Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why? (page 4)

cofty

That paper has been widely criticised and was withdrawn.

For several years independent researchers at various US universities have had unfettered access to GMO seed stock. The studies I referenced in an earlier comment were conducted by researchers at the Universities of Nebraska and Georgia, both of which state that, based on their intensive, independent research there are no known concerns with GMO food.

The Internet is full of nonsense; GMOs and vaccines are both targeted by a lot of people who don't have bona fides, such as the former yoga instructor who is leading the charge against GMOs in the US. A University of Ga. researcher has stated that a few very badly conducted studies exist that state GMOs cause problems, but there are several thousand well researched studies showing no problems.

That Africa would ban GMOs is hardly surprising; they killed a number of medical professionals giving vaccines a few months ago based on their superstitions. And countries that do not have their own GMOs have a vested interest in banning GMOs, such as to protect their own seed stock sales.

The best research on this topic finds no concerns with GMOs. But the hysteria surrounding it has a life of its own, just like the anti-vaxxers.

Barrold Bonds

Oh dear god who the hell linked natural news as proof of anything.

20years_to_get_free

DJS,

I never stated they were safe or unsafe. Nor did I hint at any leaning one way or the other. Additionally, research is my entire career, so I am quite capable of making educated decisions about what I put in my body, whether it be foods or medications, or other chemicals. My point was simply that everyone should have a right to know what their food is, and where it comes from. Again, this should not be remotely controversial to anyone. I am not sure why that prompted such a visceral response from you.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

I'll try to keep my POV brief. I grew up in an area where "RoundUp ready" soybeans, and Bt-corn.

The good:

Bt-corn contains a protein that is toxic to insects. Before Bt, if you turned on an outside light out in the country during summertime, swarms of corn borer moths would appear. Using insecticides was expensive and ineffective. After Bt, the same area sees very few of the moths, no insecticide chemicals required. Before anyone panics that this will kill humans, the way it was explained to me, the protein binds in their tiny insect stomachs causing them to starve. I've eaten A LOT of Bt-corn for many years now and I certainly haven't starved.
"RoundUp ready" soybeans have a gene which allows the plants to be sprayed with RoundUp and not be killed. RoundUp is effective at killing weeds. Before this GMO, farmers would always be experimenting with a variety of herbicides to get the weeds and save the beens. After GMO, RoundUp can be used without killing the crop. While I wouldn't call RoundUp "healthy", I believe I've been around many more toxic herbicides on the farm.

The bad:

Ah, evolution! Weeds are now beginning to appear that are resistant to RoundUp. So, "RoundUp ready" soybeans will lose their value. For Bt-corn, they also grow non-Bt-corn in an effort to prevent strains of Bt tolerant insects from breeding/evolving. So far, Bt-corn is very effective at keeping borer populations way down.
Plants have become corporate property. Throughout history, farmers would keep some of their seeds from last years harvest to plant the next year. That became less common when hybridization appeared around the "Green Revolution". Purchased seeds were specially developed to produce better than farmers would get from their own heirloom seeds. Lots and lots of seed companies grew up and improved yields. Still, many farmers would keep soybeans from good yielding areas of the farm to replant next year. But when GMO came along, they were patented. If a farmer bought any GMO seed, he better not replant anything harvested from it, or he'll get sued. That's patent infringement. So rather than corn really being a commodity, you can't just buy some farmer's corn and go plant it in your field. If it's GMO, it's property of a corporation regardless of who buys it. So when companies say "GMO corn is the same as non-GMO corn", that isn't a legal statement. Because of patents, they are NOT the same.
Similarly, but worthy of it's own paragraph, with the rise of GMOs the selection of seed companies has narrowed down to very few that have the patents or licenses to use the patented genes or specialize in non-GMO. Consequently, those seeds have become much more expensive. While it's considered to be worth the price, I'm not so sure when I hear the yield stats.

Okay, I really tried to keep it brief.

To summarize, I don't have many concerns about GMO safety in the food supply, but I understand those who are concerned and would prefer caution. I'm more concerned about the legal issues and the fact that here in the US in corn country, it's now hard to find good non-GMO seed. As far as labeling in the USA, you might as well conclude that a product contains GMO corn unless otherwise labeled as non-GMO.

Organic is great. I'd encourage anyone to choose that... particularly because I have non-JW relatives in the business. But honestly, the world's population is too large to suggest that everything should be switched to non-GMO and organic. People want cheap food, and organic isn't cheap. When this subject has come up in my conversations with people that don't have any kind of farming background and they start ragging on farmers for using chemicals, etc., I tell them, "So, raise your own food!" Then they look at me with shock and horror. Even still, much of what I eat was harvested by my own hand.

Village Idiot

OneEyedJoe,

"It depends on how they're modified."

Indeed it does depend on how they're modified. Many GMO products are designed to be sterile in order to keep the farmer buying their seeds. That I don't support since it could have major repercussions if there is a loss of crops where these sterile seeds are being grown.

The peanut gene argument is more of a hypothetical case about the possibility that these genetic alterations will be made by corporations that simply won't care about any negative consequences of their products.

The bottom line is that GMOs are produced by corporations that do not have the best interests of the consumer in mind. That is bound to create problems.

cappytan

Billy: that was a very balanced viewpoint and reply. Thanks!

Village Idiot

Billy the Ex-Bethelite,

I don't have any farming background but (?)...

"People want cheap food, and organic isn't cheap."

That's mostly because organic foods are not mass produced at the same level as non-organic and therefore you don't have the savings that all mass produced products have.

"When this subject has come up in my conversations with people that don't have any kind of farming background and they start ragging on farmers for using chemicals, etc...."

There are natural alternatives to chemical pesticides such as lady bugs and certain bacteria. I had lady bugs in my garden and they seemed to have done well.

cappytan

lady bugs for a farm trying to make a profit?

That's like the JFK magic bullet.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

VI: There are natural alternatives to chemical pesticides such as lady bugs and certain bacteria.

There are some natural alternatives for only some problems. And just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it's good for you. Aflatoxin naturally occurs in organic fertilizer, is toxic, and goes through the food chain.

And beware that one solution doesn't create a new problem. The native lady bugs that were around when I was a kid were useful in eating aphids, however the ladybugs didn't populate fast enough or find the aphid infestations. Asian ladybugs were introduced to America because they were better at getting the aphids. Unfortunately, in our farm area they are now an invasive pest. They love to come indoors and they stink like something awful. If you have the native ladybugs that don't stink, good for you. I haven't seen one in the wild in years.

That's mostly because organic foods are not mass produced at the same level as non-organic

Perhaps a "mass produced" solution would be for everyone in the city to urinate and defecate in buckets along with collecting their compost, then drive it out to the farms. Frankly, it still wouldn't be enough organic fertilizer. My relatives wouldn't be able to organic farm if they weren't collecting the natural residue from the surrounding non-organic farms.

...but I still don't think these are a sign of the Last Days!

But I should clarify, I think we need more alternatives regardless of whether they are labeled "natural" or not. Although we have a better and more diverse diet than our ancestors, I think we rely on too few crops as primary staples. Particularly when native African crops, for example, are ignored in favor of European/American/Asian crops.

Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

OneEyedJoe,

Share this