GMOs, when is enough , enough ?

Bearfoot

Your lack of imagination surprises me, then again the rampant GMOs in your system might be dumbing you down.

1/4 mile? Hardly, at least one mile if not more. Where the pollen does not travel the seed will. All it takes is a few errant seeds with some real problem and before you know it its a big problem. But you believe what you want. Try to grow pure crops with a GMO field next door and then come back at me with the it does not travel meme.

And if you will read the studies on BT in fetuses you'll see that its not been present in such high levels before and this is supposedly the first time they've found it in fetuses. People aren't dropping over dead but really where is the line?

J

I don't need to prove anything to anybody. I don't want to have anything to do with them, they're unnatural. I don't want to put them in my body. That is my right, at least at this point... I don't need to justify it to anyone.

Some of you guys seem to relish this argument. In fact, some of you seem to relish arguing in general. I don't. And I and others really dislike when you show up with your nasty replies when anyone even mentions gmo on these forums. I assure you you're not going to change anyone's mind about them, so why bother. It's a homesteading forum... you know, full of people who like to grow their own food, love nature, relish independence, etc. What do you expect the feelings of the majority will be about this issue? You're wasting your efforts and causing hard feelings. If that's your goal I guess you should proceed as usual...

"I'm not "Pro" GMO
I'm PRO TRUTH before HYPE"

Same for me...it's people against those large corporations that are "getting rich"...it's about politics.

Someone in here mentioned they didn't want hybrid garden plants...why I may ask? Do they want plants that produce less? Are taken out by bugs that don't affect hybrids? Health reasons?

No if you are a seed saving person hybrids are not a good choice...

__________________

ty...

__________________

You're not reading the posts at all, are you?

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Are we reading the same thread? The "nasty" stuff I saw was from the "GM is the boogey man" side.

__________________
It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with the simple pleasures and to be cheerful and have courage when things go wrong.
Laura Ingalls Wilder

I don't need imagination
I linked you to a university study about how far pollen will travel
You used a blog

LOL Now you say "At least a mile"
Before you said "around the world"

You haven't even shown they suffered ANY ill effects.
(and neither did that "study")

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

That is the claim of the industry itself. the data doesnt back it however.

When? certainly not in this thread.

Ha! yet you spout unsupported hype of a multi billion dollar industry.
And here we go. showing you have little understanding of the topic. ONLY outcrossing plants have hybrid vigor. Most types of garden plants and even staples do NOT have hybrid vigor.

So in MOST cases hybrids produce more ONLY because they have better breeding backing them.

As for disease/pests there is nothing magical about hybrids. They simply are modern varieties with the best breeding backing them.

Very easy to make your own hybrids for one thing, for the cases where hybrid vigor is real. In the species it is not a factor you can simply stablize your hybrid crop retaining the traits you desire from the modern breeding if you like. Perhaps crossing them to your favorite heirloom tastier stuff if you want.

I do agree not wanting hybrids is silly. But hybrids arent the cause of most things you listed, and the one thing with truth backing it you listed is only true on a limited number of species.

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

How many kids do you have? Is it more than two?

I wish we lived in a world where we could feed everyone without needing to rely on man made ferts (green revolution) or GMOs but that world is many generations gone.

I'm not pro or con GMO. Im pro feeding people. I'm pro science. I'm pro sustainability (even if the Duggars of the world aren't). Like most things the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I do know that saying all GMOs are bad is painting with an very broad brush.

I dislike seeing the same old FALSE studies being passed off as fact yet again

Feel free to show your data

The majority of the people I know prefer the truth
I don't see how simple facts can "cause hard feelings"

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

What data?

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

If you preferred truth, you wouldnt be claiming GMs are safe. the longest term study we have shows they are not, and even that study isnt large enough to be conclusive.

Anyone who has studied the topic and understands how the studies were conducted knows we simply cant say with assurance one way or the other right now.

Of course this has been pointed out to you before. Your opinions are stronger then the facts clearly.

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

here is a blogger about GMO
http://westernfarmpress.com/blog/gmo...ttle-substance

GMO and tumors

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...owing-scrutiny

Percy...the innocent farmer

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/med...hmeiser-finds/

"A Canadian court ruled yesterday that farmer Percy Schmeiser must pay Monsanto after his fields were found to be contaminated by the company's genetically engineered canola. Pollen from neighboring fields was the source of the contamination. The award amounts to over $15,000 plus damages, which could amount to another $75,000, and came after Monsanto company investigators trespassed on Schmeiser's land and found the company's genetically engineered canola growing in his field. The court found that because Monsanto owns patent rights on the genes used in the altered canola, the farmer was liable for growing the crop, even though he did not intentionally plant the engineered seed."

And a great site for all to read no matter how you feel about GMO's

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-in...les/myths.html

I have read these debates several times on various forums. It seems that folks are passionate on both sides. Still, I have questions......a cousin, spraying regularly with Round Up and using GMO corn. Now in a wheel chair and no diagnosis....there is not one. The doctors have no idea what happened to a healthy young man who one day could not walk any more. He goes to therapy regularly....never showered after spraying. The question in the back of mind has always been, could it be the GMO and the RoundUp? Who knows? That is just the problem. Who knows?

Maybe Monsanto knows, but I keep wondering why GMO is banned in places in Europe. Maybe hype, maybe fear, maybe they hate Monsanto....maybe none of the above or maybe there is something to some of the fear that I read.

A friend....a chemist with a major drug company who helped develop a vaccine. His comment to me was, "RoundUp is only a chemical." Then there was a pause. Some chemicals are deadly and some are not. For him, the jury is still out. He wants to see further studies. Still Round Up is a regular on his yard and vegetable garden. He has reservations, but he sprays.

The arguments on both sides seem redundant. I would like to see and hear of a really good study.....not paid for by a seed company.....that completely proves there are no side effects in babies, those with reduced immune issues and those with cancer. My question has always been, what about the ones who are not, for lack of a better word, normal. Does it contribute to their conditions? I want to see a study that proves that it does not.

I may want to see it, but probably never will. Studies are expensive and those with an immune disorder are not quick to run shoot chemicals into their body. Those of us who have battled tumors and other strange diseases are more careful than others, perhaps. I know that I am worse when I fail to eat organic. Maybe it is just a reaction to what things are washed with, maybe it is the coating on the fruit, maybe it is the GMO fed to the animals. Who cares? I know what it does to me and I must be very careful. I do not enjoy feeling like warmed over death and I hate the nose being constantly stuffed. I feel better now than I ever have. I eat organic, avoid spray and avoid GMO. Am I stupid? Probably.....but I am trying to be healthy and if there is a doubt in my mind, why would I subject my body to something that "could" be dangerous, but again.....the "could" be is different from the proof that it "absolutely" is or is not.

As a result, I say NO to GMO for now. If I am wrong, so what? How have I hurt myself? I think my chickens are healthier free ranging and eating the food that I raise than eating those stuffed in a commercial chicken house. Still, I may be wrong....but it is my body and I want to keep it working......so, no GMO.

Certain varieties of corn have remained pure for centuries only because it was the only variety grown. A field of Golden Glow field corn will produce pure seed forever as long as no other variety is grown within the range of corn pollen. Same is true with Golden Bantam sweet corn. But if grown adjacent to each other, their seed will be just as genetically contaminated as if one were a triple-stacked hybrid from Pioneer.

Martin

That's why I laughed when I saw a blog...I can setup a blog and link to any site I want...doesn't mean its a fact.

"
People are hungry because they are poor, not because there's not enough food. And if they can't afford to buy conventional food, they'll hardly be able to afford GM food.
No. People are hungry because they cannot grow enough food to feed themselves locally. This is for a variety of reasons. For example insects devastate their crops and they cannot afford insecticides to protect the crops.
If they were to grow a GM Bt crop then they would get insecticide for free and be able to produce more food. In this way can GM food help feed the poor.
Another reason is losses during storage of the grains due to insect attack or rotting of the food in storage. This is because the poor cannot afford the expensive silos and treatments required to reduce losses of this nature. If the crops were GM they could be made to resist insect damage and spoilage. In this way GM food can help feed the poor.
Another reason is losses of food due to disease - poor farmers (and many wealthy ones) cannot afford to spray fungicides on their crops. If crops were made resistant to diseases by GM then they could produce more food locally. In this way GM food can help feed the poor.
There may be just enough food on the planet at the moment to feed everyone if it was distributed better. However, it isn't distributed better because of poverty. As indicated above GM crops could help with the food distribution problem by allowing the poor to produce more food. GM crops can provide a method for self-help to the poor. This may be more likely to succeed as a method of helping them rather than waiting until they are no longer poor.
And even if a miracle happened tonight and the food was distributed better what are we going to do to improve food production in the future when the population is larger?
a) let the excess starve to death
b) hope that population growth will stabilise and do nothing else and wait?
c) work towards stabilising the population while concurrently conducting research into ways to produce more food in a more sustainable fashion?
To me option c) is the only morally acceptable option.
GM is a method of crop improvement. It does not necessarily mean more expensive, as we have seen from the golden rice project, where the technology is about to be given away free to the poor.
I welcome the day when there is not poverty in the world. In the meantime we must improve the food production in the world to feed the poor. GM is one means to achieve this.
And if they can't afford to buy conventional food, they'll hardly be able to afford GM food.
Why do think it is a valid assumption that GM food will be more expensive? GM food is food from a crop modified using certain techniques. Nothing about these techniques means the food produced from such crops need be more expensive. In fact, if more food can be produced using such crops, the law of supply and demand will mean such food will be cheaper not more expensive."


I only brought hybrids into this discussion as some of the ignorant replies I have read on here...one of which recently was the refusal to plant hybrids.

And yet you haven't shown that study.

The study you posted is about pesticide use, which you said was "ramping up", but your source says this:
It also makes no mention as to how many acres of these crops were planted.
It's very possible that MORE is planted now, which would explain the use of more herbicides

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Any of you folks eat honey? Better stop...its dangerous, contains herbicides and god only knows what.

Could it be that people are more concerned about their health than ever before because we have more information as how to live a healthier life? I see people condemning lard (even on this forum)...when I have family that lived 96 years and its all they used. Little did we know that lard was actually not as bad as other oils we thought were good for us (you know those pesky scientists).

Some of these anti lard people eat bacon...LOL