March Against Monsanto

[litxus]

This discussion would probably lead to nowhere. But if you look at GMO from a business perspective, it is a good way to control the market. That is patent seeds and force everyone to buy them, or sue them for bs until they have no money left and settle. Therefore you have continuing $$$ coming in, and the more markets you expand your GMO, the more hooked they will be to buy the future products.

Is it good or bad for you? Well, again, most studies are sponsored by universities, and therefore same companies (Monsanto), so do you think they will allow anyone to publish anything negative or even research negative effects of GMO? From the studies (can't recall exactly) that suggested GMO was not good for you, were either ridiculed or careers were ended for those scientists. In short look at the money trail and you will get your answer.

As for yield of GMO crop and food shortage regarding GMO, again there is so much food thrown out daily, but yet we led to believe there is a shortage. Like I said there are many unknowns and you have to look at your sources of information, and then again the money trail...

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by litxus

This discussion would probably lead to nowhere. But if you look at GMO from a business perspective, it is a good way to control the market. That is patent seeds and force everyone to buy them, or sue them for bs until they have no money left and settle. Therefore you have continuing $$$ coming in, and the more markets you expand your GMO, the more hooked they will be to buy the future products.

Is it good or bad for you? Well, again, most studies are sponsored by universities, and therefore same companies (Monsanto), so do you think they will allow anyone to publish anything negative or even research negative effects of GMO? From the studies (can't recall exactly) that suggested GMO was not good for you, were either ridiculed or careers were ended for those scientists. In short look at the money trail and you will get your answer.

As for yield of GMO crop and food shortage regarding GMO, again there is so much food thrown out daily, but yet we led to believe there is a shortage. Like I said there are many unknowns and you have to look at your sources of information, and then again the money trail...

These are the problems nobody is looking at. Also why does everyone think gmo's have better yields? Genetic modification is almost entirely done for pesticide or herbicide resistance. Considering glyphosate is a toxin and a chelator I wouldn't be surprised if yields are decreased.

Like I said before I am not against gmo's just because it is new technology. I am against them because they are untested. Next you guys are going to start telling me that DDT, PCB's, and dioxins are safe and I am just overreacting.

[litxus]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

These are the problems nobody is looking at. Also why does everyone think gmo's have better yields? Genetic modification is almost entirely done for pesticide or herbicide resistance. Considering glyphosate is a toxin and a chelator I wouldn't be surprised if yields are decreased.

Like I said before I am not against gmo's just because it is new technology. I am against them because they are untested. Next you guys are going to start telling me that DDT, PCB's, and dioxins are safe and I am just overreacting.

I think the issue is not that nobody looked at it, but there is loads of $$$ behind supporting a favorable agenda and crushing anyone who looks at it in a way which is not favorable to them. It is just like politics, if you have loads of $$$, then bribe (I mean lobby and pass whatever laws you want. OP, don't waste your breath Let people find out for themselves, whichever way it might be.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by litxus

I think the issue is not that nobody looked at it, but there is loads of $$$ behind supporting a favorable agenda and crushing anyone who looks at it in a way which is not favorable to them. It is just like politics, if you have loads of $$$, then bribe (I mean lobby and pass whatever laws you want. OP, don't waste your breath Let people find out for themselves, whichever way it might be.

Well said.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Like I said before I am not against gmo's just because it is new technology. I am against them because they are untested. Next you guys are going to start telling me that DDT, PCB's, and dioxins are safe and I am just overreacting.

You didn't even look at the studies I linked to you earlier. They have been EXTENSIVELY tested not only by universities worldwide but also the EU. RambleJ is right, I am wasting my time.

[michaelthepsycho]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

I don't need your advice. If you want to eat gmo food go ahead. Like you said it is population control and survival of the fittest still applies.

BTW since you mentioned GMO's and marijuana. Why is it that GMO's are treated as innocent until proven guilty and marijuana is treated as guilty until proven innocent. What I mean is marijuana(cannabis) has been around for thousands or possibly millions of years and has known medicinal uses in traditional medicine, yet it is treated as if it is harmful. GMO's on the other hand have only became popular in the last decade and usually contain high levels of pesticide's yet people don't think twice abut eating them.

