Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

GMO


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#106 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,022 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 12:57 PM

 

 

Again, please provide the harmful data you are referring to - the two studies I know of are horribly, horribly flawed and in some cases show the opposite of what the authors claim (as was the case with a study I discussed earlier).  The other study was recalled by the journal that published it because of how egregious the errors in it were.

 

You mean recalled because the Illuminati that run Monsanto had it recalled, right?   

 

 

;)



#107 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,873 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:15 PM

What evidence do you have the only people to look at the safety of Bt have been funded by or are working directly for Monsanto?  Because that's not the case at all.  Many, many public universities have looked into Bt crops extensively, and they have enough funding internally they don't need Monsanto's money.

 

The Bt I work with has nothing to do with Monsanto.  It's a bacterium, you can get it from the soil if you really wanted to. Monsanto didn't discover Bt.

 

I don't think there is a problem with the debate, I think there is a problem when people (like you) say "There is plenty of science about the toxicity of these new crops they're trying to force onto the market."  Please provide actual studies that show that show that Bt crops are toxic and we can discuss them - not links to popular press articles with no actual research to back them up or vague references to "scientists."  I can tell you "scientists think Bt is perfectly safe!" and while I'd be right, it means nothing without the articles I've already pasted into this thread repeatedly.

 

Monsanto's business practices I have a problem with this, I've said it over and over, but I think that lumping anything GMO in there is just dumb. Get angry for the right reasons.

 

Again, please provide the harmful data you are referring to - the two studies I know of are horribly, horribly flawed and in some cases show the opposite of what the authors claim (as was the case with a study I discussed earlier).  The other study was recalled by the journal that published it because of how egregious the errors in it were.

 

I'm not in the business of putting people down so I hope you don't feel like I'm trying to do that with you. I do think that it's quite arrogant for you to assume ignorance when it serves your argument. Fact is I can google opinions to support your argument or mine so posting studies are useless here in this forum. I have no idea why you keep saying that Ive said your being funded by a particular company. I merely said most of that type of work is funded or granted. By whom and why is such a grey area that it would be ignorant to assume that none of that money is coming from a corporate donor or private donor with certain interests. I was asking what YOUR position was. You obviously don't have one of your own only charts.  

 

Studies can indicate a problem being present, OK, there is a problem. What are we going to do to fix it? Got any ideas other than somebody elses?

 

 



#108 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,525 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:42 PM

I'm not in the business of putting people down so I hope you don't feel like I'm trying to do that with you. I do think that it's quite arrogant for you to assume ignorance when it serves your argument. Fact is I can google opinions to support your argument or mine so posting studies are useless here in this forum. I have no idea why you keep saying that Ive said your being funded by a particular company. I merely said most of that type of work is funded or granted. By whom and why is such a grey area that it would be ignorant to assume that none of that money is coming from a corporate donor or private donor with certain interests. I was asking what YOUR position was. You obviously don't have one of your own only charts.  

 

Studies can indicate a problem being present, OK, there is a problem. What are we going to do to fix it? Got any ideas other than somebody elses?

 

Yeah, sure seems like you are putting me and scientists down.  If you're "not in the business of it" maybe you should reconsider some of what you said.  Maybe I keep accusing you of saying I was an employee of Monsanto because that is basically what you said.  You accused me of, and I quote, "You can qoute "studies" but while you stir the pot for your employer the earth is in the process of suffering a great catastrophe if your "studies" are wrong and skewed."  Immediately before that you had said people in my profession were easily bought and sold.  Who exactly do you think is "my employer" that I am "stirring the pot" for? 

 

Also, it's really not a grey area where most funding comes from for papers - it's part of the acknowledgements.  Indeed, a lot companies do provide substantial funding, but they are not the only source, and with nearly 2 decades of Bt research, if it was responsible for bee population declines we would have seen papers on it.  Edit: And fwiw, I've never gotten a dime from any corporation, nor tried to... but my primary source of funding is the NIH because I work with disease vectors.  My evolution-based research is NSF funded tho.

 

I told you what my position was, and I've said what my position was in this thread repeatedly. GMO food is safe(edit again: specifically Bt crops, I am actually concerned with roundup ready stuff actually because a lot of modern herbicides are scary poo).  Monsanto has awful business practices that exploit farmers.  I said in my last post.  I've said it repeatedly in this thread.  I even said it in the post you just quoted.  I hate Monsanto, but I think GM foods are safe.  As I've said in other posts, I don't think bt is responsible for bee declines, based on research into the subject, and I think that it is far more likely to be a combination of factors involving habitat loss and parasitism.

