GM foods.

[Brisbot]

Alright so got into a discussion on GM foods somewhere on the internet, and it's somewhat frustrating. First off because almost EVERYONE seems to disagree with me when I say that GM foods are not bad for you. So if everyone is against you, then chances are, you must be doing something wrong...right? Anyway I went into a googling frenzy, and couldn't find any evidence against GM foods that didn't feel like a conspiracy (yeah 'organic-foods-forever.com' )is totally not biased.

I am actually wondering what "empirical evidence" anyone here may know of against GM foods. I prefer evidence concerning actual physical health troubles associated with the food, but you can bring up Monsanto or farmer suicide rates if you feel like, but that isn't really what I'm after. Even if the latter are true, that's no reason to throw GM foods under the bus, so to speak.


Yes, I am frustrated if you can't tell >:-) The main reason I'm posting it here is because I had the discussion on one of Afx's tracks in user18081971, so I'm wondering if the community surrounding it generally believes this.

Long post short: Is there any evidence that GM foods is harmful to human health.

[YO303]

im no expert so i don't know but i found this discussing interesting

 

 

Kevin Folta is a land-grant scientist exploring ways to make better food with less input, also learning and teaching how to effectively communicate science to the public. He is also a professor in and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville

 

[Flapphed]

On Kevin folta

 

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/kevin-folta-received-25000-monsanto

[Audioblysk]

The problem with GM foods to me isn't so much the 'food' itself, but how they manipulate the plant to produce the results they want. This isn't crying farmers, this is a huge issue that extends well beyond just what you eat. We are talking about a government extension, breeding plants and copyrighting genetics so that if pollen goes through with pollination after floating from their farm to yours, you are liable for millions for a simple act of nature. Or you have the lovely crops that never seed, so unless your having fun with gibberellic acid in your field (not recommended, it'll make freaks), you have to keep buying the same seed from the same company, year after year - this is for corn that mostly goes to make corn-syrup, but occupies something like 80% of the USA's corn crop. This is just a few examples of the fuckery of Monsanto. Do you not see how bad that is, in general? People bitch about 'guvment this' and 'gubment takin that' but fail to even understand the basic system by which their fucking sustenance is brought to their corner market. It's insane. It's a way bigger issue than giving you cancer which you'll probably already get due to other practices with modern agriculture.

 

It's incredibly short-sighted from an agricultural/biological standpoint to continue a line of (IMO) genetically inferior crops to suit the purpose of greedy humans because a lab was able to make 'a better one' than the millions of years of natural selective breeding and open pollination - which makes for stronger biodiversity when it comes to issues down the road with climate change, blights, disease, pests, and invasive species.

 

This is a HUGE reason to throw GMO crops under the bus. We don't know the full effects of modifying plant genes - whether it be in our guts/body or to the continuation of that particular plant to keep breeding correctly as to not develop problems with genetic bottle-necking or inbreeding issues - leading to 'perfect plants that yield a ton' missing vital genes to be expressed and ultimately leading to the consumerization of that particular crop and the dependance on one crop's phenotype that has an unknown future. Dismissing that while searching for imperial evidence that hasn't had enough time to develop is a fools search for enlightenment and is only thinking of the end result. As someone who has studied plant breeding, agriculture, horticulture, botany, and agronomy - we are missing the bigger picture by focusing on how it effects humans and arguing for something that is not available to even debate, data-wise...

 

Don't even get me started on modern farming techniques, that's a whole different can of worms and probably even more harmful than the GMO crop issue in the short and long term for humans, insects, fish, and plants. I'll stop rambling.

[eugene]

 

It's incredibly short-sighted from an agricultural/biological standpoint to continue a line of (IMO) genetically inferior crops to suit the purpose of greedy humans because a lab was able to make 'a better one' than the millions of years of natural selective breeding and open pollination - which makes for stronger biodiversity when it comes to issues down the road with climate change, blights, disease, pests, and invasive species.

why is it a problem? as if it's the first time that people overcome/improve what nature offers.

