Jump to content

  •  

Photo

Forum Debate: Are you For or Against GMO?

gmo organic

  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

Poll: Are you For or Against GMO? (48 member(s) have cast votes)

I am:

  1. FOR GMO (15 votes [31.25%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.25%

  2. AGAINST GMO (33 votes [68.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 68.75%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#81 John1234

John1234

    Smokin' Hot

  • Inactive Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Space

Posted 05 September 2014 - 08:15 PM

you know whats funny? i just did it again. tho i cannot blame the forum...
i tried to tab, as i was bulleting some points, and then hit backspace... this caused me to back out of the page, and again loose my writing.

 

HAH! Thank Log it's not just me. Two or three backspaces, Firefox's tiny stop button/my bad aim, never saving drafts, and the browser loading any selection from History into the last viewed tab....

 

Just about pulled out all the hair.


Edited by miguelovic, 05 September 2014 - 08:20 PM.


#82 chilehunter

chilehunter

    On Fire!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,092 posts
  • Location:Rockin' the Bakken

Posted 06 September 2014 - 10:24 PM

GMO I'm all for it to some point, but the point is out there !

all the GMO hippies need to take a step back and really think what it considers to be TRUE GMO !

first thing that pops in my head is CORN.....IN ALL FORMS CORN IS GMO !!!

corn was NEVER what you see it as today, it was breed and formed/GMO to what it is today...from your livestock feed, sweet corn, popcorn, etc...

corn has to be one of the first GMO crop thousands of years ago, cuz it never looked like what we have today.

so that means anything that has corn in it is a GMO product ! plain an simple....cuz corn has been changed since it was found !

 

let alone I'd guess at least 50% of the chiles you eat are GMO !


Edited by chilehunter, 06 September 2014 - 10:40 PM.

THEIRS

#83 John1234

John1234

    Smokin' Hot

  • Inactive Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Space

Posted 07 September 2014 - 10:50 AM

There is a clear and obvious distinction between hybrid/inbreeding and genetic modification, or atleast I thought so....

 

How does calling the anti-GMO crowd hippies help anyone? Should we refer to proponents as inbred hick windowlickers, or just you?


Edited by miguelovic, 07 September 2014 - 10:53 AM.


#84 Hawaiianero

Hawaiianero

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Location:Kona, Hawaii

Posted 30 September 2014 - 12:24 AM

what allergies?

also the claim that monsanto is suing folks for cross pollination is complete and utter bunk. its been disproven a number of times.

about 92% of what you hear regarding monsanto is utter bullshit. its important to recognize that.

Umm NO you wrong. Sure they not sueing for money but they are making farmers destroy their crops. In Hawaii, we had a big problem with our papayas getting diseased. Along comes monsanto and modified the genetics so they were immune to the disease. so far so good. But then they found out the modified papayas were pollinating neighboring farms and when those farmers made seeds for the next season there were traces of the modified code in them. monsanto claimed ownership to the modified genes and said in court that those farmers were illegally growing monsanto genetic property. They won. So to keep from being fined, the farmers had to destroy their trees and outsource their seeds thereby destroying the heirloom strains that have been growing for generations.

Now any farmer who wants to have an organic stamp on his property needs to move miles away from any GMO farm. We as a county stopped the continuation of gmo practices of all plant material except for papayas because it's too late for that fight. 


 

mmm.

 

 

 

cool so, scientists have no integrity.

 

neither does the peer review process.

 

neither do the myriad folks repeating  studies

 

and spider silk in milk = impending doom?

 

what exactly is frightening you? goat spiderman? 


it was in the other gmo thread. needs to be in this one as well.

Goat Spiderman! LOL but hey, you never know........don't turn your ba-a-a-a--ack



#85 hot stuff

hot stuff

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 30 September 2014 - 02:43 PM

Umm NO you wrong. Sure they not sueing for money but they are making farmers destroy their crops. In Hawaii, we had a big problem with our papayas getting diseased. Along comes monsanto and modified the genetics so they were immune to the disease. so far so good. But then they found out the modified papayas were pollinating neighboring farms and when those farmers made seeds for the next season there were traces of the modified code in them. monsanto claimed ownership to the modified genes and said in court that those farmers were illegally growing monsanto genetic property. They won. So to keep from being fined, the farmers had to destroy their trees and outsource their seeds thereby destroying the heirloom strains that have been growing for generations.

Now any farmer who wants to have an organic stamp on his property needs to move miles away from any GMO farm. We as a county stopped the continuation of gmo practices of all plant material except for papayas because it's too late for that fight. 