Bro. I'm fully aware of what's bad. But you need to name a COMMERCIALLY VIABLE alternative. Don't tell me healthier stuff doesn't cost more. It does, because grocers bank on the fact that health-aware people are usually more affluent. Let's set aside cost. There's also the fact that places that sell organic / non-modified foods are more scarce. If I drive 40 miles roundtrip to get beef, by the time I get home, it's already starting to spoil from SoCal weather (even with AC). That's just throwing money down the drain.

Pragmatism is the name of the game. The only way to beat the status quo is to make the solution convenient enough for everyone.

And to the dude mentioning HFCS. Lol... Just Lol. Not because you're wrong but because you think people aren't aware of that.

[128Convertibleguy]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Like I said before I am not against gmo's just because it is new technology. I am against them because they are untested. Next you guys are going to start telling me that DDT, PCB's, and dioxins are safe and I am just overreacting.

Thing is, GMOs are not the same thing at all. The chemicals you list are known to have adverse effects. GMO's are not. They're just a variation on the genetic engineering we've always done to crops. Today's corn bears little resemblance to what was grown by Native Americans back when.

I'm on your side about chemical contamination of our food. Not to mention the risks to ag workers. But one goal GMO's are engineered for is natural pest resistance, reducing the need for chemicals. It's a better tool, with less likelihood of unintended consequences. Take this statement for example:

"Alternatively, the new gene could interfere with a metabolic pathway causing a stressed plant to produce more toxins in response. Although these effects have not been observed in GM plants, they have been observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM plants." In other words, we've seen this issue in conventionally genetically modified plants, which few worry about, so we're worried about it in GMOs, even though nobody has ever seen it in GMOs. To me, this is an argument for GMOs, not against.

It seems to me that a lot of the force of the anti-GMO people comes from the unfortunate anti-science attitude prevalent today. Any time a sentence starts with "we just don't know enough...", I'm skeptical. Nothing is perfectly safe, but GMOs just haven't been found to have serious adverse consequences, and they have been tested extensively, even if not enough for some people. It's mostly speculative fear.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

Thing is, GMOs are not the same thing at all. The chemicals you list are known to have adverse effects. GMO's are not. They're just a variation on the genetic engineering we've always done to crops. Today's corn bears little resemblance to what was grown by Native Americans back when.

I'm on your side about chemical contamination of our food. Not to mention the risks to ag workers. But one goal GMO's are engineered for is natural pest resistance, reducing the need for chemicals. It's a better tool, with less likelihood of unintended consequences. Take this statement for example:

"Alternatively, the new gene could interfere with a metabolic pathway causing a stressed plant to produce more toxins in response. Although these effects have not been observed in GM plants, they have been observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM plants." In other words, we've seen this issue in conventionally genetically modified plants, which few worry about, so we're worried about it in GMOs, even though nobody has ever seen it in GMOs. To me, this is an argument for GMOs, not against.

It seems to me that a lot of the force of the anti-GMO people comes from the unfortunate anti-science attitude prevalent today. Any time a sentence starts with "we just don't know enough...", I'm skeptical. Nothing is perfectly safe, but GMOs just haven't been found to have serious adverse consequences, and they have been tested extensively, even if not enough for some people. It's mostly speculative fear.

Almost all genetic modification is done for pesticide or herbicide resistance. Bt crops require less spraying, but since the plant is genetically modified to produce a pesticide I wouldn't say it is safe to eat. It could be that genetic modification is completely harmless, but the chemicals that are used on genetically modified crops are the problem. No way to know for sure since Monsanto will not sell you seeds unless you sign a contract saying they will not be used for research purposes. Do you think its a good idea for Monsanto to patent and create a monopoly on our food? Do you think the company that created those chemicals cares more about your health or making a profit? There are many reasons to eat organic, but if you believe genetically modified food with high levels of pesticides is safe feel free to eat what you want to eat.

[128Convertibleguy]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Bt crops require less spraying, but since the plant is genetically modified to produce a pesticide I wouldn't say it is safe to eat. It could be that genetic modification is completely harmless, but the chemicals that are used on genetically modified crops are the problem.

