Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday. "The committee delved into the relevant literature, heard from 80 diverse speakers, and read more than 700 comments from members of the public to broaden its understanding of issues surrounding GE crops," the report reads. Panel members read more than 900 reports. A lot of concern centered on health effects. The committee determined the following: there is no evidence of large-scale health effects on people from genetically modified foods; there is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning; genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths due to vitamin A deficiency; using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects; sometimes the added genes do leak out to nearby plants -- a process called gene flow -- but there is no evidence it has caused harm; in general, farmers who use GM soybean, cotton, and corn make more money but it does depend on how bad pests are and farming practices; GM crops do reduce losses to pests, and if farmers use insect-resistant crops but don't take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance. The National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have put the evidence up on a website for skeptics of the report. The report also includes a 'Summarized Comments Received from Members of the Public' section for people to look up the facts to answer their concerns.
3... 2... 1...
There are people today who are concerned that there is DNA in their food. They will not believe this report any more than the people who think global warming is a lie or that the creationist 'museum' is factual..
The issue of GMO food has passed rational debate and entered into religious fervor. Some silly report isn't going to change a thing.
I am sure the Republican Party is interested in the Genetic Modified Chinks as the Democrats are only interested in the Blacks, the moslems, and the transvestites
No self-respecting member of The Church of the All Natural Plant Food would EVER stoop to disbelief in a report about The Great Satan GMO!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
People who fear vaccines, think that EMF gives them cancer, fight nuclear power incessantly, and are convinced that wind turbines make them sick with never, never, never believe this news.
NIMBY!!!!
My internet is not connected to the internet... I wonder if it's the tower.
It says it's from NBC News, but it reads like the opening speech at the annual Monsanto company picnic.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
When I encounter someone warning me about GMO foods, I give her a hug and tell her she's pretty. That's usually enough to change the subject.
The report really knocks the value of GMOs as begin completely over blown and of little value. Further, the report points to many unresolved ares of substantial risk.
The only POSSIBLE reason you could have for not labeling is that you don't want people to have the ability to make an informed decision.
Inform the public and let each one decide. What they decide and why they decide it is irrelevant. I don't like the taste of asparagus so I choose not to eat it. I don't like the idea of escargot so I don't eat that either, no matter what it might taste like. Irrational? Yes. Preferences are not rational, but they should be respected.
Stop trying to control everyone so you can selfishly increase profits.
who do you think sponsors such "research"? It couldn't possibly be gmo producers trying to force their production and establish a monopoly on the world's food every which way
or maybe it is just good Samaritans who went on spending money on proving how good gmo crops are for everyone, out of the kindness of their hearts
Beyond that, people think if you eat genetically modified RNA, it will get into YOUR DNA.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
As I understand, it's pretty much consensus that more pesticides equals to less bees.... or am I totally wrong?
It's what they do to the soil they are growing in. This report is way oversimplifying things.
I don't doubt that GM crops are safe. But what about the dirty tricks companies play, such as patenting a gene sequence? Or writing contracts that forbid farmers from harvesting seed, forcing them to buy new seed each time? Or deliberately modifying the genome so the plants are fine with respect to food, but don't produce viable seeds?
Are those things really in society's interest?
But: "if farmers use insect-resistant crops but don't take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance"
Kinda makes you wonder what the definition of "harm" is, exactly. Because that sounds pretty much like harm to me.
you are missing the point, gmo is not necessarily intrinsically evil, but the corporations which currently dominate the market certainly are, their practices speak loud enough
everything can be used for evil in the wrong hands, see today people have in their pockets what used to be supercomputers just a few decades back, but that progress didn't make them smarter, it made them dumber, it made them into products
also, having ridicule as your only resort hardly contributes to the validity of your point... if you actually have one
If natural is better how come it's better to live in a man made house than a cave or a tree? If natural is better how come poisonous mushrooms, ivy, and hemlock will kill you? GMO is safe, people eat natural food and die. How did people die 100 years ago before there was any GMO? Actually if we hadn't used our instincts and brains to develop technology such as plant hybridization thousands of years ago humans would probably be extinct like most of the other species that existed on the planet. Without our ability to make things and to modify natural stuff we would be dead. GMO is safe, I have been eating GMO tomatoes and other stuff for decades and I am not dead yet. Obviously there is a way to eat GMO and not die. Just because you don't know every possible ramifications of something doesn't mean it isn't safe. You don't know every possible outcome of driving on the highway yet you do it. How can you be sure a drunk driver won't get you?
Cancer research has been casting doubt on the safety of roundup (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/). There is a huge interest in burying the dangers being discovered. The most common GMOs are those modified to work with roundup.
