MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Health > GMO's... Good or bad?


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: GMO's... Good or bad?  (Read 29981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dan Hamilton

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 249
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #45 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/

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.
Logged

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #46 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.

Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

Dan Hamilton

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 249
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #48 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. 
Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #49 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
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 02:43:12 PM by livewire »
Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

Dan Hamilton

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 249
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #50 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

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/

Logged

Monroe Native

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22344
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #51 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.
Logged
I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it.
Lyndon B. Johnson

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Lyndon B. Johnson

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #52 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.

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


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/


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
Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

SidecarFlip

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24112
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #53 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.
Logged
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

Dan Hamilton

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 249
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #54 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.


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


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.

Logged

Monroe Native

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22344
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #55 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..
Logged
I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it.
Lyndon B. Johnson

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Lyndon B. Johnson

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #56 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.

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



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*
Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

Dan Hamilton

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 249
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #57 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.”
Logged

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #58 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?









Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

Dan Hamilton

  • Super Talker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 249
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #59 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?







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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16   Go Up