GMO's For or Against?

GMO's For or Against? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Gauge -> GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 4:25:48 PM)
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.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 5:13:48 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? This is simply wrong. most of our staple food crops are hybrid mutations that occurred in one generation. You will never find anything called "wild corn" the plant simply doesn't and never existed. Corn is a hybrid between two cereal grasses that occurred while being cultivated. We know it must have happened under cultivation because corn is incapable of spreading its seeds itself, the plant is absolutely dependent on human intervention. Wheat is a hybrid of at least two grasses with some varieties being hexaploid (that is having 6 sets of chromosomes derived from 3 different ancestral species). More recently, the late 19th century, we crudely created triticale by hybridizing wheat and rye in the lab and using colchicine to induce polyploidy to create a viable plant. Now many millions of tons of the cereal are grown all over the world. Modern genetic engineering technique are simply refinements and improvements on practices man has been using often with only the dimmest understanding since we first starting gathering seeds to plant the next spring.

Gauge -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 5:38:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is simply wrong. most of our staple food crops are hybrid mutations that occurred in one generation. You will never find anything called "wild corn" the plant simply doesn't and never existed. Corn is a hybrid between two cereal grasses that occurred while being cultivated. We know it must have happened under cultivation because corn is incapable of spreading its seeds itself, the plant is absolutely dependent on human intervention. Wheat is a hybrid of at least two grasses with some varieties being hexaploid (that is having 6 sets of chromosomes derived from 3 different ancestral species). More recently, the late 19th century, we crudely created triticale by hybridizing wheat and rye in the lab and using colchicine to induce polyploidy to create a viable plant. Now many millions of tons of the cereal are grown all over the world. Modern genetic engineering technique are simply refinements and improvements on practices man has been using often with only the dimmest understanding since we first starting gathering seeds to plant the next spring. Ken, I am open to be wrong, it will not be the first time in my life, nor will it be the last. I basically posted this to learn about it. I have my opinions and that is all they really are. I have no scientific basis for my objections except for the idea that radical changes can now be made while a good deal of things happened over a long period of time. I certainly cannot speak with any type of exacting information like you obviously can, in that I am simply outgunned and I would only embarrass myself if I did quick Google searches to look things up to sound informed. I am not. I do, however, stand by my opinions but am open to be shown that there really and truly is nothing to be worried about. I do trust science, but I do not trust corporations that operate in secret and fight passionately to keep consumers vastly uninformed. I especially object when it has to do with our food supply. If you have nothing to hide, then why hide anything? And what of the countries worldwide that have banned GMO's? Surely they are more informed and have a reason for doing that. Why, in this country is the lobby so strong to keep people in the dark? I get that we have messed around and cross-bred grains and other foodstuffs. I am not convinced that doing so over "tens of thousands of years" is inherently dangerous, I am cautious about doing so rapidly.

tj444 -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 6:14:59 PM)
Against.. Monsanto & their kind & the politicians they buy are not to be trusted.. These seeds don't produce more food nor are they the answer to feed the worlds hungry.. these seeds & chemicals only fatten the wallets of those corps and their shareholders.. http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/12/monsanto-dirty-dozen/ http://obrag.org/?p=74144 5 of the Worst Things About MONSANTO http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 8:12:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge I get that we have messed around and cross-bred grains and other foodstuffs. I am not convinced that doing so over "tens of thousands of years" is inherently dangerous, I am cautious about doing so rapidly. My point is that those changes didn't happen slowly. they happened in one generation. Corn was simply born from a seed. The plant had never existed and then one grew. All these hybrids happened like that. Selective breeding may take a long time but hybridization doesn't.

Marini -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 8:52:21 PM)
I have read a little about GMO's, but like most subjects there is so much that I just don't know. One question I have is: Why would I want or desire foods that are the result of GMO's? I certainly don't trust "agribusinesses" so this is another case of "guilty" until proven innocent. Occupy the world food prize

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 9:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini One question I have is: Why would I want or desire foods that are the result of GMO's? I certainly don't trust "agribusinesses" so this is another case of "guilty" until proven innocent. From your point of view all the GMO's in the food chain are indistinguishable from non GMO products. However they all have some characteristic that makes them more appealing to farmers. Some are insect resistant, some are herbicide resistant (this is the roundup ready ones that are frequently discussed) and others have things like resistance to frost (pretty sure that one never actually got on the market though). In reality very few GMO's are actually in the human food chain and those that are have been very extensively tested.