I liked the part of the report which stated that people who eat GMO foods are better looking, make more money, and have sex with supermodels far more often than their non-GMO-eating counterparts.
#DeleteChrome
I know right.... It's like people believe that large corporations can just pay their way into having the government report whatever they want them to. Paranoid idiots!
Who paid for the research?
There's a huge number of reports out there that say that tobacco is safe. That there's no connection between cigarettes and lung cancer. If you follow the research grants back to the source, almost all these reports ended up funded by the tobacco industry. So what the frell' else would you expect the reports to say?
Monsanto and Big Ag learned from RJReynolds and Big Tobacco. They are funding a lot of research that says that GMO foods are not only safe, but actually good for you. Just like they say that glyphosate is safe and good for the environment. How's that turning out for them? And us?
Think that the money doesn't really influence the results? Try this:
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/03/six-industry-funded-studies-the-score-for-the-year-15612/
Again, follow the money.
People seem to want to paint all GMOs with the same brush, but it is important to consider the actual modification. There is a difference between modifications like being roundup ready, and those intended to increase nutrition or water efficiency. Some might be create, and some might be evil. They need to be studied and judged individually (or at least in groups).
If they don't share it they'll get kickback from the people they don't share ALL the details with.
That's just reality, wake up and see the intertwining of it all. If you try to keep secrects it just ends up in a fight. Be real, that means you to baby raping Catholics, explain your reasoning.
Andrew
"It usually makes farmers more money therefore it's safe"
An actual safety analysis would look at the possible hazards and the steps to mitigate them. As I see it (as a non-geneticist) there is only one actual hazard in terms of human consumption: that some toxin or allergen would be introduced into the food. Allergen exposure would be mitigated by labeling laws (eg splicing genes to add the ability to attract nitrogen fixating bacteria to corn roots and reduce nitrogen fertilization use: "Warning: may contain peanuts"). Toxin introduction is more problematic, since the future of GMO is almost certainly going to be in plants that produce their own *icides rather than requiring spray-on pesticides and herbicides and fungicides and so on. Unlike the spray-on stuff though, innate pesticides will not wash off and will be consumed by the people eating the plants.
Oh well, worst case, someone poisons several billion people with a neurotoxin (a common mechanism for pesticides) and declares bankruptcy rather than dealing with the medical costs of debilitating neurological diseases. Thankfully the corn was 5 cents cheaper!
One of my mentors in my surgical residency used to frequently say, "The facts are not important." People are going to believe what they perceive, regardless of the facts. Just look at the number of people that go to chiropractors and use alternative medicines, despite no evidence that they are of any benefit (chiropractors have been shown to be minimally beneficial for low back pain, only). See https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org for articles. Poor quality studies that show they are effective are just as good as claiming it rained worms because they're all over the sidewalk after a thunderstorm.
First Ars, now Slash - everything's been bought and propagandized. Sad times
Many Anti-GMO people also think Anti-Vaxxers are crazy. Sup wit dat?
The biggest problem with GMO is that it adds intellectual property on what we eat. And since the genes flow between species, the intellectual property-tainted life spread everywhere.
And summary does not address herbicide-resistant GMO, which cause farmers to actually use more herbicide, to kill everything else but the crops. We have a lot of studies about herbicide being very harmful at high doses for farmers.The question of low doses for consumers is still open (probably because of propaganda studies like this one)
Now they are "skeptics". How about they get to be called genetics "deniers"?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Just throwing this out there if anyone's interested. I thought The Windup Girl was a pretty good (YA) dystopian biopunk story by Paolo Bacigalupi set in the 23rd century after GMO farming and global warming have taken their tolls. Heard his following book, Ship Breaker was good too, but haven't read it.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How about the report about the rats fed GMO food and they got organ damage.
I find it interesting, how when what has been identified conclusively as "science denier" criticism in the past, one of the "Tells" of it being science deniers doing the criticism is the people and the expertise of the people doing the criticism have some red flags. They are (not an extensive list, but enough to raise an eyebrow)
1- They use the same tactics used by tobacco companies to spread the argument that there is a 50/50 debate amongst experts, when there is a strong consensus. they say things like "there is no conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause cancer" for example or "there is no conclusive evidence that global warming is occurring".
2- The people providing the criticism, are not experts in the field that they are commenting upon, and interestingly they have more political and public relations backgrounds rather than scientific backgrounds on the subjects that they are commenting on. This is compounded by the fact that they over report the numbers of the "scientists" that support their positions. The bottom line is that in these cases of "skeptics" as they call themselves or "science deniers" as everyone else calls them, the positions are being taken and reported and referenced by the same hand full of "experts" in the news media. This means that there are a few people who are saying that their skepticism is representative of a much larger number of experts than it is.