Goat Spiderman! LOL but hey, you never know........don't turn your ba-a-a-a--ack

They should go back and retry or appeal. A number of farmers has sued Monsanto and other gmo producers for damages because their crops have been crosspollinated and have been successful.


DON'T TOUCH ME UNLESS YOU'VE BEEN WEARING GLOVES!
GEAUX SAINTS! GEAUX LSU!


#86 Hawaiianero

Hawaiianero

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Location:Kona, Hawaii

Posted 30 September 2014 - 03:37 PM

They should go back and retry or appeal. A number of farmers has sued Monsanto and other gmo producers for damages because their crops have been crosspollinated and have been successful.

They've been trying for years now. Everything is tied up in litigation and most organic farmers have just moved on. At least the rest of the crops are safe for now. I don't see any winners in this battle other than the lawyers, and maybe the Spider Goats :rolleyes:



#87 queequeg152

queequeg152

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Location:College Station, Tx

Posted 30 September 2014 - 04:30 PM

Umm NO you wrong. Sure they not sueing for money but they are making farmers destroy their crops. In Hawaii, we had a big problem with our papayas getting diseased. Along comes monsanto and modified the genetics so they were immune to the disease. so far so good. But then they found out the modified papayas were pollinating neighboring farms and when those farmers made seeds for the next season there were traces of the modified code in them. monsanto claimed ownership to the modified genes and said in court that those farmers were illegally growing monsanto genetic property. They won. So to keep from being fined, the farmers had to destroy their trees and outsource their seeds thereby destroying the heirloom strains that have been growing for generations.
Now any farmer who wants to have an organic stamp on his property needs to move miles away from any GMO farm. We as a county stopped the continuation of gmo practices of all plant material except for papayas because it's too late for that fight. 

Goat Spiderman! LOL but hey, you never know........don't turn your ba-a-a-a--ack


cool so, am i supposed to take your word for it? can you provide links?
did you listen to that link i posted regarding their supposed litigious actions against accidental pollination?

i strongly suspect more hand waving bullshit tho. dont bother with links from naturalnews or w.e that garbage site is.

There is a clear and obvious distinction between hybrid/inbreeding and genetic modification, or atleast I thought so....


not really. did you know that horizontal gene transfers have been happening since the dawn of the plantae kingdom.
virus's have been shown to transfer genes to a number of organisms. and visa versa. i forget what the word is for this natural process, but its not completely unlike the process used today.

#88 John1234

John1234

    Smokin' Hot

  • Inactive Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Space

Posted 30 September 2014 - 04:52 PM

not really. did you know that horizontal gene transfers have been happening since the dawn of the plantae kingdom.
virus's have been shown to transfer genes to a number of organisms. and visa versa. i forget what the word is for this natural process, but its not completely unlike the process used today.

 

I am aware of such, it is even acquired genetic material that makes us what we are, all mammals re: mitochondria.

 

What I mean to say is, that the realm of genetic transfer/manipulation is clearly distinct from simple plant breeding, even if only evaluated on the terms of the difficulty of the procedure.

 

Traditional plant breeding is a dice roll, and as of yet, interspecies/kingdom mingling, though widely experimented with in all rural areas, is generally off the board. Genetic engineering is control, applying a gene with a known function, and though there is a bit of a dice roll in outcome, it isn't gunfishing on a pitch night.


Edited by miguelovic, 30 September 2014 - 04:59 PM.


#89 queequeg152

queequeg152

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Location:College Station, Tx

Posted 30 September 2014 - 05:31 PM

i dont under stand the following:

off the board.
gunfishing


whats your point tho? targeting a specific gene for a specific function is more dangerous than random changes?

its interesting that you compare traditional means of reproduction to that of a dice roll, yet as i understand from your previous posts, you do consider traditional means to be safer than that of GMO, wherein only one specific gene is targeted.

#90 Hawaiianero

Hawaiianero

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Location:Kona, Hawaii

Posted 30 September 2014 - 06:31 PM

cool so, am i supposed to take your word for it? can you provide links?
did you listen to that link i posted regarding their supposed litigious actions against accidental pollination?

i strongly suspect more hand waving bullshit tho. dont bother with links from naturalnews or w.e that garbage site is.

 

Yeah I read that, my response is damn near verbatim what you wrote on the bottom line here.

