No GMOs in our food!

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The whole anti-GMO thing just cracks me up.

As a species we have been Genetically modifying our food supply for thousands of years. We selectively bred and interbred animals to produce the tastiest meats, hardiest workers, and prolific milk producers. We cross pollinated and hybridized plants to produce the most pest and drought resistant crops we could. It's only now that we have developed the ability to introduce beneficial genes directly that it's suddenly become a "Bad Thing™"

Golden rice is just one of many advances in artificially genetically modified food crops. Researchers added two genes to white rice, one from bacteria and another from the daffodil, which caused the rice to produce a beta-carotene. This pigment makes various foods orange and makes the rice appear golden. The daffodil gene was later repalced by a corn gene to increase the amount of beta-carotene the rice produced.

White rice is a staple food in many countries but is not normally a source of Vitamin A. Around 250 million children are vitamin A-deficient in the world, a deficiency which kills and blinds millions every year. Sure, vitamin supplement programs help, but they are expensive and difficult to sustain. Simply substituting a single bowl of golden rice into a child's daily diet would provide upwards of 60% of the daily Vitamin A requirements. A practical and affordable solution to a real world problem.


When most Americans think about GMOs they only think of agriculture, which makes sense considering it's estimated that as much as 90% of commodity crops used in the U.S.’s food supply are genetically modified. But the medical implications are huge. For example, genetically engineered bacteria now produce insulin, saving the lives of millions of type 1 diabetics.

Everyone has heard of Monsanto, and this company is frequently used as a reason to oppose GMOs. Monsanto’s business practices may be ethically questionable, Monsanto is not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field (Like those that developed Golden Rice). The technology is necessary and disagreeing with Monsanto and having anti-corporation values should not muddy your views on GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that to every application of GMOs.

 

[domroger]

I just don't like it when man interferes with nature in this way .There are other options to GMOs and are a lot cheaper and do not tie farmers to one company .

 

[Hard_Rom]

I just don't like it when man interferes with nature in this way .There are other options to GMOs and are a lot cheaper and do not tie farmers to one company .

I disagree. With the world's continuing population growth we are outstripping food production. The old cross breeding methods are not keeping up. Plus the vast amounts of chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers are poisoning us. GMO allow us to develop food crops that are resilient to pests and disease without large amounts of pesticides and other chemicals. Which themselves cost huge bucks.

I do agree on the monopolization of seed though. The mega-corp agri companies are being extremely heavy handed in their patent protections. Which is also a debateable thing whether we can or should be patenting organisms.

 

[clistenovena]

I do have concerns about how GMOs affect both my personal health and the environment at large. It is a fact that pesticide use has increased dramatically since the creation of GM crops. (My source for that statement.) GM foods should require at least a label so we could choose for ourselves. The fact that food companies aren't required to label GMOs proves, once again, that enough money will buy out lawmakers. But that's another topic altogether.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

then support the end of the obama kind


obama, genetically modified to become Bruce Jenner

The whole anti-GMO thing just cracks me up.

As a species we have been Genetically modifying our food supply for thousands of years. We selectively bred and interbred animals to produce the tastiest meats, hardiest workers, and prolific milk producers. We cross pollinated and hybridized plants to produce the most pest and drought resistant crops we could. It's only now that we have developed the ability to introduce beneficial genes directly that it's suddenly become a "Bad Thing™"

Golden rice is just one of many advances in artificially genetically modified food crops. Researchers added two genes to white rice, one from bacteria and another from the daffodil, which caused the rice to produce a beta-carotene. This pigment makes various foods orange and makes the rice appear golden. The daffodil gene was later repalced by a corn gene to increase the amount of beta-carotene the rice produced.

White rice is a staple food in many countries but is not normally a source of Vitamin A. Around 250 million children are vitamin A-deficient in the world, a deficiency which kills and blinds millions every year. Sure, vitamin supplement programs help, but they are expensive and difficult to sustain. Simply substituting a single bowl of golden rice into a child's daily diet would provide upwards of 60% of the daily Vitamin A requirements. A practical and affordable solution to a real world problem.


When most Americans think about GMOs they only think of agriculture, which makes sense considering it's estimated that as much as 90% of commodity crops used in the U.S.’s food supply are genetically modified. But the medical implications are huge. For example, genetically engineered bacteria now produce insulin, saving the lives of millions of type 1 diabetics.

Everyone has heard of Monsanto, and this company is frequently used as a reason to oppose GMOs. Monsanto’s business practices may be ethically questionable, Monsanto is not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field (Like those that developed Golden Rice). The technology is necessary and disagreeing with Monsanto and having anti-corporation values should not muddy your views on GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that to every application of GMOs.

 

[stickygirl]

I do have concerns about how GMOs affect both my personal health and the environment at large. It is a fact that pesticide use has increased dramatically since the creation of GM crops. (My source for that statement.) GM foods should require at least a label so we could choose for ourselves. The fact that food companies aren't required to label GMOs proves, once again, that enough money will buy out lawmakers. But that's another topic altogether.

I'd go along with this. Sure, virtually every live thing around us is the result of selective breeding and culture, but splicing genetic material from a glyphosate-resistant agent into food crops is playing with fire: hence the appearance of other unexpectedly resistant plants. There are smarter ways of producing better yields but they make less profit for the developers.
These ideas look great in the lab, but real-world introduces variables that can't be anticipated. I'm not against it per se and I'll happily snaffle down GM vegetables because I have an acid incinerator inside me designed to dissolve food.

 

[underguy1]

The whole anti-GMO thing just cracks me up.

As a species we have been Genetically modifying our food supply for thousands of years. We selectively bred and interbred animals to produce the tastiest meats, hardiest workers, and prolific milk producers. We cross pollinated and hybridized plants to produce the most pest and drought resistant crops we could. It's only now that we have developed the ability to introduce beneficial genes directly that it's suddenly become a "Bad Thing™"

Golden rice is just one of many advances in artificially genetically modified food crops. Researchers added two genes to white rice, one from bacteria and another from the daffodil, which caused the rice to produce a beta-carotene. This pigment makes various foods orange and makes the rice appear golden. The daffodil gene was later repalced by a corn gene to increase the amount of beta-carotene the rice produced.

White rice is a staple food in many countries but is not normally a source of Vitamin A. Around 250 million children are vitamin A-deficient in the world, a deficiency which kills and blinds millions every year. Sure, vitamin supplement programs help, but they are expensive and difficult to sustain. Simply substituting a single bowl of golden rice into a child's daily diet would provide upwards of 60% of the daily Vitamin A requirements. A practical and affordable solution to a real world problem.


When most Americans think about GMOs they only think of agriculture, which makes sense considering it's estimated that as much as 90% of commodity crops used in the U.S.’s food supply are genetically modified. But the medical implications are huge. For example, genetically engineered bacteria now produce insulin, saving the lives of millions of type 1 diabetics.

Everyone has heard of Monsanto, and this company is frequently used as a reason to oppose GMOs. Monsanto’s business practices may be ethically questionable, Monsanto is not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field (Like those that developed Golden Rice). The technology is necessary and disagreeing with Monsanto and having anti-corporation values should not muddy your views on GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that to every application of GMOs.

The hoax that is 'Golden Rice' tells you all you need to know about the ethics and the agenda of the biotechs.

Golden Rice is a scam.

 

[underguy1]

I disagree. With the world's continuing population growth we are outstripping food production. The old cross breeding methods are not keeping up. Plus the vast amounts of chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers are poisoning us. GMO allow us to develop food crops that are resilient to pests and disease without large amounts of pesticides and other chemicals. Which themselves cost huge bucks.

I do agree on the monopolization of seed though. The mega-corp agri companies are being extremely heavy handed in their patent protections. Which is also a debateable thing whether we can or should be patenting organisms.

The world produces more food per capita than ever before. There is no food shortage. There is a distribution problem due to the capitalist monopolisation of the markets.

GMO crops require much greater use of pesticides and hydrocarbons. They are also much more detrimental to soil health.

 

[clistenovena]

.
These ideas look great in the lab, but real-world introduces variables that can't be anticipated.

This statement. Exactly.

 

[domroger]

I disagree. With the world's continuing population growth we are outstripping food production. The old cross breeding methods are not keeping up. Plus the vast amounts of chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers are poisoning us. GMO allow us to develop food crops that are resilient to pests and disease without large amounts of pesticides and other chemicals. Which themselves cost huge bucks.

I do agree on the monopolization of seed though. The mega-corp agri companies are being extremely heavy handed in their patent protections. Which is also a debateable thing whether we can or should be patenting organisms.

GMOs are developed by Monsanto and other companies to be resistant to pesticides of their firms ,which means more can be used .Any talk of benefits to farmers is purely a PR invention .What is more there is a creeping cross breeding of GMOs and normal crops which is not something to welcome .
As for a world food shortage there is no such thing only a distribution problem and masses of waste and over consumption .

 

[BotanyBoy]

The whole anti-GMO thing just cracks me up.

Likely because you have a piss poor understanding of it.

As a species we have been Genetically modifying our food supply for thousands of years.

Point and case, you're trying to compare selective breeding for preferable characteristics to gene splicing so we can grow food in and with a variety of ultra toxic shit.

 

[rainsol]

Likely because you have a piss poor understanding of it.



Point and case, you're trying to compare selective breeding for preferable characteristics to gene splicing so we can grow food in and with a variety of ultra toxic shit.

They dont have a fucking clue BB. This stuff makes our lives so much better and safer...

 

[stickygirl]

GMOs are developed by Monsanto and other companies to be resistant to pesticides of their firms ,which means more can be used .Any talk of benefits to farmers is purely a PR invention .......
As for a world food shortage there is no such thing only a distribution problem and masses of waste and over consumption .

Point and case, you're trying to compare selective breeding for preferable characteristics to gene splicing so we can grow food in and with a variety of ultra toxic shit.

meh... you're showing the same kind of blanket denial of parents who say that measles or chickenpox jabs are unnecessary because those diseases aren't around anymore.
Food productivity is far higher than it was a generation ago, but because most of the improvements, through selective breeding ( which is just gene-splicing the old-fashioned way ), are taken for granted. Don't blame the technology, blame its application of science for short-term, commercial gain by corps like Monsanto.
If you need citations to prove food production is higher then you're in the wrong argument -> Flat Earth Society is that way. I have an uncle who has grown cereals all his life and his take was that glypho was a big time-saver but that it created a vacuum for other invasive weeds to take hold - like blackgrass. Do quick-fixes ever work in nature? Farmers need to take the best bits of science and apply them in a smart way.
The bottom line is that are we happy to accept higher food costs, because the mix of crop rotation, good husbandry and appropriate use of herbicides will increase the cost of production?

 

[BotanyBoy]

They dont have a fucking clue BB. This stuff makes our lives so much better and safer...

What does? How?

meh... you're showing the same kind of blanket denial of parents who say that measles or chickenpox jabs are unnecessary because those diseases aren't around anymore.

Invalid comparison.

We have data on vaccines, there is tons of evidence supporting herd immunity theory yadda yadda yadda..

We don't know the effect of eating food grown/bathed in toxic waste.

We don't know the environment impact of turning this shit loose in the wild.

There are a lot of things to consider, legally, ethically, environmentally and those things are simply not being considered. They are being swept aside and the government is protecting these companies shady activities surrounding GMO's and it's got some of the public concerned, with good reason when these companies have a reputation for being so scummy in every other way.

Food productivity is far higher than it was a generation ago

It's also largely shit food with low nutritional density and we pay these companies to throw like 40% of it away. Subsidies!! Subsidies!!! Subsidies!!! But only for farmers growing a correct crop provided by EvilCorp.

Have some more high fructose corn syrup.

, but because most of the improvements, through selective breeding ( which is just gene-splicing the old-fashioned way ), are taken for granted.

In the same way that a clay tablet and an abacus are just an old fashioned quantum computer.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa........NO.

Don't blame the technology, blame its application of science for short-term, commercial gain by corps like Monsanto.

True! The tech in and of itself isn't bad.

Short-term commercial gains aren't bad either.

That must mean the real world application of that science for gain is also not bad.

Eat moar Round-Up, it's GOOD FOR YOU!!

 

[stickygirl]

yup. yup and mostly yup.
You didn't mention food cost...
So much that is wrong right now: estrogen & nitrates in the water supply comes to mind... so why do millenials get such a hard time when it comes to being concerned about the environment? Do you recycle packaging or grow your own vegetables?

If Ebola, war or starvation don't cut us down to a manageable population size, my money's on an asteroid.

 

[BotanyBoy]

yup. yup and mostly yup.
You didn't mention food cost...

Side effect of not really buying much food.

Cost...meh. We won't subsidize healthy foods.

So much that is wrong right now: estrogen & nitrates in the water supply comes to mind... so why do millenials get such a hard time when it comes to being concerned about the environment?

Because doing something about it is hard, and they haven't even managed to move out of moms house yet.

Do you recycle packaging or grow your own vegetables?

I also compost and keep livestock.

If Ebola, war or starvation don't cut us down to a manageable population size, my money's on an asteroid.

It's already here, it's called obesity, heart disease, diabeetus and cancer.

Eat more Round-Up infused Corn Syrup MMMMMMMM!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The hoax that is 'Golden Rice' tells you all you need to know about the ethics and the agenda of the biotechs.

Golden Rice is a scam.

Explain how Golden Rice, developed by non-profits and independent researchers is a biotech scam.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Likely because you have a piss poor understanding of it.



Point and case, you're trying to compare selective breeding for preferable characteristics to gene splicing so we can grow food in and with a variety of ultra toxic shit.

Gene splicing is not a difficult concept to get a handle on. The fact that we have been steering the genetic evolution of food crops and animals since the dawn of time is not in dispute.

Comparing the traditional ways of producing the desired traits we want in plants and animals to the not so new (this has been going on for 4 decades) ways of directly modifying their genetic makeup to do the same thing is only a matter of degree. Both are essentially playing God to force evolution's hand. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in self delusion.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Gene splicing is not a difficult concept to get a handle on.

Yet you seem to think it's essentially the same thing as selective breeding.

The fact that we have been steering the genetic evolution of food crops and animals since the dawn of time is not in dispute.

I never said it was.

Comparing the traditional ways of producing the desired traits we want in plants and animals to the not so new (this has been going on for 4 decades) ways of directly modifying their genetic makeup to do the same thing is only a matter of degree.

No, it's not.

That's like saying gene splicing a cow to live on used motor oil and various other petroleum processing byproducts is the same thing as selectively breeding a cow that produces 4% more milk than any other breed.

The similarities end at mankind manipulating other species.

The controversy comes from "If the used motoroil drinking cow's meat and milk is so safe then why the fuck are these chem/ag companies and their senate committee homies doing everything they can to keep this all on the low low and cover their ass with every bit of power Congress can muster?"

and

"Why every time a used motoroil cow craps in a neighbors field does Monsanto haul them into court and take EVERYTHING from them with a 100% win rate??"

Both are essentially playing God to force evolution's hand.

Glad you brought that up.

No...gene splicing is not forcing evolution it's removing it from the process entirely.

Pretending otherwise is an exercise in self delusion.

The only exercise in self delusion going on here is you thinking gene splicing crops to grow in a highly toxic environment causing a social/economic/legal/public safety/ethical/political shit storm is the same thing as breeding up a plumper sweeter strain of brandywine tomato for the state fair.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/wrng.gif


Like it or not there is all sorts of corrupt shit going on in the US agricultural industry and near all of it is surrounding how some companies are using the technology.

Nobody gives a fuck about drought resistant/heavy yeild crops.

EVERYONE with a clue is concerned about the crops grown in all sorts of toxic shit.

Lots of people are concerned with the environmental impacts of this shit being let out into the wild. From bees dying off to franken fish.

A few people are seriously pissed about how the government is letting these companies systematically destroy every independent/family farmer possible using GMO's.

The technology is not controversial, how some companies are using it is.

 

[domroger]

meh... you're showing the same kind of blanket denial of parents who say that measles or chickenpox jabs are unnecessary because those diseases aren't around anymore.
Food productivity is far higher than it was a generation ago, but because most of the improvements, through selective breeding ( which is just gene-splicing the old-fashioned way ), are taken for granted. Don't blame the technology, blame its application of science for short-term, commercial gain by corps like Monsanto.
If you need citations to prove food production is higher then you're in the wrong argument -> Flat Earth Society is that way. I have an uncle who has grown cereals all his life and his take was that glypho was a big time-saver but that it created a vacuum for other invasive weeds to take hold - like blackgrass. Do quick-fixes ever work in nature? Farmers need to take the best bits of science and apply them in a smart way.
The bottom line is that are we happy to accept higher food costs, because the mix of crop rotation, good husbandry and appropriate use of herbicides will increase the cost of production?

In my case it is not blanket denial but concern for the long term .Gene splicing is not the same as cross breeding and in my opinion not enough research has taken place .

 

[stickygirl]

Traditional cross breeding is not without dangers, by reducing the diversity of the gene pool. GMO crops have yet to be proved to be harmful to health by consumption and we've been eating them for years. The bigger danger lies in the unexpected effects mutations might have in the environment - as has already been mentioned, the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds.
I think we're all singing from the same song sheet here: that to every application of science there are risks. The question is, who do we trust capable of managing and mitigating those risks or indeed, if anyone is capable of foreseeing the future in such detail?

 

[domroger]

The companies concerned are not to be trusted because they have a vested interest .
Government should be the answer but too much money has been put into political campaign funds to make me feel any confidence in them .

 

[phrodeau]

The companies concerned are not to be trusted because they have a vested interest .
Government should be the answer but too much money has been put into political campaign funds to make me feel any confidence in them .

It's nearly impossible to tell whether dairy milk is actually healthy or harmful, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the National Dairy Council.

 

[underguy1]

Explain how Golden Rice, developed by non-profits and independent researchers is a biotech scam.

You said: " Simply substituting a single bowl of golden rice into a child's daily diet would provide upwards of 60% of the daily Vitamin A requirements."

No golden rice that could do that has ever been grown or is likely to ever be grown.

It is a PR scam that you appear to have fallen for.

 

[underguy1]

THE "GOLDEN RICE" HOAX -
When Public Relations replaces Science

by Dr. Vandana Shiva

"Golden Rice": A technology for creating Vitamin A deficiency.


Golden rice has been heralded as the miracle cure for malnutrition and hunger of which 800m members of
the human community suffer.

Herbicide resistant and toxin producing genetically engineered plants can be objectionable because of their
ecological and social costs. But who could possibly object to rice engineered to produce vitamin A, a
deficiency found in nearly 3 million children, largely in the Third World?

As remarked by Mary Lou Guerinot, the author of the Commentary on Vitamin A rice in Science, one
can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard
to short term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.

Unfortunately, Vitamin A rice is a hoax, and will bring further dispute to plant genetic engineering where
public relations exercises seem to have replaced science in promotion of untested, unproven and
unnecessary technology.

The problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD). It will seriously
aggravate it. It is a technology that fails in its promise.

Currently, it is not even known how much vitamin JA the genetically engineered rice will produce. The
goal is 33.3% micrograms/100g of rice. Even if this goal is reached after a few years, it will be totally
ineffective in removing VAD.

Since the daily average requirement of vitamin A is 750 micrograms of vitamin A and 1 serving contains
30g of rice according to dry weight basis, vitamin A rice would only provide 9.9 micrograms which is
1.32% of the required allowance. Even taking the 100g figure of daily consumption of rice used in the
technology transfer paper would only provide 4.4% of the RDA.

In order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult would have to
consume 2 kg 272g of rice per day. This implies that one family member would consume the entire
family ration of 10 kg. from the PDS in 4 days to meet vitaminA needs through "Golden rice".

This is a recipe for creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it.

Besides creating vitamin A deficiency, vitamin A rice will also create deficiency in other micronutrients
and nutrients. Raw milled rice has a low content of Fat (0.5g/100g). Since fat is necessary for vitamin A
uptake, this will aggravate vitamin A deficiency. It also has only 6.8g/100g of protein, which means less
carrier molecules. It has only 0.7g/100g of iron, which plays a vital role in the conversion of Betacarotene
(precursor of vitamin A found in plant sources) to vitamin A.
Superior Alternatives exist and are effective.

A far more efficient route to removing vitamin A deficiency is biodiversity conservation and propagation
of naturally vitamin A rich plants in agriculture and diets.


http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html