3- The real clincher is that in the cases of science denier reporting and criticism, The same hand full of "skeptics" are popping up and representing themselves as a majority of science skeptics when, they are the same small group of people that popped up before and were spreading FUD about the consensuses that are accepted now by 90% of scientists across the world about (again not an extensive list but enough to spread a lot of doubt about their integrity) Denial that tobacco is a major cause of cancer, that global warming is occurring and is conclusively connected to carbon emissions from fossil fuel usage, denial about the consensus on cancers being caused by dioxin and flame retardant chemicals used in consumer products and denial about the conclusive nature of the science on high carbohydrate consumption through added high fructose corn syrup in sodas and food products being a major causal factor in obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes epidemics since the 1970s.
I think the reason these same people pop up on Fox news and CNN to report about the false "debates" on these issues is because they have a track record of arguing and spreading FUD to confuse the issue when conclusive science is reported to the public.. and they do this (judging by their actions not their words) because they have been paid to by industries, based on their expertise of arguing and spreading false doubt, all the way back to the days of spreading FUD about the conclusive science on the cancer causing nature of tobacco products on the behalf of tobacco companies.
Just watch.. if these same people pop up and say that there is no consensus when there is.. you can bet someone with a lot of money somewhere paid them to make up their same bullshit arguments and spread "science denier" brands of "Skepticism" when the science has been done and points in a direction their corporate masters do not like.
Another tell about these types that is pretty damning is how they try to shift the argument from scientific evidence to the argument being about "Freedom" . "You want freedom to smoke if you want to?" or "You want freedom to drive and support the economy?" or " You want freedom to have a house that won't burn down form a carelessly discarded cigarette?" The freedom to do these things was never up for debate, just the argument that the scientific consensus was that these things are or are not harmful. When they try to shift the argument to an argument about freedom.. it is a tell that they are just spreading FUD.
I suspect the same thing is going to happen here about the safety of GMO products. We will see. We do have quite a lot of experience what happens when science conclusively proves something and industry hires shills to try to shift public opinion with tactic that are less than honest.
I don't doubt that GM crops are safe. But what about the dirty tricks companies play, such as patenting a gene sequence? Or writing contracts that forbid farmers from harvesting seed, forcing them to buy new seed each time? Or deliberately modifying the genome so the plants are fine with respect to food, but don't produce viable seeds?
Are those things really in society's interest?
Sometimes.
And they're not all "dirty tricks," although some of them are really, deeply inappropriate.
Big companies that spend billions on research legitimately should be able to patent their discoveries for a while in order to fund the research. That's the whole idea of patents. The case law on patentable subject matter is a real mess at best, and more realistically is intellectually dishonest. (More out of frustration with the existing rules than out of any real intent to be evil.)
The contracts are perfectly fine when there is competition--the problem arises when one company has too much market power and abuses it, creating contracts of adhesion in an anti-trust monopolistic way.
As to modifying the plants so they don't produce viable seeds, the LAST thing we want is lots of GMO activity where the plants have the potential to reproduce on their own. Bioengineering is a field of incredible potential and incredible danger. It may give us the opportunity to grow new trees that can handle our warmed planet--but it also risks creating invasive species that never existed in nature.
Real lawyers write in C++
All you can say is the GMO foods you tested are safe.
GMO covers billions of variations. It's IMPOSSIBLE all of them are safe.
I'm guessing slashdot here is another place monitored by monsanto defenders 24-7.
It's fun to fuck with them on reddit. Say gmo or monsanto ANYWHERE and they'll show up in minutes with their big blocks of stale copypasta links to tell you how wrong you are.
Another super negative indicator really.
Legit square dealing orgs don't pay armys of trolls to push their position and trash all negative opinions.
just like israel. or russia. or microsoft.
I first read this as "Genetically Modified Cops Are Safe, Report Says", which would have made for a much more interesting article.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
So they've determined that selling GMO plants doesn't lead to increased monopoly control over the food supply?
That's my primary objection. I'm hard to convince on the other points, but I know myself well enough to realize that this is mainly because nothing has altered my main grounds for opposition: monopoly control over the food supply. I could be convinced that chemical pesticides are safe...it would take better evidence than I've seen, but it could be done. However this wouldn't change my opposition to GMO foods unless it could be shown that they didn't lead to increased monopoly control.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Can we extend the definition of "astro-turfing" to this kind of thing?
It rings true on several levels.
Get ready for another 50-100 year war on industry.
thought it said genetically modified COPS. they pretty much already are a distinct species, at least in Murica.
This report according to Monsanto and funded by the large farming conglomerates.
huh...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Glyphosate, a consequence of GMO modified crops is in people's urine and mothers milk, worst of all in BEER!!!!
And it has "probably" no effect on human's health, not even thinking about the whole soup of endocrine disruptors messing up our bodies or the compound effect of all the goodies additions feeding us so well taken together.
Interesting the timings of those - does no harm - reports coming out - Glyphosate is due for renewal in the EU in July (or so).
When was this trans-fat goodie discovered and put to use? 1800's, right and how long did it take to show adverse effects recognized and get it shut down?
Building blocks of DNA (what they are using to spice the crop's DNA is probably a secret) are swapped between organisms and that process is far from fully researched.
Round-Up-Ready DNA is taken in by weeds and yoii, are they putting it to use. Next is stronger and more complex poisons...
The underlying issues - profit and growth the only criteria, unlimited population growth in a limited environment is too hot a potato to be touched by a politician dependent on "sponsors", if it's even recognized by those conditioned brains convinced that all is OK, gods will or things are just not true...
All-together, just one big Yuck! Fish are dying - can't breath any more.... no more "thanks for all the fish"...
The fact that the above post was downmodded so fast proves that Monsanto did 9/11.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's absurd to think this requires regulation at all. There are already laws against selling foods that are harmful; already terrible repercussions for companies if they sell food that turns out to be harmful.
These plants are being modified in ways that make it pretty much impossible anything harmful can come of it. You really, really need to research the science behind what genetic modification of food is actually doing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Those that what to join the grand experiment, feed these Adam Henry's GMO foods and see what happens after about 20 years.
Such a small fragment of truth you should have at least tried to verity. From a quick Google search the number is more than 140 lawsuits filed by one company (Monsanto) against farmers. This does not include any of the other companies performing genetic modification or licensed by Monsanto to use their seeds and their lawsuits.
The fragment of truth is that one lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court who upheld Monsanto's rights to sue.
The second tiny fragment of truth is that one patent expired. There are hundreds of thousands of seeds on patent.
All that said, when Monsanto goes after a specific farmer even if the patent is expired the claim generally puts farmers out of business.
The problem is not GMO as much as shit business practices who ensure that consumers get fucked because competition does not exist. A pox on all the people modding down anything that can possibly be perceived as anti-GMO.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes those evil companies trying to invent ways for humans to produce more and better quality food with less pesticides, less effort, less damage to the soil and environment.
Those evil bastard's. Turns out they aren't doing it for free, they actually want to get paid! The nerve...
Yes those evil companies trying to invent ways for humans to produce more and better quality food with less pesticides
One of the type of genetic modifications performed involves modifying the plants so that you could actually use more chemical crap without hurting the produce. Now it may be safe for human consumption but it turns out that it can have unitended consequences for local environment in general. For example, using more herbicides and fertilizer to promote the growth of crops using the latter but preventing weeds from doing the same using the former results in the Gulf of Mexico becoming a eutrophicated, dead zone.
Ezekiel 23:20
I wouldn't worry so much about the safety of GMO food, but the "intellectual property" bullshit involved. What could be the consequences of giving certain few corporations so much power over something as essential as a country's food supply? That's just insane.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I've heard that eating GMOs can alter your DNA, giving you perpetual diarrhea. I guess it's true, diarrhea runs in your genes.
"The NRC has chosen to include numerous scientists who work on promotion or development of genetically engineered (or GMO) crops and who have financial ties to biotech companies, which have an economic and political agenda in this debate."
Trust us, says lobby group sponsored by Syngenta and Monsanto, because we've taken our astroturfed feedback into consideration!
Meanwhile thousands of farmers in India are committing suicide over failed GE cotton crops. Don't worry slashdot, it's a third-world problem.
Maybe the only person here who gets it.
Patent trolls will reproduce like rabbits because of this.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No you're thinking of Roundup resistant crops.
And no, you'll still use more herbicides and insecticides on "organic" crops.
Why? Lower overall efficacy.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If they're wrong, who do we sue?
If they are so good, open-sourcing the gene sequences is what we need. Let the revolution begin! I want to hack into my potatoes today!
So in the same way we release half-baked junk software, we now want to hack the environment, and of course this is declared safe. Till proven otherwise. Brace yourselves!
First, there's TTIP (where US want to force Europe, which forbids GMO to be sold for human, to change the laws and the sanity laws to buy their products).
Now, there's *this*, made by... US, telling that GMOs are OK and wonderful.
And for those GMOs-are-great-other-people-are-stupid, let me point you to "milk" and see why the Chinese can't drink it in adulthood and we Europeans can.
Now, show me what the GMOs can really do *in the long term*. Ops, you can't. Why?
And last, think, if such intolerance comes from just natural milk, what could happen with GMO? And a last thought, couldn't it be possible that the last increase of milk-intolerant people in the US be related to the consumption of GMOs? (Because the same trend does not happen in Europe and we have immigrants from Asia too).