 

"Got any ideas other than somebody elses?" Seriously? What exactly is wrong with other people's ideas?  We should probably consult experts when we're talking about this poo since last I checked none of us were entomologists working on CCD.  From what I've read and heard, yeah, I have an opinion.  It was brought up earlier, but in general, I think the mites caused the decline in the 90's and I think that general bee population declines are really based of changing landscape usage and urbal sprawl.  I don't think there is anything we can do about some of that, other than to continue researching causes to be sure we can understand and control parasites and the like.


Edited by mav1234, 19 June 2014 - 01:54 PM.


#109 332nd

332nd

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:14 PM

Pssh apparently not

So you have nothing else. K.

#110 ecu88

ecu88

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:49 PM

I didn't expect this much tension in here *turns and runs away

Play nice lol

I'm wary of GMO products but not fully against it. Corporations, if use GMO products, should label it. We hear all the time food labeling health facts such as nutrition listed and ingredients placed on the product for info then GMO labeling should not be a big deal. People make informed decisions for themselves through information, conventional or non, and this is no different.

Anyways, rawr rawr regulation blah

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

#111 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,907 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:04 AM

So you have nothing else. K.

 

I do, its just pointless trying to talk to you guys about this stuff.



#112 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,907 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:08 AM

You either get it or you don't.

And on that note, i'm out, because continuing this conversation is a waste of time for everyone involved.



#113 Big A

Big A

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,197 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted 20 June 2014 - 02:42 AM

Didn't read every post, but my quick two cents.

To actually compare cross breeding such as how corn was produce to GMO that by definition involves using biotechnology to alter, remove or add genes, is pretty terrible understanding of facts. For example, Native Americans taking the teosinte with biggest kernel and breeding it with other biggest kernel teosinte to eventually create corn is not the same as taking a gene out of a fish and putting it in a tomato to help male it more resistant to freeze damage.

Secondly, anyone that defends what Monsanto has been doing and their seed enforcement practices has to be completely ignorant!

Also, a big part of GMO is making the crops more resistant to herbicides and pesticides so they can basically spray more of them at one time and not hurt the crop. Of course now you have a crop that has been bathes in tons more pesticides and herbicides. The worst part is Mother Nature has evolved and become resistant making even higher amounts pesticides and herbicides used. In just the past decade, we went from using about 1 million pounds of pesticides a year, to now we are using 100 million pounds a year.

Edited by Big A, 20 June 2014 - 02:49 AM.


#114 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,737 posts

Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:47 AM

https://richarddawki...tics-chill-out/

 

I’m amazed how much objection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public. It smacks of the fear factor that exists at every new emergent science, where people don’t fully understand it or don’t fully know or embrace its consequences, and therefore reject it. What most people don’t know, but they should, is that practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food.

 

 

 

http://www.businessi...-in-gmos-2014-7

 

I'm amazed how much objection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public. It smacks of the fear factor that exists at every new emergent science, where people don't fully understand it or don't fully know or embrace its consequences, and therefore reject it. What most people don't know, but they should, is that practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food.

There are no wild seedless watermelons; there's no wild cows; there's no long-stem roses growing in the wild — although we don't eat roses. You list all the fruit, and all the vegetables, and ask yourself: Is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it's not as large, it's not as sweet, it's not as juicy, and it has way more seeds in it. 

We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals, that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It's called "artificial selection." That's how we genetically modify them. So now that we can do it in a lab, all of a sudden you're going to complain?

If you're the complainer type, go back and eat the apples that grow wild. You know something? They're this big, and they're tart. They're not sweet, like Red Delicious apples. We manufactured those. That's a genetic modification.

Do you realize silk cannot be produced in the wild? The silkworm, as we cultivate it, has no wild counterpart because it would die in the wild. So there's not even any silk anymore. So we are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs. I don't have a problem with that, cause we've been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So chill out.

 

 

Read more: http://www.businessi...7#ixzz39QXNV1wa



#115 heel31ok

heel31ok

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,989 posts
  • LocationEasley, SC

Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:32 AM

Oh and GMO's cause cancer too

it's a well known fact that lab rats cause cancer.



#116 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,558 posts

Posted 04 August 2014 - 11:01 AM



#117 Right Hand Arm Man

Right Hand Arm Man

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • LocationFlailing my way through Life

Posted 04 August 2014 - 11:10 AM

I guess monsanto and co will have to sue the US government as well

 

 

The U.S. government is creating a safe place for bees in national wildlife refuges by phasing out the use of genetically modified crops and an agricultural pesticide implicated in the mass die-off of pollinators.

 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System manages 150 million acres across the country. By January 2016, the agency will ban the use of neonicotinoids, widely used nerve poisons that agrowing number of scientific studies have shown are harmful to bees, birds, mammals, and fish. Neonicotinoids, also called neonics, can be sprayed on crops, but most often the seeds are coated with the pesticide so that the poison spreads throughout every part of the plant as it grows, including the pollen and nectar that pollinators such as bees and butterflies eat.

“We have determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy,” James Kurth, chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, wrote in a July 17 memo.

The move follows a regional wildlife chief’s decision on July 9 to ban neonics in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands by 2016.

The nationwide ban, however, goes further, as it also prohibits the use of genetically modified seeds to grow crops to feed wildlife.

http://news.yahoo.co...-193150944.html

 

 

In other words, gmo s are suspect for wildlife food but good enough for you and me.


Edited by Right Hand Arm Man, 04 August 2014 - 11:12 AM.


#118 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,737 posts

Posted 04 August 2014 - 11:17 AM

I guess monsanto and co will have to sue the US government as well

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-193150944.html

 

 

In other words, gmo s are suspect for wildlife food but good enough for you and me.

 

 

So are you saying that GMOs and pesticides are the same? Because that quote was mostly about pesticides. 

 

 

GMOs have not been linked directly to the bee die-off. But the dominance of GMO crops has led to the widespread use of pesticides such as neonicotinoids and industrial farming practices that biologists believe are harming other pollinators, such as the monarch butterfly.

 

 

That quote is from the same article. I may be ignorant on this but do GMO crops require the use of different pesticides as non GMO crops? I have a hard time buying it, I need some more information regarding that.  Seems like the author isn't being completely clear on purpose.  


Edited by Cat, 04 August 2014 - 11:21 AM.


#119 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,907 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 04 August 2014 - 11:50 AM

 

Mr. Tyson obviously isn't too educated on the subject.



#120 Big A

Big A

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,197 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted 04 August 2014 - 12:01 PM

The connection between GMo and pesticides and herbicides is that a large part of modification being done is incorporating insecticide into the seed so it becomes part of the plant including the parts we eat, or they are modifications to make the plant more resistant to herbicides and pesticides allowing the growers to spray much higher quantities of those chemicals. Problem is, Mother Nature is a bad @ss and is quickly evolving with herbicide resistant weeds and pesticitde resistant bugs, thus requiring an even higher amount of chemicals used. In just 10 years, we are using almost 100 times more chemicals than before with about the same results.

Here is an example:
Brazilian farmers are asking Monsanto and other producers of pest-resistant corn seeds to reimburse them for money spent on additional pesticides when the bugs killed the crops instead of dying themselves.

The so-called BT corn seeds are genetically modified to produce an insecticide that will kill the corn leafworm (also known as the southern grassworm). After the insect eats the corn, the toxin inside paralyzes the insect’s digestive system, forming a hole in the gut wall. This forces the bug to stop eating within a few hours, and subsequently starve to death, according to a Colorado State University fact sheet. The GMO seeds are produced by four major manufacturers: Dow Agrosciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Sygenta AG.


http://rt.com/usa/17...ers-gmo-refund/


The GMO issue is not just a single issue. One of the most controversial is the fight over GMO labeling where big companies are putting large amounts of money into lobbies trying to avoid having to label GMO food. The idea is the average consumer would probably choose the non GMO product often and cause large losses for these companies as has happened with trans fats which has been removed from many foods due to consumer demand.

Another issue is the increased use of chemicals and the harm it possibly already caused environment and what those chemical do to us long term.

Another big issue is the way Monsanto is running their seed program and their intimidation tactics, farmers using their seeds are not allowed to save seeds and they have an army of private investigators around country spying on farmers and going after small farms with very questionable tactics.

If you have Netflix, there is a great documentary that covers all the issues in detail, Inside Chipotle,


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com