I'm a scientist. Show me the data that says GMOs are unsafe to eat. Show me the data that says they're a problem. You may say they haven't been tested enough for your satisfaction, but they have been extensively tested, there's a ton of data available. Moreso than on most foods. What of it proves there's any problem here?

You can speculate on whatever you like, but in science data trumps speculation, always. Let's see the data.

As I said, I agree with you on chemical pesticide residues. But, if anything, those are worse on non-GMOs. In any event, it's a separate issue.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

I'm a scientist. Show me the data that says GMOs are unsafe to eat. Show me the data that says they're a problem. You may say they haven't been tested enough for your satisfaction, but they have been extensively tested, there's a ton of data available. Moreso than on most foods. What of it proves there's any problem here?

You can speculate on whatever you like, but in science data trumps speculation, always. Let's see the data.

As I said, I agree with you on chemical pesticide residues. But, if anything, those are worse on non-GMOs. In any event, it's a separate issue.

How are pesticide residues worse on non gmos if genetic modification is done almost entirely for pesticide or herbicide resistance? They are genetically modifying our food to spray more chemicals on it not less. Most genetic modification is done by chemical companies trying to sell more chemicals. In bt crops the pesticide is actually made in the plant itself. There is evidence that bt crops are responsible for the mass death of bees. Without bees it would be impossible to feed the world.

As discussed in this thread the only evidence that gmo's are harmful is empirical evidence and the reason for that is because Monsanto doesn't allow testing. The only testing that has been done is by Monsanto, and I do not trust them enough to say their own product is safe. GMO's have been banned in other countries because of reports of animals dying after eating genetically modified crops. All I am saying is that the long term effects of gmos need to be tested by an independent researcher. Of course Monsanto wouldn't allow this and if they did Monsanto would try to discredit any researcher that found any negative effects.

Feel free to eat your pesticide laden, nutrient deficient, processed foods. I'll take care of myself and my family, and at this point I couldn't care less about what everyone else eats.

[nagisak31]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Feel free to eat your pesticide laden, nutrient deficient, processed foods. I'll take care of myself and my family, and at this point I couldn't care less about what everyone else eats.

Then shut the hell up about it already.

[128Convertibleguy]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

The only testing that has been done is by Monsanto

Hardly. GMOs have been extensively tested, moreso than most foods. Many tests done by independent researchers. Here is a detailed list of 600 peer reviewed studies on GMOs. No doubt a few funded from Monsanto, no doubt most not.

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Other less specific sources I have say 2000+ peer reviewed papers. 70% not funded by seed producers of whatever stripe. Here's a good review of the scientific literature article, covering the last ten years.

"The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE. Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture"

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...olia-20131.pdf

I'm no great fan of heavy pesticide residues. Or Monsanto. I am a fan of science. GMOs are not all about pesticide residues or Monsanto. And they have been extensively tested, often by independent researchers.

I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by nagisak31

Then shut the hell up about it already.

I'm not the one who keeps bumping this thread.

[NEFARIOUS]

Then again, they're self-funded, so of course they're going to highlight all the good, ergo a bit biased... If BMW paid me $1,000,000 to say that the F30 is the best thing since sliced bread, of course I can even go around saying that it's faster than a Veyron, has better ride comfort, quietness and technology than a Phantom, better handling than a go-cart and as reliable as a benchmark-grade Lexus... None of it is true, but it shows that people can be bought, while the truth is that I don't like how light the steering is and dare I even say Merc has a slightly more refined interior.

Of course, I skimmed through the responses of the first and last pages, so if it has been covered, please disregard... But then again in my own, unpaid opinion, GMOs may be "proven" safe by people who probably got paid off to say otherwise, I still have a conscientious objection with messing with nature... As a red-blooded male, I like girls with a larger chest, but it doesn't mean I like her stuffing silicone into her body either. Heck, I only believe in surgery done for life-sustaining purposes, i.e. no plastic surgery. Also, as much as it IS "proven", how thorough and trustworthy is it? Like others said, if GMOs "are" safe, how safe are the pesticides? After all, you're putting trace amounts of chemicals into your body that is designed to kill an insect, but how safe it is for humans may not be determined on a linear perspective as a statistic, but it might be creating a butterfly effect that may lead to cancer or some other disease.