GE/GMO Industry: Corporate Hijacking of Food and Agriculture

Post Reply New Topic

I support GMO food.

I didn't in the past, but that was before becoming a skeptic and using critical thinking and that stuff.

The thing about Genetically modified is that while it sounds scary for sure. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that there is anything wrong with it.

I like this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html

It's not that small a garden,about 1/4 acre.I have used chemical fertilizer on the past.I grow just as much using organic methods.Have you ever seen the back of a pick-up bed that chemical fertilizer has spilled in?It will eat the metal,it also kills earthworms and beneficial bacteria that colonizes the soil.
I know about xeriscaping,gardening is one of my special interests,since a child.But I don't think as a species we need to be splicing genes,we just recently learned to use fire.It's to soon for our own good,Pandora's box.
Yes.that was a joke about population control,I should have put a smiley there.
Here are some links to info that says it's not such a good idea.Superweeds are one reason.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesti ... 36598.html

On the toxic pollen;

www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/99/5.20. ... ollen.html

www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/r ... -after-all

I've tried both traditional and "Organic" methods, and I've had better results with traditional ones. "Organic" farming is too labor-intensive for the meager results, so I see no reason to break my back for a couple of bushels of twisted, spotted veggies, when with some careful fertilizer and pesticide use, I can get at least twice the yield with more robust crops.

GMOs are the way to go!

I don't think it was the intention of the GMO suppliers to muscle out everyone else via dirty tricks.

I think they honestly wanted to make better products, and ran into some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problems.

I'm gonna start by saying that I think herbicide-resistant crops are a bad idea. Herbicides are a bad idea. Finding a way to use herbicides with wild abandon is a really bad idea.

Getting higher yields is a great idea. Making crops tolerant of poor soil conditions is a great idea. Drought resistance is a great idea. In 100 years, only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy non-GMO foods. We'll need every trick.

So we've all seen "food, inc" and know about the plight of the soybean grower who is basically locked into buying seed from one source and cannot save some of their crop for re-seeding due to essentially license issues. Even if it's only because some of their crop might have been cross-pollenated by their neighbor's crops. That's a bad situation but i doubt that the corporation involved planned it that way. They have an approved product that spreads. Their only possible legal defense is a legal offense. Somebody is going to get sued, and they have to make sure it's the other guy.

There's also the situation with canola. There are two different herbicide resistant GMO strains - one of them identified by a stripe down the middle of each flower petal, the other identified by a stripe on either side of each flower petal. And it turns out that these have cross-pollenated and there is now double-resistant canola growing wild.

So, are we breeding a future of seed crops that grow everywhere and can't be killed? Possibly. That might not be so bad. Aside from the whole biodiversity problem.

And then there are the terminator seeds that don't cross pollinate - but then you're still a dick because it's more expensive and can only be bought from one vendor and you can't compete without it.

You may be growing hybrids but I don't think any GMO plants are available for home use.
I had Okra over my head and one awesome year I canned 75 quarts of tomatoes.
True that fungus and blights can be a problem but if caught early copper and sulfur work well.Also varieties that you buy at the store may not be suitable in your area.And they may already have pests and diseases.I start my own plants mostly,I buy flower plants and shrubs though.Some years certain bugs are awful and the next year it's something else.
A good mulch helps prevent fungal problems by preventing soil from splashing on the leaves,and don't water the leaves.And the floating row covers are a great bug barrier.
Bug poison also kills birds,when they eat the poisoned bugs or when they carry them to the nestlings.
But if The_Walrus wants to add the genetics of Lophophora Williamsii to veggies,that could be very interesting.Drought resistant and.....fun.

Congratulations.

I think it's funny that you conflate GMO with hybridization. Which is exactly what GMO marketers want people to do.

I guarantee you that every variety you are growing is a hybrid.

Most of the vegetables we eat today did not exist in any form we would recognize 1000 years ago. We're very good at manipulating genetics indirectly.

And now we're getting the hang of manipulating genetics directly.

