Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
01-09-14 11:21 AM - Post#165501
I thought this was an interesting read:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/01/07/260184901/gm os-and-the-dilemma-of-bia s
From the article:
For those with a "green" disposition, the reaction to GMOs tends to one of opposition: GMOs are not safe and should be banned. But what happens if a careful analysis of the current state of the science points in the opposite direction? I have the green inclination. But I've also spent a life dedicated to that one fundamental principle of science: "Thou shalt change thy mind based on evidence."
|
csquare
enthusiast
Posts: 627
Loc: Allen
Reg: 01-16-08
|
01-11-14 01:46 PM - Post#165541
In response to Joe Schirmer
One worry I have is that the kinds of harm we are being assured should not be a concern are not the only kinds of harm there are. If you don't check for the right things, you will not find problems until they are well in train.I am more concerned about species loss than personal health effects. Go read some of the articles posted by Monarch Watch about changes to the Midwest farm systems and their effects on insect populations--specifically Monarch Butterflies. Where there used to be messy fencerows, providing habitat for multitudes of small animal species, there are now large, contiguous fields. Some states have experienced as much as a 90% decline in milkweed populations (sole food sourch for Monarchs) in the past ten years. The physical layout changes are attributed, in part, to the spray equipment used on Round-up Ready plants, and in part to ethanol subsidies.
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
01-13-14 10:46 AM - Post#165555
In response to Joe Schirmer
I can understand the doubt on both sides of this issue, however in our country's state, you simply can no longer trust the science. Our FDA, USDA and all other agencies originally intended to protect the public have been given over to industry control. Every office of influence has been a revolving door between big Ag and Pharma and government. Have you ever seen how Rumsfeld got Aspertain in the American market? Have you watched how many US Senators land gravy jobs in these industries after pushing the legislation industry literally writes through. When 60 countries depending on truly independent science can find grave discrepancies in the US science, I'm prone to listen.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
01-13-14 03:29 PM - Post#165563
In response to PartyOfEight
still, I prefer to follow the science rather than the conspiracy theories.
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
01-13-14 05:52 PM - Post#165564
In response to Joe Schirmer
I guess that leads me to ask WHO's science, Industry sponsored or independent?
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
01-14-14 11:05 AM - Post#165569
In response to PartyOfEight
Science is science, as long as methodologies and data are made available for study and analysis then it shouldn't matter who is paying for it. Ad Hominem arguments, undocumented rumors, and gut feelings are not science.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 5636
Loc: Allen Resident for 26 yea...
Reg: 05-30-08
|
01-24-14 11:38 PM - Post#165818
In response to Joe Schirmer
GMO Corn causes cancer in rats.
GMO, is a genetically modified organism.
Its being promoted by at least one major corporation who is trying to hold patents on all of the organisms it genetically modifies. They have the money to say its good or bad, and to block GMO labeling, and to block government funding to research the long term effects of GMO. And only the US Government can spend money on research with no hopes of making a profit or a return on investment.
What Monsanto is doing is forever, note the word forever, modifying the genetic makeup of living organisms that we eat. With NO studies on long term effects to people or the environment. These modifications are not like the old days were we are breeding Plant A to Plant B to get Plant C, something that might happen in nature.
You can't breed a Strawberry with a Flounder, nor can you breed a Corn Plant to a bacteria that produces poison to the corn borer worm. But we now have Strawberries with Flounder genes and Corn Plants that genetically produces a toxin that kills certain worms or allows the plant to be soaked in herbicide, which makes it way to your dinner table.
That door to creating GMO food is now open and the requirements to enter that door and create your own GMO are just that you have the ability to make GMO. There is no licensing or checks of any kind, in fact Monsanto has successfully kept the USDA out. When people only request that GMO food is labeled as such Monsanto spent millions of dollars to block it in court.
There is a type of medication that causes 1 out of every 1000 people who take it to breakout into a life threatening rash like a 3rd degree burn. It took years of research after the effect was found to figure out it was that one gene in 1 out of 1000 people that was causing the life threatening rash.
