Red Mosquito

Mine wrote:

Chloe wrote:I'm all for science and trying to find a way to sustain 7 billion people. My issue with GMOs is the chemicals used and how those chemicals will impact the environment and those eating said crops/chemicals.

Isn't this paradoxical? The point of any chemicals in agriculture is either increasing harvest or extending the shell life of the products and being economically viable at it. What are the GMO's advantages if you still need chemicals to get a decent harvest? There's a lot of instances of corporations pushing their products in agriculture regardless of the dangers involved and many are long term like ruining agricultural land or cancer for farmers that used certain pesticides. I think the notion that GMO's are needed is exaggerated which isn't uncommon practice in this field btw.

I'm currently at work and didn't really have time to give this much thought... but I will think on it a bit. The bold comment above makes GMOs more expensive for farmers (extra sprays, seeds you can't save, etc). More on this later.

Chloe wrote:

Mine wrote:

Chloe wrote:I'm all for science and trying to find a way to sustain 7 billion people. My issue with GMOs is the chemicals used and how those chemicals will impact the environment and those eating said crops/chemicals.

Isn't this paradoxical? The point of any chemicals in agriculture is either increasing harvest or extending the shell life of the products and being economically viable at it. What are the GMO's advantages if you still need chemicals to get a decent harvest? There's a lot of instances of corporations pushing their products in agriculture regardless of the dangers involved and many are long term like ruining agricultural land or cancer for farmers that used certain pesticides. I think the notion that GMO's are needed is exaggerated which isn't uncommon practice in this field btw.

I'm currently at work and didn't really have time to give this much thought... but I will think on it a bit. The bold comment above makes GMOs more expensive for farmers (extra sprays, seeds you can't save, etc). More on this later.

I haven't looked it up at all, but I was under the impression that one advantage to a GMO crop is that it's resistant to the chemicals that would be used on it. That allows the farmer to use as much spray as needed to make sure the crop comes out healthy and isn't impacted by pests, etc. It may make it more expensive for the farmer to use more pesticides, but the crop yield would be much higher.

philpritchard wrote:

Chloe wrote:

Mine wrote:

Chloe wrote:I'm all for science and trying to find a way to sustain 7 billion people. My issue with GMOs is the chemicals used and how those chemicals will impact the environment and those eating said crops/chemicals.

Isn't this paradoxical? The point of any chemicals in agriculture is either increasing harvest or extending the shell life of the products and being economically viable at it. What are the GMO's advantages if you still need chemicals to get a decent harvest? There's a lot of instances of corporations pushing their products in agriculture regardless of the dangers involved and many are long term like ruining agricultural land or cancer for farmers that used certain pesticides. I think the notion that GMO's are needed is exaggerated which isn't uncommon practice in this field btw.

I'm currently at work and didn't really have time to give this much thought... but I will think on it a bit. The bold comment above makes GMOs more expensive for farmers (extra sprays, seeds you can't save, etc). More on this later.

I haven't looked it up at all, but I was under the impression that one advantage to a GMO crop is that it's resistant to the chemicals that would be used on it. That allows the farmer to use as much spray as needed to make sure the crop comes out healthy and isn't impacted by pests, etc. It may make it more expensive for the farmer to use more pesticides, but the crop yield would be much higher.

It is resistant to chemicals such as pesticides/herbicides. Some require such sprays in order to germinate. There are farmers out there moving away from GMO seed because yields aren't higher and they can not save their seed each year due to patents.

malice wrote:

Man in Black wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

Chloe wrote:I'm all for science and trying to find a way to sustain 7 billion people. My issue with GMOs is the chemicals used and how those chemicals will impact the environment and those eating said crops/chemicals.

Exactly. It's just like the use of chemicals as artificial sweeteners. Companies started using them in foods/drinks before scientists really knew the long term effects. Now there are some that have been found to accelerate the growth of cancer, and this is just the beginning.

Are you referring to the saccharin studies from the 70's, or do you have something better?

my devil's advocate question for you is how quickly/recent are you looking for studies to be made and results produced that are valid?
there's a ton of pharmaceuticals that are being pushed onto the general populace for nothing more than lining the pockets of that industry, no? can relevant studies be made on the effects of these drugs when you're talking about long term?

(I'm not of any passionate opinion one way or the other on this stuff, really. I'm only wondering what kind of research you consider valid)

There are studies being done with rats - of course some people think these studies are bogus. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't Some of the studies I've seen (haven't read in depth of course) show tumor growth. A lot of factors could be causing said tumors, not necessarily the GMOs - unnatural diet, rats being locked in tiny cages their entire life, and of course being sedentary could all be contributing factors to said tumors. Since GMOs are relatively new, nothing goes back far enough to know for sure all GMOs are 100% safe.
I try to avoid known GMOs that are prevalent in the US (corn, soy, canola, etc) because of the science in those specific crops. Pests eat these plants and their digestive systems rupture, it's a built in defense mechanism within the plant. Safe to say there might potentially be a similar effect when consumed by a human/other animal, no?

Mine wrote:

Chloe wrote:I'm all for science and trying to find a way to sustain 7 billion people. My issue with GMOs is the chemicals used and how those chemicals will impact the environment and those eating said crops/chemicals.

