount Sinai Medical Centre in New York, and Chuck Benbrook, an adjunct professor at Washington State University's crops and soil science department.

"There is growing evidence that glyphosate is geno-toxic and has adverse effects on cells in a number of different ways," Benbrook said. "It's time to pull back ... on uses of glyphosate that we know are leading to significant human exposures while the science gets sorted out."

The column argues that GMO foods and herbicides applied to them "may pose hazards to human health" not previously assessed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/health-cancer-herbicide-idUSKCN0QO28D20150819 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/health-cancer-herbicide-idUSKCN0QO28D20150819)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on August 30, 2015, 08:01:34 PM
Scientists call for new review of herbicide, cite 'flawed' U.S. regulations

U.S. regulators have relied on flawed and outdated research to allow expanded use of an herbicide linked to cancer, and new assessments should be urgently conducted, according to a column published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

There are two key factors that necessitate regulatory action to protect human health, according to the column: a sharp increase in herbicide applied to widely planted genetically modified (GMO) crops used in food, and a recent World Health Organization (WHO) determination that the most commonly used herbicide, known as glyphosate, is probably a human carcinogen.

The opinion piece was written by Dr. Philip Landrigan, a Harvard-educated paediatrician and epidemiologist who is Dean for Global Health at the Mount Sinai Medical Centre in New York, and Chuck Benbrook, an adjunct professor at Washington State University's crops and soil science department.

"There is growing evidence that glyphosate is geno-toxic and has adverse effects on cells in a number of different ways," Benbrook said. "It's time to pull back ... on uses of glyphosate that we know are leading to significant human exposures while the science gets sorted out."

The column argues that GMO foods and herbicides applied to them "may pose hazards to human health" not previously assessed.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/health-cancer-herbicide-idUSKCN0QO28D20150819[/url] ([url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/health-cancer-herbicide-idUSKCN0QO28D20150819[/url])


So, one whacko liberal doctor writes an OPINION based on NOTHING, and that means GMO's are now bad?

You liberals are so damn gullible.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on August 30, 2015, 10:31:00 PM
Not to worry.  I'm sure Fry believes his food comes from the grocery store......
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on August 31, 2015, 12:00:38 AM
So, one whacko liberal doctor writes an OPINION based on NOTHING, and that means GMO's are now bad?

You liberals are so damn gullible.
Well when one compares your credentials against those of the scientists...I'd say your GED doesn't lend credence to your opinion.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 02, 2015, 09:00:17 AM
Farmers ditching Monsanto as GMO backlash grows

An increasing number of American farmers are opting out of planting GMO crops because of a lack of demand worldwide. With more countries banning the use of or placing limits on foods made with genetically modified ingredients, it is making less economic sense for farmers to use seeds from the likes of Monsanto and other agri-giants, as RT’s Manuel Rapalo explains.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EItlGyylRp0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EItlGyylRp0#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 06, 2015, 01:17:49 AM
The Real Reason to Worry About GMOs

In a recent column, the New York Times' Mark Bittman makes an important point about the controversy around genetically modified foods. "To date there's little credible evidence that any food grown with genetic engineering techniques is dangerous to human health," he writes. Yet the way the technology has been used—mainly, to engineer crops that can withstand herbicides—is deeply problematic, he argues.

Here's why I think Bittman's point is crucial. The below chart, from the pro-biotech International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, gives a snapshot of what types of GMO crops farmers were planting as of 2012. In more recent reports, the ISAAA doesn't break out its data in the same way, but it's a fair assumption that things are roughly similar three years later, given that no GMO blockbusters have entered the market since.

(http://www.motherjones.com/files/clive-james-biotech-acres.jpg)

If you add up all the herbicide-tolerant crops on the list, you find that about 69 percent of global GM acres are planted with crops engineered to withstand herbicides. But that's an undercount, because the GM products listed as "stacked traits" are engineered to repel insects (the Bt trait) and to withstand herbicides. Adding those acres in, the grand total comes to something like 84 percent of global biotech acres devoted to crops that can flourish when doused with weed killers—chemicals that are sold by the very same companies that sell the GMO seeds.

As Bittman points out, almost all of the herbicide-tolerant crops on the market to date have been engineered to resist a single herbicide, glyphosate. And weeds have evolved to resist that herbicide, forcing farmers to apply heavier doses and or added older, more toxic chemicals to the mix.

Rather than reconsider the wisdom of committing tens of millions of acres to crops developed to resist a single herbicide, the industry plans to double down: Monsanto and rival Dow will both be marketing crops next year engineered to withstand both glyphosate and more-toxic herbicides—even though scientists like Penn State University's David Mortensen are convinced that the new products are "likely to increase the severity of resistant weeds" and "facilitate a significant increase in herbicide use."

Meanwhile, unhappily, the World Health Organization has recently decreed glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the Roundup brand name, a "probable carcinogen"—a designation Monsanto is vigorously trying to get rescinded.

So, given that 20 years after GM crops first appeared on farm fields, something like four-fifths of global biotech acres are still devoted to herbicide-tolerant crops, Bittman's unease about how the technology has been deployed seems warranted. It's true that genetically altered apples and potatoes that don't brown as rapidly when they're sliced will soon hit the market. They may prove to be a benign development. But it's doubtful that they'll spread over enough acres to rival herbicide-tolerant crops anytime soon. And humanity has thrived for millennia despite the scourge of fast-browning apples and potatoes. The same isn't true for ever-increasing deluges of toxic herbicides.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/bittman-right-its-not-gmos-its-how-theyre-used (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/bittman-right-its-not-gmos-its-how-theyre-used)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 06, 2015, 09:41:58 AM
The Real Reason to Worry About GMOs

In a recent column, the New York Times' Mark Bittman makes an important point about the controversy around genetically modified foods. "To date there's little credible evidence that any food grown with genetic engineering techniques is dangerous to human health," he writes. Yet the way the technology has been used—mainly, to engineer crops that can withstand herbicides—is deeply problematic, he argues.

Here's why I think Bittman's point is crucial. The below chart, from the pro-biotech International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, gives a snapshot of what types of GMO crops farmers were planting as of 2012. In more recent reports, the ISAAA doesn't break out its data in the same way, but it's a fair assumption that things are roughly similar three years later, given that no GMO blockbusters have entered the market since.

([url]http://www.motherjones.com/files/clive-james-biotech-acres.jpg[/url])

If you add up all the herbicide-tolerant crops on the list, you find that about 69 percent of global GM acres are planted with crops engineered to withstand herbicides. But that's an undercount, because the GM products listed as "stacked traits" are engineered to repel insects (the Bt trait) and to withstand herbicides. Adding those acres in, the grand total comes to something like 84 percent of global biotech acres devoted to crops that can flourish when doused with weed killers—chemicals that are sold by the very same companies that sell the GMO seeds.