 

I have to admit I believe there is some truth to what you say. Serious bs from the anti-gmo camp is running rampant. But I think the pro-gmo guys are reaching past the confines of logic as well. My expertise in science goes as far as dropping mentos into a diet coke bottle so I can't claim expert knowledge but the biggest thing that bugs me is the lack of full disclosure. Why are all the big boys like monsanto fighting against the gmo labeling? What are they afraid of? A bunch of tree huggers who get their info from those "garbage sites"? I would think that they would be proud of their accomplishments and show the world not just what improvements they made but also their failures and what they did to fix them. Instead they spend all their money pitting one camp against the other.

Full disclosure, let the fear-mongers stomp their feet and post random links to insignificant web-sites, and let us as individuals decide what we want to eat and how it's grown. 



#91 John1234

John1234

    Smokin' Hot

  • Inactive Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Space

Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:22 AM

i dont under stand the following:

off the board.
gunfishing


whats your point tho? targeting a specific gene for a specific function is more dangerous than random changes?

its interesting that you compare traditional means of reproduction to that of a dice roll, yet as i understand from your previous posts, you do consider traditional means to be safer than that of GMO, wherein only one specific gene is targeted.

 

Off the table

Futile

 

The dice are an analogy of the unpredictability of traditional plant breeding, not safety. The end result is made up of the genetic contributions of the parents, where one is not a fungus and the other is not a pig.

 

My point is simple, genetic manipulation and traditional breeding are clearly separate, and comparing the two is apples and oranges, or more aptly, tangerines and lemons. The methods, level of difficulty, control and outcome set each apart.



#92 queequeg152

queequeg152

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Location:College Station, Tx

Posted 01 October 2014 - 02:28 PM

Why are all the big boys like monsanto fighting against the gmo labeling? What are they afraid of? A bunch of tree huggers who get their info from those "garbage sites"? I would think that they would be proud of their accomplishments and show the world not just what improvements they made but also their failures and what they did to fix them. Instead they spend all their money pitting one camp against the other.
Full disclosure, let the fear-mongers stomp their feet and post random links to insignificant web-sites, and let us as individuals decide what we want to eat and how it's grown.


lol, why do people always ask that question? as if they dont know the answer?

its simple. Monsanto, in a sense, lost the GMO debate a long time ago. Something like 70% of people do not trust GMO products.

Monsanto wants to make money, period. So do their shareholders... lots and lots of greasy greenbacks. LOADS of cash. Uncountable sums of filthy currency. They want to hammer on coke and strippers. They want to build their wifes a new kitchen, and they want to pay their ex wifes alimony so she can build hers.

but so do i.

since there is no justifiable reason for labeling, beyond the hysterics created, i think they are perfectly justified in fighting labeling laws.

do you think the other side is promoting such laws out of their infinite kindness? do you think the organic industry, whose growth is absolutbly insane in comparison... dont you think they stand to benifit?



regarding garbage websites:

if it isnt peer reviewed, or is by and large discredited, or just outright pandering, or simply slanted, it does not merit much consideration. Why? lack of objectivity and demonstrable/repeatable results.

some guy in russia publishes in the 'organic food is amazing and cool as fuck' journal, which has 0 impact factor, 0 peer review process, and absolutly 0 history and credibility.
Why should ANYONE give two shits what it has to say, when his results are contrary completely, to those of properly vetted repeated and reviewed journals?
so why do people care about these outing studies? two reasons, one they don't understand why they are bullshit, and two...it fits their world view, it fits the little prism they filter the world through.

ive got 0 problem with organic only folks... just dont drape that viewpoint in bullshit. when you do, you do youself a disservice.

#93 Hawaiianero

Hawaiianero

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Location:Kona, Hawaii

Posted 01 October 2014 - 03:28 PM

lol, why do people always ask that question? as if they dont know the answer?

its simple. Monsanto, in a sense, lost the GMO debate a long time ago. Something like 70% of people do not trust GMO products.

Monsanto wants to make money, period. So do their shareholders... lots and lots of greasy greenbacks. LOADS of cash. Uncountable sums of filthy currency. They want to hammer on coke and strippers. They want to build their wifes a new kitchen, and they want to pay their ex wifes alimony so she can build hers.

but so do i.

since there is no justifiable reason for labeling, beyond the hysterics created, i think they are perfectly justified in fighting labeling laws.

do you think the other side is promoting such laws out of their infinite kindness? do you think the organic industry, whose growth is absolutbly insane in comparison... dont you think they stand to benifit?



regarding garbage websites:

if it isnt peer reviewed, or is by and large discredited, or just outright pandering, or simply slanted, it does not merit much consideration. Why? lack of objectivity and demonstrable/repeatable results.

some guy in russia publishes in the 'organic food is amazing and cool as f**k' journal, which has 0 impact factor, 0 peer review process, and absolutly 0 history and credibility.
Why should ANYONE give two shits what it has to say, when his results are contrary completely, to those of properly vetted repeated and reviewed journals?
so why do people care about these outing studies? two reasons, one they don't understand why they are bullshit, and two...it fits their world view, it fits the little prism they filter the world through.

ive got 0 problem with organic only folks... just dont drape that viewpoint in bullshit. when you do, you do youself a disservice.

