Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Who's Afraid Of Gmo?


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#1 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 05 August 2016 - 05:06 PM

So now in the U.S.A we have new laws about how food should be labeled for use of genetically modified organisms.  Given that we have been eating them for around two decades and as far as I know there have been no deaths or illnesses attributed to them, it seems like a big waste of time and effort.  It seemed an especially silly circumstance to read about how the maker of Hydrox cookies is going to deal with the new laws.  I would think that the consumers of junk food wouldn't care.

 

Anyway, I would like to read about what everyone here thinks, because as a producer of food, that will have bearing on my future.



#2 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 02:49 PM

I see no issue about tweeking the DNA of grain products to resist the herbicide used to suppress the common weeds that take advantage of the newly cleared  fields. I do have a problem with Monsanto maintaining a monopoly on the herbicide and the seed. I think that is ending very soon.


Edited by fahrquad, 25 October 2016 - 02:50 PM.


#3 current

current

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 05:52 AM


We all relise that roundup is now in the seeds , right ? And your eating the crop .

#4 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 06:29 AM

I do believe roundup is highly over used, and I personally won't touch the stuff, or any other herbicide, but I am not a crop farmer either.  When faced with the prospect of a growing population that needs to eat, we have to realize that a lack of food will kill people much faster that any exposure to low levels of pesticides.  

 

What about crops that are genetically altered to better withstand drought or pests?



#5 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 3975 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 02:49 AM

I used to be super-anti GMO, but once on a fb-discussion I was "forced" to use the scientific approach and to my surprise there seems to be no scientific argument holding against GMO (also none in favour), mainly inconclusive biased researches.
But the 2 things which still hold and make me against it are:
1) Monoply/patent on seeds, which I think is mainly bad in the poorer part of the world: http://www.monsanto....save-seeds.aspx
2) There are no longterm-effect-studies and I am scared that once again we use Africa as testing ground selling it as helping poor areas while it is only a disguise of guinea pigs.

If one goes on to compare GMO vs organic, am not sure which is worse (seeing the latter as something potentially bad is also a shift from what I used to think for years). In short organic is egoistic, simply because it is not more sustainable just more healthy; not more sustainable because to feed the world with organic production more farmland is needed-->more deforestation etc.



#6 billvon

billvon

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 164 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 10:22 AM

So now in the U.S.A we have new laws about how food should be labeled for use of genetically modified organisms.  Given that we have been eating them for around two decades and as far as I know there have been no deaths or illnesses attributed to them, it seems like a big waste of time and effort.  It seemed an especially silly circumstance to read about how the maker of Hydrox cookies is going to deal with the new laws.  I would think that the consumers of junk food wouldn't care.

 

 

I have no issues with GMO's in concept; however, testing and oversight has lagged behind technology.  I also see no reason to oppose labeling GMO's.  Put the information on the box and let consumers decide.



#7 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:04 AM

​I frankly think that Monsanto will go back to court and get the Law canceled sooner or later.

​Nobody will invest anymore money in GMOs if the consumer has got the information put right on his face !

What if some people want to choose to eat or not on the base of personal reasons unrelated to experimental science ???

 

We can't forbid the labeling of "Kosher" products for example, so manufacturers could still use their own "NON GMO" labelling...

 

The only GMO research I support is the kind sealed inside a "man-made" artificial environment

& studying micro-organisms (Bacterias, Algae, Viruses, Cells...etc) without planning re-introduction into the original ecosystems.

It would be all about using genetic engineering, creating artificial conditions & optimising "harvesting" techniques to get

biochemicals, biomaterials & pharmacological compounds.

 

Overall just throwing the very hard intellectual jobs at the microbes to do, just like tiny little biological robots that already exist !!!

Otherwise, and it may sound quite stupid, I am personally REALLY disgusted in EVER modifying Animals, Plants or Insects ...

YEWK ! Just personal sensitivity, sorry ! My mind just can't seem to accept anything above "microbes" becoming GMOs !!! lool

 

 

 



#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:49 AM

I have no issues with GMO's in concept; however, testing and oversight has lagged behind technology.  I also see no reason to oppose labeling GMO's.  Put the information on the box and let consumers decide.

I must admit to feeling instinctively cautious about this. I worry about genetic modifications such as Roundup resistance hybridising with other species and getting into the wild - that sort of thing - and producing unintended consequences. A bit like introducing rabbits into Australia.

 

Having said that, I am sure we can be more confident now than we could when GMO started. 



#9 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 06:47 PM

I must admit to feeling instinctively cautious about this. I worry about genetic modifications such as Roundup resistance hybridising with other species and getting into the wild - that sort of thing - and producing unintended consequences. A bit like introducing rabbits into Australia.

