There is nothing wrong with genetically modified products! Some people need to learn more about the subject and quit spreading lies that do nothing except confuse and misinform other people.
So these people really believe what they say, or are they just trying to sell a movie? I'm not sure which is worse.
"He who is tired of 'Weird Al' Yankovic is tired of life." - Homer Simpson
There is nothing wrong with exploring the topic. Regardless of anyone's stance on the subject, people deserve to know what is GMO or not. People should be able to know what they are putting in their bodies. I don't know how much you have read into the subject, but as a farmer I have been following this subject for years. I suggest you read some research that has been conducted by unbiased study groups rather than by the GMO industry.
Here is just one study that has been conducted.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/potential-health-hazards-of-genetically-engineered-foods/8148
Any movie that gets people discussing these important issues is a benefit.
If you even bothered to read the the article you posted you might realise it is not a study, it is simply an article drawing from various other sources. It mentions a few things that sound like studies, yet fails to provide a single actual reference by which these facts can be checked. It is also not posted in a peer-reviewed journal, but on a website that accepts submissions from any member of the general public with little moderation. If you want to actually attempt to convince anyone with a brain that there are real hazards from genetically engineered foods then you're going to have to try a little bit harder than that.
share"GMO industry".
as a farmer, you ARE GMO industry. not a single plant you grow is not genetically modified. i guarantee it.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
You want unbiased double blind peer reviewed studies? Try this out...
"Currently there are near 2000 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.
Citations to 400+ of these published studies are provided at the searchable GENERA Database accessible here: http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php
A longer 600+ list is here: http://gmopundit.blogspot.de/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html “
lol, feel free to point out which studies in that long list are peer-reviewed double blind controlled feeding studies. I'll give you a gold star if you can find a single one.
That list of 2000 studies deals with things like risk assessment studies and nutritional equivalence not controlled feeding studies which is the only thing you should be doing if your trying to determine whether they're safe for consumption or not.
Um yes, there are most definitely from peer reviewed sources. Know your science, and learn to read scientific articles properly before you play into your cognitive dissonance.
.
.
I coulnd't help but notice amidst all the misdirection you've employed that you didn't provide a single citation to back up your claim. Typical industry mouthpiece.
Again, cite a single study from that long list representing an independent, peer-reviewed, double blind, controlled feeding study on any mammallian species lasting at least 30% of the animal's lifespan.
Maybe you feed your kids GMOs for 90 days and send them to the slaughterhouse in which case the "trillion meals" study might have some sort of relevance.
DMB_Lover, here you go.
1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods (must have Microsoft Excel): http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls
Is that the sound of tin foil crinkling?
I couldn't help but notice that three months late you still failed to cite a single study from that long list representing an independent, peer-reviewed, double blind, controlled feeding study on any mammallian species lasting at least 30% of the animal's lifespan.
I did notice that you cited the industry-sponsored website "genetic literacy project" whose editor in cheif Jon Entine has gross conflicts of interest within the biotech industry and is a wife beater. That's some good science you've got there!
You have engaged in the logical fallacy of saying "more is better", failing to note that not a single study in that list would meet the criteria I asked for. In fact the vast majority of the studies in that list that could be considered "safety" studies are risk assessment studies, that is just about the furthest away from a controlled feeding study you could get to still have the gall to call it a safety study.
Just for a laugh, let's look at your list and drop down the category to "consumption" studies, presumably that will be feeding studies.
1) Single author who works for Monsanto UK, not a feeding study
2) Risk analysis, not a feeding study
3) Wow, 5 day study, good one. Lots of knowledge to be gained from a 5-day study!
4) Not a feeding study.
5) Nutritional equivalence study, not a feeding study
6) Not a feeding study.
You get the picture? Feel free to cite a single study, PMID would be fine.
"A wife beater" ...lmao. What a terrible red herring you have there. Fallacies like that only portray how little a person has to contribute to the discussion. There are quite a few people working on board who are awesome for sharing this information freely to the public. It's very hard to study something for around 8 or so years and be able to break it down into the most simplistic form for uninformed readers to understand: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/our-team/
Otherwise, I have no idea what "conflicts of interest" you are conspiring about - especially since there are no reputable sources cited.
I'm amused that you were not able to cite the studies which you were so quick to criticize. Have you gone through all 312 studies on consumption to reach this conclusion? I'm highly doubting this. Of course you will find some studies done by biotech companies; why wouldn't they want their products to be tested? The same could not be said for the multi-billion dollar scam-based "organic" companies.