MrRodgers -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/30/2014 10:54:08 PM)
Kinkroids, again, it's...all about money. The FDA has given less scrutiny to GMO's then their corrupt banning of 'B17' Amygdalin. Get a fucking grip...this is America. Everything but everything is...all about fucking money. Why do you think they will not even require labeling ? Here

SadistDave -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 12:11:47 AM)
There is certainly a need for many types of GMO foods in parts of the world that struggle to feed the people living there. It seems to me that starvation is considerably less desirable than eating a GMO product, which is why I have serious problems with people who are almost militant about being anti-GMO. Some GMOs are simple amazing. Golden Rice was a strain of rice modified to supply higher levels of vitamin A. Less than a cup of Golden Rice provided the recommended daily dose of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiencies cause around a quarter of a million kids around the world to go blind every year, and lowers the immune system. Golden Rice was an awesome GMO as it was originally conceived back in 2000. Unfortunately, Greenpeace convinced the government in China to shut down testing claiming it was harmful. Then test crops in the Philippines were destroyed after "someone" started rumors among the locals that it would cause hair loss and men would become impotent. It's currently being tested again in the Philippines, but the company that originally developed Golden Rice was forced to redesign the rice so that it delivers about half of the vitamin A as the original strain that was grown in 2000. Greenpeace is still catching hell from the scientific community about it. On the other hand, I don't particularly see the need for GMO foods in every product, or even in all parts of the world. North America has plenty of fertile land. America and Canada don't necessarily need GMOs to fill gaps in our food supply. As far as I'm aware, they're almost impossible to find in Europe. If I'm wrong I'm sure the terrorist lover will correct me on that point. I'm not at all opposed to GMOs in the free market, but making my strawberry shortcake yummier is not nearly as important to me as developing foods to grow in harsh climates, resist insects, or to increase the nutritional value to keep people in undeveloped countries healthier. -SD-

DesideriScuri -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 1:05:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave On the other hand, I don't particularly see the need for GMO foods in every product, or even in all parts of the world. North America has plenty of fertile land. America and Canada don't necessarily need GMOs to fill gaps in our food supply. As far as I'm aware, they're almost impossible to find in Europe. If I'm wrong I'm sure the terrorist lover will correct me on that point. I'm not at all opposed to GMOs in the free market, but making my strawberry shortcake yummier is not nearly as important to me as developing foods to grow in harsh climates, resist insects, or to increase the nutritional value to keep people in undeveloped countries healthier. The US and Canada might not need GMO's to fill any gaps in our food supply, but the rest of the world just might need us to continue using them. We are a pretty major exporter of agricultural products.

BecomingV -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 12:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge 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. Food, Inc. addresses this topic: http://www.primewire.ag/watch-7267-Food-Inc as does, The World According to Monsanto http://www.primewire.ag/watch-27522-Le-monde-selon-Monsanto and, King Corn http://www.primewire.ag/watch-22026-King-Corn I am against all GMOs. Because... while it has the appearance of killing hunger... it actually kills people. But, before they die, they can enjoy being genetically modified humans. Don't we get enough of that through prescription drugs? Oh, and chemistry does create new substances, not found naturally. The ability to discuss chemistry is only one valuable part of the issue. Your perspective is of equal value, at the least! ETA - There's a poster or two who get quite verbal over documentaries as if they are all conspiracy theory propaganda. Feel free to ignore them and judge for yourself. The docs I posted are from credible, informed and respected sources. Also, I fixed the Monsanto link.

