|
GoddessManko -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/2/2014 6:09:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gauge
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-gmo
Not certain how I feel about this video. Personally, I am on the side of labels. I also do not like the idea that he claims that because we cultivated things, genetic mutations took place and now we are getting freaked out because it is done in a lab. I would submit that while we have cultivated our foods, they mutated slowly, naturally even though we helped it by our actions. Going into a lab and radically making those mutations does not allow for nature to adjust things they way it should. I also disagree that these things could not be found in the wild, they didn't come from fucking magic, so how did the original food items we see today get here?
I also have a huge problem with a corporation having such vast control over our food supply. Perhaps it is paranoia on my part or simply history that shows us that corporations do not normally have the best interests of the human race in mind when they do things. I do not like how the companies that do this fight so hard against labeling. If it is true that we have genetically modified food all over the place and that it is just fine, then what is the harm in labeling it? The answer is money... and that is why I am suspicious.
This is a tough subject to have a definitive stance on but I'm going to present the facts as I know it and my personal view in the most unbiased way I possibly can.
Monsanto and genetically modified foods have wiped out small farming by 67%. Our food on average travels over 1000 miles which means our very survival depends on the logistical system. Those who grow their own, are very smart. Food is the new gold as one aticle stated. Due to overpopulation, there is an inherent need for subsidized farming. Now here are the pros and cons as I see it:
Cons
Firstly, it isn't a catalyzed mutation. They are changing the genetic makeup of the food itself so that it looks, tastes and has the nutritional value of an apple but TECHNICALLY it's not an apple. Why do they do it? To allow food t last longer. Why? Because it travels over 1000 miles on average. The side effects? Unknown. The nutritional value, should be similar though the live bacteria found in an organic apple are absent. Now we get them mostly in yogurt.
Secondly, this food is responsible for early puberty in children as young as three which leads to adolescent obesity. Allegedly the hormones given to cows can possibly cause ovarian cancer and causes painful cysts in the cows allegedly. Allegedly also, our milk has trace amounts of white blood cells or pus in its supply. How much is allowed by the FDA? Unknown.
With mechanically separated meat, such as spam, the meat s ground up by products of chicken, including eyeballs, genitals, organs etc. The meat is doused in ammonia and then given chicken flavoring. It is also loaded with sodium, I avoid it, as well as hotdogs that aren't kosher.
Thirdly, there have been failed experiments in the GMO process, some cases the subject (plant/food etc) no longer looks like it should. The aesthetic is completed distorted and the goal is to get an aesthetic similar. This if nothing else proves the subject can no longer be classified as "apple" per say.
Fourthly, Monsanto has been responsible for the suicides of many farmers, especially in India. There are allegations that farmers who refused to use their seeds, got their crops contaminated. Crops hat once grew from water and sunlight now required their weed killers and fertilizers to grow the Monsanto by product. The Monsanto seeds wold kill the original plants much like a weed themselves allegedly.
Over 80% of Africans are farmers and the main reason they and their farmers have been dwindling out is because Monsanto is under cutting them in prices so they cannot compete in cost or production. They are fighting a losing battle essentially.
These are the strongest arguments against GMO I can think of at the moment.
Now for the pros which are very essential to why we cannot live without them:
Firstly, overpopulation. Food production on a massive scale is helping to feed our ever growing population and even then food prices are going up and there is scarcity even in some first world nations.
Secondly, there is no feasible way to completely overhaul the entire system without doing some form of irreversible damage.
Thirdly, the organic seeds can no longer grow in the soil where Monsanto sees have been. The monsanto seed, fertilizer, and weed killer are necessary evils at this point.
Fourthly, our population will continue to grow, and despite obstacles individuals can always choose to have small gardens, at least for a start.
Fifthly, people are living longer than ever before thanks to our doctors and medical science. So these foods aren't necessarily shortening our lifespans.
These are the best arguments on either side I can think of. xox Gauge,
Manko
|
|
|
|
