Farmers have been doing this for thousands of years...
..so I think we can assume we're okay.
Well said, but brace yourself for a torrent of misinformed crap from the anti-science, wilfully ignorant Neo-Luddites.
share
MovieChat Forums > GMO OMG (2013) Discussion > Farmers have been doing this for thousan...
So farmers have been taking strains of DNA from pesticide resistant bacteria and putting it into corn? I don't think so.
I am still on the fence about the pros and cons of GMO, this documentary didn't do much to convince me either way. I want more hard scientific evidence.
You cant talk to these idiots.
shareYes, they just were doing it the hard way - without the ability to easily splice DNA. hence, it took many years to do what we now can do in a few. but the end result is identical. were just better at it now.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Fail.
As a U.S. Department of Agriculture report has noted, planting herbicide resistant biotech crops enables farmers to substitute the more environmentally benign herbicide glyphosate (commercially sold as Round Up) for “other synthetic herbicides that are at least 3 times as toxic and that persist in the environment nearly twice as long as glyphosate.” Glyphosate has very low toxicity, breaks down quickly in the environment, and enables farmers to practice conservation tillage, which reduces topsoil erosion by up to 90 percent. So the net environmental effect is still positive.
http://www.agweb.com/assets/import/files/ao273f.pdf
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/759233/aer810h_1_.pdf
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html
You do realize that plants naturally create pesticides as a defense mechanism too right?
shareCorn itself was "genetically modified" from a grass a long, long time ago by Native Americans.
shareThta is called a hybrid.
What Monsanto and similars do, is taking strains of DNA and implementing it into plant.
For example, their pesticide. They take DNA strain from their pesticide and implement it in wheat, corn....etc. So when they spray crops with pesticide it becomes resistant. Everything else dies and the only thing that can grow on this soil is Monsanto (similar) seed. Everything else will die. Until soil cleans itself, for about minimum 3 years. And 3 years is for regular pesticudes. Monsanto pesticide is so much strong, it does severe damage to human, if not equipped with biohazard suit. So I don't know how many years it takes for soil to be clensed.
And residues of pesticide that is in air, creates mutations in humans. You have pictures of it.
Have you noticed so much cancer, so much disease and illness in even so modern societies? That is because companies put cancerous and mutagenous chemicals into everything. From cosmetics, up to food. And it's bull*hit when someone says that thousands of years ago people died of young age, from natural causes. Cancer was a rarety in those days. And even if some great disease came up, it was normal as laboratory diseases (swine/chicken flu), that are now. But what was normal, was the lack of certain diseases that are killing now. Cancer, tumor...everything because of the chemicals.
But certain corporations love your money and their health, not your health and their money.
Deal with it, or kill them. Your choice.
__________________________________
Stupidity makes people aggressive
Well said, add to that high fructose corn syrup - it causing obesity, and damaging brain, and you have whole picture. The syrup, and similiar refined sugars can be found everywhere in the highly processed foods.
shareHave you noticed so much cancer, so much disease and illness in even so modern societies? That is because companies put cancerous and mutagenous chemicals into everything. From cosmetics, up to food. And it's bull*hit when someone says that thousands of years ago people died of young age, from natural causes. Cancer was a rarety in those days. And even if some great disease came up, it was normal as laboratory diseases (swine/chicken flu), that are now. But what was normal, was the lack of certain diseases that are killing now. Cancer, tumor...everything because of the chemicals.
The average age of a person in middle ages was 20. I repeat - 20.
Do you know how many people die from, say, dementia, at 20? extremely few. however it is common in 90+ group. Before most people simply didnt live long enough to develop things like cancer, as the risk increases heavily the older you get.
You also have to account for many cases being unreported because back then noone knew what, say, polio is. half the time they believed there is a demon inside the person rather than disease. also most diseases that peasants had went unreported as they simply could not afford to go to a doctor.
Also you think there were no diseases? how about black plague, smallpox, ebola? there were MORE strange and mass murdering diseases in the past, not less.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually. share
Who are you trying to fool?.
share"The average age of a person in the middle ages was 20. I repeat - 20."
I've heard this before and it is completely unquantifiable. Does it take into account the average death rate among children and infants? Does it take into account deaths from disease (the middle ages saw a great deal of disease)? War?
The number means precious little in relation to the current argument. The fact remains that by our own current studies and history, going back just a hundred years, cancer rates have exploded.
You need a case file to study? Have a look at China. After WWII, China went "West crazy" for a while and adopted several American habits. Smoking, eating large amounts of meat and cheese (the Chinese diet was primarily vegetable and grain before that), and using several chemicals in everything from their laundry to their food.
Their cancer rates exploded.
It takes into account deaths, just like every average age. We all die from something, and everyone that dies of "old age" actually dies from some form of disease.
Yes, there were many plagues in middle ages due to low hygiene and poor eating habits which lead to only few rich people to actually live past 50.
