[Billup]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Maybe what I said was misinterpreted a little bit.

First off, I don't want to offend anyone. I didn't mean if you don't eat organic food you are trying to destroy your body or the planet, I know that is not anyones intentions. This just isn't sustainable we've already ruined the majority of our farmland and this is continuing. We don't need GMO's to increase food supply, we don't need to use pesticides or herbicides on our food. Organic farmers have done it for thousands of years and are still doing it today. This new technology has actually decreased crop production and the levels of pesticides and herbicides being used are increasing due to resistance from pests and weeds.

Also GMO's are fairly new they've only been around for about a decade. Those 6 people were not eating GMO's all their life like what is expected of todays children.

No offense taken, just thought that was a little brash and some might take it as a Whole Foods clinger kind of comment (not that you are one by any means).

I understand where you are coming from, agriculture should be better protected for the now and future as a whole, and unfortunately as a population, there really is only so much we can do, like buy organic and not "feed" into general crops using GMOs.

With your last comment, do you expect someone who has grown up in the age of GMO implementation has no chance of reaching the same extended life that someone who is at 110+ currently? Do you feel that the only way this will continue to be achieved is if we consume natural goods? Just curious, like to hear the other side of the spectrum.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Billup

With your last comment, do you expect someone who has grown up in the age of GMO implementation has no chance of reaching the same extended life that someone who is at 110+ currently? Do you feel that the only way this will continue to be achieved is if we consume natural goods? Just curious, like to hear the other side of the spectrum.

Yes that is exactly what I believe. If you look at some of the studies done on these crops they can cause a variety of health problems. Independent studies show rats fed gmo foods did not live as long as rats fed an organic diet, this was true even for gm crops that weren't sprayed with pesticides or herbicides. Don't feed your kids GMO's it just isn't worth the risk.

Glyphosate the main ingredient found in most pesticides is also very harmful for obvious reasons. Glyphosate kills the probiotics in your gut, which can lead to digestion problems. These toxins will form free radicals in the body, eventually leading to cancer. Look at the effects of agent orange (created by Monsanto) in the Vietnam war, this is one of the herbicides being used today in your food. This stuff isn't just in your produce either almost all processed food has genetically modified ingredients.

Bee populations have already declined significantly since we started using genetic modification.

[i dunno]

I just want to put it out there that that the studies that claim GMOs are harmful were pretty bogus. The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe to eat, but the long term health effects are still up in the air. It's like the American general public is part of an extended clinical trial.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...olia-20131.pdf

That said, I feel this isn't mainly about the safety of GMOs. I believe that it's a very useful technology if used responsibly. I'm sure I don't need to explain how Monsanto isn't the best ambassador for GMOs. Don't hate the technology. Hate the corporations and policy. People can definitely make a change if they vote with their dollars.

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Yes that is exactly what I believe. If you look at some of the studies done on these crops they can cause a variety of health problems. Independent studies show rats fed gmo foods did not live as long as rats fed an organic diet, this was true even for gm crops that weren't sprayed with pesticides or herbicides. Don't feed your kids GMO's it just isn't worth the risk.

Glyphosate the main ingredient found in most pesticides is also very harmful for obvious reasons. Glyphosate kills the probiotics in your gut, which can lead to digestion problems. These toxins will form free radicals in the body, eventually leading to cancer. Look at the effects of agent orange (created by Monsanto) in the Vietnam war, this is one of the herbicides being used today in your food. This stuff isn't just in your produce either almost all processed food has genetically modified ingredients.

Bee populations have already declined significantly since we started using genetic modification.

Sorry but your independent rat study was a bit flawed.

Rat GM study
Just seeing that has me questioning the rest of the so called data you mentioned.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by i dunno

I just want to put it out there that that the studies that claim GMOs are harmful were pretty bogus. The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe to eat, but the long term health effects are still up in the air. It's like the American general public is part of an extended clinical study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...y-sustainable/

That said, I feel this isn't mainly about the safety of GMOs. I believe that it's a very useful technology if used responsibly. I'm sure I don't need to explain how Monsanto isn't the best ambassador for GMOs. Don't hate the technology. Hate the corporations and policy.

You say the studies that show they are harmful are bogus, but what other studies are there? The FDA and Monsanto haven't done any studies testing the safety of these foods and all of the independent studies show the same results. We are human beings not lab rats, and we don't need to play god with our food.

Also what purpose do GMO's have other than pesticide or herbicide resistance. GMO's have nothing to offer to the consumer that can't be achieved through organic farming. Why take the risk for no gain.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

This type of attitude is sad. It shows you do not care about your body or our planet. I don't want to sound mean, but its true. How could poison in your food be acceptable. The U.S. is one of the most ignorant countries in the world because our citizens are too lazy to make a change. GMO's are depleting our farmland and contaminating our seeds, and if we don't do something before its too late we could end life on this planet. We need to stand up to our corrupt government and let them know this isn't acceptable.