[Ragnar]

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

[Flapphed]

 

 

It's incredibly short-sighted from an agricultural/biological standpoint to continue a line of (IMO) genetically inferior crops to suit the purpose of greedy humans because a lab was able to make 'a better one' than the millions of years of natural selective breeding and open pollination - which makes for stronger biodiversity when it comes to issues down the road with climate change, blights, disease, pests, and invasive species.

why is it a problem? as if it's the first time that people overcome/improve what nature offers.

 

The thing is that they aren't improving anything, the crops taste worse usually (as far as I can recall) yield less and cost more to make.

Also the common comparison of genetic modification to something like cross breeding is completely faulty as they could not be any different. Eg. http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/genetic-engineering-vs-selective-breeding

GM foods aren't about improving anything but profit.

[Salvatorin]

I think the biggest problem is the inability to control or predict the effects of cross pollination at the large scale. Say your newleaf™ potato with an inserted insect repellent gene gets spread through wild or natural potatoes, then to related plants; it's not manageable and the effects are

[Audioblysk]

Genes can be expressed differently throughout plants by the thousand even within a single generation, through natural process. As an example, chitosan-salicylic acid pathways being triggered in sweet orange trees via salicylic acid (willow, aloe, ect.) and chitosan (from chitin - crustacean meal) had over 1000 DEG's or 'differently expressed genes'. The plant reaches its genetic potential when treated right. That article above, while factually accurate, doesn't support GMO and if anything supports the fact that it's not wise to tamper with things outside of very wide-variety selective breeding when it comes to mass-agricultural gene pools. Small changes can have a huge effect as it said, we don't really understand our actions before we do them, lets not start with the things we rely on to live that really have no need being tampered with for the most part if we evolved in our practices with agriculture instead of spraying pesticides and pumping growth mediums with salts. FFS we used to stuff our ceilings with asbestos and have nuclear bomb test watching parties where they were only separated by a wall of concrete... so don't really glom onto 'it helps because I've been told so that fast.

 

Reminds me of Idiocracy. People who say they are really improving things have never set foot on a farm or even grown a tomato.

[Tricone RC]

I am actually wondering what "empirical evidence" anyone here may know of against GM foods. I prefer evidence concerning actual physical health troubles associated with the food, but you can bring up Monsanto or farmer suicide rates if you feel like, but that isn't really what I'm after. Even if the latter are true, that's no reason to throw GM foods under the bus, so to speak.

 

Yeah, IMO a lot of opposition to GMO is basically woo about how we shouldn't "mess with nature" or something.

 

There are definitely ethical and ecological issues when it comes to some particular uses of GM crops, e.g., er, a certain well-known large company, which famously ties its GM crops in with its own line of pesticides of dubious environmental merit. And some GM crops might have the potential to escape and wreck wild gene-pools. But that's no reason to oppose all GMOs. For example take Golden Rice, a GM crop devised with public money for genuinely philanthropic reasons. Yet some people still feel the need to oppose it.

 

 

PS soz my posts havent been about IDM much lately guise

[Flapphed]

 

I am actually wondering what "empirical evidence" anyone here may know of against GM foods. I prefer evidence concerning actual physical health troubles associated with the food, but you can bring up Monsanto or farmer suicide rates if you feel like, but that isn't really what I'm after. Even if the latter are true, that's no reason to throw GM foods under the bus, so to speak.

 

Yeah, IMO a lot of opposition to GMO is basically woo about how we shouldn't "mess with nature" or something.

 

There are definitely ethical and ecological issues when it comes to some particular uses of GM crops, e.g., er, a certain well-known large company, which famously ties its GM crops in with its own line of pesticides of dubious environmental merit. And some GM crops might have the potential to escape and wreck wild gene-pools. But that's no reason to oppose all GMOs. For example take Golden Rice, a GM crop devised with public money for genuinely philanthropic reasons. Yet some people still feel the need to oppose it.