Should I even bother with someone who values cognitive dissonance as much as yourself?
.
.
Fact is without there is not enough land to feed everybody. Some think that is okay. There is good medicines and there is bad, should we then ban all? If your die hard either for or against you are dangerous and dumb. That said, genetically modified food is the future and nothing will change that.
http://www.economist.com/node/1337197
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8
Better fed then dead.
Genetically modified food is the future, present and past. we have been doing it literally for tens of thousands of years.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Really? We've been genetically modifying crops for tens of thousands of years?
Have we really been isolating the specific genome traits of pesticide resistant bacteria and shooting that DNA into the DNA of corn seeds, soy seeds, and cotton seeds that are designed to require specialized chemicals to grow, at which point they will grow exactly ONE time and produce sterile seeds?
I had no idea we'd been doing that for ten thousand years. Silly me. Silly Europe, Germany, China, Russia.. Silly us.
We have NOT been doing that. Did you even watch this "documentary?"
Yes, we have. We did not knew it was DNA traits then, so the process took long and there was a lot of trial and error, but the result was the same.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Your stupidity knows no bounds "rushknight".
"Bt proteins has been used in many organic farms for over 50 years as a microbial pest control agent (MCPA). Bt proteins are allowed in organic farming as a insecticide because Bt is a natural, non-pathogenic bacterium that is found naturally in the soil. Bt has also been found to be safe to all higher animals tested.
Bt strains account for nearly 90% of the world MPCA market. Most of the Bt products contain insecticidal crystal proteins (ICP) and viable spores (spores that can produce live bacteria). The ICPs are responsible for insect toxicity. ICPs are usually biologically inactive within hours or days. A few products contain inactivated spores.
Typical agricultural formulations include wettable powders, spray concentrates, liquid concentrates, dusts, baits, and time release rings. Bt formulations may be applied to foliage, soil, water environments or food storage facilities. There are many different strains of Bt used, each specific to different insects. Because Bt is species specific, beneficial and non-target insects are usually not harmed.
Popular Bt Strains used:
Bt Strain Effective against
Bt kurstaki (Btk) types of lepidopterous insects gypsy moth cabbage looper
Bt aizawai (Bta) wax moth larvae in honeycombs
Bt israelensis (Bti) mosquitoes, blackflies, midges
Bt san diego certain beetle species, bool weevil
Since 1996 plants have been modified with short sequences of genes from Bt to express the crystal protein Bt makes. With this method, plants themselves can produce the proteins and protect themselves from insects without any external Bt and/or synthetic pesticide sprays. In 1999, 29 million acres of Bt corn, potato and cotton were grown globally. It has been estimated that by using Bt protected cotton, the United States was able to save approximately $92 million.
Bt GM crops are protected specifically against European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and the Colorado potato beetle. Other benefits attributed to using Bt include:
•Reduced environmental impacts from pesticides – When the plants are producing the toxins in their tissues there is no need to spray synthetic pesticides or apply Bt mixtures topically.
•Increased opportunity for beneficial insects – Bt proteins will not kill beneficial insects.
•Reduced pesticide exposure to farm workers and non-target organisms."
"Over the last twenty years, we have learned how to isolate any gene from any living organism, introduce the new gene into another organism, and get it to work there, and because genes work in almost the same way in all living organisms; it is incorrect to speak of a human gene, or a fish gene etc. The gene is a human gene because it is functioning in a human cell, not because there is anything about its structure or its chemistry that is basically different; an important point that lies behind some of the current confusion. Indeed genes from different organisms may be very similar to each other; the insulin genes, for example, only differ marginally between fish and humans."
Technically we have been genetically modifying organisms for about 15,000 years. What is different about genetic engineering is that scientists can pick directly what they want to be expressed without having to risk trial and error (which would mean allergy risks for the consumers via traditional artificial selection).
Try taking an introduction to genetics before you just make terrible and inaccurate assumptions. You can also read more here: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/burke.html
.
.
Name me one crop that was made insect or pesticide resistant by manipulating its DNA ten thousand years ago.
Until then shut up with the propaganda of the GMO companies.
Wheat. Via selective breading of crops having resistance to certain bacteria. We just do it more efficiently now by manually modifying DNA rather than waiting for random mutation.