BTW how am I being overcharged for food? I actually spend about the same if not less on real food. Some organic food may be a little more expensive, but compared to the crap people eat the nutritional content is higher. You are the one that is buying falsely advertised "food". Besides, money is just a piece of paper you shouldn't allow it to affect your health negatively.

There's a lot going on here that I'm mostly going to stay out of for lack of time but I wanted to point out the sentence here.

You should be aware that GMO is what allows us to feed large portions of the planet, including some who are facing a very different realization than whole foods vs GMO such as GMO vs starvation.

To these people, money isn't just a piece of paper (and in reality it isn't). Money is the difference between life and death. We have the luxury at looking at money so frivolously as well as the choice of which food to eat.

Others can attest to whether the rest of your argument is valid but it's in your best interest to be aware of how what you say will affect how you're perceived.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Sorry but your independent rat study was a bit flawed.

Rat GM study
Just seeing that has me questioning the rest of the so called data you mentioned.

You should also question the validity of that article.

Its possible they are safe its also just as possible they are not safe to eat. If you want to play lab rat feel free. It wouldn't be too hard to do a small scale experiment on this.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Devious21

There's a lot going on here that I'm mostly going to stay out of for lack of time but I wanted to point out the sentence here.

You should be aware that GMO is what allows us to feed large portions of the planet, including some who are facing a very different realization than whole foods vs GMO such as GMO vs starvation.

To these people, money isn't just a piece of paper (and in reality it isn't). Money is the difference between life and death. We have the luxury at looking at money so frivolously as well as the choice of which food to eat.

Others can attest to whether the rest of your argument is valid but it's in your best interest to be aware of how what you say will affect how you're perceived.

GMO's have not increased food production at all, in fact so far they have done the opposite. Also we already produce enough food to feed the world, those that are starving simply cant afford it. That is a problem with the distribution of wealth, but the entire monetary system is flawed in my opinion so I'm not going into that right now.

[phrozen06]

I've grown accustomed to Frankenfoods.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

You say the studies that show they are harmful are bogus, but what other studies are there? The FDA and Monsanto haven't done any studies testing the safety of these foods and all of the independent studies show the same results. We are human beings not lab rats, and we don't need to play god with our food.

Also what purpose do GMO's have other than pesticide or herbicide resistance. GMO's have nothing to offer to the consumer that can't be achieved through organic farming. Why take the risk for no gain.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...olia-20131.pdf

Umm you can check with the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science. The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe to eat, but there are still no long term studies since GMOs as food is still a relatively recent phenomenon.

GMOs are very useful as research tools. Something as simple as GFP has greatly enhanced our understanding of biology. We've learned a lot and can still learn more by manipulating genetics. Should we use this technology for our food? That's when it gets more complicated.

I totally agree that we shouldn't be lab rats, and it's hard to opt out with our current food policy. But that's why I try to buy organic when I can, vote for food labels, and boycott corn and soybeans. Just be mindful of the facts first.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by i dunno

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...olia-20131.pdf

Umm you can check with the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science. The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe to eat, but there are still no long term studies since GMO as food is still a relatively recent phenomenon.

GMOs are very useful as research tools. Something as simple as GFP has greatly enhanced our understanding of biology. We've learned a lot and can still learn more by manipulating genetics. Should we use this technology for our food? That's when it gets more complicated.

I totally agree that we shouldn't be lab rats, and it's hard to opt out with our current food policy. But that's why I try to buy organic when I can, vote for food labels, and boycott corn and soybeans.

This I agree with. We could learn from GMO's, but they shouldn't be in our food until we can 100% say they are safe. We need more testing and research put into these types of things, but what if we don't get a chance to test them until its too late to go back. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is also something we should be concerned about.

And how can these organizations say they are safe if there are no long term studies?

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

GMO's have not increased food production at all, in fact so far they have done the opposite.

If you're this involved in GMO, then I'm sure you know about Norman Borlaug. Do you just not recognize his contribution for some reason?

Between 1964 and 2001, wheat production in India rose from 12 to 75 million tons, while wheat production in Pakistan increased from 4.5 to 22 million tons. India awarded Borlaug the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honor. The Green Revolution in food production made possible by Dr. Borlaug's work has touched the lives of farmers in other parts of Asia, as well as in Latin America and even many developed countries.

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Also we already produce enough food to feed the world, those that are starving simply cant afford it.

Not true. There are certain parts of the world that were unable to produce enough food to feed their people because there simply isn't enough viable land to do so. Borlaug was able to solve this problem in Mexico, India and Pakistan. It was an engineering problem. One that was solved by science and GMOs.

He increased the output of wheat until the stalks snapped from the added weight. He then crossed those with genes from dwarf wheat to give his GMO wheat, thicker stalks, able to sustain the extra weight of the increased output. As a result, those countries increased their food output many times over, avoiding famine.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Devious21

If you're this involved in GMO, then I'm sure you know about Norman Borlaug. Do you just not recognize his contribution for some reason?