As Bittman points out, almost all of the herbicide-tolerant crops on the market to date have been engineered to resist a single herbicide, glyphosate. And weeds have evolved to resist that herbicide, forcing farmers to apply heavier doses and or added older, more toxic chemicals to the mix.

Rather than reconsider the wisdom of committing tens of millions of acres to crops developed to resist a single herbicide, the industry plans to double down: Monsanto and rival Dow will both be marketing crops next year engineered to withstand both glyphosate and more-toxic herbicides—even though scientists like Penn State University's David Mortensen are convinced that the new products are "likely to increase the severity of resistant weeds" and "facilitate a significant increase in herbicide use."

Meanwhile, unhappily, the World Health Organization has recently decreed glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the Roundup brand name, a "probable carcinogen"—a designation Monsanto is vigorously trying to get rescinded.

So, given that 20 years after GM crops first appeared on farm fields, something like four-fifths of global biotech acres are still devoted to herbicide-tolerant crops, Bittman's unease about how the technology has been deployed seems warranted. It's true that genetically altered apples and potatoes that don't brown as rapidly when they're sliced will soon hit the market. They may prove to be a benign development. But it's doubtful that they'll spread over enough acres to rival herbicide-tolerant crops anytime soon. And humanity has thrived for millennia despite the scourge of fast-browning apples and potatoes. The same isn't true for ever-increasing deluges of toxic herbicides.
[url]http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/bittman-right-its-not-gmos-its-how-theyre-used[/url] ([url]http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/bittman-right-its-not-gmos-its-how-theyre-used[/url])



And what happens if Roundup Ready seed is banned?

The article above ADMITS that without Roundup, farmers will revert back to MORE HARMFUL herbicides. So why the push to eliminate glyphosate?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 06, 2015, 08:55:55 PM
Live:

It's cut and paste.  Nothing more.  Fry don't know the difference between alfalfa and soybeans and the closest he's probably ever got to 'farming' is growing a couple 'mater' plants from Meijers in his tiny plot behind his abode.

Not even worth commenting about.

IOW, he don't know shitte other than what he reads and can copy from somewhere....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 07, 2015, 07:28:11 AM

And what happens if Roundup Ready seed is banned?

The article above ADMITS that without Roundup, farmers will revert back to MORE HARMFUL herbicides. So why the push to eliminate glyphosate?
It didn't say that at all.

Here try this sentence:

And weeds have evolved to resist that herbicide, forcing farmers to apply heavier doses and or added older, more toxic chemicals to the mix.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 07, 2015, 07:32:41 AM
Live:

It's cut and paste.  Nothing more.  Fry don't know the difference between alfalfa and soybeans and the closest he's probably ever got to 'farming' is growing a couple 'mater' plants from Meijers in his tiny plot behind his abode.

Not even worth commenting about.

IOW, he don't know shitte other than what he reads and can copy from somewhere....
I know that you covet his wife.

And now LW and CL know it too.

It's sad that just because you're married to someone that's employed in government...that you can crap on whomever you please with impunity.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 07, 2015, 09:48:56 AM
It didn't say that at all.

Here try this sentence:

And weeds have evolved to resist that herbicide, forcing farmers to apply heavier doses and or added older, more toxic chemicals to the mix.

I'm glad you quoted the part of your article that says the older herbicides are more toxic than glyphosate.

You just made my point.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 07, 2015, 09:53:39 AM
I'm glad you quoted the part of your article that says the older herbicides are more toxic than glyphosate.

You just made my point.
It seems your record of not understanding what you've read remains the same.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 07, 2015, 04:10:09 PM
It seems your record of not understanding what you've read remains the same.

Are you always such a fvcking moron?  Or just most of the time?

Here, I'll highlight YOUR quote for you.  Read it slowly.


It didn't say that at all.

Here try this sentence:

And weeds have evolved to resist that herbicide, forcing farmers to apply heavier doses and or added older, more toxic chemicals to the mix.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on September 07, 2015, 09:28:51 PM
Isn't it amazing how you read what you want to read into an article - when it doesn't say what you think it does - all based on preconceived notions?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 09, 2015, 10:11:55 AM
Are you always such a fvcking moron?  Or just most of the time?

Here, I'll highlight YOUR quote for you.  Read it slowly.
LOL...maybe you ought to confer with someone that can help you understand what you've read.

I'm beginning to wonder if your exposure to chemicals may have played a role in your condition.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 09, 2015, 11:00:03 AM
LOL...maybe you ought to confer with someone that can help you understand what you've read.

I'm beginning to wonder if your exposure to chemicals may have played a role in your condition.

So you ARE a fvcking moron most of the time.  Got it.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 09, 2015, 11:15:51 AM
So you ARE a fvcking moron most of the time.  Got it.
Perhaps...but at least I'm able to remain civil rather than act like a raving lunatic.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 09, 2015, 11:41:37 AM
So you ARE a fvcking moron most of the time.  Got it.
(http://boardofwisdom.com/cachetogo/images/quotes/619867.png)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 09, 2015, 11:52:52 AM
So you ARE a fvcking moron most of the time.  Got it.

MOST OF THE TIME??

Only when he's asleep he isn't a focking moron. ;D

No point in debating him on GMO's.  He knows nothing about farming other than what he reads or copies to this forum.....

His food comes from the grocery store.....lol
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 09, 2015, 12:02:59 PM
I'm glad you quoted the part of your article that says the older herbicides are more toxic than glyphosate.

You just made my point.
Actually you just made his point.

They are increasing the amount of glyphosate AND adding other toxins because the weeds are becoming more resistant to glyphosate.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 09, 2015, 05:37:46 PM
Actually you just made his point.

They are increasing the amount of glyphosate AND adding other toxins because the weeds are becoming more resistant to glyphosate.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

My premise is that GMO's are NOT harmful.

Frenchfry's premise is that GMO's ARE harmful.

The statement you quoted merely says that farmers are occasionally increasing the amount of glyphosate, or using other chemicals to do the job, as some weeds become more resistant to glyphosate.  This is true.  But this is NOT proof that GMO's are harmful.  It simply means that the GMO's may need to be modified to use different chemicals (Liberty Link soybeans, for example). 

The fact that farmers HAVE GMO's in their list of options means they aren't FORCED to use the older, more harmful chemicals.  Glyphosate is very safe, by comparison to many other herbicides.


So, how many years have you been farming?  I'm just curious where you got this vast knowledge base regarding herbicide use.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Monroe Native on September 09, 2015, 06:39:30 PM
Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

 ;D
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 09, 2015, 08:12:57 PM
Sorry, but you're wrong.