One of the type of genetic modifications performed involves modifying the plants so that you could actually use more chemical crap without hurting the produce.
That is a misconception. It doesn't enable you to use 'more' herbicide, it enables you to change when and what you use. Instead of a series of pre- and post-emergent herbicides you can have fewer applications of a less harsh herbicide. Ideal? No, but do you have a better weed management strategy?
For example, using more herbicides and fertilizer to promote the growth of crops using the latter but preventing weeds from doing the same using the former results in the Gulf of Mexico becoming a eutrophicated, dead zone.
That's actually the exact opposite of true. Because of herbicide tolerant crops, more and more farmers have switched to no-till systems, and have used herbicide applications instead of tillage for weed control. Thing with tillage is, it helps with weeds, but tears up the soil and contributes to soil degradation and fertilizer runoff, the nitrogen from witch causes eutrophication. If dead zones are your concern, you should be supportive of things that facilitate no-till farming.
Overall I think GM food could be done well and would be a benefit to society. However, they have been some terrible examples so far. There is a lot of fear of GM foods, but when your body digests food from a GM crop, the DNA is broken down into mononucleotides. The original structure of the DNA is lost and resulting mononucleotides would be the same weather the original food was from a GM and Non-GMsource (because DNA is DNA). I have not heard of, or seen any studies showing any difference at this level. But this is where a lot of the fear-mongering over GM foods reside. For the vast majority of people there should be no adverse impact fromGM foods. If you live in the US and have had corn chips without getting sick, congratulations you are (most likely) living proof that GM foods can be safe for humans. So the DNA is not an issue, but the proteins created by the DNA must also be digested and metabolized and this could be an issue for people with food allergies. People can be deathly alergic to some proteins, e.g. peanuts. This presents a significant problem for GM foods, especially with trans-genic modifications. Trans-genic modifications take a DNA sequence from one species and put in a completely unrelated species. If you were allergic to fish or eggs, it may not be enough to stick to a vegetarian diet. It is possible that a GM crop could use a DNA sequence from a food you are allergic to and put it in a food you would never expect the allergen to occur. Here in the US there is NO labeling requirement and this makes it devilishly hard to trace back from an allergic reaction to the food that actually made you sick. I think it is a good idea to require GM foods to be labled and without labels, I personally think it is reasonable to oppose them outright. I really would love to see a process that allowed consumers to find out a bit more about the GM foods, specifically what species were used for the DNA in the GM food. This would allow people who do have food allergies to protect themselves. But I think this is unlikely in the world of I.P. and trade secrets. The second issue I have with GM crops is the environmental impact caused by certain crops. For example BT corn contains A DNA sequence from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis which allows the plants to produce a protein lethal to common pest insects. In essence the plant makes it's own insecticide. Some early studies showed that the pollen contained significant quantities of the protein and since corn is wind pollinated the possibility of unintended consequences is substantial. More recent studies have dismissed most of the concerns. Still, I'm hesitant to declare victory because we are seeing a loss of Monarch butterflies and song birds in America. There are surely many contributing factors and the presence of GM crops may not be a direct cause of these losses. However it is quite possible that this is a contributing factor. A similar case can be made for GM crops that make the plants resistant to herbicides. The ecological concerns are harder to prove because the environment does not limit itself to a single cause when producing the effects. But sorting out multiple causes is very hard and so most studies try to reduce complex systems down to simple, repeatable, mechanisms. The one thing that is clear, the law of unintended consequences does not appear to have any difficulty scaling to the level of human activity. As we do more and bigger thing, we get more and bigger consequences. It this keeps up, it may some day be a good idea to choose precaution over profit, but I fear this too is unlikely.
the effects of using more and stronger pesticides on the crops, and quenching the soil and groundwater with it, and how Big Farming reins farmers in and keeps them on a leash, like slaves.
And the argument about vitamin A deficiency? How fucking desperate. You make it sound like it's a big problem around the world. The people who are dying from vitamin A deficiency are doing so because they don't have any food to begin with, and with Big Farming working for profit only, refusing to distribute food evenly, your little bit extra vitamin A in your pesticide-laced corn is not going to help anyone.
Was this report also funded by Monsanto, perhaps?
This is where I get worried:
They left "yet" off the end of that and the rest of their findings. It would be fairer to say, "GM foods are safe at this time so far as we know". How about leaking out of the plant world into ours - is that possible? The idea that we should study the wider impact of unnatural DNA by letting it wander round the environment, then find out what it's up to seems reckless to me.
Since it's so wonderful and safe, you should label it so we will know which foods have it in the supermarket!