I am amazed at myself who, even though I am standing on the other side of the fence from you, I find that I agree with or at least understand most of what you wrote. Although I thought the debate was split about 50/50.

 

(70%? Am I supposed to take your word for it? Can you provide links?)

:whistle: Sorry, just messing with you there.

 

There are big business interests on both sides of the argument who have zero interest in in helping people other than their own shareholders. I believe there are a lot of good intentions on both sides too. But it's the shady-assed mother****ers who hide behind them, the ones that do all the underhanded back room crap that tarnishes the the integrity of the entire group(s) that pisses me off. Everybody's gonna believe what they choose regardless of the facts and the bs.

 

Yeah I have been eating corn flakes my entire life, and will continue to do so knowing what it is. The papaya thing I mentioned earlier is true if you want to believe it or not, I know because my family has been dealing with it first-hand. This was the one defining moment when the state of Hawaii (people not govt) decided to push back. Anyways, we are at an en passe, so you do your thing, I'll do mine and God (choose your own denomination) will sort it out for us all in the end. :banghead:

My view on gmo is the least of my worries lol



#94 queequeg152

queequeg152

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Location:College Station, Tx

Posted 01 October 2014 - 06:22 PM

I am amazed at myself who, even though I am standing on the other side of the fence from you, I find that I agree with or at least understand most of what you wrote. Although I thought the debate was split about 50/50.
 
(70%? Am I supposed to take your word for it? Can you provide links?)
:whistle: Sorry, just messing with you there.
...


perhaps im thinking of the numbers that want it labeled. IDK, i pulled the number from the darkest depths of my memory.

regarding messing with myself:
in my defense, i got cunty because it was discussed exhaustively already how frequently people make unsubstantiated claims without even attempting to research what they were talking about.

Its already been established that monsanto does not sue maliciously for random cross pollination, so i have no reason to suspect they did in the case of your papayas.being that what you suggested was an extraordinary claim, having never been noted in any of the information ive seen, i feel that the burden of proof if upon yourself.

its as if... i just showed up at the Vatican claiming that Jesus was actually an asshole. the burden or proof is upon myself, as the evidence ostensibly suggests otherwise.

i suspect that if they did sue some farmers, they were, as in the other cases, simply stealing the intellectual property in the same manner as the other farmers mentioned previously.

also its my understanding that cross pollination alone has never been, or will ever be the sole reason for revoking someones organic certification. so i dont see how gmo papayas are driving anyone out of the organic food business.

#95 Hawaiianero

Hawaiianero

    Smokin' Hot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Location:Kona, Hawaii

Posted 02 October 2014 - 02:51 PM

perhaps im thinking of the numbers that want it labeled. IDK, i pulled the number from the darkest depths of my memory.

regarding messing with myself:
in my defense, i got cunty because it was discussed exhaustively already how frequently people make unsubstantiated claims without even attempting to research what they were talking about.

Its already been established that monsanto does not sue maliciously for random cross pollination, so i have no reason to suspect they did in the case of your papayas.being that what you suggested was an extraordinary claim, having never been noted in any of the information ive seen, i feel that the burden of proof if upon yourself.

its as if... i just showed up at the Vatican claiming that Jesus was actually an asshole. the burden or proof is upon myself, as the evidence ostensibly suggests otherwise.

i suspect that if they did sue some farmers, they were, as in the other cases, simply stealing the intellectual property in the same manner as the other farmers mentioned previously.

also its my understanding that cross pollination alone has never been, or will ever be the sole reason for revoking someones organic certification. so i dont see how gmo papayas are driving anyone out of the organic food business.

Hey it is a God-given-right which is protected by the Constitution of the United States that we are free to be cunty and/or dickish should the desire come upon us so I hold no grudges.

To be clear, what got my family out of the business was the threat of losing certification but more so (thanks to fear mongers) the threat of losing customer base. Many took the easy way out and just started planting something else. The ones that continued the fight slowly went broke waiting for their high priced lawyers to do anything.

On the flip side of that, our volcano is fixing to solve all problems by cutting off access to all the papaya farms so no matter who grows what, can't get to market to sell.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: gmo, organic

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests