Genetically modified food - are you afraid?

[Pulsar]

There's a HUGE difference between spreading pure manure, or creating hybrid navel/blood oranges through cross-pollination, and injecting beef with growth hormones or spraying crops with pesticides. You're the one who makes no sense.

Really? Explain then how nature evolves. Transferrance of genes. Mutation. Survival of the fittest.

Manure is a combination of chemicals. It will differ by area, and differ by what type of animal the manure is from, and what the animals were eating to produce the manure.

Closing your eyes and blindly suggesting that because that happens in a field it is more 'right' or 'safe' than what happens in a lab is plain silly.

The plague, SARs, the Avian Flu, Swine Flu, Aids and hemmorhagic (spelling?) fevers like Ebola were all created by nature. Tell me how safe they are.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Really? Explain then how nature evolves. Transferrance of genes. Mutation. Survival of the fittest.

Manure is a combination of chemicals. It will differ by area, and differ by what type of animal the manure is from, and what the animals were eating to produce the manure.

Closing your eyes and blindly suggesting that because that happens in a field it is more 'right' or 'safe' than what happens in a lab is plain silly.

The plague, SARs, the Avian Flu, Swine Flu, Aids and hemmorhagic (spelling?) fevers like Ebola were all created by nature. Tell me how safe they are.

I'm not going through an entire physical anthropology series with you. If you want to understand those things, or chemical absorption, go to school and take the classes yourself, same as I did.

Yes, everything affects chemical composition...some for the better, some for the worse, and some neutrally. HOWEVER, if you'd quit acting like a 45iq infant spoiled bitch you'd obviously realize that some things are going to have negative impacts, or unknown impacts, which could be avoided by avoiding exposure to chemicals KNOWN to have those impacts. Administering growth hormones into our food change is having a KNOWN impact...one that absolutely DOES NOT exist in the natural chain. Don't even get me started on defoliating agents and pesticides.

OOOh, water is natural, over-hydration can kill you, therefore water is bad. Look what I did there. Seriously, pull your head out or fuck the hell off. I don't have time for people as utterly and purposefully ignorant as you.

 

[Pulsar]

I'm not going through an entire physical anthropology series with you. If you want to understand those things, or chemical absorption, go to school and take the classes yourself, same as I did.

Yes, everything affects chemical composition...some for the better, some for the worse, and some neutrally. HOWEVER, if you'd quit acting like a 45iq infant spoiled bitch you'd obviously realize that some things are going to have negative impacts, or unknown impacts, which could be avoided by avoiding exposure to chemicals KNOWN to have those impacts. Administering growth hormones into our food change is having a KNOWN impact...one that absolutely DOES NOT exist in the natural chain. Don't even get me started on defoliating agents and pesticides.

OOOh, water is natural, over-hydration can kill you, therefore water is bad. Look what I did there. Seriously, pull your head out or fuck the hell off. I don't have time for people as utterly and purposefully ignorant as you.

I see. So your standpoint is that we should stop doing anything that we don't already completely understand? If we haven't done it for hundreds of years and proven it safe, it shouldn't be done?

By your logic, we'd never move forward and never progress. Having safeguards in place is a good idea. Stopping progress because we're afraid of what might happen is a luddite standpoint that won't fly with most rational people.

The growth hormone you're talking about....
Human health
According to the Food and Drug Administration, food products made from rBST treated cows are safe for human consumption, and no significant difference exists between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows.[15] The FDA found bGH to be biologically inactive when consumed by humans and found no biological distinction between rBST and BST.[15] In 1990, an independent panel convened by the National Institute of Health supported the FDA opinion that milk and meat from cows supplemented with rBST is safe for human consumption.

In fact, the reason the EU did away with it was because they didn't like the effects that it had on the cows. I wonder... do they still sell veal?

Unreasoning fear is not a valid argument against progress. Your emotional outbursts and personal attacks do not improve your credibility.

Defoliating agents? I'm not aware of their widespread use in creating more fertile and productive crops. Are we now expanding this conversation from genetically engineered food to all the wrongs that Mosanto might have ever committed?

Edit: Administering growth hormones into our food change is having a KNOWN impact...one that absolutely DOES NOT exist in the natural chain.

Can you please give a cite from a peer-reviewed scientific study that supports the claim that rBST negatively affects human beings? Lacking that, can you cite a preponderance of related studies that show the evidence?

 

[PrinceofWands]

I see. So your standpoint is that we should stop doing anything that we don't already completely understand? If we haven't done it for hundreds of years and proven it safe, it shouldn't be done?

By your logic, we'd never move forward and never progress. Having safeguards in place is a good idea. Stopping progress because we're afraid of what might happen is a luddite standpoint that won't fly with most rational people.

The growth hormone you're talking about....
Human health
According to the Food and Drug Administration, food products made from rBST treated cows are safe for human consumption, and no significant difference exists between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows.[15] The FDA found bGH to be biologically inactive when consumed by humans and found no biological distinction between rBST and BST.[15] In 1990, an independent panel convened by the National Institute of Health supported the FDA opinion that milk and meat from cows supplemented with rBST is safe for human consumption.