Oh and dont expect me to keep listing them, just open up encyclopedia. majority will be genetically modified.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
"Fact is without there is not enough land to feed everybody."
Absolutely false. In places like Europe not using transgenic crops in similar latitudes to those in the US and Canada, conventionally bred crops have seen equal or higher yields than transgenic crops and have used less synthetic chemicals.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UcwzspzRGin
Starting with maize, how has the commitment to GM crops benefitted the US agroecosystem? Maize is a dominating crop for the US Midwest and a significant crop for W. Europe. Between 1961 and 1985 the United States produced on average approximately 5,700 hg/ha more maize per year than did W. Europe. By the mid-1980s, there was a significant change in yield in our comparison countries (Figure 1). Between 1986 and 2010, W. Europe's yield averaged 82,899 hg/ha, just slightly above United States yields of 82,841 hg/ha (Table 1). Comparing W. Europe with the United States for the entire period 1961-2010 (Figure 1), the average yields were not significantly different (ANOVA: F 1,98 = 0.53; P = 0.47). These results suggest that yield benefits (or limitations) over time are due to breeding and not GM, as reported by others (Gurian-Sherman 2009), because W. Europe has benefitted from the same, or marginally greater, yield increases without GM. Furthermore, the difference between the estimated yield potential and actual yield or `yield-gap' appears to be uniformly smaller in W. Europe than in the US Midwest (Licker et al. 2010). Biotechnology choices in the form of breeding stock and/or management techniques used in Europe are as effective at maintaining yield as are germplasm/management combinations in the United States.
The average yields of rapeseed for Canada have always been lower than W. Europe's, by an average of 11,000 hg/ha between 1961 and 1985, and an even larger average difference of 17,300 hg/ha between 1986 and 2010, the period when Canada moved to GM and Europe did not.
The short-term reduction in insecticide use reported in the period of Bt crop adoption appears to have been part of a trend enjoyed also in countries not adopting GM crops (Figure 3). Thus, reductions attributed to GM crops (Fedoroff 2012) are in question. In 2007 (the latest FAOSTAT figures available for the United States) US chemical insecticide use was down to 85% of 1995 levels by quantity of active ingredients, and herbicide use rose to 108% of 1995 levels. Meanwhile, similar if not more impressive reductions have been achieved in countries not adopting GM crops. By 2007, France had reduced both herbicide (to 94% of 1995 levels) and chemical insecticide (to 24% of 1995 levels) use, and by 2009 (the latest FAOSTAT figures available for France) herbicide use was down to 82%, and insecticide use was down to 12% of the 1995 levels. Similar trends were seen in Germany and Switzerland.
The choice of GM-biotechnology packages in the US agroecosystem has been the stark contrast with W. European patterns of biotechnology use. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary (e.g. Derbyshire 2011), there is no evidence that GM biotechnology is superior to other biotechnologies (all `technological applications that use biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for a specific use', IAASTD 2009) in its potential to supply calories (Heinemann 2009, IAASTD 2009, Jacobsen et al. 2013).
GM crops are not a solution, in part because they are controlled by strict IP instruments. Despite the claims that GM might be needed to feed the world, we found no yield benefit when the United States was compared to W. Europe, other economically developed countries of the same latitude which do not grow GM crops. We found no benefit from the traits either.
GM crops have maintained or increased US pesticide use relative to equally advanced competitors. The pattern and quantities unique to the use of GM-glyphosate-tolerant crops has been responsible for the selection of glyphosate-tolerant weeds, with estimates of resistant weeds on between 6 and 40 million hectares in the United States (Waltz 2010, Owen 2011, Benbrook 2012, Heap et al. 2013). The use of Bt crops is associated with the emergence of Bt resistance and by novel mechanisms in insect pests (Lu et al. 2010, Waltz 2010, Benbrook 2012, Zhang et al. 2012).
That article was already rebutted:
http://tagteam.harvard.edu/hub_feeds/1981/feed_items/1394951
.
.
I'd like to add that it's not so much the land in terms of space which is limited, but rather the fertile land itself. Climate change is increasing droughts in some areas and flooding in others. Finding crops which will be able to successfully adapt to these conditions faster than before is key to prevent future food shortages (which will lead to soaring produce prices) and world hunger. Additionally, vital ecosystems (e.g. the Amazon rainforest) will not have to be destroyed.
share