Between 1964 and 2001, wheat production in India rose from 12 to 75 million tons, while wheat production in Pakistan increased from 4.5 to 22 million tons. India awarded Borlaug the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honor. The Green Revolution in food production made possible by Dr. Borlaug's work has touched the lives of farmers in other parts of Asia, as well as in Latin America and even many developed countries.



Not true. There are certain parts of the world that were unable to produce enough food to feed their people because there simply isn't enough viable land to do so. Borlaug was able to solve this problem in Mexico, India and Pakistan. It was an engineering problem. One that was solved by science and GMOs.

He increased the output of wheat until the stalks snapped from the added weight. He then crossed those with genes from dwarf wheat to give his GMO wheat, thicker stalks, able to sustain the extra weight of the increased output. As a result, those countries increased their food output many times over, avoiding famine.

That is very intersecting thanks for the info, I haven't heard of him before. I still think GMO's need more research. Someone needs to do a long term health study on a small group of humans. I agree and have always thought genetic engineering could be useful in the future, I just don't think we are ready for it yet. We need to know if it's safe first. Also I think modern GMO's are a little different than what Bourlag did. He used genetic engineering to feed the poor, today we are using genetic engineering so we can add toxins to our food.

And we do already produce enough food to feed the world. Maybe there are some countries that don't produce enough but combined we do. A large amount of food is wasted because people don't finish eating it or its not sold so its thrown out etc.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

And we do already produce enough food to feed the world. Maybe there are some countries that don't produce enough but combined we do. A large amount of food is wasted because people don't finish eating it or its not sold so its thrown out etc.

And we do so because the use of GE crops.


Here's Bullshit! on Norman Borlaug

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Devious21

And we do so because the use of GE crops.


Here's Bullshit! on Norman Borlaug

I don't entirely agree with that, we can feed the world without relying on genetic modification.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

I don't entirely agree with that, we can feed the world without relying on genetic modification.

Not according to Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug, an authority on the subject, who dedicated his life to the cause of feeding the planet.

Right now rely on genetic modification to feed the planet. You can speculate that we could without it but according to experts in the field, we cannot.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Devious21

Not according to Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug, an authority on the subject, who dedicated his life to the cause of feeding the planet.

Right now rely on genetic modification to feed the planet. You can speculate that we could without it but according to experts in the field, we cannot.

Right now we produce enough food to feed 12 billion people.

Also I found this article about Norman Bourlag's wheat. It doesn't mention him specifically but it's interesting.

http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/10/modern-wheat-is-perfect-chronic-poison.html?m=1

[nullrouted]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Good point I never even thought of that. On a related note I started using ethanol free gas, because most of the corn used to make ethanol is genetically modified. I know its not going to kill my car, but I don't want to help support companies that produce GMO's.

Where do you find that? I'd love to find a spot in Florida that sells it, I'd buy it by the barrel.

[Z K]

Modified crops that are durable and can survive in different conditions is what we need to fight world hunger. Using GMOs can reduce the usage of pesticides and other harmful chemicals and promote natural growth methods.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Z K

Modified crops that are durable and can survive in different conditions is what we need to fight world hunger. Using GMOs can reduce the usage of pesticides and other harmful chemicals and promote natural growth methods.

GMO's have increased chemical and pesticide usage. Roundup, agent orange, bt toxins in corn are all the creations of Monsanto. Plants have already evolved to survive on our planet we don't need to modify them. How is genetic engineering promoting natural growth methods when it's the exact opposite. We need more organic farmers its the only way we can sustainably feed the world.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by nullrouted

Where do you find that? I'd love to find a spot in Florida that sells it, I'd buy it by the barrel.

There's only 1 gas station in town that sells it here, but it's worth the drive.

http://pure-gas.org/

[carve]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

GMO's have increased chemical and pesticide usage. Roundup, agent orange, bt toxins in corn are all the creations of Monsanto. Plants have already evolved to survive on our planet we don't need to modify them. How is genetic engineering promoting natural growth methods when it's the exact opposite. We need more organic farmers its the only way we can sustainably feed the world.

Plants have been modified since the dawn of agriculture. Direct gene manipulation is just the latest way to do this. It's using a scalpel for what we used to use a hammer for. The way your crop is modified is not inherently good or bad; the end results are. This is analogous to how a book written on a computer isn't inherently better or worse than one written by hand; it's just a lot easier to do on a computer.

GMO crops are commonly developed to resist pests with less need for pesticides. They're developed to be RoundUp resistant so we can now use roundup herbicide instead of the far more toxic herbicides we had to use in the past. They can also be developed to be more drought resistant, sometime more nutritious, to have DRAMATICALLY more edible yield per acre, and to be adaptable to different soils with less need for chemical fertilizers. Their biggest threat to the environment is that far fewer people starve to death, contributing to population growth. No peer-reviewed study has shown negative health consequences. Monsanto has only ever sued farmers who violate their contracts, and then donates the proceeds to charity.

I'd say an overall win, eh?