In fact, the reason the EU did away with it was because they didn't like the effects that it had on the cows. I wonder... do they still sell veal?

Unreasoning fear is not a valid argument against progress. Your emotional outbursts and personal attacks do not improve your credibility.

Defoliating agents? I'm not aware of their widespread use in creating more fertile and productive crops. Are we now expanding this conversation from genetically engineered food to all the wrongs that Mosanto might have ever committed?

Edit: Administering growth hormones into our food change is having a KNOWN impact...one that absolutely DOES NOT exist in the natural chain.

Can you please give a cite from a peer-reviewed scientific study that supports the claim that rBST negatively affects human beings? Lacking that, can you cite a preponderance of related studies that show the evidence?

First, you don't get to set arbitrary limited parameters for the discussion. The actual question is: is there a peer-reviewed, scientific study that supports the claim that chemical additives in food or the food chain could be having negative impacts on humans? The answer to that is, hundreds, if not thousands of them. Some were the basis of the European report back in '99 that you're specifically referring to (and the subsequent reviews of that initial decision). However, there are numerous others about all aspects of chemicals in the food industry.

Feel free to research a list of chemicals banned over the last forty years because it turns out they were found to have an impact on humans through food consumption. As soon as you find ONE, my argument is upheld. I'll save you time: DDT (or other organochlorines). Not only was it once allowed, it won the frigging Nobel.

In short, for every source/article you'll list supporting the use of chemicals, I'll list one refuting their use. We'll get no where. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Life CAN be sustained without the use of chemicals, and it MAY be harmed with their use. That's enough for me right there. I'll accept chemical additives when multiple sources having NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to the food industry or politics tells me it's as safe as possible.

 

[Cogman]

Dang it, I voted wrong. I thought the thread title was the pool title.

Yes, I would eat genetically modified foods. In fact, I think people that are afraid of GMFs are retarded.

 

[BoberFett]

Craig was only addressing A. My response was a reply to his post. This isn't a great place to discuss the merits of genetic sequences as intellectual property.

Your quote of Craig's response seemed to be what my second point was about. Monopoly practices.

 

[Pulsar]

First, you don't get to set arbitrary limited parameters for the discussion. The actual question is: is there a peer-reviewed, scientific study that supports the claim that chemical additives in food or the food chain could be having negative impacts on humans? The answer to that is, hundreds, if not thousands of them. Some were the basis of the European report back in '99 that you're specifically referring to (and the subsequent reviews of that initial decision). However, there are numerous others about all aspects of chemicals in the food industry.

Feel free to research a list of chemicals banned over the last forty years because it turns out they were found to have an impact on humans through food consumption. As soon as you find ONE, my argument is upheld. I'll save you time: DDT (or other organochlorines). Not only was it once allowed, it won the frigging Nobel.

In short, for every source/article you'll list supporting the use of chemicals, I'll list one refuting their use. We'll get no where. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Life CAN be sustained without the use of chemicals, and it MAY be harmed with their use. That's enough for me right there. I'll accept chemical additives when multiple sources having NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to the food industry or politics tells me it's as safe as possible.

You are very confusing. If we're talking about chemicals used in food production, then let's talk about that. If we're talking about defoliants used decades ago during a war, let's talk about that.

Saying that some chemicals have made it through the gauntlet of regulation and still had negative effects is true. Saying that all should be avoided because of those that have made it through.. ridiculous.

I hope you don't have a TV in your house. Lead in the screen, heavy metals in the innards. CFL's aren't allowed either (mercury). Drive a car (hex-chrome, lead, just two mention 2 of dozens)? Uh oh. Non-stick utencils (teflon, plastics and their associated offgassing)? Cellphones (heavy metals and microwave radiation)? Computer? Tires? Spraypaint? Tupperware? Bleach? Microwave dinners?

You are allowing an irrational fear to control your decision making. Irrational because you aren't applying it equally across all the products you use. You're saying that people should be taking sulfa drugs, anti-rejection therapy, and advil because of Thalidomide.

 

[alphatarget1]

GM is just grafting on (super) steroids, IMO.

With that said, how do they keep these GM plants from reproducing and spreading their seeds outside of the farms? I'm mainly worried about the ecological consequences of growing GM plants. They should be perfectly safe to eat.

 

[Cogman]

GM is just grafting on (super) steroids, IMO.

With that said, how do they keep these GM plants from reproducing and spreading their seeds outside of the farms? I'm mainly worried about the ecological consequences of growing GM plants. They should be perfectly safe to eat.

Corn is a great example. Corn will not grow in the wild. It has been GMed to the point where it simply can't survive.

In fact, most farm plants really have that problem, weeds are usually far more aggressive than most agricultural plants are.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You are very confusing. If we're talking about chemicals used in food production, then let's talk about that. If we're talking about defoliants used decades ago during a war, let's talk about that.

Saying that some chemicals have made it through the gauntlet of regulation and still had negative effects is true. Saying that all should be avoided because of those that have made it through.. ridiculous.