Both hybrids and "artificially" modified food stuffs are variants of the wild (i.e. natural) prototype. If they do no harm and are beneficial or cost reducing in some way, why object to them?

ruveyn

A hybrid is like taking the best parts from both a Mac and a PC, and connecting them together in such a way as to make a better computer.

GMOs are like hacking the OS on your Mac or PC in such a way as to make a good computer run better.

Recommended reading is Wheat Belly by Dr. William Davis. It's not about GM food, at least not directly. It details how Green Revolution-inspired forced mutation of wheat actually turned a beneficial food into one that causes obesity and sickness. After the new wheat was introduced, obesity rates soared, and stayed high. The gluten proteins in the New Wheat act more like a drug than a food. Dr. Atkins was on to this in his low-carb diet, but that was too indiscriminate. Gluten is the problem. All this was totally unintended, the goal was a wheat that would produce more food. It did, but the side effects were a b***h.

Fnord, "organic farming" isn't natural either. It was invented by Rudolf Steiner, whose accomplishments include the Waldorf system of education (that doesn't actually teach kids anything) and a pseudo-religion called Anthroposophy, which I guarantee you will never make head nor tail out of. Farming methods that worked for thousands of years have been forgotten. Now we have chemical, GMO ag (which produces poor quality food) and Steiner's "organic" ag, which like so many of his ideas is nonsensical. How did people farm several thousand years ago? Nobody has a clue. Eventually, both methods will fail, and left without farming, man will go extinct. We depend totally on our own systems, when the system fails so do we.

I'm not "merging" GMO's and hybrids.
Evolution had more to do with some edible foods than man,we are newcomers to the scene.
The Matt's Wild Cherry tomato is seed that was collected from the wild.
Many heirloom beans,corn,squash varieties are pre-Columbian.
Of course there is modification happening throughout the selective process.That happens in my own garden,I select the plants that performed the best and save the seeds.Some
varieties I have grown for close to twenty years.These seeds have adapted to the conditions in my yard.And of course there is natural cross pollination of some varieties.If plants are not separated by so many feet you will get some hybridization.
Broccoli is a relatively new vegetable,but broccoli Raab is more like the original plant
There is the modern form of Arugula, then a wild form.The wild keeps growing even thru drought,newer form bolts and goes to seed.True the newer variety has bigger leaves but in the long haul the wild Sicilian Arugula out produced it.

I'm not opposed to improving food crops,but I don't think we are wise enough yet to make the right choices.No one thought about air pollution when the combustion engine was produced
And the commercially mass produced food tastes like crap,it's altered to come off all at once,good for the farmer and it saves fuel but tasteless.Tomatoes are breed to have a tough skin for shipping,bland and hard.Strawberries to be huge and again,firm for shipping across the country,no taste,no fragrance.Peaches that taste nasty,how is that even possible??!
I'd rather eat a peach with a worm in it if it tasted like a peach should.
I think everyone that can should grow some food,even just a tomato or pepper in a flower pot.And buy local food,organic or not.

Synthetic oil is better than natural oil.

I'm personally not in favor of GMO foods.
Sometimes, in good intention of trying to make the food tastier, better or drought resistant, unintended consequences soon follow.

There is a connection between GMO foods and Autism.

There is also a connection between Food-borne allergens and GMO Foods

Best Regards,

Jake

Post hoc fallacy.

Our lives have been increasingly mechanised, we do less exercise than ever; we also eat more sugars and fats than ever before, meaning we consume far more calories.


True, we can and have made people allergic to food they shouldn't be allergic to by having a plant code for the offending protein. I believe this has particularly happened with sufferers of Brazil nut allergies becoming allergic to soy.

AAAS statement on the health risks of GMO:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/ ... tement.pdf

Bottom line. No health risk from GMO foods compared to foods made from conventional crops.

This could go on for ever,this is one of those topics where evidence for both viewpoints exists.But don't GMOs have to be labeled as such in Europe??

For more info;

www.gene-watch.org

www.fooddemocracynow.org

www.rareseeds.com/non-hybrid/

www.SeedsofDeception.com

www.ResponsibleTechnology.org