The World According to Monsanto

[CPA]

This thread has me depressed, but not because of Monsanto. The sheer amount of ignorance and FUD around genetic engineering displayed here is mildly horrifying. I won't comment on Mansanto's business practices, but I will dispel some of the scientific misinformation being thrown about regarding genetic engineering.

First off, we've been genetically modifying food for 10,000 years. The difference is that now we use a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. Take wheat. The wild progenitors of modern bread wheat are diploidic, meaning that they carry two copies of their genome, much the way we do. These varieties of wheat don't produce enough gluten to rise and make nice bread, though. The only way our ancestors were able to get bread to rise was through hybrids containing the full genomes of both predecessors, making them tetraploidic (four copies of a genome). More modern (i.e. last thousand years) varieties are hexaploidic. Thus, in the pursuit of a more useful crop, we have tripled the genetic content of wheat. When you compare that to the movement of a single gene, it's insane to think that what we're doing now is "playing God" and what we were doing before was "natural".

A lot of environmental activists complain about the use of pesticides, forgetting that their use has saved the lives of a billion people. Now, use of long acting pesticides like DDT have real negative consequences that cannot be ignored, and we should do what we can to reduce their use as long as we can maintain our food supply. Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a bacteria that produces a toxin that only seems to affect pests. It's actually quite remarkable, as how the toxin is metabolized determines whether it is toxic. Bt is also a wide approved "organic" pesticide, and is considered incredibly safe both for humans and for the ecosystem. Bt corn, rather than requiring the spraying of bacteria on the plants, simply introduces the gene responsible for the toxin to the corn itself. It's use has led to an incredible drop in pesticide use on corn in the US. To me, this is an incredible environmental victory, and one that really can't be ignored when talking about Monsanto.

Regarding cancer, allergies and other concerns: there is absolutely no evidence that GMO foods have anything to do with them. Suggesting that an over increase in cancer rates and the increase of use of genetic engineering are causally related is akin to arguing that a lack of pirates causes global warming. The number one reason for an increase in cancer rates is that we're now all living long enough to get cancer. We've gotten so good at dealing with infectious disease, and we've greatly reduced mortality due to heart conditions, but you're still going to die of something, so now it's cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence that genetic engineering of foods has anything to do with it. In terms of allergies, while it is theoretically possible that whatever protein is being introduced by the genetic modification, no one has ever reported such an allergy. It seems silly to freak out over something that has never appeared in over 20 years of feeding billions of people.

So this was a bit of a rant. There's a lot more I can say here (such as other GMOs that are benficially for both our health and the environment, such as golden rice), but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

stop with the facts, you.

 

[MongGrel]

Proprietary food is bad. Monsanto can fuck themselves with a combine AFAIC.

+1

 

[BUTCH1]

And?

Plant tumors and humans tumors are very different. Our cellular structure, energy mechanisms, and well, everything about us is entirely different, other than the basic concepts (DNA, cellular-based structure, a need for energy and "respiration").

I'm against reckless genetic engineering just as much as the next reasonable guy, but genetic modification has worked some wonders for us.

There's a necessary balance to be maintained, of course, and how a company like Monsanto goes about their business can be bad for us, but there is so much potential good that we must continue investigating possibilities.

We wouldn't even have modern corn (Maize) if it wasn't for what is essentially genetic engineering. Entire plant species cross-bred, selected for mutations, bred some more, seeds sold, more mutations, more selections, and all of a sudden you get plants with multiple massive ears of corn where otherwise you might have gotten a few inedible seeds per plant (or none at all - a few different types of grasses were likely involved over the generations).

Within nature, genetics are constantly getting screwed with, and plants and/or other life made to incorporate new "code" utilizing bacteria, viruses, and bacteriophages (bacteria viruses).

True, but it's called "evolution" when a species adapts to it's surroundings to survive, but inserting a genetic DNA trait from a totally different organism and then "hoping" it won't have long-term harmful effects on people is just wrong IMPO.

 

[norseamd]

stop with the facts, you.

careful that is whitewash

the main reasons for so much cancer are actually our heavy use of chemicals and for those living in the west the large amounts of nuclear testing done

so not gmo but more than just living to old age

and a lot of gmo crops use the pestisides by the proverbial shit ton

also we have not very much understanding of genetics

even monsanto is starting to make naturally selected crops guided by genetic engineering

so there are so many facts in biology that any one statement would leave out a whole lot of shit

 

[halik]

True, but it's called "evolution" when a species adapts to it's surroundings to survive, but inserting a genetic DNA trait from a totally different organism and then "hoping" it won't have long-term harmful effects on people is just wrong IMPO.

What data do you have to back up that it MAY have harmful effects? You are you an infallible argument to support your position (ie you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore we should default that god does exist)

 

[halik]

careful that is whitewash

the main reasons for so much cancer are actually our heavy use of chemicals and for those living in the west the large amounts of nuclear testing done

so not gmo but more than just living to old age

and a lot of gmo crops use the pestisides by the proverbial shit ton

also we have not very much understanding of genetics

even monsanto is starting to make naturally selected crops guided by genetic engineering

so there are so many facts in biology that any one statement would leave out a whole lot of shit

Do you have anything supporting that preposition?

 

[norseamd]

Do you have anything supporting that preposition?

http://www.americanscientist.org/is...from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks/1

http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testin...al-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders

 

[halik]

http://www.americanscientist.org/is...from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks/1

http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testin...al-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders

You know you're strolling into a tinfoil hat area of wiki when you see this:

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2010)

 

[bradley]

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to substantively deduce something from this video.

Nuclear Testing 1945 - 1998 Complete Video HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAnqRQg-W0k

 

[CottonRabbit]

careful that is whitewash

the main reasons for so much cancer are actually our heavy use of chemicals and for those living in the west the large amounts of nuclear testing done

so not gmo but more than just living to old age

and a lot of gmo crops use the pestisides by the proverbial shit ton

also we have not very much understanding of genetics

even monsanto is starting to make naturally selected crops guided by genetic engineering

so there are so many facts in biology that any one statement would leave out a whole lot of shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

There isn't "so much cancer", the overall cancer incidence rate in the last 10 years has decreased for men and stayed the same for women. Besides smoking causing lung cancer, chemicals do not play a major role in the pathogenesis of the other major cancers. Nuclear testing is irrelevant and the effects would be global. GMO crops allow us to use fewer pesticides.

 

[bradley]

Glad we are finally starting to awaken and question the world (and the obfuscation) surrounding us - the things that truly affect our daily lives in profound and meaningful ways.

Thanks again, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, for creating dissatisfaction with the current scenario that represents all questions and no answers in a hyper-information age.

 

[Pulsar]

An estimated 125,000 (125k) Indian farmers have committed suicide as a result of GM seeds:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

But of course, Monsanto has all kinds of fancy studies that say it's not their fault:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/india-farmer-suicides.aspx

Hail Hydra!

Did you even read the article? He committed suicide because his harvests failed twice and he had spent big bucks to buy Monsanto seed.

I.E., he made a horrible business decision, didn't have the funds in case something didn't work out, and killed himself because of it.

This Monsanto hate is beyond ridiculous.

 

[norseamd]

You know you're strolling into a tinfoil hat area of wiki when you see this:

you know you are throwing out shit when you fail to actually read what you posted and what that was about

Other countries

This topic is relevant to all countries which have tested nuclear weapons, and to other civilian accidents, but only American incidents are covered. At the moment this article doesn't mention the Chernobyl disaster once. 81.155.57.75 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I added links to some other articles, but I'm not competent to rewrite this page. Can someone help? 81.155.57.75 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Opinion in the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper, Saturday, May 14, 2011: http://m.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Second-thoughts-of--downwinders--in-New-MexicoWikiphan44 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 

[Pulsar]

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to substantively deduce something from this video.

Nuclear Testing 1945 - 1998 Complete Video HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAnqRQg-W0k

And how much did that increase the radiation absorbed by an average citizen over that timespan?

 

[Pulsar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

There isn't "so much cancer", the overall cancer incidence rate in the last 10 years has decreased for men and stayed the same for women. Besides smoking causing lung cancer, chemicals do not play a major role in the pathogenesis of the other major cancers. Nuclear testing is irrelevant and the effects would be global. GMO crops allow us to use fewer pesticides.

Stop it. NorseAMD doesn't believe in rational discussion and facts.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

OP. Thanks for sharing. That video is seriously depressing.

Cancer rates are soaring......no doubt due to increasing toxicity introduced into the food/environment by companies like Monsanto.

is there evidence for causation here, or is it just correlation? from what I've understood, cancer rates can be "soaring" mostly because we're living longer; if you live long enough, you're pretty much guaranteed to get cancer.

the rates of concer in undeveloped countries are lower

so we trade cancer for getting rid of infectious diseases

monsanto is not the only company that contributes to cancer but they do quite a lot of shit

this relates to the above; are we sure these lower rates of cancer are due to 'healthier' populatoins, or are these "undeveloped" populations simply not living long enough to get cancer and/or are these "undeveloped" countries simply lacking the technology/economy/medical infrastructure to detect the cancer in the first place?

True, but it's called "evolution" when a species adapts to it's surroundings to survive, but inserting a genetic DNA trait from a totally different organism and then "hoping" it won't have long-term harmful effects on people is just wrong IMPO.

evolution is when a species changes; that change can be lead towards further success of the new species, be inconsequential, or even be a hindrance that leads to a decline or even extinction and an end to that branch on the tree of life.

species don't actively "adapt" to evolve to improve their descendants' chances of survival

careful that is whitewash

the main reasons for so much cancer are actually our heavy use of chemicals and for those living in the west the large amounts of nuclear testing done

so not gmo but more than just living to old age

and a lot of gmo crops use the pestisides by the proverbial shit ton

also we have not very much understanding of genetics

even monsanto is starting to make naturally selected crops guided by genetic engineering

so there are so many facts in biology that any one statement would leave out a whole lot of shit

should be careful yourself, its common for people to point at nuclear as some sort of obvious and unarguable cancer antagonist, but I'm very skeptical of your claim considering all the stuff I've seen about the surprising low rates of cancer (relative to the typical hype against nuclear) around Chernobyl or even the A-bomb survivors in Japan.

 

[waggy]

This thread has me depressed, but not because of Monsanto. The sheer amount of ignorance and FUD around genetic engineering displayed here is mildly horrifying. I won't comment on Mansanto's business practices, but I will dispel some of the scientific misinformation being thrown about regarding genetic engineering.

First off, we've been genetically modifying food for 10,000 years. The difference is that now we use a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. Take wheat. The wild progenitors of modern bread wheat are diploidic, meaning that they carry two copies of their genome, much the way we do. These varieties of wheat don't produce enough gluten to rise and make nice bread, though. The only way our ancestors were able to get bread to rise was through hybrids containing the full genomes of both predecessors, making them tetraploidic (four copies of a genome). More modern (i.e. last thousand years) varieties are hexaploidic. Thus, in the pursuit of a more useful crop, we have tripled the genetic content of wheat. When you compare that to the movement of a single gene, it's insane to think that what we're doing now is "playing God" and what we were doing before was "natural".

A lot of environmental activists complain about the use of pesticides, forgetting that their use has saved the lives of a billion people. Now, use of long acting pesticides like DDT have real negative consequences that cannot be ignored, and we should do what we can to reduce their use as long as we can maintain our food supply. Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a bacteria that produces a toxin that only seems to affect pests. It's actually quite remarkable, as how the toxin is metabolized determines whether it is toxic. Bt is also a wide approved "organic" pesticide, and is considered incredibly safe both for humans and for the ecosystem. Bt corn, rather than requiring the spraying of bacteria on the plants, simply introduces the gene responsible for the toxin to the corn itself. It's use has led to an incredible drop in pesticide use on corn in the US. To me, this is an incredible environmental victory, and one that really can't be ignored when talking about Monsanto.

