GMO - yes or "hell no" ?? and why?

[impending_bending]

So I for one do not care about GMO in my food. Am I the only one?
I'm all for GMO - what us your opinion?
I don't mind debate but keep the flames down please.

 

[queequeg152]

I will agree on the planted fields but my question is, why wouldnt a farmer use the best plants from this years crop to seed next years crop.  Dont we all do that?  Does it grow with a sign that says dont reuse me.  now I believe based on what I have read that yes that farmer knowingly did it, but if he used one seed from each plant from each years crop to plant next year, he would then have their gmo seed spread across his field (more each year) and still being spread from their fields.  How many years before it is 90% or 100% of his crop.   So what, he should have to destroy his seed every 3rd or 4th year to prevent what they cant control.    If he wanted to win he should have grown a clean crop (destined only for seed use, not food supply)and then sued them for losing his ability to market it as GMO free in year 2.

i see what you are saying i think, and its an interesting thought exercise.
 
if he took one seed from each and every plant assuming each plant was self pollinated, he would get the same ratio of GMO plants to non gmo plants from the following year + the additional plants that are being pollinated by the roadsides of his field the current year.
 
it stands to reason that if he did this for decades yea, he might concentrate the ratio of gmo plants to non gmo plants... especially if his field was small and the area adjacent to the roadway where the cross pollination is said to occur. 
 
this ignores the fact that the glycophosphate trait could very well be lost in subsequent generations tho, since there is no selective pressure for it unless he is spraying.
 
however they do not tend to plant the same plant year on year for decades, they switch crops for market reasons as well as agricultural needs. moreover i would submit that saving seeds is by in large uncommon in larg farming settings. the machinery required for cereal i know is very expensive. idk about canola. it tends to be a contractual arrangement with an equipment owner im betting.
 
anyway this is all irrelevant, because what he did was spray his field, purposefully looking for the roundup trait. the plants that survived the spraying were selected for reuse. its just that simple. that guy was a thief, no different from someone stealing a copy of ms office or w.e imo.
 
theres only been like a dozen of these cases too. by the way the anti agribusiness folks talk you would think this sort of thing was commonplace.
 
 

We expect Nike to monitor their supply chain to ensure they are not using child labor, why cant food companies be held to the same standard to know if its organic or not.  If they started using irradiated lead in the eyelets of their shoes, we wouldnt care that they only slapped a swoosh on it and put it in a box in one place, we would want to know about all the supply chain.  Would it be Nikes fault or only the subcontractor

 
comparing child labor and gmo foodstuffs is laughable.
note that there is no law against purchasing items made by children, and no law forcing labeling.  yet many companies choose not to employ child labor. why? because there is a marketplace plressure already in place. 
 
i suppose you would prefer that the government to make it a law? i could drone on and on as to why child labor can actually be beneficial, but i wont.
 
with respect to irradiated lead.( you mean lead exposed to radaition? or a radioactive isotopes of lead?) i dont really see what you mean, could you elaborate? 
 
nike woud surly bear the brunt of the responsibility for any contaminated product. its their job to monitor the supply chain and quality of their products.  but i dont understand how this is related to gmo foods?
 
anyway a radioneuclide  could constitute an actual threat to human health,(unlike GMO foodstuffs.) so the NRC or whoever would have something to say about it im sure.

Contradiction of the year, right here!
 
I rest my case

lol.

Organic = non-GMO? NOPE!
 
Organic just means its grown naturally 
 
GMO is the genetics of the food, not what was used to grow the food.
 
What i believe is some GMO's are safe, and others arent. Just some genes do not need to be messed with. Others, feel free to.

i think the internet disagrees with you.
from what im reading certified organic means no organic ingrediants at all. they say cows can be feed gmo tho.

 

[Blisstake]

 
lol.

i think the internet disagrees with you.
from what im reading certified organic means no organic ingrediants at all. they say cows can be feed gmo tho.

GMO just means its genes has been modified.
Also, food can still have an Organic sticker on it when its not 100% organic, so if your going all organic, look for the 100% organic stickers. 
 
What is going on is too much GMO'ing, causing problems. From this, its they are targeting too many genes. Also, this is done scientifically. So you can still have your non-GMO food, look like GMO food when they do it naturally, by targeting what genes they want.
 
The reason why they started GMOing is so they would have larger, tastier food. What im saying is they targeted the wrong genes, causing problems in people.

 

[queequeg152]

GMO just means its genes has been modified.
Also, food can still have an Organic sticker on it when its not 100% organic, so if your going all organic, look for the 100% organic stickers. 
 
What is going on is too much GMO'ing, causing problems. From this, its they are targeting too many genes. Also, this is done scientifically. So you can still have your non-GMO food, look like GMO food when they do it naturally, by targeting what genes they want.
 
The reason why they started GMOing is so they would have larger, tastier food. What im saying is they targeted the wrong genes, causing problems in people.

 
organic food that is certified USDA organic will have no gmo ingredients present, provided no fraud has taken place.
 
ok so with respect to targeting many genes... this assertion if puzzeling to me given that... when they modify a plants genome, typically they are targeting just a handfull of genes.
 
do you know what happens when plants sexually reproduce? they exchange untold millions of genes...
why do you folks have no problem with the latter, but have such virulent misgivings towards the former.  Because the latter is "natural"?
 
natural does not mean safe.