subrosaDom -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 12:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave There is certainly a need for many types of GMO foods in parts of the world that struggle to feed the people living there. It seems to me that starvation is considerably less desirable than eating a GMO product, which is why I have serious problems with people who are almost militant about being anti-GMO. Some GMOs are simple amazing. Golden Rice was a strain of rice modified to supply higher levels of vitamin A. Less than a cup of Golden Rice provided the recommended daily dose of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiencies cause around a quarter of a million kids around the world to go blind every year, and lowers the immune system. Golden Rice was an awesome GMO as it was originally conceived back in 2000. Unfortunately, Greenpeace convinced the government in China to shut down testing claiming it was harmful. Then test crops in the Philippines were destroyed after "someone" started rumors among the locals that it would cause hair loss and men would become impotent. It's currently being tested again in the Philippines, but the company that originally developed Golden Rice was forced to redesign the rice so that it delivers about half of the vitamin A as the original strain that was grown in 2000. Greenpeace is still catching hell from the scientific community about it. On the other hand, I don't particularly see the need for GMO foods in every product, or even in all parts of the world. North America has plenty of fertile land. America and Canada don't necessarily need GMOs to fill gaps in our food supply. As far as I'm aware, they're almost impossible to find in Europe. If I'm wrong I'm sure the terrorist lover will correct me on that point. I'm not at all opposed to GMOs in the free market, but making my strawberry shortcake yummier is not nearly as important to me as developing foods to grow in harsh climates, resist insects, or to increase the nutritional value to keep people in undeveloped countries healthier. -SD- Yes. GMO is generally a scare word -- oh, scientists cooking nasty Frankensteinian things up in the lab to poison humanity. The reality is quite different. Having said that, sure, go ahead and label them. If someone as an adult doesn't want to eat GMO food, and wants to pay more for non-GMO food, go for it. That's your right. I'll personally take advantage of the better prices on GMO food. As far as Monsanto goes, they're a good example of crony capitalism. Monsanto does not maintain its position in the marketplace because of a free market. Rather, they buy politicians, they buy government favors, both with money and with friendships. The bigger government is, the more corruption you have. So do I trust Monsanto per se? No, because they're not competing freely. Real capitalism means free competition, no government favoritism. Monsanto might not do so well if they couldn't rely on their supporters in both parties. But the fact that a corrupt corporation like Monsanto makes GMOs doesn't make GMOs bad any more than the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian makes vegetarianism bad.

Musicmystery -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 1:24:32 PM)
I don't inherently oppose GMOs. I do think Monsanto and other food conglomerates have earned the distrust. So it's hard to say.

subrosaDom -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 2:56:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I don't inherently oppose GMOs. I do think Monsanto and other food conglomerates have earned the distrust. So it's hard to say. Yes. That's fair. At the very least, those companies should be treated skeptically because they are part of the influence-peddling and -seeking industry.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 2:59:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BecomingV I am against all GMOs. Because... while it has the appearance of killing hunger... it actually kills people. But, before they die, they can enjoy being genetically modified humans. Don't we get enough of that through prescription drugs? Then you can of course point to some GMO that has actually killed some one? quote: Oh, and chemistry does create new substances, not found naturally. The ability to discuss chemistry is only one valuable part of the issue. Your perspective is of equal value, at the least! It would seem to me that actually knowing WTF you are talking about is the very basis for this discussion. fear mongering is entirely worthless.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 3:02:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I don't inherently oppose GMOs. I do think Monsanto and other food conglomerates have earned the distrust. So it's hard to say. Monsanto has done some very bad things. Has this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Future_of_global_farming_and_food_supply

thompsonx -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 3:03:52 PM)
ORIGINAL: DomKen My point is that those changes didn't happen slowly. they happened in one generation. Corn was simply born from a seed. The plant had never existed and then one grew. All these hybrids happened like that. Selective breeding may take a long time but hybridization doesn't. Are you saying that hybreds are the same as gmo?