---
Seriously- if you want to get people to go for GMO, just label it and start selling it for 10% less money. Within 6 months, 99% of the population will be eating it to save money even if it gave them green skin. It's the refusal to label it that is making it an anathema.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No you're thinking of Roundup resistant crops.
Exactly, but that's an intentional genetic modification.
Ezekiel 23:20
But the Round Up they use to kill all the weeds so they don't have to plow - and the round up they use to go back and kill all the crops so they all die at once for maximum yield *might* not be so safe... Otherwise they wouldn't have needed to pass the "Monsonto Bill". They know *something* isn't right.
That is a misconception. It doesn't enable you to use 'more' herbicide, it enables you to change when and what you use. Instead of a series of pre- and post-emergent herbicides you can have fewer applications of a less harsh herbicide. Ideal? No, but do you have a better weed management strategy?
I was thinking of robotics. I'm not sure how much this is feasible (including the distant future), but a machine that could mechanically (or electrically, or in some other way) destroy weeds selectively and leave the desired plants alone could perhaps do the trick. (Well, obviously, that's really more of a solution for the distant future.)
That's actually the exact opposite of true. Because of herbicide tolerant crops, more and more farmers have switched to no-till systems, and have used herbicide applications instead of tillage for weed control. Thing with tillage is, it helps with weeds, but tears up the soil and contributes to soil degradation and fertilizer runoff, the nitrogen from witch causes eutrophication. If dead zones are your concern, you should be supportive of things that facilitate no-till farming.
And the increased local concentration of said chemicals is without any side effects of its own?
Ezekiel 23:20
And more of such blah-blah. No word on what / who they really are. No indication that this is a real science organization or an organization of scientists. Also, the URL suggests that the "study" is from 2014.
They kill us all! Believe me. I know. I ate them and now I'm dead. I've died. My funeral was last week. They also turned me into a 2-headed mutant land-dolphin. It's the word "genetically" that did it. Not the actual food.
I'd guess about half the anti-GMO rhetoric I've heard is directly attributable to something Monsanto did or has done. You'd think they had a total monopoly on GMO R&D from what people are saying. Yeah, Monsanto is a big, wriggly bag of cocks, but their behavior shouldn't color the entire field.
what a fucking croc of shit
financed by Monsanto ?????????????
Go well
Drugs require a long trial, and so should genetically modified food. Why shouldn't we be just as cautious about what we put in our bodies just because it looks like the food we know? Just because we just haven't had something go wrong doesn't mean that it won't.
Because even wheat contains protein, there could be a prion or something that we don't know of, and it could wipe out a good percentage of humanity before we even notice it.
The GM food we already have on the market might even be having effects we aren't considering, because there's no monitoring. It's likely not, but what if celiac disease is caused by GM wheat? It's likely not, but a problem like that is possible, and there's no long term testing on animals or humans of any kind.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Such a small fragment of truth you should have at least tried to verity. From a quick Google search the number is more than 140 lawsuits filed by one company (Monsanto) against farmers. This does not include any of the other companies performing genetic modification or licensed by Monsanto to use their seeds and their lawsuits.
The fragment of truth is that one lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court who upheld Monsanto's rights to sue.
The second tiny fragment of truth is that one patent expired. There are hundreds of thousands of seeds on patent.
All that said, when Monsanto goes after a specific farmer even if the patent is expired the claim generally puts farmers out of business.
The problem is not GMO as much as shit business practices who ensure that consumers get fucked because competition does not exist. A pox on all the people modding down anything that can possibly be perceived as anti-GMO.
Have you looked at the suits? The only guys Monsanto has brought cases against are those that were using Monsanto seeds without buying them from Monsanto. The very simple problem farmers face is choosing to buy seeds from Monsanto and using Monsanto seeds, or to not use Monsanto seeds. In both those cases, Monsanto is never gonna darken their door with any legal action. The only time Monsanto comes after farmers is when they attempt to use Monstanto seed without buying it from Monsanto.
You're free to disagree with Monstanto's right to do that if you wish, but don't misrepresent the situation by projecting your own biases, Farmers are making their own choices and if they aren't make the choice you think is the right one it's really none of your business.
BTW, here's an example of what often happens when someone does actually publish evidence against Monsanto's interests: http://www.nature.com/news/wid...
You are seeing objections to the claims of round up causing cancer because it's false. The studies showing cancer in mice and rats was when exposing them round up used high doses. In practice, that means that eating round-up is probably carcinogenic, as reported. The trick is, in ag practice, people don't taste test chemical before putting them in a sprayer. After spraying round-up on a crop, it breaks down within days. By the time any crop hits the market, it's nearly impossible to find any trace of it, and that's looking at ppb. The cancer in rats quantity was many, many times higher. For reference, we might wanna measure radioactive isotopes on produce near coal plants too, it's probably at equally worrying levels as round up. That's proper scope of the 'problem'.
Golden Rice is a loss leader. It's the same as the old Union Station scam used by the Robber Barons; a foot in the door. It's an obviously good thing that can be used as a front to hide obviously bad things (like the market manipulation through consumer misinformation, i.e. subverting labeling laws).
Because, again, of market manipulation. Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of small farmers still do it (all my dozen or so farming relatives do it) and it's just the giant corporate food producers skewing the statistics that make it look like an unimportant issue. Those corporate giants are also the primary source of the problems with pesticide resistance - because of their vast monocultures - that made bug-resistant and "roundup ready" GMOs desirable in the first place.
It's all about increasing the wealth of the super-rich, who are too shortsighted to see that by sacrificing science and markets on the altar of corporate profits, they are crushing the middle class that pays the taxes.
If you're against GMOs, you probably aren't sufficiently educated to understand the scientific and economic issues. If you're against labeling, you probably aren't sufficiently educated to understand the scientific and economic issues. It's a battle pitting the ignorant against the ignorant to profit those who don't really care about anything but profit.
It's not about cancer. There are many other ways to be harmful to our continued existence.
OGMs that are unable to produce offsprings are very dangerous for the world, and by that I mean humans.
If something goes wrong, we are potentially in big trouble.
_ We need diversity, so a plant do not go the way of the banana of the 50s (and soon, it seems, the current one).
_ If the developper goes belly-up (for any financial, technical, catastrophic reason), the farms cannot produce anymore (starvation)
_ OGMs should be produced in the country/region they are used, for what I believe are obvious strategical reasons. They become a kind of weapon (no production or production of "nasty" strain).
_ If OGMs spread through "normal" cultures, they could infect farms with their copyrighted dead genes, reducing (killing?) the crops and making the already difficult work of farmers even harder.
As for the seeds that do not die in a fixed number of generations, it should be forbidden to lawer-up against farmers having OGM'ed productions. It feels wrong to copyright life. Besides : life evoles, so there are probably a lot of changes at the DNA level between a OGMed seed and its surviving next generation (disclaimer: I'm not a biologist),
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Thanks for the attention, I hope your masters pay you well for being a liar.
For the innocent bystander, this is more propaganda. Law suits about "stealing seed" relate to what farmers call "bleed" where plants grow on areas of land which are not farmed and not maintained. At least one of those cases was brought about by the farmer suing Monsanto because their seed started creeping into their land, and Monsanto successfully sued them for patent infringement in retaliation.
There is a very well known revolving door between the highest Federal offices and Big Business, Agriculture is a part of this cronyism.
When businesses behave altruistically they can be treated as such, and I would defend them and their altruism. They don't, so I don't.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Thanks for the attention, I hope your masters pay you well for being a liar.
For the innocent bystander, this is more propaganda. Law suits about "stealing seed" relate to what farmers call "bleed" where plants grow on areas of land which are not farmed and not maintained. At least one of those cases was brought about by the farmer suing Monsanto because their seed started creeping into their land, and Monsanto successfully sued them for patent infringement in retaliation.
There is a very well known revolving door between the highest Federal offices and Big Business, Agriculture is a part of this cronyism.
When businesses behave altruistically they can be treated as such, and I would defend them and their altruism. They don't, so I don't.
Give me a single solitary example and I'll admit I'm wrong.
Percy Schmeiser is the most commonly cited example. He admitted in court he took his own seeded Canola that bordered his neighbours's Monsanto round-up ready crop. He then sprayed his own seed crop with round up, and then took the few surviving plants and used this to grow his own Monsanto seed. That's not 'bleed' over, it's a concerted effort to acquire Monsanto's seed.
Fifteen years ago, China noticed pesticide in U.S. grain shipments.
That pesticide was grown by the GMO crop itself.
The U.S. response was, sorry, that GMO crop was meant for livestock feed only and somehow got in the human supply.
This became a bigger problem because grains all get mixed in storage elevators,
so non-GMO grain effectively became pesticide embedded GMO grain.
One can say GMO crops are usually healthful to eat, but grains can be GMO modified to actually kill people.
You don't want to allow anybody's GMO modification to be sold!
There is a "GMO" modification that presents no problem -- remove genes (rather than add genes).
Nature itself often removes genes.
CRISPR cas9 technology, arising from bacteria's defense against viruses, can selectively remove genes.
This was done with button mushrooms, removing a gene that created ethane, so those mushrooms don't get slimy and brown as quickly.
Yum.
Why do animals avoid GMO foods when put side-by-side with non-GMO? In tests with wild birds they put plates of GMO-grain and non-GMO grain side-by-side. The GMO grain is pecked at and left untouched, the non-GMO grain is eaten. I think the animals are smarter than the human who wrote this report.
I'm an advocate for GM (corn is not a naturally occurring species as a stark example), but I shut my ears when something gets labeled as having come from "the experts".
So millions dead in India from failed GMO crops is safe? GMO crops that are toxic are safe? WTF?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
'However, the committee acknowledged the âoeinherent difficulty of detecting subtle or long-term effects on health or the environment,â they wrote in an accompanying statement.'
---
One thing people need to be aware of however. Many pesticides are currently a non-renewable resource. The more crops/people/pesticide use, the fast we use up the non-renewable manufacturing sources. At some point, we will need the crops to do the job. It's unavoidable and likely to occur within the next 70 years.
Another issue is that insects are going to adapt to it. But maybe perfect robot workers can crawl the field catching insects and killing them manually?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Great! GMO food is not harmful and even good for you. So, label it already...LABEL GMO FOOD.
It's like nuclear power, right? It's not that it doesn't work. It's that some idiot is bound to lose control and kill us all.
The fact that:
A) the FDA and EPA are both heavily staffed by ex-monsanto employees
B) crop diversity is reduced by GMO's (If you are pro-science, than it should be obvious that that is a terrible thing).
C) companies like monsanto are buying up seed supply businesses that sell non GMO seed
D) companies like monsanto are patenting non GMO seed (go ahead and fight us in court)
E) monsanto goes after individual farmers
is evidence enough for me that it isn't safe, there are ulterior motives involved, and that huge multinationals controlling the strings to most of the food supply is not good. There are bigger implications here regardless of the safety issue.
Ever hear of what happened in Bolivia when Bechtel owned the water supply? Why are people so eager to be in the same situation themselves one day?
Anyone with any amount of foresight can see this coming.
I chose to end my comments, not with a rim shot, but a long decaying F#7sus4
Just like when they said we have to stop raising chickens, pigs, and especially cattle because they're bad for the environment, and need to resort to eating bugs instead, like crickets and cicadas or whatever, I say this.
Fine. You first, assholes.
As for me, as long as there's reasonably priced and available chicken, beef, pork, etc., that's what I'm going to eat. Is it unfair that because I live in a first world (for now) country, that I get to indulge?
No. You forget wars were fought and people died so that at the end of the day, one group of people could triumph over another, and to the victor go the sweet, motherfucking spoils.
If you feel guilty, eat bugs. Or leaves and twigs and mud. Live in a cave so you have no carbon footprint discernible from that of a lower animal of about your body mass.
Or eat corn with proteins taken from squid or whatever. Be the chump who sacrifices and suffers while everyone else goes out for steak. Steak is delicious and as the planet's apex predator, I'm not going to apologize for finding steak delicious. ... says everyone in America not jumping on the bandwagon.
As for me personally, I'm mostly vegetarian now anyway. Health reasons, if you must know, rather than for moral, ethical or environmental reasons. But time to time...
I miss steak.
Yes? AND?
We've been INTENTIONALLY modifying our crops for thousands of years. Selecting the traits that best suit our needs.
People are just ticked that we did it playing God in a lab this time, rather than playing God with controlling natural selection.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Scientists swore for decades that smoking was safe, until it was proven otherwise.
Scientists swore that thalidomide was safe, until it was proven otherwise.
Scientists swore that fen-phen was safe, until it was proven otherwise.
The list goes on and on. This is just a sample: http://prescriptiondrugs.proco...
So forgive me if I don't trust the "scientists". Do I believe that GMO in inherently bad? Of course not. It's simply a method. It's how that method is used that concerns me. When it's done for profit, then I am highly suspect of its safety. When it's done for strictly humanitarian reasons with no profits involved I'd be much more willing to be open to it.
Our history is rife with companies that would poison their own mothers if they could make a buck from it.
People are just ticked that we did it playing God in a lab this time, rather than playing God with controlling natural selection.
No, people are ticked that this God demands payment. Not only for the seed, but for its progeny.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
NOBODY is worried there's DNA in their food.
And guns are safe and good for people's protection. It's only when they're available to everyone that they're bad for people and kill more than they save.
Just like GMOs.
And for all those complaining that this is no different from farming, this is complete and utter bollocks.
standard farming doesn't create a monoculture of a completely new phenotype that spans billions of acres. By the time we find out that it's fucked things up, it's far FAR too late.
And no, this isn't going to starve people if we don't have GMOs. We throw out more food than we need to feed everyone to a minimum standard. The only reason for pushing GMOs is to make food a monopoly item rather than a fungible commodity where the free market can make the price efficient.
GMO products should be proudly labelled "Made better with genetic science".
This is what the report concludes in its executive summary:
In different words, your own summary of the report is a misrepresentation.