 

 

PS soz my posts havent been about IDM much lately guise

 

It always blows my mind when people support the thinking behind golden rice, essentially lets keep these very poor people alive enough to keep growing this rice.

If you live in a land where all that grows there is unable to support your body to function at all, you should probably move. Golden rice doesn't empower these people, it enslaves them further.

[Psychotronic]

Alright so got into a discussion on GM foods somewhere on the internet, and it's somewhat frustrating. First off because almost EVERYONE seems to disagree with me when I say that GM foods are not bad for you. So if everyone is against you, then chances are, you must be doing something wrong...right? Anyway I went into a googling frenzy, and couldn't find any evidence against GM foods that didn't feel like a conspiracy (yeah 'organic-foods-forever.com' )is totally not biased.

 

I am actually wondering what "empirical evidence" anyone here may know of against GM foods. I prefer evidence concerning actual physical health troubles associated with the food, but you can bring up Monsanto or farmer suicide rates if you feel like, but that isn't really what I'm after. Even if the latter are true, that's no reason to throw GM foods under the bus, so to speak.

 

 

Yes, I am frustrated if you can't tell >:-) The main reason I'm posting it here is because I had the discussion on one of Afx's tracks in user18081971, so I'm wondering if the community surrounding it generally believes this.

 

Long post short: Is there any evidence that GM foods is harmful to human health.

Dude. I read that discussion on soundcloud and i see your point.

 

As for every scientific branch, it is not the branch that can be critised, but the people who are absusing this technology out of capitalistic interests. These have to be put in chains, not the scientific research itself. My country blocks most kinds of GM food and has rules for labeling products. So you can see where stuff is coming from. You want to know why i dont buy GM food. Not because of the modifications, but because i dont want to give my money to the corps that abuse that technology. Yes, we abandon a complete scientific branch, because of the US letting capitalism run wild over the world. That's also why we dont want any TTIP or other shit.

 

Stop these capitalists and we can talk again.

[eugene]

 

 

 

It's incredibly short-sighted from an agricultural/biological standpoint to continue a line of (IMO) genetically inferior crops to suit the purpose of greedy humans because a lab was able to make 'a better one' than the millions of years of natural selective breeding and open pollination - which makes for stronger biodiversity when it comes to issues down the road with climate change, blights, disease, pests, and invasive species.

why is it a problem? as if it's the first time that people overcome/improve what nature offers.

 

The thing is that they aren't improving anything, the crops taste worse usually (as far as I can recall) yield less and cost more to make.

Also the common comparison of genetic modification to something like cross breeding is completely faulty as they could not be any different. Eg. http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/genetic-engineering-vs-selective-breeding

GM foods aren't about improving anything but profit.

 

if they are improving profit then they are improving something tangible as well, probably yield, compared to the natural variant. they don't just sell more or for higher prices because it has a GM tag.

[Audioblysk]

 

 

 

 

It's incredibly short-sighted from an agricultural/biological standpoint to continue a line of (IMO) genetically inferior crops to suit the purpose of greedy humans because a lab was able to make 'a better one' than the millions of years of natural selective breeding and open pollination - which makes for stronger biodiversity when it comes to issues down the road with climate change, blights, disease, pests, and invasive species.

why is it a problem? as if it's the first time that people overcome/improve what nature offers.

 

The thing is that they aren't improving anything, the crops taste worse usually (as far as I can recall) yield less and cost more to make.

Also the common comparison of genetic modification to something like cross breeding is completely faulty as they could not be any different. Eg. http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/genetic-engineering-vs-selective-breeding

GM foods aren't about improving anything but profit.

 

if they are improving profit then they are improving something tangible as well, probably yield, compared to the natural variant. they don't just sell more or for higher prices because it has a GM tag.

 

 

Profit comes at the cost of your health and the foot on the head of smaller farmers. The things that are applied to crops before it gets picked should never be eaten by humans. The conditions of most of the 'red' farms I've visited are dismal for the plants and their workers have to wear protective gear half the time. I dunno man. There are a lot better ways to improve profit when it comes to agriculture without reinventing the apple so to speak.

 

Ironically, pesticide use has increased by up to 10% in total in GMO crops since 2006 with the scale of farms not growing at nearly the same rate to compensate for the increase. This isn't bad considering that data, but look at it this way -> The spread of glyphosphate herbicide resistant weed population after the implementation of herbicide GMO cultivars and herbicidal treatments has boomed causing upwards of 60% increase in herbicide application in those crops that are supposed to be helped by the genetic engineering. The insecticidal applications have indeed decreased but these numbers reflect corn mostly in their vast scale so soybean and other cash crops have actually had problems with resistant insects. Overall, there hasn't been much of a success over old methods with herbicide application dwarfing the benefit the GMO engineering served as pesticidal and insecticidal pest problems can be solved with plenty of organic and incredibly effective means (i.e. healtheir plants, potassium silicate, neem and karanja meal, activating the SAR response of a plant, ect.)

[Adieu]

Good ole super mold brought to you by Monsanto. Gotta love that aflatoxin exposure from all your corn, soy, and peanut products.

 

also important to note gene expression when exposed to low levels of pesticides and all the related problems. It's pretty obvious that a constant low level exposure to these things damaging to DNA.

[eugene]

 

 

 

 

 

It's incredibly short-sighted from an agricultural/biological standpoint to continue a line of (IMO) genetically inferior crops to suit the purpose of greedy humans because a lab was able to make 'a better one' than the millions of years of natural selective breeding and open pollination - which makes for stronger biodiversity when it comes to issues down the road with climate change, blights, disease, pests, and invasive species.

why is it a problem? as if it's the first time that people overcome/improve what nature offers.

 

The thing is that they aren't improving anything, the crops taste worse usually (as far as I can recall) yield less and cost more to make.

Also the common comparison of genetic modification to something like cross breeding is completely faulty as they could not be any different. Eg. http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/genetic-engineering-vs-selective-breeding

GM foods aren't about improving anything but profit.

 

if they are improving profit then they are improving something tangible as well, probably yield, compared to the natural variant. they don't just sell more or for higher prices because it has a GM tag.

 

 

Profit comes at the cost of your health and the foot on the head of smaller farmers.

but the whole point of this thread is that there's no proof for any health issues of gm stuff, and now you're repeating this point without providing any as well.

and regarding small farmers - no one cares.

[Tricone RC]

It always blows my mind when people support the thinking behind golden rice, essentially lets keep these very poor people alive enough to keep growing this rice.

If you live in a land where all that grows there is unable to support your body to function at all, you should probably move. Golden rice doesn't empower these people, it enslaves them further.

 

enslaving them by giving them the ability to grow nutritious food, with no strings attached, where previously they couldn't...?

[Audioblysk]

Eugene, I just gave you facts about the growing of GMO crops and the vast increase of pesticide use of on them as a byproduct of 'improving' them. I don't have evidence that the crop itself, if left unsprayed, would cause health concerns. At lease not any I feel are credible. The products they use on the crop very toxic to humans and are used much more frequently, often under contract, by farms that supply GMO products to the market. My main point is its destruction of natural agriculture and implementation of needless and short-sighted dangerous practices in place with the 'improval' of GMO crops, which you won't touch because you don't know a thing about it. The petrochemical industry in the USA and world has been making you more and more distanced from how your food is grown and how it is grown. The boom of petrochemical influence with money and products after the first two world wars completely changed the way we grow food for the worse. Never before did we pump dead soil with ammonium nitrate... And everyone seemed able to live. We didn't breed super-resistant pests because we improved things. The USA has a long history of not doing the right thing, but doing the wrong thing until it becomes the norm.

 

Also, even for a chum like you, saying 'nobody cares' about small farmers is exactly what's wrong with our agriculture perception and general awareness in this and many other countries and completely false. You should care, and many do. But, so is the life of the average person, not giving a shit about things that actually matter like how their sustinance is engineered and grown chemically in the least natural way possible. This couples with the shrinking ability for small farms to provide for small communities. It's like arguing that Walmart improves local economies by shutting down local business. Absolute hogwash.

