Coversations about GMOs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2013, 12:57 PM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 12:45 PM)kim Wrote:  
Quote:If it is labeled USDA organic then it follows certain regulations and criteria.
Organic does not mean GMO-free. It is labeled organic by how it is grown, and not by the seed itself.
Those are accurate statements. Thumbsup
(I stepped out for coffee while writing this so... sorry if someone's already addressed the following.)

I understand about fear of GMOs but probably from a different view.
Realize, the following are broad hypotheticals for the purpose of illustration.

The common yellow corn we grow today is genetically not the corn grown 60 years ago - or even 20 years ago. It has been genetically altered to be higher in sugar and it now lacks the nutritive quality to do much more than fatten whatever creature that eats it. Yay for the staving.

Most GMO crops are developed to contain toxins to resist certain known pests but they are also developed for vigor and high yield - for example, 20 rows on the cob as opposed to 16 rows.

If a GMO corn becomes mixed into the seeds of another more nutritious native corn or simply fertilizes a native crop to develop a hybrid, it can quickly out produce the more nutritious native variety. This hybrid variety may or may not contain GMO pest resistant toxins and it also may or may not contain nutritious value of the native crop.

The political issue comes in when a giant corporation sues a single farmer to death because they find the patented pest resistant toxin in the genetic make up of the farmer's native corn. (Fuck you very much, Monsanto)

Control freaks aside... something even more troubling needles my will to survive. When this homogenized corn becomes the only variety in existence, that might sit very precariously on the cusp of evolution. I am a human being and as such, do not possess the audacity to think I can control the future.

If a some new bacteria or pest or some new sort of plague comes along and completely wipes out the only corn variety left... ? What happened to letting evolution take it's course? What happened to not putting all the eggs into one basket? I know everyone isn't a farmer or wasn't a Scout but.... what happened to be prepared?

I can not control the future, but I can control what I do right now. A diverse food supply is wise and a non GMO crop is a particular commitment to such diversity.

You realize the corn from 60 years ago was as modified as the corn today. Corn is a mutant grass that has been toyed with for hundreds of years. There is really very little difference between using GM procedures and the more old fashioned cross breeding process.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
12-11-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 12:45 PM)kim Wrote:  
Quote:If it is labeled USDA organic then it follows certain regulations and criteria.
Organic does not mean GMO-free. It is labeled organic by how it is grown, and not by the seed itself.
Those are accurate statements. Thumbsup
(I stepped out for coffee while writing this so... sorry if someone's already addressed the following.)

I understand about fear of GMOs but probably from a different view.
Realize, the following are broad hypotheticals for the purpose of illustration.

The common yellow corn we grow today is genetically not the corn grown 60 years ago - or even 20 years ago. It has been genetically altered to be higher in sugar and it now lacks the nutritive quality to do much more than fatten whatever creature that eats it. Yay for the staving.

Most GMO crops are developed to contain toxins to resist certain known pests but they are also developed for vigor and high yield - for example, 20 rows on the cob as opposed to 16 rows.

If a GMO corn becomes mixed into the seeds of another more nutritious native corn or simply fertilizes a native crop to develop a hybrid, it can quickly out produce the more nutritious native variety. This hybrid variety may or may not contain GMO pest resistant toxins and it also may or may not contain nutritious value of the native crop.

The political issue comes in when a giant corporation sues a single farmer to death because they find the patented pest resistant toxin in the genetic make up of the farmer's native corn. (Fuck you very much, Monsanto)

Control freaks aside... something even more troubling needles my will to survive. When this homogenized corn becomes the only variety in existence, that might sit very precariously on the cusp of evolution. I am a human being and as such, do not possess the audacity to think I can control the future.

If a some new bacteria or pest or some new sort of plague comes along and completely wipes out the only corn variety left... ? What happened to letting evolution take it's course? What happened to not putting all the eggs into one basket? I know everyone isn't a farmer or wasn't a Scout but.... what happened to be prepared?

I can not control the future, but I can control what I do right now. A diverse food supply is wise and a non GMO crop is a particular commitment to such diversity.

I understand where you are coming from, but humans have never let evolution take its course. Anything humans have put their finger on has ended up with changing its evolutionary course.

The pattern I keep seeing is people being against GMO's because of Monsanto's practices. We should not demonize a product just because the company has engaged in monopolization. The Amazon CEO is a real douche, but I'm guessing that doesn't stop you from buying products from Amazon.

The real debate we should be having isn't labeling, or use of GMO's, but instead, question the power that Monsanto yields over GMOs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 12:45 PM)kim Wrote:  
Quote:If it is labeled USDA organic then it follows certain regulations and criteria.
Organic does not mean GMO-free. It is labeled organic by how it is grown, and not by the seed itself.
Those are accurate statements. Thumbsup
(I stepped out for coffee while writing this so... sorry if someone's already addressed the following.)

I understand about fear of GMOs but probably from a different view.
Realize, the following are broad hypotheticals for the purpose of illustration.

The common yellow corn we grow today is genetically not the corn grown 60 years ago - or even 20 years ago. It has been genetically altered to be higher in sugar and it now lacks the nutritive quality to do much more than fatten whatever creature that eats it. Yay for the staving.

Most GMO crops are developed to contain toxins to resist certain known pests but they are also developed for vigor and high yield - for example, 20 rows on the cob as opposed to 16 rows.

If a GMO corn becomes mixed into the seeds of another more nutritious native corn or simply fertilizes a native crop to develop a hybrid, it can quickly out produce the more nutritious native variety. This hybrid variety may or may not contain GMO pest resistant toxins and it also may or may not contain nutritious value of the native crop.

The political issue comes in when a giant corporation sues a single farmer to death because they find the patented pest resistant toxin in the genetic make up of the farmer's native corn. (Fuck you very much, Monsanto)

Control freaks aside... something even more troubling needles my will to survive. When this homogenized corn becomes the only variety in existence, that might sit very precariously on the cusp of evolution. I am a human being and as such, do not possess the audacity to think I can control the future.

If a some new bacteria or pest or some new sort of plague comes along and completely wipes out the only corn variety left... ? What happened to letting evolution take it's course? What happened to not putting all the eggs into one basket? I know everyone isn't a farmer or wasn't a Scout but.... what happened to be prepared?

I can not control the future, but I can control what I do right now. A diverse food supply is wise and a non GMO crop is a particular commitment to such diversity.

Multiple GM strains of a crop would have the same diversifying effect, don't you think?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-11-2013, 05:32 PM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 12:57 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There is really very little difference between using GM procedures and the more old fashioned cross breeding process.

That is not exactly true. When cross breeding is done, potentially hundreds of genes may be effected, without really knowing what result we will get in the process. Whereas with GMOs, only one, extremely well studied, and understood gene is being affected. It is unknown exactly what genetics will result, from the thousands of years old practice of hybridization, selective breeding. But with “GMOs”, we are able to control exactly which, ONE, gene is augmented in the GMO. The result of the GMO gene is already know, where as with hybridization, we must first grow it and see, where there are also a great many unknown genetic changes that will have occurred, and whether the one we are even hoping for happens is unknown.

We have been modifying the genetics of organisms from the first moment we decided to control the reproductive process of our organisms, our animals and plants. Your dog is a GMO, so are the flowers in your garden. But we feel plenty safe, not labeling our organic cherry tomatoes. Even allowing one variety of avocado tree in our back yard to mix with another variety, just to see what we get. We create a whole new berry, a boysenberry, unknown to nature until we created it by mixing too different berries, just to see what happens, with no clue as to what is happening to the genetics, and we love that boysenberry! Make it into jam, without the need to add labels to the jar, because we have the “right to know” that it was produced by the wreak less act of breeding to berries, with no idea the consequences! But when we change ONE gene, of which we know EXACTLY what protein it produces in the fruit or vegetable, and we know exactly the benefits of the presents of that protein, then we must slap a label on it out of fear.

Take another look at your “organic” foods…unless it was found growing out in the wild, an undomesticated species, then you are eating a much more extremely genetically modified organism, by orders of magnitude much more extremely genetically modified, than anything we are doing in the production of a “GMO” food.


That being said, fuck Monsanto. But be clear. Evil business practices, are not the same as evil GMO. They are too separate issues. Monsanto are fucks, and they are using GMO and shitty business practices in very fucked up ways. But that has nothing to do with GMOs themselves, but is a reflection on a shitty cooperation’s business practices.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
12-11-2013, 05:38 PM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 05:32 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 12:57 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There is really very little difference between using GM procedures and the more old fashioned cross breeding process.

That is not exactly true. When cross breeding is done, potentially hundreds of genes may be effected, without really knowing what result we will get in the process. Whereas with GMOs, only one, extremely well studied, and understood gene is being affected. It is unknown exactly what genetics will result, from the thousands of years old practice of hybridization, selective breeding. But with “GMOs”, we are able to control exactly which, ONE, gene is augmented in the GMO. The result of the GMO gene is already know, where as with hybridization, we must first grow it and see, where there are also a great many unknown genetic changes that will have occurred, and whether the one we are even hoping for happens is unknown.

We have been modifying the genetics of organisms from the first moment we decided to control the reproductive process of our organisms, our animals and plants. Your dog is a GMO, so are the flowers in your garden. But we feel plenty safe, not labeling our organic cherry tomatoes. Even allowing one variety of avocado tree in our back yard to mix with another variety, just to see what we get. We create a whole new berry, a boysenberry, unknown to nature until we created it by mixing too different berries, just to see what happens, with no clue as to what is happening to the genetics, and we love that boysenberry! Make it into jam, without the need to add labels to the jar, because we have the “right to know” that it was produced by the wreak less act of breeding to berries, with no idea the consequences! But when we change ONE gene, of which we know EXACTLY what protein it produces in the fruit or vegetable, and we know exactly the benefits of the presents of that protein, then we must slap a label on it out of fear.

Take another look at your “organic” foods…unless it was found growing out in the wild, an undomesticated species, then you are eating a much more extremely genetically modified organism, by orders of magnitude much more extremely genetically modified, than anything we are doing in the production of a “GMO” food.


That being said, fuck Monsanto. But be clear. Evil business practices, are not the same as evil GMO. They are too separate issues. Monsanto are fucks, and they are using GMO and shitty business practices in very fucked up ways. But that has nothing to do with GMOs themselves, but is a reflection on a shitty cooperation’s business practices.

It's a Laser as opposed to a sledgehammer but the goals of each are the same. The Monsanto thing is what is muddying the water. An Evil Multinational Corp. using predatory business practices and acting shady as hell does not make the product they are selling evil just them. But it is hard for people to make that distinction since GMOs are new and sound scary.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
12-11-2013, 05:56 PM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 03:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Multiple GM strains of a crop would have the same diversifying effect, don't you think?

Possibly; but how to know what to keep and what to discard? An attribute which might be a keeper today and even contain positive prospects for the future, could be vulnerable to things not encountered. Possibly the things modified out would be the things which would have kept that strain thriving.

I'm just barking on the side of natural selection rather than relying on extensive human intervention in that selection. I don't think anyone would intentionally lead the domestic food supply into vulnerability but it could certainly happen unintentionally.

I don't see what is so bad about keeping GMO separate from the heirloom crop. Is there something wrong with having a natural fall back?

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 07:44 PM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 05:56 PM)kim Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 03:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Multiple GM strains of a crop would have the same diversifying effect, don't you think?

Possibly; but how to know what to keep and what to discard? An attribute which might be a keeper today and even contain positive prospects for the future, could be vulnerable to things not encountered. Possibly the things modified out would be the things which would have kept that strain thriving.

I'm just barking on the side of natural selection rather than relying on extensive human intervention in that selection. I don't think anyone would intentionally lead the domestic food supply into vulnerability but it could certainly happen unintentionally.

I don't see what is so bad about keeping GMO separate from the heirloom crop. Is there something wrong with having a natural fall back?

Discard nothing. Keep seeds of every crop in seed libraries(there are several of these). If there is a catastrophic event, then we have a fall back. Holding back emerging science, that has been extensively studied, using the 'what-if' game is a slippery slope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 01:27 AM
RE: Coversations about GMOs
(12-11-2013 07:44 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  Discard nothing. Keep seeds of every crop in seed libraries(there are several of these). Holding back emerging science, that has been extensively studied, using the 'what-if' game is a slippery slope.

Oh, hell no - I'm not saying we shouldn't genetically modify at all, in fact I'm all for it! It could provide us with the best of all worlds possible. However, I am saying that I do not want GMs contaminating non GM supplies we have. I even think subsidies should be given to numerous small farmers in diverse areas to maintain heirloom crops & seeds.

Hold back science? Not a chance. Should nature look to take on the genetically modified food supply, I just want to maintain a foot hold on the side of nature. It's not unthinkable or impossible to do this while expanding science and research. There are two slippery slopes here and I don't want to risk going down either.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: