Who's Afraid Of Gmo?

[sanctus]

Current check this video out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=542&v=7TmcXYp8xu4

I guess you just have to accept, even if not liking it (just like me), that your dislike of GMOs is just that "a dislike".
 

[Maine farmer]

Current check this video out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=542&v=7TmcXYp8xu4

 

I guess you just have to accept, even if not liking it (just like me), that your dislike of GMOs is just that "a dislike".

 

That is fine with me, as long as you are honest about it.  There is, I think, a lot of dishonesty in the marketing campaigns based on being against gmo.  

 

As a producer, I am against gmo crops because I have seen no increase in my profit margins. 

[JMJones0424]

Current check this video out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=542&v=7TmcXYp8xu4

 

I guess you just have to accept, even if not liking it (just like me), that your dislike of GMOs is just that "a dislike".

 

Sanctus, I'm afraid you're missing my point.  I appreciate the video you linked, but it is only agreeable to me because it repeats the conclusions that I have already come to regarding GMOs after considerable effort to educate myself.  In this way, I assume that current's many links are noteworthy in current's eyes, just as I must assume your previous off-topic links held some importance to you.  There are conceivably numerous reasons to be for or against a particular genetically modified organism.  Precisely none of the reasons that current has listed, or that you had listed until recently, are legitimate reasons to be against the technology of genetically modifying new varieties rather than modifying existing lines through selective breeding or induced random mutations.

 

I would like this argument to be informed by what GMO is.  GMO is a means through which we can intentionally create a new variant of a plant that meets our needs rather than hoping for random mutation to create the genes necessary to do so.  This technology, like any other technology, can be used for either good or evil.  The ramifications of specific uses of this technology may have unforeseen consequences.  But we can not even begin to address these concerns if we're stuck debating over the idiocy that has been covered in this thread so far.

 

You don't have to accept, and I don't want anyone to accept against their wishes, any technology or any particular application of a technology.  All I ask is that the decision is based on accurate information rather than FUD.

[current]

Sanctus, I'm afraid you're missing my point.  I appreciate the video you linked, but it is only agreeable to me because it repeats the conclusions that I have already come to regarding GMOs after considerable effort to educate myself.  In this way, I assume that current's many links are noteworthy in current's eyes, just as I must assume your previous off-topic links held some importance to you.  There are conceivably numerous reasons to be for or against a particular genetically modified organism.  Precisely none of the reasons that current has listed, or that you had listed until recently, are legitimate reasons to be against the technology of genetically modifying new varieties rather than modifying existing lines through selective breeding or induced random mutations.

 

I would like this argument to be informed by what GMO is.  GMO is a means through which we can intentionally create a new variant of a plant that meets our needs rather than hoping for random mutation to create the genes necessary to do so.  This technology, like any other technology, can be used for either good or evil.  The ramifications of specific uses of this technology may have unforeseen consequences.  But we can not even begin to address these concerns if we're stuck debating over the idiocy that has been covered in this thread so far.

 

You don't have to accept, and I don't want anyone to accept against their wishes, any technology or any particular application of a technology.  All I ask is that the decision is based on accurate information rather than FUD.

Hmm...what worries me JMJ about GMOs , is the genetic resistence to roundup , which means that the Farmer can spray more roundup because this particular crops resistence to it .

 

Therefore this crop has now more residual spray on the crop than before .

 

Your thoughts ....

[JMJones0424]

Not exactly.  I would say, "what worries me about Round Up ready crops is the potential for the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds."  This differs from your claim in a couple of ways.  First, it recognizes that not all GMOs are Round Up ready.  Second, it recognizes the fact that the issue of contention isn't the amount of glyphosate sprayed,  but instead that Round Up ready crops allow the potential for an over-reliance on glyphosate to eliminate competing plants from one's crop.  Whether or not the crop has more or residual spray can not be established from your hypothetical, neither should the environmental impact of all herbicides be weighed by amount applied.  Instead, you should look at the environmental impact of the amount sprayed of that particular herbacide.  I think, though I may be wrong, that the environmental impact of glyphosate is relatively benign.  This is why I would like to continue to be able to use it as an herbicide.