 

Until you can rebuke my actual points and not misconstrue my debate points to suit your lack of knowledge - you're still the same ol' WATMM Eugene. I welcome your response, with no facts, blindly defending to win a debate you know nothing about. Bring it

[eugene]

Eugene, I just gave you facts about the growing of GMO crops and the vast increase of pesticide use of on them as a byproduct of 'improving' them. I don't have evidence that the crop itself, if left unsprayed, would cause health concerns. At lease not any I feel are credible. The products they use on the crop very toxic to humans and are used much more frequently, often under contract, by farms that supply GMO products to the market.

well where's the evidence that those pesticides cause additional health problems then? it's basically the same issue, when the researches are saying that GMed products are not causing additional health problems they're sure as hell ain't specifically picking the ones that weren't exposed to various pesticides, they're picking products from the shelf of the supermarkets.

 

My main point is its destruction of natural agriculture and implementation of needless and short-sighted dangerous practices in place with the 'improval' of GMO crops, which you won't touch because you don't know a thing about it. The petrochemical industry in the USA and world has been making you more and more distanced from how your food is grown and how it is grown. The boom of petrochemical influence with money and products after the first two world wars completely changed the way we grow food for the worse. Never before did we pump dead soil with ammonium nitrate... And everyone seemed able to live. We didn't breed super-resistant pests because we improved things. The USA has a long history of not doing the right thing, but doing the wrong thing until it becomes the norm.

this is coming very close to the organic foods discourse of idiocy. just because something isn't natural it doesn't mean it's anyway bad. there's nothing inherently good about natural-ness. there's no inherent health compatibilities for humans in natural products.

 

 

Also, even for a chum like you, saying 'nobody cares' about small farmers is exactly what's wrong with our agriculture perception and general awareness in this and many other countries and completely false. You should care, and many do. But, so is the life of the average person, not giving a shit about things that actually matter like how their sustinance is engineered and grown chemically in the least natural way possible. This couples with the shrinking ability for small farms to provide for small communities. It's like arguing that Walmart improves local economies by shutting down local business. Absolute hogwash.

i want good and cheap things, local farming can't provide that with the same efficiency as big firms do, unless they can offer something of value no one should care about them and they should fuck off. i mean it's stupid, it's like paying some premium for some hand-made thingie when the same thingie can be made for much cheaper in a specialized factory.

 

Until you can rebuke my actual points and not misconstrue my debate points to suit your lack of knowledge - you're still the same ol' WATMM Eugene. I welcome your response, with no facts, blindly defending to win a debate you know nothing about. Bring it

 

but you don't really have any points so far, it's just another instance "nature is good for ya brah. buy real natural organic veggies, fuck the corporations man"

[Audioblysk]

You need evidence as to why pesticide use raising significantly in the past 10 years to keep your veggies cheap after 'improving' them with BT and other tweaks is actually bad for you? Are you fucking kidding me? I made very valid points on the increase of pesticide use and the difference of expression in genes when grown naturally using certain elements showing peak genetic potential... So yeah. I have made points, you just worked around them. Would you like sources? I'm on my way to work and can post as many as you'd like, not that it'll help as apparently, you need to be convinced as to why things like myclobutanol, abamectin, round-up and the myriad of other pesticides are bad for you to eat... I can send you a bottle of one to chug to prove your point? In the studies where it is suggested that gmo isn't bad, it's done with lab-grown and non-sprayed crops tested on mice and rats to prove the validity that GMO tampering doesn't effect humans, but greatly misses the point of the methods used to get those in the real world from the farm to your table in bulk for cheap, are the real problem.