thompsonx -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (7/31/2014 3:13:16 PM)
ORIGINAL: SadistDave There is certainly a need for many types of GMO foods in parts of the world that struggle to feed the people living there. We are waiting for some sort of validation for this moronic, mindnumbingly stupid opinion? It seems to me that starvation is considerably less desirable than eating a GMO product, which is why I have serious problems with people who are almost militant about being anti-GMO. Good then you can eat that shit and I will take real food. Some GMOs are simple amazing. Golden Rice was a strain of rice modified to supply higher levels of vitamin A. Less than a cup of Golden Rice provided the recommended daily dose of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiencies cause around a quarter of a million kids around the world to go blind every year, and lowers the immune system. Vitamin a has many sources. Golden Rice was an awesome GMO as it was originally conceived back in 2000. Unfortunately, Greenpeace convinced the government in China to shut down testing claiming it was harmful. Then test crops in the Philippines were destroyed after "someone" started rumors among the locals that it would cause hair loss and men would become impotent. It's currently being tested again in the Philippines, but the company that originally developed Golden Rice was forced to redesign the rice so that it delivers about half of the vitamin A as the original strain that was grown in 2000. Greenpeace is still catching hell from the scientific community about it. Would this be another of your organic bullshit opinions or would you have some sort of validation? On the other hand, I don't particularly see the need for GMO foods in every product, or even in all parts of the world. North America has plenty of fertile land. America and Canada don't necessarily need GMOs to fill gaps in our food supply. As far as I'm aware, they're almost impossible to find in Europe. May be they are illegal there? That might explane why they are hard to find. If I'm wrong I'm sure the terrorist lover will correct me on that point. Anyone who disagrees with your ignorant bullshit is a terrorist[8\|] get a phoquing life.

SadistDave -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/1/2014 2:58:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx There is certainly a need for many types of GMO foods in parts of the world that struggle to feed the people living there. We are waiting for some sort of validation for this moronic, mindnumbingly stupid opinion? Keep waiting shit for brains. If you need validation that people are struggling to find food in many places around the world, then you're dumber than even I thought you were. quote: It seems to me that starvation is considerably less desirable than eating a GMO product, which is why I have serious problems with people who are almost militant about being anti-GMO. Good then you can eat that shit and I will take real food. If your only choice is a GMO or starvation, that means there is no other food, nimrod. quote: Some GMOs are simple amazing. Golden Rice was a strain of rice modified to supply higher levels of vitamin A. Less than a cup of Golden Rice provided the recommended daily dose of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiencies cause around a quarter of a million kids around the world to go blind every year, and lowers the immune system. Vitamin a has many sources. And yet, people suffer from a deficiency of vitamin A. If you were capable of rational thought, it might occur to you that those sources are not readily available everywhere in the world. quote: Golden Rice was an awesome GMO as it was originally conceived back in 2000. Unfortunately, Greenpeace convinced the government in China to shut down testing claiming it was harmful. Then test crops in the Philippines were destroyed after "someone" started rumors among the locals that it would cause hair loss and men would become impotent. It's currently being tested again in the Philippines, but the company that originally developed Golden Rice was forced to redesign the rice so that it delivers about half of the vitamin A as the original strain that was grown in 2000. Greenpeace is still catching hell from the scientific community about it. Would this be another of your organic bullshit opinions or would you have some sort of validation? Why does it matter. You've proven time and time again that you're just to goddamned stupid to comprehend anything people post. Hell, it's not just when you spout off your stupidity at me; you apparently feel the need to make your monumental ignorance clear no matter who you respond to. That being the case, and since I don't know of any sites that post information that's dumbed down enough for you to understand; you'll have to learn how to use Google. quote: On the other hand, I don't particularly see the need for GMO foods in every product, or even in all parts of the world. North America has plenty of fertile land. America and Canada don't necessarily need GMOs to fill gaps in our food supply. As far as I'm aware, they're almost impossible to find in Europe. May be they are illegal there? That might explane why they are hard to find. Maybe you're just a fucking moron. Wait! Sorry, there's no maybe to that one. My bad. Minimal research would have told you that they are not illegal in most of Europe, but they are heavily regulated. It seems you are too stupid for even minimal research though.... quote: If I'm wrong I'm sure the terrorist lover will correct me on that point. Anyone who disagrees with your ignorant bullshit is a terrorist[8\|] get a phoquing life. No, I said that if I'm wrong I'm sure the terrorist lover will correct me on that point. I'm referring to a specific person. That person, unlike you, IS actually capable of intelligent thought even though we disagree on virtually everything. Get a "phoquing" clue. -SD-

AQRMZ -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/1/2014 2:46:21 PM)
THIS IS NOT IN REPLY TO ANYONE, IT IS JUST A COMMENT ON LABELING. It might be helpful to view this and then read a few of the books. http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/ This might serve to lift the conversation to a higher level. Labels certainly would help a consumer know what is in the product. Of course if you disagree and want to continue to feed your children "mystery" foods, then that is your prerogative.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875