The numbers mean everything in this due to factors i already mentioned. which you of course ignored because any data that does not fit your argument gets ignored.
China has the most poisonous air and has been polutin earth like a early 20th century nation, no wonder their cancer rates exploded. Of course, smoking does increase cancer rate, noone was contesting that. I was contesting the whole "modern chemicals give you diseases" crap that you keep spouting. In middle ages just like in china same reason has mean majority of the rise though - underreporting. if you dont know that some disease exist you cannot report it spreading, and while some rich people got books written about thier death, majority is not as lucky and simply died and were forgotten. The "disease explosion" is not so much explosion of the diseases thmeselves as an explosion of our ability to diagnose them.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Wait a minute? I hope you aren't saying that a larger amount of smoking leading to a larger number of cases of cancer is somehow evidence that GM foods are to blame...
Taking into account infant deaths, war deaths and disease deaths, yes there were less deaths attributed to cancer because most people didn't get old enough to get cancer and those that did were unlikely to receive a decent diagnosis. If that's unquantifiable then so is the suggestion that cancer rates have exploded. You cannot take the same data set and then claim that it is both unreadable and clear as day at the same time.
"The average age of a person in middle ages was 20. I repeat - 20."
Do you think if we returned to the LIVING conditions of the 16th century and got rid of sewage and water treatment plants, flushing toilets, running water, etc., but kept transgenic crops that we would a) see mortality rates stay where they are and b) not go hungry?
No, i do not. However if we kept nutrition up the average life expectancy would be higher than it was in 16the century. Statistically, good nutrition was the largest controbuting factor (this is not to say it was the only factor, like you mentioned things like sewage and water treatment also controbuted) in people living longer.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Do you understand how averages work? Infant mortality was much higher but if you survived to adolescence at that time it was not uncommon to live into your seventies.
share1) Monsanto isn't the only seed company out there, it's not even the largest, nor the only one that spreads GMO seeds.
2) GMO crops require LESS pesticides.
3) Plants naturally create pesticides to ward off insects too.
4) Organic farming often uses more pesticides and with that does more harm to the environment.
5) More cancer etc is simply because we now have the technology to detect it, there are also more people, oh and correlation does NOT equal causation, they also didn't have computers back in the "good old days" of starvation and not knowing that you're dying of cancer, maybe they cause cancer I guess you should stay the hell away from them huh?
6) There is no benefit to killing off plants & people for a company like Monsanto, our health gets more profit since dead people don't buy seeds.
7) GMOs are amongst the most researched subjects in science, and guess what? They were found to be safe.
8) GMOs are helpful in feeding the world and saving plant species.
9) Any form of breeding inherently creates a genetically modified organism, this is in no way scarier, a lab is not a death camp, calm down people and read a book without pictures.
10) Any form of breeding involves DNA mixing.
References:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/03/15/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140914-florida-orange-citrus-greening-gmo-environment-science/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622175510.htm
http://www.europabio.org/agricultural/positions/benefits-genetically-modified-crops-scientists-confirm-reduction-pesticide
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/22/gmo-foreign-gene-fears-breeders-incorporating-unknown-dna-into-food-crops-for-centuries/
GLP is not an unbiased source, Executive Director Jon Entine is a corporate propagandist and pseudo-journalist who utilizes his media savvy to promote the opinions and positions of chemical corporations, by posing as an independent journalist. Entine has multiple, documented ties to biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta, and plays a key propaganda role via another industry front group known as the American Council on Science and Health, (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health ) a thinly-veiled corporate front group that Sourcewatch describes as holding “a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.”
Entine knowingly and repeatedly publishes false and fictitious information in mainstream publications including Forbes.com, and his posts are often retracted after being challenged on their lack of factual basis. His actions against targeted individuals or companies are systematically abusive and resemble "revenge journalism." Entine takes a "hit man" approach to single out individuals - especially critics of GMOs - for accusations and abuse, often calling them names or implying they are sociopaths or a danger to society.
Entine's deep involvement in the propaganda of poison-pushing corporations is also reflected in his own personal life, where he remains embattled in a bitter seven-year divorce during which he engaged in highly questionable behavior such as threatening his young daughter's therapist with a lawsuit if he continued to provide therapy sessions. At one point during the divorce, Entine's ex-wife pleaded with the court to demand a psychiatric evaluation of Entine, for which he refused to volunteer. (http://truthwiki.org/Jon_Entine)
I'm not so sure we are OK because we don't have enough info to make an educated assumption. I don't know if GMO are OK or not. What I do know is the secrecy and lack of information made available by the GMO companies is not OK. If they were 100% sure that GMOs were OK why not publish their studies and allow independent people to make their own studies. Why are our governments not doing as they should and make sure that these products are OK instead of just reaping all the tax from the profits of the GMO companies.
In many ways I see a similarity between tobacco and GMO, and we all know which way that went.