Isn't this paradoxical? The point of any chemicals in agriculture is either increasing harvest or extending the shell life of the products and being economically viable at it. What are the GMO's advantages if you still need chemicals to get a decent harvest? There's a lot of instances of corporations pushing their products in agriculture regardless of the dangers involved and many are long term like ruining agricultural land or cancer for farmers that used certain pesticides. I think the notion that GMO's are needed is exaggerated which isn't uncommon practice in this field btw.

I may have misunderstood this post the first time (still @ work... Ben Stein and the Innate potato on my brain).

Chloe wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Chloe wrote:

Mine wrote:

Chloe wrote:I'm all for science and trying to find a way to sustain 7 billion people. My issue with GMOs is the chemicals used and how those chemicals will impact the environment and those eating said crops/chemicals.

Isn't this paradoxical? The point of any chemicals in agriculture is either increasing harvest or extending the shell life of the products and being economically viable at it. What are the GMO's advantages if you still need chemicals to get a decent harvest? There's a lot of instances of corporations pushing their products in agriculture regardless of the dangers involved and many are long term like ruining agricultural land or cancer for farmers that used certain pesticides. I think the notion that GMO's are needed is exaggerated which isn't uncommon practice in this field btw.

I'm currently at work and didn't really have time to give this much thought... but I will think on it a bit. The bold comment above makes GMOs more expensive for farmers (extra sprays, seeds you can't save, etc). More on this later.

I haven't looked it up at all, but I was under the impression that one advantage to a GMO crop is that it's resistant to the chemicals that would be used on it. That allows the farmer to use as much spray as needed to make sure the crop comes out healthy and isn't impacted by pests, etc. It may make it more expensive for the farmer to use more pesticides, but the crop yield would be much higher.

It is resistant to chemicals such as pesticides/herbicides. Some require such sprays in order to germinate. There are farmers out there moving away from GMO seed because yields aren't higher and they can not save their seed each year due to patents.

Herbicides are a sub category of pesticides. I have my doubts about that. It depends on each specific pesticide used i presume. Some pesticides are systemic which means they work by being absorbed by the plant. Even if they work only on the surface they're sprayed on they're still there.
GMO's could be pest resistant, many hybrids are created with this purpose.

Green Habit wrote:

He was put on the spot, and in general I like the answer, but fails to make distinctions amongst GMO products. GMO crops reliant on Neonicotinoids were probably not a good thing to breed into our food supply and the Europeans were right to ban most of them.

broken iris wrote:He was put on the spot, and in general I like the answer, but fails to make distinctions amongst GMO products. GMO crops reliant on Neonicotinoids were probably not a good thing to breed into our food supply and the Europeans were right to ban most of them.

Making distinctions amongst GMO products would actually be a decent step forward. Quite a few people still need to get past the whole "all GMOs are bad" phase.

Can't a guy log on to an unofficial Pearl Jam fan website's message board and read a thread about GMO's without it getting all political?

Geez.

Thats a gross argument. "Not as sweet, not as large, not as juicy!"

That doesn't sit well with me. So we have changed our opinion and story on what food is supposed to taste like, so now the way the food was meant to grow and taste is wrong?

I am largely ignorant of this topic, but I seem to remember stumbling upon information that stated the only studies being published are those funded by "GMO companies". Any comment on that?

Kaius wrote:I am largely ignorant of this topic

Same here. Can someone just tell me whether these are bad for me or not?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Kaius wrote:I am largely ignorant of this topic

Same here. Can someone just tell me whether these are bad for me or not?

They're not. Eat up.

NaiveAndTrue wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Kaius wrote:I am largely ignorant of this topic

Same here. Can someone just tell me whether these are bad for me or not?

They're not. Eat up.

The issue is that opponents want proof of safety, which is rather difficult. Lack of any evidence of harm or even mechanism for such is insufficient.

Although, I really shouldn't complain about fear of GMO's, seeing as how I rent a house vs. an apartment because my gf's parents found it unconscionable to own Midwest farmland if its used for roundup ready corn (as if Midwest farmland is used for anything else).

I think the two primary points are covered well in the videos I posted, by (respectively) Norman Borlaug and Neil deGrasse Tyson:
--You couldn't feed as many people as we do without genetic modification.
--Almost all food that we consume today has been genetically modified in some way.

Green Habit wrote:I think the two primary points are covered well in the videos I posted, by (respectively) Norman Borlaug and Neil deGrasse Tyson:
--You couldn't feed as many people as we do without genetic modification.
--Almost all food that we consume today has been genetically modified in some way.

Basically this.

While I don't believe companies should be able to create and release modified food to the general masses willy nilly without testing, they basically can't anyway. Despite what the anti-GMOers whine, everything IS extensively tested and not used until safe. So they should shut up and pass me the tomatoes. In February. Because science is fucking awesome.

Chipotle.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/04/ch ... teria.html

My problem with genetically modified food isn't so much the concept itself, but the secrecy and lack of information.

Michael Pollan grows some New Leaf Potatoes in his book The Botany of Desire. Those are potatoes that are modified so their flesh, leaves, and stalks contain pesticide. It's supposed to be safe for humans, but would any of you choose that potato over a potato NOT filled with pesticide? People should be able to find out if their food is modified and HOW it is modified.

Who gives a fuck if someone turned on a gene in a tomato that makes it red and tasteless for the grocery store, or one that makes corn more drought tolerant? But if it's got pesticide? What if we boost the sugar content in carrots? Then people are trying to lose weight, they eat a shit ton of carrots, cuz "hey, these carrots taste great and they're totally vegetables!" Then they gain weight. Fuck!

People have a right to information about the source of their food.