I hope you don't have a TV in your house. Lead in the screen, heavy metals in the innards. CFL's aren't allowed either (mercury). Drive a car (hex-chrome, lead, just two mention 2 of dozens)? Uh oh. Non-stick utencils (teflon, plastics and their associated offgassing)? Cellphones (heavy metals and microwave radiation)? Computer? Tires? Spraypaint? Tupperware? Bleach? Microwave dinners?

You are allowing an irrational fear to control your decision making. Irrational because you aren't applying it equally across all the products you use. You're saying that people should be taking sulfa drugs, anti-rejection therapy, and advil because of Thalidomide.

We're talking about ANYTHING that ends up in the food we eat.

Actually I do avoid much of your list. Obviously I have a computer, and I also have a tv. I don't have a car, tupperware, very seldom any spraypaint (or other sprays), non-sticks, etc. I have bleach, but I use it as a chemical, not a laundry whitener. I could go on, but I think the point is made.

But that's all beside the point. In food, I try to buy mostly completely unaltered foods. I grow some myself (using NOTHING but water and soil), and frequent markets where people I know sell their goods. I have family and friends who raise beef completely naturally (no chemcials in the beef, none in the food fed to the beef, etc). It's a fairly new thing for me...I never used to care much. Even now I'm not an absolutist...I enjoy the occasional pizza, chinese, or fast food. However, I acknowledge that what I'm doing IS poisoning myself, and we'd ALL be better off if 90% of the chemical and chemical processes currently in use were abolished.

 

[CycloWizard]

Your quote of Craig's response seemed to be what my second point was about. Monopoly practices.

Nothing he said was a comment on monopolistic practices as far as I can tell, nor is suing someone for patent infringement.

 

[Darwin333]

GM is just grafting on (super) steroids, IMO.

With that said, how do they keep these GM plants from reproducing and spreading their seeds outside of the farms? I'm mainly worried about the ecological consequences of growing GM plants. They should be perfectly safe to eat.

That was probably the first (or close to) thing they GM'd it NOT to do. Not much profit in selling seeds if those seeds turn into crops that spread like wildfire all by themselves.

Then again... if you can get corn to take over all of the arable land, forcing out all other crops then GM'd tomato (of whatever) seeds that resist corn from taking over would sell like hotcakes. -patent pending

 

[Infohawk]

LOL at the naive types who think that producing enough food will end starvation. It's not a problem of production. We already produce enough. It's corruption and distribution problems in third world countries that prevent people from getting the food.

I don't have a problem with genetically engineered crops in principle, but the legal issues and issues with monocultures are concerning.

 

[Zorkorist]

Advances in food production, will only benefit the world in the long run.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Hell, it may be the only thing that U.S. Industry is still good at. Producing food.

-John

 

[William Gaatjes]

I bash them when they deserve it, such as their contribution to this unacknowledged genocide. I'm not surprised you support the genocide, given your bigoted monocultural viewpoints.

I fully agree with Moonbeam with the notion that you are an insane troll.

 

[CanOWorms]

I fully agree with Moonbeam with the notion that you are an insane troll.

I tend to think that those who support genocides are the insane ones.

During the era of colonialism, many supported the European stance on preventing industrialization in their colonies. You are just doing a similar thing in a new era. History will not look kindly upon your barbarous views.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

That is a concern I share to some degree, but it isn't just Monsanto and the like developing these crops. And because of the patents, they can only control it for so long. It's a give and take between the cost of development and their time to earn a profit and what is good for society as a whole. Plenty of development is going on through Universities and other nonprofit groups.

20 years is plenty long to be earning tens of billions a year.

I tend to think that those who support genocides are the insane ones.

During the era of colonialism, many supported the European stance on preventing industrialization in their colonies. You are just doing a similar thing in a new era. History will not look kindly upon your barbarous views.

How does supporting genocide follow from agreeing you are a troll?

But that's all beside the point. In food, I try to buy mostly completely unaltered foods. I grow some myself (using NOTHING but water and soil)

Unless it was grown in a greenhouse with completely air-conditioned air, or is some strange variety of plant/animal that doesn't take anything from its environment, it will never be "NOTHING [sic] but water and soil"

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacp
How do you agree? If genetically modified crops will be more expensive to grow than regular crops, people will just switch to regular crops.

Great plan. If you can still get the seeds.

That Hacp guy post a lot of crap he has no idea about.

Farmers tried using their own seeds and Monsato sued them because they said the Farmers using non-certified seeds would corrupt the Monsanto Gentically modifed seeds in neighboring fields and Monsanto won. Essentially you can only plant Monsanto seeds in the U.S.

 

[beginner99]

It's basically the same thing as with radiation and nuclear plants. Most people don't understand it and then the say it's bad or dangerous or can't be controlled.

I once wrote a nice article about this but not in english so can't paste. Anyway, scientifically it's a non-issue. he problem is more social or economical.
For the poor farmer in Africa there probably are better ways to improve yield and income by using local varieties and "enhanced ways" of cultivating.

GE-Plants IMO are more for large-huge farms like they mainly exist in US and Canada. So they are not the holly grail but very useful nonetheless.

All in all breeding is nothing else than uncontrolled GE. With GE you know exactly what has changed, with breeding you have no idea, the plant just is better.