The toxin in GMO corn might be causing 50% of our current young diabetics to get type II diabetes, but no one is studying that. And if we find that to be the case in 2030 what then. Its not like you can just pull a drug of the shelf. This GMO food in infecting non-GMO food with its genes through natural pollination.
What's worse is its already proven that GMO corn can cause cancer in rats and 26 countries have banned GMO corn. But not the US.
I just want to see labels, so I can have the choice to eat the same corn that the nature would eat or if I'm eating a lab experiment that might give me cancer.
You can ignore the findings if you want, but I'll eat the old fashion corn if you don't mind.
http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/gm-corn-lin ked-to...
| No matter how big and tough you think you are, when a toddler hands you their ringing toy phone... you answer it. |
Edited by carygold on 01-24-14 11:41 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
01-27-14 12:31 PM - Post#165859
In response to carygold
Glossing over the majority of what you said, since you didn't provide any supporting references (i.e. it was your opinion, which you are entitled to have, but is not persuasive to me), I'll cut to the one link you did supply.
Your link was to a "nutritional consultants" web site which referred to a single study. But, unfortunately, this study has been called into question:
http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-s tudy-faces-growing-scruti ny-1.11566
If the authors are able to address these concerns, or their results can be reproduced by another independent scientific study, then we can talk about the ill health effects of these three particular strains of GMO corn (NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863).
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
02-21-14 02:47 PM - Post#166318
In response to Joe Schirmer
Here's an article about a scientist who proved the "corporate science" wrong and is now being targeted for it.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_t h...
On a side note, GMO's are adding to the DNA of plants, genes that in nature would NEVER cross species. I believe nature has done a very good job of regulating itself. There has to be good reason the DNA of a fish, moth of other creature would not naturally cross species into plants. We're producing proteins the human body has never experienced before and some studies are showing GMO's causing DNA frame shifting which can produce cancers, tumors and a long list of other things. One other item to note, since the onset of GMO crops that resist the effects of roundup, there has been a huge increase in the use of these products which are also proven to cause cancer.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
02-21-14 02:50 PM - Post#166319
In response to Joe Schirmer
Glossing over the majority of what you said, since you didn't provide any supporting references (i.e. it was your opinion, which you are entitled to have, but is not persuasive to me), I'll cut to the one link you did supply.
Your link was to a "nutritional consultants" web site which referred to a single study. But, unfortunately, this study has been called into question:
http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-s tudy-faces-growing-scruti ny-1.11566
If the authors are able to address these concerns, or their results can be reproduced by another independent scientific study, then we can talk about the ill health effects of these three particular strains of GMO corn (NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863).
Joe, how is it that every report offered up as evidence can quickly be minimized by you due to the fact some corporation has questioned it, yet when corporate, industry science is called into question by university scientists, you don't bat an eye?
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
RRRquilter
enthusiast
Posts: 1471
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-02-05
|
02-21-14 03:16 PM - Post#166320
In response to PartyOfEight
I am currently reading "Full Body Burden" by Kristen Iverson and she parallels her story with that of Rocky Flats nuclear facility up in Colorado. After many years and secrets kept, Rocky Flats and the plutonium processed there were to everyone's detriment. I think that in the future we will be in the same situation with our food supply. The economy of cheaper food will not be worth the price we all will have to pay for eating said food. Unfortunately, it may be too late.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-21-14 05:36 PM - Post#166323
In response to PartyOfEight
Joe, how is it that every report offered up as evidence can quickly be minimized by you due to the fact some corporation has questioned it, yet when corporate, industry science is called into question by university scientists, you don't bat an eye?
I'm confused. Which organization do you consider "some corporation", NPR or Nature? I'm more than willing to follow the science --- therefore I'm curious what "university scientists" have found that you are assuming that I'm not "batting an eye" at?
On a side note, I find it interesting that you are attacking science that you don't personally agree with by trying to give it a pejorative label "industry science". When I was in grad school Nature (an international journal of science), and was considered a great reference source by "university scientists" while "Democracy Now" or "Food Matters" were not.