My premise is that GMO's are NOT harmful.

Frenchfry's premise is that GMO's ARE harmful.

The statement you quoted merely says that farmers are occasionally increasing the amount of glyphosate, or using other chemicals to do the job, as some weeds become more resistant to glyphosate.  This is true.  But this is NOT proof that GMO's are harmful.  It simply means that the GMO's may need to be modified to use different chemicals (Liberty Link soybeans, for example). 

The fact that farmers HAVE GMO's in their list of options means they aren't FORCED to use the older, more harmful chemicals.  Glyphosate is very safe, by comparison to many other herbicides.


So, how many years have you been farming?  I'm just curious where you got this vast knowledge base regarding herbicide use.
No, you're wrong.
I'm merely sharing info on the subject.
You can draw your own conclusions...but before you do...make sure you understand what you've read.
Pulling the meanings out of your behind...or trolling to elicit the response you're looking for simply won't do.

A few tidbits from that article:

To date there's little credible evidence that any food grown with genetic engineering techniques is dangerous to human health," he writes. Yet the way the technology has been used—mainly, to engineer crops that can withstand herbicides—is deeply problematic, he argues.

...almost all of the herbicide-tolerant crops on the market to date have been engineered to resist a single herbicide, glyphosate. And weeds have evolved to resist that herbicide, forcing farmers to apply heavier doses and or added older, more toxic chemicals to the mix.

..."likely to increase the severity of resistant weeds" and "facilitate a significant increase in herbicide use."
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/bittman-right-its-not-gmos-its-how-theyre-used (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/bittman-right-its-not-gmos-its-how-theyre-used)

And then there's this:

Very low doses of some types of the herbicide Roundup can disrupt human liver cell function; the formulations' toxicity may be tied to their "inactive" ingredients rather than the active weed-killing ingredient glyphosate.

French scientists report that a number of Roundup formulations tested at very dilute concentrations can alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of treatment.
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/roundup-mix-more-toxic-to-liver-cells-than-glyphosate/ (http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/roundup-mix-more-toxic-to-liver-cells-than-glyphosate/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 09, 2015, 09:18:49 PM
If you're that worried about your liver, don't drink the stuff, Fry. Because THAT'S the concentration it would take to do harm to internal organs. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 09, 2015, 09:20:17 PM
So, if we do away with GM crops, and ban Roundup, what chemicals do you think farmers WILL use?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 10, 2015, 06:46:47 AM
If you're that worried about your liver, don't drink the stuff, Fry. Because THAT'S the concentration it would take to do harm to internal organs.
Guess you missed this part:
Very low doses of some types of the herbicide Roundup can disrupt human liver cell function; the formulations' toxicity may be tied to their "inactive" ingredients rather than the active weed-killing ingredient glyphosate.

French scientists report that a number of Roundup formulations tested at very dilute concentrations can alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of treatment.
[url]http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/roundup-mix-more-toxic-to-liver-cells-than-glyphosate/[/url] ([url]http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/roundup-mix-more-toxic-to-liver-cells-than-glyphosate/[/url])
So, if we do away with GM crops, and ban Roundup, what chemicals do you think farmers WILL use?
Chemicals aren't really necessary.
Farming Without Chemicals: Age-Old Technologies Becoming State of Art
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/23/us/farming-without-chemicals-age-old-technologies-becoming-state-of-art.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/23/us/farming-without-chemicals-age-old-technologies-becoming-state-of-art.html)

http://holcombfarm.org/joincsa/grownwithoutchemicals (http://holcombfarm.org/joincsa/grownwithoutchemicals)

http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/a-farm-that-thrives-without-chemicals/ (http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/a-farm-that-thrives-without-chemicals/)

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/five-ways-to-get-rid-of-pests-without-using-chemicals/ (http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/five-ways-to-get-rid-of-pests-without-using-chemicals/)

http://www.oeffa.org/fwc.php?sjt=fwctopics (http://www.oeffa.org/fwc.php?sjt=fwctopics)

http://rodaleinstitute.org/managing-weeds-ditching-the-chemicals/ (http://rodaleinstitute.org/managing-weeds-ditching-the-chemicals/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 10, 2015, 08:20:34 AM
Guess you missed this part:Chemicals aren't really necessary.
Farming Without Chemicals: Age-Old Technologies Becoming State of Art
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/23/us/farming-without-chemicals-age-old-technologies-becoming-state-of-art.html[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/23/us/farming-without-chemicals-age-old-technologies-becoming-state-of-art.html[/url])

[url]http://holcombfarm.org/joincsa/grownwithoutchemicals[/url] ([url]http://holcombfarm.org/joincsa/grownwithoutchemicals[/url])

[url]http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/a-farm-that-thrives-without-chemicals/[/url] ([url]http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/a-farm-that-thrives-without-chemicals/[/url])

[url]http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/five-ways-to-get-rid-of-pests-without-using-chemicals/[/url] ([url]http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/five-ways-to-get-rid-of-pests-without-using-chemicals/[/url])

[url]http://www.oeffa.org/fwc.php?sjt=fwctopics[/url] ([url]http://www.oeffa.org/fwc.php?sjt=fwctopics[/url])

[url]http://rodaleinstitute.org/managing-weeds-ditching-the-chemicals/[/url] ([url]http://rodaleinstitute.org/managing-weeds-ditching-the-chemicals/[/url])


Oh.

Silly me!!!!!

The frenchfry farming fanatic has all the answers.

Why don't you send those links to the farmers all around the globe.  I'm sure they will appreciate your wisdom.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 10, 2015, 08:41:05 AM
Sorry, but you're wrong.

My premise is that GMO's are NOT harmful.

Frenchfry's premise is that GMO's ARE harmful.

The statement you quoted merely says that farmers are occasionally increasing the amount of glyphosate, or using other chemicals to do the job, as some weeds become more resistant to glyphosate.  This is true.  But this is NOT proof that GMO's are harmful.  It simply means that the GMO's may need to be modified to use different chemicals (Liberty Link soybeans, for example). 

The fact that farmers HAVE GMO's in their list of options means they aren't FORCED to use the older, more harmful chemicals.  Glyphosate is very safe, by comparison to many other herbicides.


So, how many years have you been farming?  I'm just curious where you got this vast knowledge base regarding herbicide use.
So I take it you went to college and studied chemestry? Did you study botany too? Did you know that GMOs and the overuse of glyphosate are linked to the dying off of honeybees?