 

Having said that, I am sure we can be more confident now than we could when GMO started. 

The thing is, these crops are already out there cross pollinating.  I read a few years ago in some farm magazine about a farmer being sued by Monsanto (I think) for growing beans that were genetically modified even though he never bought, or wanted to have any genetically modified seed.  His crop that he harvested for seed had cross pollinated with the genetically modified beans his neighbor grew.  I think the farmer lost in court.  I will have to research some more to refresh my memory .  



#10 current

current

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 08:26 PM

The thing is, these crops are already out there cross pollinating.  I read a few years ago in some farm magazine about a farmer being sued by Monsanto (I think) for growing beans that were genetically modified even though he never bought, or wanted to have any genetically modified seed.  His crop that he harvested for seed had cross pollinated with the genetically modified beans his neighbor grew.  I think the farmer lost in court.  I will have to research some more to refresh my memory .


Yes I saw the video a few years ago ; what you say is true . It was in the US but can't remember the details .

#11 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    409.44 ppm

  • Members
  • 960 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 04:36 AM

FFS I expected better from you Sanctus.

 

A monopoly/patent on seeds is in no way unique to GMOs.  If you are against GMO for this reason, than you are simply mis-informed about how your food is produced.  Your argument here would extend logically to hybrids and strains produced by "natural" manipulation of genetics, and would therefore discount a vast majority of produce you likely consume regardless of "GMO" status.

 

"There are no longterm-effect-studies and I am scared that once again we use Africa as testing ground selling it as helping poor areas while it is only a disguise of guinea pigs."

 

The claim that there are no long-term effect studies is patently false. How do you suppose that "we" are using "Africa" as a testing ground?  I can't even reasonably parse what you're saying here.

 

I understand nothing in your response to be anything other than FUD, and I don't take this accusation against you lightly.


Edited by JMJones0424, 07 March 2017 - 04:50 AM.


#12 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 3975 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 07:07 AM

JMJones:

patent on seeds unique or not to GMOs is in no way a counter-argument. It just implies there are other companies on my boycott list.
 

Don't worry I know about pink-grapefruit, yellow mais etc. How you logically link my "anti-monopoly-stance" to hybrids and strains I have no clue.

I guess that it is what I mean by long-term and what is generally in biology defined as long term. I thought about long term effects as in eating GMO for 50+ years--> just impossible to do yet...Yes there are studies over generations (3) of rats, over 29 years of data on cows and many more. You want me to say, that my statement "there are no long term studies" is just a product of mixing "not liking GMO, fear of making something irresversible and some interpreatation of long-term" sure I can admit that.

Which brings up my other reason to still be against GMO, remember in my previous post I said there isn't really a scientific argument against GMO:

 

Unless all GMOs we make are sterile (which is not the case), then GMOs end up in Nature creating an irreversible change, this is scary. What if any of the scientific unfounded anti-GMO-claims (or other adverse things we did not think about) turn out to be true?


Why you do not understand the Africa-testing ground thing, I think is related to your pissed off mood writing your post. Tell me how is GMO very often advocated? Solving the hunger in the world, making stuff grow in very arid places, draught resistnce. And where is one of such places? You might say "since I do not see any scientific argument against GMO holding I can't see why someone is a guinea pig", I would reply to that citing the irreversibility problem.

By the way when you expect better instead of saying all is bullshit, just link to some studies etc. Give an example of being better rather than just condemn, because if you only do latter you loose credibility in my eyes.

And here is some links about using poor countries as guinea pigs:

https://en.wikipedia...ation_in_Africa

 

https://www.theatlan...g-world/273329/



#13 exchemist

exchemist

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 08:58 AM

I incidentally stumbled on this article from the NY Times, quite by coincidence, today: https://www.nytimes....alls-short.html

 

It shows that non-GM Europe has kept pace with GM N America in crop yields and has actually done better in terms in reduction of use of pesticides. This rather calls into question the supposed benefits from GM crops and raises the uncomfortable question of whether the aggrobusiness may have hyped it up for commercial reasons....(surely not!)........


Edited by exchemist, 07 March 2017 - 08:59 AM.


#14 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:35 AM

I incidentally stumbled on this article from the NY Times, quite by coincidence, today: https://www.nytimes....alls-short.html

 

It shows that non-GM Europe has kept pace with GM N America in crop yields and has actually done better in terms in reduction of use of pesticides. This rather calls into question the supposed benefits from GM crops and raises the uncomfortable question of whether the aggrobusiness may have hyped it up for commercial reasons....(surely not!)........

When you consider that the pesticide industry is the industry that is making many of the genetic modifications, it only makes sense that they would be creating a situation where the farmers are dependent on the pesticides that they produce.  However, if the crops were to be modified to grow faster, or in adverse weather conditions instead of for the purpose of selling pesticides, there is much potential for benefits.

 

I am concerned by the recent label claim being made by Dannon yogurt about their milk coming only from cows not fed genetically modified crops, as if the modifications somehow get into the milk.  I am very concerned that there is a push to force all dairy farms to practice "organic" farming without compensating the farmers for the increased cost of production.  If you are producing milk in North America, given that crops cross pollinate, how do you guarantee that no cow ever ate anything that had any modified genes?  

 

I also see potential for the use of genetic  modifications in inserting  the polled gene in cattle so you can have cows without horns and therefore will not need to dehorn them as calves.  



#15 exchemist

exchemist

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 02:21 AM

When you consider that the pesticide industry is the industry that is making many of the genetic modifications, it only makes sense that they would be creating a situation where the farmers are dependent on the pesticides that they produce.  However, if the crops were to be modified to grow faster, or in adverse weather conditions instead of for the purpose of selling pesticides, there is much potential for benefits.

 

I am concerned by the recent label claim being made by Dannon yogurt about their milk coming only from cows not fed genetically modified crops, as if the modifications somehow get into the milk.  I am very concerned that there is a push to force all dairy farms to practice "organic" farming without compensating the farmers for the increased cost of production.  If you are producing milk in North America, given that crops cross pollinate, how do you guarantee that no cow ever ate anything that had any modified genes?  

 

I also see potential for the use of genetic  modifications in inserting  the polled gene in cattle so you can have cows without horns and therefore will not need to dehorn them as calves.  

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your comments, in that there is a danger the public gets a false perceptions of the reasons why caution in GM techniques may be justified. They are not going to start growing tentacles, due to eating yoghourt made from cows fed on GM grain. Consumer labelling runs this risk, since the true arguments for caution about GM techniques have little or nothing to do with consumer safety.

 

But equally I think we have to watch out that big business does not con farmers into paying for things that lock them into a supply oligopoly when the benefits may be questionable, or when there can be environmental risks from the spread of GM characteristics into the wild.  

 

So I'm for regulation and control and the avoidance of regulatory capture by business interests, which certainly in the UK is a risk where agriculture is concerned (DEFRA and its predecessors have notoriously been very producer-oriented in the past). 



#16 HempGraphene

HempGraphene

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 03:19 AM

​The Fire Power of Money is as true for Big Investers as it is about whole nations of consumers.

​People don't give a damn about technical, legislative or scientific details discussed in a few circles.

​If they know the product is a GMO = they will not buy it = company will reform or go bankrupt.

 

​Farming guy is right to defend its own interests, but I can tell him that if he sells GMO I will never buy his products.

​That's the problem, even if the spontaneous instincts of consumers in the Marketplace seem entirely stupid to you,

​it will prevail on the long run whatever happens !

 

And let me tell you right now, if you need to forbid people from accessing their fundamental right

of getting proper information about the products being sold to them, you're leaning to the dark side of the force...

 

Even if you believe your reasons to be "100% bulletproof facts" you can't use illegal means to cure people's madness !!!

Here in Europe, you tell people "it's GMO", they don't buy it. Period.

You're not going to make a 2000 years old civilization believe that they need some New Age druids to cure scarcity with a magic potion...

 

 

 

 



#17 exchemist

exchemist

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 03:57 AM

​The Fire Power of Money is as true for Big Investers as it is about whole nations of consumers.

​People don't give a damn about technical, legislative or scientific details discussed in a few circles.

​If they know the product is a GMO = they will not buy it = company will reform or go bankrupt.

 

​Farming guy is right to defend its own interests, but I can tell him that if he sells GMO I will never buy his products.

​That's the problem, even if the spontaneous instincts of consumers in the Marketplace seem entirely stupid to you,

​it will prevail on the long run whatever happens !

 

And let me tell you right now, if you need to forbid people from accessing their fundamental right

of getting proper information about the products being sold to them, you're leaning to the dark side of the force...

 

Even if you believe your reasons to be "100% bulletproof facts" you can't use illegal means to cure people's madness !!!

Here in Europe, you tell people "it's GMO", they don't buy it. Period.

You're not going to make a 2000 years old civilization believe that they need some New Age druids to cure scarcity with a magic potion...

 

 

 

 

Yeah but sometimes people are rational and capable of learning, or we would still be living in caves.

 

Nobody is suggesting anything illegal here. What we are (indirectly) discussing is what legislation or regulation is appropriate to control these things.