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
02-25-14 04:01 PM - Post#166375
In response to Joe Schirmer
Here's another peer reviewed study that points to herbicides used on GMO crops as a link to Celiac disease and gluten intolerance. GM Watch did not conduct this study, they've simply shared it.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014...
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glyci ne) is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. It was discovered to be a herbicide by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970.[3] Monsanto brought it to market in the 1970s under the trade name "Roundup", and Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000.
Glyphosate was quickly adopted by farmers, even more so when Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops. In 2007 glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the United States agricultural sector, with 180 to 185 million pounds (82,000 to 84,000 tonnes) applied, and the second most used in home and garden market where users applied 5 to 8 million pounds (2,300 to 3,600 tonnes); additionally industry, commerce and government applied 13 to 15 million pounds (5,900 to 6,800 tonnes).[4] With its heavy use in agriculture, weed resistance to glyphosate is a growing problem. While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup have been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and are widely used, concerns about their effects on humans and the environment persist.[5]
Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated to growing points. Because of this mode of action, it is only effective on actively growing plants; it is not effective as a pre-emergence herbicide.
Some crops have been genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate (i.e., "Roundup Ready", also created by Monsanto Company). Such crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a post-emergence herbicide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds, but the development of similar resistance in some weed species is emerging as a costly problem. Soy was the first "Roundup Ready" crop.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-26-14 01:02 PM - Post#166403
In response to PartyOfEight
Yes, there may be some problems with Glyphosates, and there definitely will be problems if the Glyphosates are misused (i.e. now allowing the product to naturally break down in the soil). But this is a problem with possible misuse of a herbicide not a problem with a GM crop itself. Glyphosates are also used along side non-GM crops, although not as much or often as it would be used on Glyphosate resistant (GM) crops.
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
02-28-14 02:12 PM - Post#166507
In response to Joe Schirmer
Roundup chemicals found in 75% of rain and air samples.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-weedkill e...
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-28-14 02:33 PM - Post#166508
In response to PartyOfEight
Interesting, but not related to GMOs. Or are you attempting to hijack this topic? 
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
03-03-14 04:40 PM - Post#166589
In response to Joe Schirmer
Here's a Q&A from 2008 with Norman Borlaug, who has probably done more than any other human to fight world hunger and was the winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, where he staunchly defends GM crops:
Q: How is food science improving the production of food?
A: The research projects are continuing, and improvements are being made. Genetically modified organisms are a big step in that direction, but there's a lot of confusion in that. Some people fear genetic modification, which is not very sound, because we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for a long time. Long before we called it science, people were selecting the best breeds.
Q: Has a fear of genetically modified food exacerbated the world food supply problem?
A: I think so. A good example is the Bt gene, which can be incorporated into cotton to reduce the number of applications of insecticides greatly. In corn, that same gene controls certain insects and cuts down the amount of insecticide needed. But people say, 'OK, if that's incorporated, it's not permitting insects to multiply, so it must be deleterious for humans, too.' But this isn't necessarily so. A large percentage of U.S. corn has the Bt gene in it to control certain pests, and it's been so for more than a decade. There's no good evidence it's done any harm. This technology has brought major economic and environmental benefits.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
03-03-14 04:54 PM - Post#166590
In response to Joe Schirmer
Here is an example of how GMOs can be beneficial :
Monsanto Pushes Golden Rice
P.S. Monsanto is giving away free licenses to farmers in third world countries of this crop.
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
03-07-14 12:03 PM - Post#166699
In response to Joe Schirmer
The one and only reason Monsanto created Roundup ready crops is to bolster sales of their herbicide after their patent ran out. Today, we're exposed to many times more levels of this product in nearly everything we consume. I'm not afraid of science, however I do question science that exposes humans to toxins simply for a profit motive.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
03-09-14 05:18 PM - Post#166722
In response to PartyOfEight
Once again, that has nothing to do with the relative safety of GMO crops. If you want to discuss the relative safety of glyphosates please start your own topic and stop hijacking this one.
|