Regarding cancer, allergies and other concerns: there is absolutely no evidence that GMO foods have anything to do with them. Suggesting that an over increase in cancer rates and the increase of use of genetic engineering are causally related is akin to arguing that a lack of pirates causes global warming. The number one reason for an increase in cancer rates is that we're now all living long enough to get cancer. We've gotten so good at dealing with infectious disease, and we've greatly reduced mortality due to heart conditions, but you're still going to die of something, so now it's cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence that genetic engineering of foods has anything to do with it. In terms of allergies, while it is theoretically possible that whatever protein is being introduced by the genetic modification, no one has ever reported such an allergy. It seems silly to freak out over something that has never appeared in over 20 years of feeding billions of people.

So this was a bit of a rant. There's a lot more I can say here (such as other GMOs that are benficially for both our health and the environment, such as golden rice), but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

I don't give a shit about GMO corn. as you say we have been fucking with corn for a long time. what we have now has very little to do with corn even 100 years ago.

Monsento itself is a evil company outside of that. how they went abourt cornering the food market, how they treat farmers etc etc.

 

[norseamd]

I don't give a shit about GMO corn. as you say we have been fucking with corn for a long time. what we have now has very little to do with corn even 100 years ago. Monsento itself is a evil company outside of that. how they went abourt cornering the food market, how they treat farmers etc etc.

thankyou

i was about to say something about this

what do those sceptics in this thread have to say about monsanto just to clear everything up

 

[norseamd]

should be careful yourself, its common for people to point at nuclear as some sort of obvious and unarguable cancer antagonist, but I'm very skeptical of your claim considering all the stuff I've seen about the surprising low rates of cancer (relative to the typical hype against nuclear) around Chernobyl or even the A-bomb survivors in Japan.

In 1980, People magazine revealed some consequences of continental nuclear testing for American citizens. The magazine disclosed that of some 220 cast and crew who filmed a 1956 film, The Conqueror, on location near St. George, Utah, ninety-one had come down with cancer, with an unheard of 41 per cent morbidity rate.[7] Of these, forty-six had died of cancer by 1980. Among the victims were John Wayne and Susan Hayward, the stars of the film.[7]

the fact that hundreds of nuclear bombs were detonated in the american west vs the 2 in japan possibly?

 

[waggy]

There are other, lesser-known impacts as well. Australia's wheat farmers are now dealing with one of the worst weed infestations in the world — an issue caused in part by overuse of herbicides, which led to resistant weeds. And some 300,000 people kill themselves each year by ingesting pesticides, largely in Asia. That's one third of the world's suicides.

"

i deleted the rest because personally i don't think it will matter.

This though I agree with. I have read studies that the overuse of herbicides are leading to resistent weeds and insects.

I also read one report that a new corn seed from Monsanto was actually damaging the soil far worse then normal seeds do. BUT Monsanto was/is shielded from lawsuits about it and could not be punished by the government for it. they still dragged on pulling that seed because the yeild was very high.

 

[norseamd]

evolution is when a species changes; that change can be lead towards further success of the new species, be inconsequential, or even be a hindrance that leads to a decline or even extinction and an end to that branch on the tree of life. species don't actively "adapt" to evolve to improve their descendants' chances of survival

there is some adaption on the biology and genetic scale

already talked about this on one of the threads here

 

[MarkXIX]

I'm guessing that the same people who vilify this company are the same ones who were screaming that population growth would exceed our ability to produce food and feed the world.

I'm not saying they haven't done some questionable things, but it's one of those "greater good" type things in human history. Can't please everyone...

 

[norseamd]

I'm guessing that the same people who vilify this company are the same ones who were screaming that population growth would exceed our ability to produce food and feed the world. I'm not saying they haven't done some questionable things, but it's one of those "greater good" type things in human history. Can't please everyone...

lack of words

 

[bunnyfubbles]

the fact that hundreds of nuclear bombs were detonated in the american west vs the 2 in japan possibly?

1. that's not a source

2. controlled experiments in remote areas vs. surviving the actual thing directly in the affected areas are very different scenarios

there is some adaption on the biology and genetic scale

already talked about this on one of the threads here

you have a misunderstanding of evolution/natural selection, and science/reasoning in general

 

[norseamd]

1. that's not a source 2. controlled experiments in remote areas vs. surviving the actual thing directly in the affected areas are very different scenarios

that is still all of that radiation shit left in that area