 

If that's the way you think about how the food you ingest and require to sustain your life - you're fucked pal. Buying toys or electronics not painted with lead paint from China must be hard for you to fathom too? At least you don't put those in your mouth. This is food, not some market commodity, that mentality will literally kill us as it already is with the general masses being obese as fuck due to poor cheap diets filled with GMO corn syrup and wheat. Please excuse me for being 'totally save the earth man' for caring about things I put into my body and understanding the plight of modern agriculture other than 'I want cheap things' - it's absolutely pathetic to have that mentality when the cheap option is literally killing you faster than time itself. What kind of cloistered world do you live in where that is actually a beneficial ideal to have? Do you buy the cheapest anything, just because the others who do better work for more expensive might rob your wallet in their quality? Humans are always so set on the 'improvements' they make in the world and their lives... Generally we find out years later, we actually fucked up in the long run. Nature does do things better, that's why it'll be around longer than us and has been thriving enough to support this life without our meddling - we fuck it up for the vast majority of things we try to improve for the sake of money.

 

Can you find me studies on how GMO and big-ag has improved anything other than their bottom line and how pesticides aren't harmful for you or the environment? You have to back up your point too bud.

[Guest kymppinetti]

I eat GM food for ethical reasons. All you stupid people should too!

[Brisbot]

Yes post sources

[eugene]

You need evidence as to why pesticide use raising significantly in the past 10 years to keep your veggies cheap after 'improving' them with BT and other tweaks is actually bad for you?

 

of course. there's ton of shit in the air and food, doesn't mean it really affects health in any significant manner.

 

 

I can send you a bottle of one to chug to prove your point?

i can send you a bottle of vodka to drink in one go and it will knock you down, doesn't mean that the in smaller amounts it will do anything to you. what a fucking stupid point.

 

 

In the studies where it is suggested that gmo isn't bad, it's done with lab-grown and non-sprayed crops tested on mice and rats to prove the validity that GMO tampering doesn't effect humans, but greatly misses the point of the methods used to get those in the real world from the farm to your table in bulk for cheap, are the real problem.

all their conclusions are that those are not harmful to humans, and there are arrays of other studies that clear various pesticides that fda and other bodies later approve. 0+0=0

 

 

...when the cheap option is literally killing you faster than time itself

utter bull, global health and life expectancy are improving with every year.

 

 

Nature does do things better, that's why it'll be around longer than us and has been thriving enough to support this life without our meddling - we fuck it up for the vast majority of things we try to improve for the sake of money.

lol, computers don't grow in nature for example.

 

 

Do you buy the cheapest anything, just because the others who do better work for more expensive might rob your wallet in their quality?

but they don't work better, it's the same shit more or less. that's the point.

 

 

i don't even know why i keep bother arguing with you conspiratards whose mental abilities are long decimated by heavy drug use. i mean you can't even tell the difference between some hippie-nature-organic-bullshit-tirade and a logical argument, can you?

[eugene]

and i actually went pretty soft on you because this notion that gmed products require more pesticides is most probably bullshit, the economic drive is to modify them in a way that requires less. but whatever.

[eugene]

here's one research for example : http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/agbio2010/Other%20Readings/Kleter%20Pestidice%20Use%20GM%20Crop%20Rev%202007.pdf

 

Abstract: The large-scale commercial cultivation of transgenic crops has undergone a steady increase since their
introduction 10 years ago. Most of these crops bear introduced traits that are of agronomic importance, such as herbicide or insect resistance. These traits are likely to impact upon the use of pesticides on these crops, as well as the pesticide market as a whole. Organizations like USDA-ERS and NCFAP monitor the changes in crop pest management associated with the adoption of transgenic crops. As part of an IUPAC project on this topic, recent data are reviewed regarding the alterations in pesticide use that have been observed in practice. Most results indicate a decrease in the amounts of active ingredients applied to transgenic crops compared with conventional crops. In addition, a generic environmental indicator – the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) – has been applied by these authors and others to estimate the environmental consequences of the altered pesticide use on transgenic crops. The results show that the predicted environmental impact decreases in transgenic crops. With the advent of new types of agronomic trait and crops that have been genetically modified, it is useful to take also their potential environmental impacts into account.