 

It's been alluded to before, but imagine that glyphosate is analogous to penicillin.  If every time someone walks into a doctor's office with a sniffle, they are prescribed penicillin, then the chances of developing a penicillin resistant strain of bacteria increases, thereby reducing the future efficacy of penicillin.

 

I'm still worried, though, that you seem to be tying one specific flavor of GMOs, glyphosate resistant organisms, to all GMOs.  GMO is the method by which these cultivars came to be.  GMO does not necessarily mean Round Up ready, or Bt corn, or anything else.  GMO is the method by which these variants were produced.  You can have legitimate concerns about particular applications.  But, when you make statements like, "what worries me JMJ about GMOs , is the genetic resistence to roundup , which means that the Farmer can spray more roundup because this particular crops resistence to it,"  it shows me that not only do you not have any clue about either farming or GMOs, but you haven't bothered to read a god damn thing that has been posted in this thread.

[Maine farmer]

Hmm...what worries me JMJ about GMOs , is the genetic resistence to roundup , which means that the Farmer can spray more roundup because this particular crops resistence to it .

 

Therefore this crop has now more residual spray on the crop than before .

 

Your thoughts ....

No farmer "wants" to spray more roundup.  The goal is always to use the minimum amount to get the job done.  It may be less costly than mechanically removing weeds from a field, but it still isn't cheap.

 

From my experience in growing corn several years ago, we didn't even have the option of roundup ready crops.  In those days, roundup would be used to kill sod before plowing a new field, or to get rid of patches of established weeds.  We would then use a pre- emergent herbicide that had to be incorporated into the soil to prevent weed seeds from germinating.  Atrazine was a common herbicide of this type back when I was in high school.

 

My understanding of the modern methods of using roundup is that you can plant your corn crop directly in the sod without tillage, and then kill the sod with roundup after the corn has sprouted, or you can use conventional tillage methods before planting and spray roundup to take care of the weeds at a later date.  Once the corn has dominated the fields, no further applications of herbicides would be needed.

 

The question then becomes one of how much  roundup would cause harm to humans and animals, and over what time period.  Does the mere ability to detect a chemical make the chemical harmful?

[sanctus]

I posted the video also on my fb-wall and asked for counter-arguments. A friend had actually a valid one, best said in his words:

 

With normal breeding changes are slow and incremental. Watermelons, for example, have changed a lot in the last few hundred years, but by being in continuous use while these slow changes happened, the modern watermelon is also extremely well tested. Genetic modification, on the other hand, leads to similarly large changes in a single generation, and while that change is controlled, biology is complicated and nonlinear, so thorough testing is needed to be sure that each GMO is safe. I'm not an expert on this topic, but I think the statement in the video that GMOs have been found to be safe is a bit too much of a blanket statement. Individual GMOs can be found to be safe, but that doesn't show that all GMOS are safe or that future GMOs will be safe. They must all be tested individually.

I don't have a problem with well-tested GMOs (as long as they are not covered by patents), but I do worry that the rush to sell them will lead to a big incentive to skimp on the testing.

 

[Turtle]

Not exactly.  I would say, "what worries me about Round Up ready crops is the potential for the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds."  ...

Moreover, plants can & do develop resistance to Roundup [glyphosate] and other herbicides in the absence of GMOs.

 

Weed Resistance @ Monsanto

One result of modern agriculture and its reliance upon herbicides is the emergence of weed populations that are resistant to herbicides. All natural weed populations, regardless of the application of any herbicide, may contain individual plants (biotypes) that are resistant to herbicides.

 

Repeated use of any herbicide will expose weed populations to selection pressure that may lead to an increase in the number of surviving, resistant individuals in the population. As a grower continues to use a particular herbicide without any other herbicide modes of action, or without any other cultural practices, the resistant biotype continues to survive and produce seed. Subsequent populations of the resistant biotype will continue to increase until they are the dominant weed in the field.