Oh and being as smart as you are you undoubtedly know that without honeybees we will lose more than just the honey they produce.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 10, 2015, 09:04:30 AM
So I take it you went to college and studied chemestry? Did you study botany too? Did you know that GMOs and the overuse of glyphosate are linked to the dying off of honeybees?

Oh and being as smart as you are you undoubtedly know that without honeybees we will lose more than just the honey they produce.

Yes, I do have some schooling in chemistry and botany.  I wish I had more, though.

Did you study these subjects in college?

GMO's do NOT contribute to the dying off of honeybees.  GMO's and glyphosate are not always connected, you know.  They are two totally different subjects.  Glyphosate existed for years before GM crops.

Did you know that?

Honeybee populations have been fluctuating worldwide for decades, even prior to GMO's.

Did you know that?

Honeybee populations have been linked to the reduction of the milkweed plant, and some other plants important to honeybee survival.  It has been assumed that glyphosate use has reduced the number of milkweeds, which could have contributed to a reduction in honeybee populations.  There is NO solid proof of this, however.  There is no proof that the elimination of glyphosate would stop the decrease of honeybee populations, either.  Other herbicides would be used in it's place.  There are some theories that connect the additional millions of acres of added farm land in South America to the reduction of honeybee populations, as land is clear cut and farmed.

The truth is, no one really knows why some honeybee populations are going down, while others are going up.  I have posted before that honeybee populations are indeed going UP in parts of the world.

Did you know that?

Maybe they LIKE glyphosate.  Makes them horny.   8*

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 10, 2015, 11:45:16 AM
When honeybees come into contact with glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, they lose their ability to eat and have a much harder time learning how to forage properly. These are among the many shock findings of a recent study published in The Journal of Experimental Biology, which for the first time demonstrates both chronic and acute effects in honeybees exposed to Roundup at real-life levels.

A combined laboratory and field analysis conducted by researchers from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina found that Roundup exhibits harm at sub-lethal levels, meaning levels that don't necessarily kill bees but that still affect them. Using the Apis mellifera type of honeybee, which is a primary pollinator in most agricultural environments, the team looked at how bees respond to trace levels of Roundup that match what they might find in a real-world foraging situation.

Based on these field-realistic doses, exposed bees were found to have reduced sucrose sensitivity, or a lowered ability to identify and track food. Exposed bees also experienced a drop in learning performance, as well as increased difficulties smelling food and other substances. And in terms of memory retention, exposed bees fared much worse than non-exposed bees, hence the tendency of bees in a colony collapse disorder (CCD) situation not being able to find their way back to the hive.

"We found a reduced sensitivity to sucrose and learning performance for the groups chronically exposed to GLY [glyphosate] concentrations within the range of recommended doses," wrote the authors.

"Altogether, these results imply that GLY at concentrations found in agro-ecosystems due to standard spraying can reduce sensitivity to nectar reward and impair associative learning in honeybees."

Honeybees bring Roundup back to the hive, poisoning all the other bees
Indirect exposure to Roundup was also observed during the analysis, as bees were found to bring tainted nectar back to the hive, poisoning all the other bees in the process. While foraging behavior was not observed to be directly affected by bees' exposure to Roundup, the distribution of Roundup via nectar did have a cumulative effect on the entire hive's ability to function, which includes foraging.

"[W]e speculate that successful forager bees could become a source of constant inflow of nectar with GLY traces that could then be distributed among nest mates, stored in the hive and have long-term negative consequences on colony performance," concluded researchers.

A 55-year beekeeping veteran, writing for Mother Earth News, speculated back in 2010 that Roundup is a primary cause of CCD. In his report, Terrence N. Ingram explained how, for years, he observed entire bee colonies collapsing almost immediately after nearby fields were sprayed with Roundup. By the end of the spraying season, entire colonies were completely dead, he repeatedly observed.

http://www.naturalnews.com/046769_Roundup_honeybees_colony_collapse_disorder.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/046769_Roundup_honeybees_colony_collapse_disorder.html)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 10, 2015, 04:03:29 PM
All well and good but GM's reduce the need to apply herbicides and pesticides and that inculdes glyphosate among others.....

You cannot have it both ways unlike people want to believe you can....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 10, 2015, 04:05:48 PM
Oh.

Silly me!!!!!

The frenchfry farming fanatic has all the answers.

Why don't you send those links to the farmers all around the globe.  I'm sure they will appreciate your wisdom.

MN, there are actually quite a few orgainc farmers but the price of their produced goods is substantially higher than concentional farmers....  You gotta pay to play...
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on September 10, 2015, 05:03:44 PM
I think it is possible that Kim Kardashian was genetically modified.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 10, 2015, 07:01:44 PM
I think it is possible that Kim Kardashian was genetically modified.

..........she consumed a lot of Tyson Chicken in her pre-pubescent days.....lol
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 10, 2015, 07:02:47 PM
So did that female reporter at Gamrat's town hall meeting.....  just say'in.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 11, 2015, 01:24:22 AM
Oh.

Silly me!!!!!

The frenchfry farming fanatic has all the answers.

Why don't you send those links to the farmers all around the globe.  I'm sure they will appreciate your wisdom.
Denigrating someone is so much easier than having to do research and making a reasonable reply, isn't it LW?

 ST. PAUL, Aug. 20— From the ridge overlooking fields his family has tilled for 120 years, Ken Tschumper surveys the lush crops of alfalfa and corn he raised this summer without pesticides or chemical fertilizers.

When he stopped using chemicals six years ago on his 230-acre dairy farm, neighbors ridiculed Mr. Tschumper's inexpensive system of spreading manure and rotating crops to nourish his soil and repel insects, weeds and diseases. Earlier this year, though, the 37-year-old farmer from La Crescent, 140 miles south of here, added $20,000 to his savings account. Some of his critics, meanwhile, filed for bankruptcy.

''When you don't use chemicals, you become a much better observer -you're constantly evaluating conditions,'' said Mr. Tschumper. ''It verges on the artistic.'' Catnip to Ward Off Insects

Farming without chemicals, once considered a fringe movement, impractical and idealistic, has gained ground, moving closer to the mainstream of American agriculture.

Major growers in Iowa now plant rye after the corn harvest. During the winter, when the rye decomposes, natural weed-killing substances result, protecting the fields in the spring and making the use of chemical herbicides unnecessary. In California, some farmers plant catnip between rows of vegetables to drive away destructive insects.

The accelerating pace of the transition has surprised university researchers and officials at the Department of Agriculture. Until the mid-1980's, farming with little or no chemicals was considered practical only for small farmers and hobbyists who could more easily rotate crops and spend time working the land.