GMO companies
- Which companies are these you are referring to, specifically? (Bonus points if you can name anything besides Monsanto, or at least describe how Monsanto is related to GMOs)
... why not publish their studies and allow independent people to make their own studies.[?]
- You've obviously never actually tried to look up any scientific studies on the issue because there are, in reality, hundreds of studies that have been done on the very subject. None of which support the claims of GMOs being bad or causing any of cancers/diseases. The only negative side effects that have been found were due to allergic reactions, which is the same for anything genetically modified or not. share
May I suggest you view the documentary film that this thread relates to. I'll think you'll find the answers to your questions there as that is where I'm basing what I've written on.
Not interested in bonus points unless you can tell me what I can redeem them for.
Never said any of the studies, available or not, showed GMOs to be bad, cause cancer, disease or any negative effects. So your comment is irrelevant.
You apparently don't understand how logic works. You said there was no information or studies about this topic, which is completely false. That's what my comment had pointed out, sorry I didn't spell it out enough for you.
shareNothing wrong with my logic thank you. I have never stated there was no information or studies on this topic. What I said was that there were no INDEPENDENT studies. With this subject shrouded in secrecy, controlled by profit hungry greedy companies, allegedly paying off governments it makes me suspicious. That is what I have said all along. Sorry that you were unable to understand my point.
"None of which support the claims of GMOs being bad "
Also none of which support the claims of GMOs being safe or being necessary to feed the world or increasing yields over conventional crops or performing better in drought-like conditions.
Also none of which support the claims of GMOs being safe
Not true, hundreds of studies have shown them to be safe.
or being necessary to feed the world or increasing yields over conventional crops or performing better in drought-like conditions.
That's just ignorance, the world's population continues to grow, the ground can only produce X amount of nutrients to foster the growth of plants, older styles of farming and their crop yield simply cannot keep up with the growing demand. That's where modern technology comes in with genetically modified organisms that require less nutrients to produce the same/more produce. share
If there are hundreds of studies, please cite a single study representing an independent, peer-reviewed, double blind, controlled feeding study on any mammallian species lasting at least 50% of the animal's lifespan.
shareWhat secrecy? Monsanto's patents are temporary (as all are) and become public after a while.
There are thousands of global studies linked to the safety of GMOs, which also does not scream "secrecy" to me.
This is not a conspiracy.
The anti-GMO crowd are closer related to the tobacco industry as they ignore scientific evidence just like the tobacco industry did.
References:
https://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/gmo-patent-nonsense
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
If all you say is true why not label GMO products? The public would like to know. A lot of governments around the world have made labeling laws at the wish of their citizens. Why is Washington (USA) so anti-labeling. Glad I don't live there but live in a country that has GMO labeling laws so I can make a choice.
If Farmers have been doing this for so long, then why does Monsanto have a patent on it?
The fact is that while "playing with plants" yes, has been done for thousands of years, THIS WAY of playing with plants has NOT.
Making hybrids, clones, whatever is not the issue. I don't know and I don't even think there is a real problem here, but I think this "argument" is a bad one and ignores the issue of not having done *this* process before in history and a single company being in control of it.
It's the fact that we're making plants that can literally excrete the poison that Monsanto makes into it's own tissue, at that point. Do you really want to eat RoundUp? Because I know I certainly do not.
We can't forget Monsanto's track record either, because in the past they've told us several life-threatening chemicals are fine for humans to come into contact with.
And they're using that same 2,4D formula in their GMO crops now. Even though it's recognized as a hazardous chemical. How is this OK?
What is your people's obsession with Monsanto?
They're not the biggest seed company, nor are they the only ones selling GMO seeds.
THIS way is a safer more controlled way than the way they have used for thousands of years, on top of that it has been researched and deemed safe by scientists all over the globe in thousands of studies: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
"deemed safe by scientists all over the globe in thousands of studies"
Sorry but you think nutritional equivalence studies equate to safety studies? Of those 2000 studies how many are controlled animal feeding studies done over a period of time that would represent average human longevity and not the length of time an animal destined for the human food chain lives.
Funny how the original description of the study has now changed to thousands of safety studies, which it is not.
Also there is no scientific consensus on the safety of foods derived from transgenic crops - http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
that is corporate BS. stop repeating the Monsanto talking points. These Corporations don't support government tools like Agriculture head Tom Vilsack and Justice Clarence Thomas for nothing. They are so many shills rigging against us. Research shows the food causes cancer in rats. There has been a rise in cancer in teens and children. Something is causing kids and teens to end up in Jimmy Fund Clinics. Something is causing the extinction of bees that is stronger than wasps. Research points to GMOs. You are referring to the fact they are using the same practices that was used to clear plant life in Vietnam. They used the same chemicals. That was a war. You don't use war herbicides in farming or else you create unhealthy food. Seriously think for yourself and stop believing the BS.
share