 

Scientists have found that there are particular weed characteristics that can facilitate development of weed resistance. These include:

-Large amount of seeds produced per plant

-High levels of germination of those seeds

-Several weed flushes per season

-High frequency of resistant genes

 

Monsanto and university weed scientists have also identified specific common factors that are often present in areas where glyphosate resistance has developed:

-Limited or no crop rotation

-Limited or no tillage practices

-A high dependency on glyphosate alone or a limited use of other herbicides

-Reduced rates of glyphosate

 

Weed resistance in context

Farmers have been dealing with the issue of herbicide resistant weeds since the 1950s and it is a reality that growers know how to manage. History demonstrates that growers manage through the occurrence of resistance and that the affected herbicide products continue to be valuable and important. Integrated weed management has been an important part of growing crops where herbicide resistant weeds are present. Managing cropping programs as an ongoing system and planning ahead has allowed farmers to use appropriate weed control methods to effectively manage problem weeds and to reduce the risk of further resistance occurring.

 

The presence of resistant weeds in a cropping system does mean that changes have to be made. These changes have to be effective in managing resistant weeds to allow the growing of successfully commercial crops.

 

The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds contains a list of weed species with biotypes confirmed to be resistant to a herbicide.

...

International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds

[JMJones0424]

Moreover, plants can & do develop resistance to Roundup [glyphosate] and other herbicides in the absence of GMOs.

This is precisely the reason that I "fear" a specific GMO, but decidely not the technology of genetically modifying organisms.  We have been genetically modifying organisms for millennia, and GMO is simply the most efficient and recent means of doing so.  

 

Farmers that rely solely on glyphosate for weed control can only expect that, in the future, they will be faced with weeds that are glyphosate resistant.  The farmers that rely solely on glyphosate and Round Up ready crops, in my limited personal experience, don't typically understand this point.  I find this lack of understanding borderline criminal and commensurate with the idiots that maintain that immunization is a personal choice rather than seeing themselves as a participant in herd immunity.

 

This view says nothing about other GMOs, such as those that take a gene from a grape and applies it to an apple that doesn't brown as readily after being cut.  There is nothing that I can imagine to argue against this application.  Even if you wish to argue that a gene ingested after eating has some influence on you, this gene is already being eaten by those that eat the non-GMO grapes.  When added to apples, it produces a desirable product.  GMO is not the boogeyman you are looking for current, Sanctus, or any others.  I maintain that industrialized food production is, but that is a story for another thread, and that story involves far more than the technical origin of a variety of a plant.  Especially since the vast majority of those that argue against GMOs are entirely ignorant of the technological origins of the foods they purchase on a regular basis from the supermarket.  Ignorance is no defense for idiocy.

Edited April 11, 2017 by JMJones0424

[quickquestion]

I am afraid of GMO because I am afraid of eating a food I don't know much about. We already know for a fact meat is carcinogenic. Meat is a DNA based form. Thus there is an inherent risk to eating DNA based forms...just because something is made with DNA does not make it inherently safe to eat.

 

What I propose is FarmScrapers. Giant tall buildings with gardens on each level. The vitamins and minerals go into the plants. People eat the plants and poop out the vitamins and minerals. The sewer water takes those vitamins and minerals and puts them back into the soil. I can't find any problems with this.

[Maine farmer]

I am afraid of GMO because I am afraid of eating a food I don't know much about. We already know for a fact meat is carcinogenic. Meat is a DNA based form. Thus there is an inherent risk to eating DNA based forms...just because something is made with DNA does not make it inherently safe to eat.

 

What I propose is FarmScrapers. Giant tall buildings with gardens on each level. The vitamins and minerals go into the plants. People eat the plants and poop out the vitamins and minerals. The sewer water takes those vitamins and minerals and puts them back into the soil. I can't find any problems with this.

The idea of "farmscrapers" is not a bad idea, and it seems familiar.  

 

 Regarding meat being DNA based, so are plants.

 

As far as meat being carcinogenic, well, so is living. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521219318/cancer-is-partly-caused-by-bad-luck-study-finds

[quickquestion]

The idea of "farmscrapers" is not a bad idea, and it seems familiar.  

 

 Regarding meat being DNA based, so are plants.

 

As far as meat being carcinogenic, well, so is living. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521219318/cancer-is-partly-caused-by-bad-luck-study-finds

True but its a matter of minimizing the chance of cancer.

It's like junk food and cigarettes..."I'm going to die anyway so why not smoke and eat junk food" is an invalid argument.

Edited April 16, 2017 by quickquestion

[Maine farmer]

True but its a matter of minimizing the chance of cancer.

It's like junk food and cigarettes..."I'm going to die anyway so why not smoke and eat junk food" is an invalid argument.

Well, I have many family members who have been lifelong meat eaters, and they did not die of cancer.  Of all the things that can lead to my untimely demise, meat eating is quite low on my list of concerns. Meat has nutritional value, protein, is top of the list, but vitamin B-12 is of particular benefit, but we are off the topic of genetically modified foods here.

[quickquestion]

Well, I have many family members who have been lifelong meat eaters, and they did not die of cancer.  Of all the things that can lead to my untimely demise, meat eating is quite low on my list of concerns. Meat has nutritional value, protein, is top of the list, but vitamin B-12 is of particular benefit, but we are off the topic of genetically modified foods here.

Again, an invalid argument. Lots of smokers don't die of cancer, that does not mean smoking is safe.

 

The point is, the fact that something is a DNA based entity does not necessarily make it safe to eat. Thus GMO's cannot be said to be inherently safe, them being DNA based entities does not mean they are inherently safe. The fact that they are plants does not make them safe. Plants can be carcinogenic to humans, for instance, chewing tabacco.

 

Personal experience with GMO oranges, they taste strange, and burn my mouth and lips more than regular oranges.

Edited April 16, 2017 by quickquestion

[Maine farmer]

Again, an invalid argument. Lots of smokers don't die of cancer, that does not mean smoking is safe.

 

The point is, the fact that something is a DNA based entity does not necessarily make it safe to eat. Thus GMO's cannot be said to be inherently safe, them being DNA based entities does not mean they are inherently safe. The fact that they are plants does not make them safe. Plants can be carcinogenic to humans, for instance, chewing tabacco.

 

Personal experience with GMO oranges, they taste strange, and burn my mouth and lips more than regular oranges.

The comparison to smoking is not the same as eating potentially carcinogenic foods.  Smoking causes  damage to the lungs weather or not you get cancer.  Smoke is an irritant, and I could never understand the logic of deliberately inhaling smoke of any kind. 

 

As for your experience with gmo oranges, it is interesting, and I have never noticed that myself, but the fact of your experience will cause you to avoid them weather they are "safe" or not.

 

I have no leanings in support of gmo, but I see much of an issue created for advertising purposes.  I recently saw a commercial for ice cream with the claim of their brand being non-gmo and from cows not given artifical growth hormones.  As a dairy producer, I can tell you  that in the Northeast region of the United States, we would have absolutely no market for our milk if we used the hormones, and also that there are no gmo cows.  Their claims are meaningless, but I am sure that they are profiting from the gullibility of a fair number of consumers.  They do not, by the way, pass any of that increased profit back to the producers who must prove that they do not use such products, and subject themselves to random audits.

[JMJones0424]

The point is, the fact that something is a DNA based entity does not necessarily make it safe to eat. Thus GMO's cannot be said to be inherently safe, them being DNA based entities does not mean they are inherently safe. The fact that they are plants does not make them safe. Plants can be carcinogenic to humans, for instance, chewing tabacco.

 

Personal experience with GMO oranges, they taste strange, and burn my mouth and lips more than regular oranges.

All living things that we know of are DNA based.  No one in their right mind would argue that because a substance contains DNA, it is safe to eat.  Also, no one has ever claimed that GMO's are inherently safe to consume.  What I claim is that your argument here against GMO is stupid.

 

What cultivar of orange are you referring to?  Do you figure that your response to that cultivar is due to its attributes or the fact that it is a GMO?  Do you realize that practically every food you consume is a product of human manipulation of genetics?

Edited April 18, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

 

Also, no one has ever claimed that GMO's are inherently safe to consume.

.

 

That is the twist to genetic manipulation .