Now large commercial farmers are seeking alternatives to a chemical technology that on the one hand is costing billions of dollars each year and on the other yields health risks, environmental contamination and huge surpluses that drive prices down. If the movement spreads further, experts say, it could have important consequences for the farm economy, the environment and the health of farmers, consumers and rural residents
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 11, 2015, 01:27:30 AM
All well and good but GM's reduce the need to apply herbicides and pesticides and that inculdes glyphosate among others.....

You cannot have it both ways unlike people want to believe you can....
Bees account for approximately 1/3 of our food production through pollination. No need to apply herbicides if the plants can't produce food.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 11, 2015, 08:42:09 AM
Denigrating someone is so much easier than having to do research and making a reasonable reply, isn't it LW?

I wasn't talking to you.  Frenchfry doesn't deserve respect from me, so I don't give him any.


When honeybees come into contact with glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, they lose their ability to eat and have a much harder time learning how to forage properly. These are among the many shock findings of a recent study published in The Journal of Experimental Biology, which for the first time demonstrates both chronic and acute effects in honeybees exposed to Roundup at real-life levels.

A combined laboratory and field analysis conducted by researchers from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina found that Roundup exhibits harm at sub-lethal levels, meaning levels that don't necessarily kill bees but that still affect them. Using the Apis mellifera type of honeybee, which is a primary pollinator in most agricultural environments, the team looked at how bees respond to trace levels of Roundup that match what they might find in a real-world foraging situation.



Acceptable losses, considering the good that GM crops are doing.

I also noticed you failed to answer any of my questions, while I have attempted to answer all of yours.  It seems you prefer to simply post opinion pieces that try to support your position, rather than having an actual DIALOG, where we both can learn something.

You do realize that if farmers didn't have Glyphosate to use, they would be using much more harmful herbicides, that kill even MORE bees??

You do realize that if farmers didn't have GM crops, they would be spraying insecticides that directly KILL honeybees?

Again, this is TWO different arguments. You are aware that there are advantages to GM crops BESIDES the ability to spray glyphosate, right?  I asked you that before, but you never answered.  By your posts, it appears that you don't understand this.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 11, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
Acceptable losses, considering the good that GM crops are doing.
That may be your opinion but not mine.

We have managed to survive for thousands of years without using pesticides, but since we have we have noticed cancer rates, child birth deformity rates, autism rates all skyrocket. You claim that there is no connection and even if there is that the good benefits outweigh the bad.

I disagree.

And yes, whenever I have a choice between using GMO food and Organic food I choose the organic.

It may cost more but the taste is much better. I'll take a heirloom or beef steak tomato over those genetically modified ones any day.

Oh, and if you get a chance try the Irish butter they have at Meijer. It comes from grass fed cows that haven't been fed that GMO crap. Very tasty.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on September 11, 2015, 01:44:37 PM
I agree with you lilly.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 11, 2015, 10:40:43 PM
No wonder my garden stuff is so popular with the family and friends.  Orgaincally grown on horse shitte and the horses only get hay....

I had spuds the size of grapeftuits this year...  Not done digging yet....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 12, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

And yes, whenever I have a choice between using GMO food and Organic food I choose the organic.

It may cost more but the taste is much better. I'll take a heirloom or beef steak tomato over those genetically modified ones any day.


Actually, I prefer the taste of an heirloom tomato compared to commercial varieties as well. However, that has nothing to do with the topic, since those "other" tomatoes are NOT genetically modified.

Didn't know that, huh?

You just proved to me that you have no clue what your talking about. You hate something that you THOUGHT was GM, but it's not.

There are NO Genetically Modified tomatoes currently in production in the United States.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 12, 2015, 08:59:14 AM
Actually, I prefer the taste of an heirloom tomato compared to commercial varieties as well. However, that has nothing to do with the topic, since those "other" tomatoes are NOT genetically modified.

Didn't know that, huh?

You just proved to me that you have no clue what your talking about. You hate something that you THOUGHT was GM, but it's not.

There are NO Genetically Modified tomatoes currently in production in the United States.
So according to you...only USA grown fruit and vegetables are sold in the US?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 12, 2015, 09:21:21 AM
So according to you...only USA grown fruit and vegetables are sold in the US?

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that.

There are no GM tomatoes in production in NORTH AMERICA or EUROPE.

They have basically disappeared, worldwide. The "advantages" of the first GM tomatoes weren't that great to justify their cost. The tomatoes you buy in Kroger may taste bad, but it's not because they are GM.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 12, 2015, 09:32:09 AM
The difference between a commercially grown / harvested tomato and  a regionally grown / harvested tomato is the amount of time from harvest to your salad. and thats what impacts taste, nothing more.  Your garden tomatoes come right off the vine (or your neighbors vine) and get consumed right away.

Now, sauce tomato's are different.  Sauce tomatoes (which are widely grown around here) are force ripened for one.  They are also inedible in their picked for shipment state and then get cooked, canned and mixed with other ingredients to make tomato products like spaghetti sauce and paste....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 12, 2015, 09:33:16 AM
So according to you...only USA grown fruit and vegetables are sold in the US?

Gee....  Avacado's are a product of 'Hencho Mexico'.....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 12, 2015, 09:38:38 AM
I'm sure Frenchie is frantically searching the internet for a GM tomato right now...   8*
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 12, 2015, 09:48:23 AM
I'm sure Frenchie is frantically searching the internet for a GM tomato right now...   8*

The largest 'one' is sitting on it's shoulders....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 12, 2015, 03:54:48 PM
Actually, I prefer the taste of an heirloom tomato compared to commercial varieties as well. However, that has nothing to do with the topic, since those "other" tomatoes are NOT genetically modified.

Didn't know that, huh?

You just proved to me that you have no clue what your talking about. You hate something that you THOUGHT was GM, but it's not.

There are NO Genetically Modified tomatoes currently in production in the United States.
All it "proved" was that I made a mistake of not checking something before I posted.

I'll try and make sure not to make that mistake again.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: The Fuzz on September 12, 2015, 03:57:04 PM
Is the pot in distribution in legal states GMO or not?  Not sure of why that question just popped into my mind, my one hitter is always found on the floor somewhere.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 13, 2015, 11:06:39 AM
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that.

There are no GM tomatoes in production in NORTH AMERICA or EUROPE.

They have basically disappeared, worldwide. The "advantages" of the first GM tomatoes weren't that great to justify their cost. The tomatoes you buy in Kroger may taste bad, but it's not because they are GM.
Does that mean GMO tomatoes aren't available in the United States?
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 13, 2015, 12:11:25 PM
Does that mean GMO tomatoes aren't available in the United States?
They had some years ago called Flavr Savr
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 13, 2015, 07:09:48 PM
Chipotle Says It Dropped GMOs. Now a Court Will Decide If That’s BS

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/you-say-gmo-i-say-chipotle-delicious (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/you-say-gmo-i-say-chipotle-delicious)

===

Chipotle Linked to Salmonella Outbreak in Minnesota, Health Officials Say, Prompting Investigation
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/chipotle-linked-salmonella-outbreak-minnesota-health-officials-prompting/story?id=33691249 (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/chipotle-linked-salmonella-outbreak-minnesota-health-officials-prompting/story?id=33691249)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 14, 2015, 08:09:07 AM

Does that mean GMO tomatoes aren't available in the United States?

I already said they have basically disappeared, worldwide.  The United States IS STILL in the "world".

So the answer to your question is yes, to the best of my knowledge.


They had some years ago called Flavr Savr

That is correct.  It is the only variety I'm aware of that went into commercial production. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 15, 2015, 08:42:31 PM
California EPA to label Monsanto’s Roundup as cancer agent

California may become the first state to classify the toxic chemical glyphosate in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide as a cancer agent. The move comes after a report by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined glyphosate to be a carcinogen

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvvRLz00Qg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvvRLz00Qg#)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 15, 2015, 08:49:34 PM
California EPA to label Monsanto’s Roundup as cancer agent

California may become the first state to classify the toxic chemical glyphosate in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide as a cancer agent. The move comes after a report by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined glyphosate to be a carcinogen

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvvRLz00Qg]www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvvRLz00Qg[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvvRLz00Qg#[/url])


So what?

If you feed it to rats non-stop, sure they might get cancer.

Same thing with bacon. And coffee. And cigarettes.

Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 15, 2015, 08:52:53 PM
So what?

If you feed it to rats non-stop, sure they might get cancer.

Same thing with bacon. And coffee. And cigarettes.
Eat it all you want...I'm merely posting the news for everybody else that might actually care about the health of their family.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 15, 2015, 10:10:16 PM
Eat it all you want...I'm merely posting the news for everybody else that might actually care about the health of their family.

No, you copy and paste for your own enjoyment and to take up space on MT's server.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 15, 2015, 10:32:10 PM
No, you copy and paste for your own enjoyment and to take up space on MT's server.  Nothing more.
Oh you don't know your Azz from a hole in the ground so shut the F up.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 15, 2015, 10:56:58 PM
Oh you don't know your Azz from a hole in the ground so shut the F up.

My, my.

Little testy this evening.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 15, 2015, 11:26:20 PM
Oh you don't know your Azz from a hole in the ground so shut the F up.

Keyboard Rambutt....

Face the facts, you are a unarmed puzzy with a keyboard and a junker in the backyard you and the ole lady use for a cottage.... 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 16, 2015, 07:06:06 AM
Keyboard Rambutt....

Face the facts, you are a unarmed puzzy with a keyboard and a junker in the backyard you and the ole lady use for a cottage....
LOL...you are closer to being a female than I am.

After all, that useless toodlebug probably now resembles a flap covering your well used orifice.

Okay that was mean so to help you "celebrate"...just think of LW's wife the next time you need to service your significant other...or if my hunch is right...you could just envision the cowboy.  ;)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 16, 2015, 07:24:21 AM
Some interesting reading about glyphosate.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/05/glyphosate-cancer.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/05/glyphosate-cancer.aspx)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 16, 2015, 08:16:11 AM
Eat it all you want...I'm merely posting the news for everybody else that might actually care about the health of their family.

Well, water and salt are toxic as well, in sufficient quantities.

Better stop eating those as well.   8*
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 16, 2015, 08:29:08 AM
Well, water and salt are toxic as well, in sufficient quantities.

Better stop eating those as well.   8*
I doubt they're equivalent.

Yes it's important to stay well hydrated but one can over do it.

I try to stay away from salt...so much so that now everything tastes too salty to me now.

Both are examples are done with the knowledge of those substances and the option to make the right choices.

But it seems not everybody is aware of the dangers of the seemingly innocuous.

When it comes to things that are carcinogenic...sometimes the government has to step in.

I've not heard of water and/or salt being carcinogenic.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 16, 2015, 08:34:50 AM
Some interesting reading about glyphosate.
[url]http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/05/glyphosate-cancer.aspx[/url] ([url]http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/05/glyphosate-cancer.aspx[/url])


Ah, yes.  An opinion piece written by an unknown "research scientist".

Complete with his very own Gofundme page at the end, giving everyone a chance to give him money to "fund his important research on glyphosate".

What a joke.  And you actually believe this kind of crap?

Here.  I read YOUR story.  Please read mine.  Big difference is this article is written by epidemiologists and geneticists that study glyphosate's actual impact on human health, WITHOUT the input from Monsanto.  These people actually have PhD's, and they aren't asking for money to "fund their research"!!!

Is glyphosate toxic to humans?

Of course glyphosate is toxic! It is a herbicide after all – the whole point of glyphosate (G for short in this post) is to kill unwanted plants. Like all chemicals, including water and salt, G is going to be toxic to animals (including humans) at some dose. Compared to other herbicides, though, G is a pretty safe option for killing weeds. Don’t take my word for it, check out the Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet from the National Pesticide Information Center at Oregon State. G’s relative safety is one reason why it’s become so popular.



http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/ (http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 16, 2015, 08:39:05 AM

When it comes to things that are carcinogenic...sometimes the government has to step in.

I've not heard of water and/or salt being carcinogenic.


Please allow me to enlighten you.


http://www.nature.com/bjc/press_releases/p_r_jan04_6601511.html (http://www.nature.com/bjc/press_releases/p_r_jan04_6601511.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205378/How-salt-heavy-diet-double-cancer-risk.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205378/How-salt-heavy-diet-double-cancer-risk.html)

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/2459/reduce-risks/diet-exercise/nutrition-diet/fruit-vegetables/salt-and-cancer-2/ (http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/2459/reduce-risks/diet-exercise/nutrition-diet/fruit-vegetables/salt-and-cancer-2/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 16, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
So how did Monsanto and Biodynamics—the company doing the research—hide these inconvenient facts? According to Dr. Samsel, they cancelled out the controls and the damning findings by using historical control data from unrelated studies. It's also worth noting that these negative findings were never published in the peer-reviewed literature or submitted to the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Cancer was clearly shown in their 26-month long feeding study, but the only studies Monsanto has published are studies done in less than three months, which hides the consequences of eating glyphosate and genetically engineered foods over the course of a lifetime.

    "I'm looking at a Biodynamics report here as Project number 77-2062, 'A Lifetime Feeding Study of Glyphosate in Rats,' and every page of this document says, 'Contains trade secret or otherwise confidential information of Monsanto Company.' I have a letter here from Monsanto's health and safety officer. He was the head guy at Monsanto at the time, back in 1981. In his letter, he asked the US EPA to seal the documents and to treat them as trade secret. I personally feel that this is a violation of the public review process...

    Now that I've looked at Monsanto's trade secret documents that the public doesn't have access to, I'm in the process of writing the Environmental Protection Agency and I'm asking them to release those. They have no right to withhold that information from the public. Because what I've seen in those documents, it clearly shows that Monsanto knew in 1981 that glyphosate caused tumorigenic growth and carcinomas in multiple organs and tissues.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/05/glyphosate-cancer.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/05/glyphosate-cancer.aspx)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: lilly on September 16, 2015, 12:28:17 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 (http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181)

What evidence is there for a link between glyphosate and cancer?

The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.

But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.

Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.
...

The IARC classifies compounds on a scale of decreasing certainty: group 1 is for agents that are definitely carcinogenic to humans; 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans; 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans; 3, not classifiable; and 4, probably not carcinogenic to humans.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 16, 2015, 08:58:32 PM
Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells
Used in gardens, farms, and parks around the world, the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory, researchers say

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 17, 2015, 08:33:52 AM
15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup

Monsanto invented the herbicide glyphosate and brought it to market under the trade name Roundup in 1974, after DDT was banned. But it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the use of Roundup surged, thanks to Monsanto’s ingenious marketing strategy. The strategy? Genetically engineer seeds to grow food crops that could tolerate high doses of Roundup. With the introduction of these new GE seeds, farmers could now easily control weeds on their corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa crops—crops that thrived while the weeds around them were wiped out by Roundup.

(http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/roundup600.jpg)
In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and where our children play

Eager to sell more of its flagship herbicide, Monsanto also encouraged farmers to use Roundup as a dessicant, to dry out all of their crops so they could harvest them faster. So Roundup is now routinely sprayed directly on a host of non-GMO crops, including wheat, barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, soybeans, dry beans and sugar cane.

Between 1996 – 2011, the widespread use of Roundup Ready GMO crops increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 527 million pounds—even though Monsanto claimed its GMO crops would reduce pesticide and herbicide use.

Monsanto has falsified data on Roundup’s safety, and marketed it to parks departments and consumers as “environmentally friendly” and “biodegradable, to encourage its use it on roadsides, playgrounds, golf courses, schoolyards, lawns and home gardens. A French court ruled those marketing claims amounted to false advertising.

In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and where our children play.

They’ve found that people who are sick have higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than healthy people.

They’ve also found the following health problems which they attribute to exposure to Roundup and/or glyphosate:

See the list here:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/23/health-problems-linked-to-monsanto-roundup/ (http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/23/health-problems-linked-to-monsanto-roundup/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 17, 2015, 08:58:27 AM
15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup

Monsanto invented the herbicide glyphosate and brought it to market under the trade name Roundup in 1974, after DDT was banned. But it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the use of Roundup surged, thanks to Monsanto’s ingenious marketing strategy. The strategy? Genetically engineer seeds to grow food crops that could tolerate high doses of Roundup. With the introduction of these new GE seeds, farmers could now easily control weeds on their corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa crops—crops that thrived while the weeds around them were wiped out by Roundup.

([url]http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/roundup600.jpg[/url])
In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and where our children play

Eager to sell more of its flagship herbicide, Monsanto also encouraged farmers to use Roundup as a dessicant, to dry out all of their crops so they could harvest them faster. So Roundup is now routinely sprayed directly on a host of non-GMO crops, including wheat, barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, soybeans, dry beans and sugar cane.

Between 1996 – 2011, the widespread use of Roundup Ready GMO crops increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 527 million pounds—even though Monsanto claimed its GMO crops would reduce pesticide and herbicide use.

Monsanto has falsified data on Roundup’s safety, and marketed it to parks departments and consumers as “environmentally friendly” and “biodegradable, to encourage its use it on roadsides, playgrounds, golf courses, schoolyards, lawns and home gardens. A French court ruled those marketing claims amounted to false advertising.

In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and where our children play.

They’ve found that people who are sick have higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than healthy people.

They’ve also found the following health problems which they attribute to exposure to Roundup and/or glyphosate:

See the list here:
[url]http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/23/health-problems-linked-to-monsanto-roundup/[/url] ([url]http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/23/health-problems-linked-to-monsanto-roundup/[/url])


It's on the internet, so it MUST be true!!!!!

This is like the rest of your articles.  Baseless claims, with NO data to back it up.

From YOUR article:
"House-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities in Argentina where Roundup is used, known there as the fumigated towns, found higher rates of chronic respiratory illnesses."

65,000 people? ? ? ? ? ? ?  How about some supporting data?  When?  How?  By whom? 

Towns fumigated with WHAT? ? ? ? ?

The link in the article merely takes you to a series of pictures of kids, and piles of discarded pesticide containers.  It also said that Argentina misuses the products, and they typically don't follow the labeled use.  Whenever the product is not used according to the label, OF COURSE you could have disastrous results!  That's true with ANY chemical!!!

Compared with chemicals used PRIOR to GM crops, glyphosate (when used PROPERLY) is the safest option we have.
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 17, 2015, 09:10:22 AM
Once again, I have to say that the latest comments in this thread about Roundup are mostly off topic. 

GMO's are not directly connected to Roundup (glyphosate). 

GMO's, by themselves, are PERFECTLY HARMLESS.

GMO's typically result in the use of FEWER pesticides to fight insects, due to the GM traits in the seed.

GMO's do NOT result in the use of MORE herbicides.  More glyphosate, yes, because the first GM crops were designed to be used with that chemical.  But they aren't all designed to be used with glyphosate.

Didn't know that?

Many GMO's are designed for a DIFFERENT herbicide, such as Liberty.

So all this talk about glyphosate is actually distracting from the true issue - are GMO's THEMSELVES safe?

I'm not talking about the chemicals that farmers use ON the GM crops.  Because that's a pretty broad spectrum. 
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: livewire on September 17, 2015, 09:13:22 AM
The MSDS for glyphosate does not list it as a known carcinogen. There are plenty of other products that at high levels, are. Glyphosate has been used for almost 40 years, long before GMO crops, and it is considered one of the safest pesticides to use because it has very low mammalian toxicity and isn’t considered a carcinogen. In my mind, glyphosate is one of the safest chemicals.


http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/is-glyphosate-poison (http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/is-glyphosate-poison)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: SidecarFlip on September 17, 2015, 09:46:17 AM
When I selectively read dickweed's posts, I get the impression that he's either brain dead from too much masturbation or he has the 'pump' applicator on a roundup jug stuck up his rearend and is pumping furiously to get off....