 

[Blisstake]

 
organic food that is certified USDA organic will have no gmo ingredients present, provided no fraud has taken place.
 
ok so with respect to targeting many genes... this assertion if puzzeling to me given that... when they modify a plants genome, typically they are targeting just a handfull of genes.
 
do you know what happens when plants sexually reproduce? they exchange untold millions of genes...
why do you folks have no problem with the latter, but have such virulent misgivings towards the former.  Because the latter is "natural"?
 
natural does not mean safe.

Just as poison is not safe. What im saying is breeding for genes naturally, let nature roll the dice for you. Also, some foods can claim to be "natural" when its a lie. Organic is when its safer. I would say just start a small farm for the stuff you want to grow, breed over time, and done. All foods have a small bit of unhealthy in them. We can fight this. breed foods so they have this gone.

 

[JJJessee]

The science of GMOs in the development of new varietals  is utterly impressive.
I am less impressed with the scientific studies involved in using  GMOs as feed stock, be it for human or cattle.
But the caveat there is that I haven't seen any. 
If someone can present convincing long-term studies as to their safety, I might be willing to approve of the technique on a case by case basis.
But simply to use the human populace  as "guinea pigs" without considering the risk or even alerting them to the fact that GMOs are present in their diet is very, very poor science. In fact, it smells of capitalism without con-science or the corruption of the scientific method. Still, if evidence is presented to dissuade me, I believe in the scientific method, I'm flexible. But as it stands, the decline in life-expectancy, the obesity epidemic with its spin-offs of type 2 diabetes and heart ailments leads me to believe something has gone a muck in the modern American diet. It has primarily occurred during the advent of GMOs and my guess is that it is probably more related to the quality of the  feed stock than other societal components. I realize correlation is not proof of causation, but in analogy, if you are driving down the road and smoke starts pouring from under the hood of your car, it is best to pull over and investigate.
 
In summary, my suspicions are that GMOs are driven by market greed and ignores critical issues of sustainability in farming practice and  human/animal subsistence.  But I have a streak that tends toward traditionalism, socialism, and communism, so I could be biased in this matter. . 

 

[queequeg152]

But the caveat there is that I haven't seen any. 

honesty is the best policy.

If someone can present convincing long-term studies as to their safety, I might be willing to approve of the technique on a case by case basis.

what say you regarding my earlier arguments with respect to long term studies? what about the links provided above regarding the efficacy?
 

But as it stands, the decline in life-expectancy, the obesity epidemic with its spin-offs of type 2 diabetes and heart ailments leads me to believe something has gone a muck in the modern American diet. It has primarily occurred during the advent of GMOs and my guess is that it is probably more related to the quality of the  feed stock than other societal components.

 
this is so provably wrong that its actually pretty gross. the obesity problem is not related directly related at all to GMO food. Europe which is stringently anti gmo, has similar obesity trends. life expectancy has increased during the period at which gmo has been introduced btw. however this means nothing, as you noted correlation != causation.
yea something has gone wrong with the modern diet. we stuff to much into our faces.
 
i suspect your open mindedness is overstated, your belief in science even more so.
 
btw, to your list of 'isms' you should probably add, naturalism.

Just as poison is not safe. What im saying is breeding for genes naturally, let nature roll the dice for you. Also, some foods can claim to be "natural" when its a lie. Organic is when its safer. I would say just start a small farm for the stuff you want to grow, breed over time, and done. All foods have a small bit of unhealthy in them. We can fight this. breed foods so they have this gone.

 
why is nature better at rolling the dice, than say... a scientist?  
i know what you are saying about organic labels. what im saying is just make sure its USDA certified organic.
 
i have 0 problem with naturalistic ideologues, to each his own.
but when people try to couch their slanted views in pseudoscience,then stamp their feet demanding government action, it gets rather irritating.

 

[Blisstake]

 
In summary, my suspicions are that GMOs are driven by market greed and ignores critical issues of sustainability in farming practice and  human/animal subsistence.  But I have a streak that tends toward traditionalism, socialism, and communism, so I could be biased in this matter. . 

 
Acutally, one of the viewed reasons for this is because of the "lack of food" in developing countries. So modifying the food, makes more food? Why not just start researching new farming things so they can grow faster and better naturally? A more compact, but effective way. 

 

[randyp]

      Dang roundup-ready beans.....When I was younger we could walk the beans all summer and make lots of cash.Plus the farmers wife always fed us a great lunch daily.Did not much like my pants wet up to my waist from morning dew.The seed companies took away our jobs!!!!

 

[Heisenberg]

This should put this arguement to rest:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI&feature=share

 

[queequeg152]

This should put this arguement to rest:
 

 you would think. but no. it wont.
 
whos this guy in this video btw? just a blogger dude? he looks familiar idk why.

      Dang roundup-ready beans.....When I was younger we could walk the beans all summer and make lots of cash.Plus the farmers wife always fed us a great lunch daily.Did not much like my pants wet up to my waist from morning dew.The seed companies took away our jobs!!!!

 i think im missing something obvious here. but you  are saying that you used to pick them? or you used pick out the weeds? whats "walking the beans" mean?
lol sorry i grew up in suburbia = (
 
either way, sounds like hard work... i couldn't do that.

 

[randyp]

        Walked beans with corn knives to cut out cockburs,stray corn and other non desirables in the field.If people are to young they would not realize how bad the fields would look without us walkers.I was kidding about them taking our jobs,I stole that from"South Park"lol.