IOW, when you cannot substantiate your claims with hard facts from concrete sources, change the subject.  Thats dickweed's way....
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 17, 2015, 10:26:33 PM
Monsanto Stunned – California Confirms ‘Roundup’ Will Be Labeled “Cancer Causing”
http://www.mintpressnews.com/monsanto-stunned-california-confirms-roundup-will-be-labeled-cancer-causing/209513/ (http://www.mintpressnews.com/monsanto-stunned-california-confirms-roundup-will-be-labeled-cancer-causing/209513/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 18, 2015, 09:41:03 AM
The Case of Glyphosate: Product Promoters Masquerading as Regulators?

On 20 March, the World Health Organisation International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans. This is just one step below the risk designation of ‘known carcinogen’. The European Unioin is currently in the process of assessing the IARC’s research and will re-evaluate glyphosate.

<snip>

Something to hide

Regulators have much to answer for, but they are silent. Claire Robinson from GM Watch notes that a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s Roundup. Writing on the GM Watch website, she says:

“The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy. The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.”

In Europe, Tony Tweedale, a Brussels-based advisor to NGOs on toxicity and risk assessment issues, asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to disclose the two key chronic toxicity studies on glyphosate that the German regulatory agencies relied upon to set the Acceptable Daily Intake of the chemical.

Robinson notes that both the German government regulatory agencies (their decisions form the basis for the widespread use of glyphosate) and EFSA have refused Tweedale’s requests to release the studies, on the grounds that they are commercially confidential information. Pesticide Action Network Europe previously asked the German regulatory agencies to release the full range of long-term toxicity studies on glyphosate. They refused, again for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

Such official stonewalling raises the question of what could be in these industry studies that that public is not allowed to see. The assumption is that the industry – and regulators – have something to hide.

The Earth Open Source review found that the biotech industry’s own studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. While the industry studies themselves are held by the German government and remain secret, the Earth Open Source authors examined Germany’s summary report on the studies, which is in the public domain. This report was submitted to the EU Commission and led to glyphosate’s European approval in 2002.

The Earth Open Source authors found that the German regulator consistently dismissed evidence of birth defects using unscientific reasoning.

Claire Robinson says:

“… if the German government or EFSA were to release the industry studies, independent academic scientists could reanalyze the data (and methodology) and form their own conclusions about the safety of glyphosate. Given the past failures of risk assessment, these could well be at odds with the conclusions of the German regulator.”

In his recent book, ‘Poison Spring’, former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worker Evaggelos Vallianatos quotes the EPA scientist Adrian Gross as saying that his colleagues, EPA toxicologists, “go straight to the company’s summary and lift it word for word and give it as their own evaluation of those studies.”

In a similar vein to the claims by Valliantos, former Monsanto boss in India during the eighties has said that the company faked data and so-called regulators just accepted such data at face value.

And here lies the crux of the matter: proper, independent analyses of risks being sidelined and ‘regulation’ amounting to little more than blindly accepting dubious industry claims or studies that merely say its products are safe. And yet, this is an industry that tried to rubbish the now republished the Seralini team’s study into GMOs and glyphosate (with unscientific polemics masquerading as scientific critique). While the Seralini team’s two-year study has now undergone three rounds of peer-review, the industry keeps its own inadequate three-day or three-month studies secret by hiding behind the all too convenient notion of ‘commercial confidentiality’ and restricts, controls and censors independent research concerning its products; if that fails, it sets out to smear, intimidate, bully and discredit researchers whose findings are not to their liking

More here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/24/the-case-of-glyphosate-product-promoters-masquerading-as-regulators/ (http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/24/the-case-of-glyphosate-product-promoters-masquerading-as-regulators/)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: eriemermaid on September 18, 2015, 01:31:16 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 20, 2015, 11:30:13 AM
EPA to Start Labeling Monsanto’s Roundup as Being Carcinogenic

Following the most recent WHO cancer research division’s report, the EPA decided to label Monsanto’s Roundrup herbicide as cancer related.

http://newswire.net/newsroom/news/00090240-epa-to-start-labelling-monsanto-s-roundup-as-being-cancerogenus.html (http://newswire.net/newsroom/news/00090240-epa-to-start-labelling-monsanto-s-roundup-as-being-cancerogenus.html)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 20, 2015, 11:31:37 AM
Colombia to End Coca Farm Glyphosate Sprayings
http://www.newsweek.com/colombia-end-coca-farm-glyphosate-sprayings-367139 (http://www.newsweek.com/colombia-end-coca-farm-glyphosate-sprayings-367139)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on September 20, 2015, 11:33:30 AM
Glyphosate in Monsanto’s Roundup Is Linked to Cancer, But Big Ag Wants it in Your Food Anyway

In Europe, the amount of pesticide residues that are allowed on food is determined by recommendations from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) at a Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Right now their big discussions are all about glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and is the main ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, which is applied to more than 150 food and non-food crops. In addition to its agriculture uses, glyphosate is also commonly used on lawns, gardens and parks where pets and kids play.

Unfortunately, glyphosate is linked to cancer (Group 2A ‘probable’ human carcinogen) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the prestigious cancer assessment arm of the WHO. But, cancer-causing chemicals have friends in high places. Monsanto is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate, with annual sales of Roundup netting about two billion U.S. dollars. Unsurprisingly, the company quickly fired back with a statement on how the company is “outraged” at IARC’s “agenda-driven bias” in its “irresponsible” decision-making. [As a side, since IARC announced its decision, a group of U.S. citizens have filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for falsifying safety claims and a group of Chinese citizens have filed a lawsuit against the Chinese government for hiding Monsanto’s toxicity studies from the public].

In Europe, if a chemical is linked to cancer, then absolutely none of the chemical is allowed to remain as residue on our food. Zero tolerance. That seems reasonable—like zero tolerance for cancer. So, JMPR has assembled a task force to reevaluate IARC’s assessment and advise whether or not JMPR’s assessment from 2011 should be revised. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and colleagues sent a letter to JMPR raising two main concerns:
https://ecowatch.com/2015/09/16/glyphosate-linked-to-cancer/
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on October 02, 2015, 05:56:38 PM
These Emails Show Monsanto Leaning on Professors to Fight the GMO PR War
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/09/monsanto-professors-gmo-PR (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/09/monsanto-professors-gmo-PR)
Title: Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
Post by: Frenchfry on October 02, 2015, 06:06:20 PM
No, GMOs Didn't Create India's Farmer Suicide Problem, But…
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/09/no-gmos-didnt-create-indias-farmer-suicide-problem (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/09/no-gmos-didnt-create-indias-farmer-suicide-problem)