GMOs, when is enough , enough ?

Bearfootfarm · #81 12/17/12, 02:09 PM

Quote:

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.

The facts are you have no real data to show they are harmful.
You just said so yourself'
I've been saying it all along
But now you're just repeating yourself

tailwagging · #82 12/17/12, 02:09 PM

What I don't like is that we are not given a choice. GMO should be labeled.
Then it could be tracked and if safe then more power to them but the way they fight labeling it then..... well, looks bad.
as for Monsanto, does anyone know if their patten will run out after 10 years so they can stop being sue gods?
I feel they are evil so try to NOT support them with my pocket book. I actively look for non-gmo/non monsanto and buy when it I can.

tailwagging · #83 12/17/12, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wannabechef

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

good point. but then again might not. not like the for sure sprayed crops.

wannabechef · #84 12/17/12, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tailwagging

What I don't like is that we are not given a choice. GMO should be labeled.
Then it could be tracked and if safe then more power to them but the way they fight labeling it then..... well, looks bad.
as for Monsanto, does anyone know if their patten will run out after 10 years so they can stop being sue gods?
I feel they are evil so try to NOT support them with my pocket book. I actively look for non-gmo/non monsanto and buy when it I can.

Do you use glysophate?

tailwagging · #85 12/17/12, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wannabechef

Do you use glysophate?

I have in the past. but read my post I try not to. and not on my food.

Jasoneakers · #86 12/17/12, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

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

You are right and you are wrong. I said pollen drift before I think. I meant genetic drift. People can ship seed, can they not? You act like its contained and we have a choice.

There isn't one.

J

silverseeds · #87 12/17/12, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wannabechef

"

Myth 1: GMOs are not needed to "feed the world".

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 cant afford insecticides how could they afford insecticides AND expensive seed?

Besides, GM crops simply do not increase the food supply as of yet.

Quote:

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.

So how do people who cant afford insecticides buy these seeds? Im aware of no such place. I am aware of several nations that worked at turning their farming into a commodity as america has done. Have any data to back the idea adding costs somehow helps those who cant even afford food without such inputs? Seed is an input. (I know you dont have such data, just industry claims)

Quote:

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.

This doesnt exist yet that Im aware of. If it did youd have a point.

Quote:

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.

This also doesnt exist yet that Im aware of. Its been claimed this COULD happen for decades, it has yet to materialize.

Quote:

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.

Again, how could they afford the seed?

Id also point out there are MANY non conventional systems being worked on in harsh areas especially that have yields far surpassing any other modern ag. Although this is mostly going on in the shadows and in back yards such as mine. Although keep in mind not always the staples crops we are talking about. agro forestry, perma culture type things. Lots and lots of fluff in the fields, but some of us are working on things that make current ag look like gradeschool compared to college.

Quote:

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.

Working with tree crops especially, often for animal feeds but they can replace the soy and other grains readily as well for instance with yields many multiples of current crops. this is being done NOW, with things that ACTUALLY EXIST. Unlike the thus far non existant claims you spouted. No Gm crop holds the promise of multiplying yields by 10, yet forest ag is doing this. granted it would take a shift in the foods we eat. Making animal feeds will likely be the first place this surfaces at a truly commercial level. I will dig up some links for on the topic within a few days...

Quote:

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."

Of course its more expensive! Your looking at it from a first world perspective. The worlds actual poor cant afford the GM seed by itself let alone any other inputs.

If the GM folks ever pull off some of their long time claimed goals you listed that dont exist yet, MAYBE they will offset the cost of the seed enough from limiting losses that it is feasible. To date these things simply do not exist though, so most of your post is meaningless with all due respect.

Quote:

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.

I will agree many do not understand hybrids or GMs. As for GMs this obviously includes all the supporters in this thread who believe they have been proven conclusively safe. Such folks simply havent studied it in depth. that said they havent been conclusively proven dangerous either.

By the way I can think of DOZENS of projects that GM methods would make MUCH easier then conventional means that do not involve putting genes from non plants and the like into our crops that would make yields actually climb and need much less inputs. Im working on several such projects myself with non GM means, and what might take me 10-30 years in my backyard could be done in a lab in under 5.

Its obvious to me, stable production is NOT the goal. ensuring profit margin is the obvious goal. Wild relatives of our crops hold many traits we failed to bring to modern crops and its tricky to maintain yields when crossing with such materials. Although it can be done given enough time. Like I said GM folks could do this easily. Part of my point being Im NOT deadset against GMs in general, only that I have studied it and know they have not been truly proven safe in the current form, nor do I see any current benefits that outweigh potential dangers.

Imo wed be insane NOT to continue working with GMs, just as I feel we are insane to release them into the public and wild with the weak study they get thus far....

tailwagging · #88 12/17/12, 02:32 PM

i have a bit of insight on sprays. hubby worked for 18 years Greens keeper for a golf course. I know what training he had to do each year and the protection suit he had to wear.
and first hand seen one of his co-worker who didn't, that got deathly ill. and even a CC golfer died due to the "good luck" lick of the ball. herbicides, fungicides and pesticide are not things to be flipped about. they are deadly.

tailwagging · #89 12/17/12, 02:36 PM

interesting read
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsh...h/glyphosa.pdf

silverseeds · #90 12/17/12, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

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

I know what I posted of course. The study I mentioned you just quoted was posted for you and others in another thread. You didnt care.

Yes more is indeed planted now. Im not sure how that study linked quantified that. Either way, usage is up per acre as I showed you in past threads right from the USDA. Look it up yourself or not...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

The facts are you have no real data to show they are harmful.
You just said so yourself'
I've been saying it all along
But now you're just repeating yourself

They havent been conclusively proven safe either. The most elaborate study to date though did show dangers. There were some issues with ALL studies Ive studied on BOTH sides of the claims. More so on the GM support side by a small margin.

This debate will be raging for a loooong time at this rate...

either way imo they NEED labelled.

rambler · #91 12/17/12, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tailwagging

i have a bit of insight on sprays. hubby worked for 18 years Greens keeper for a golf course. I know what training he had to do each year and the protection suit he had to wear.
and first hand seen one of his co-worker who didn't, that got deathly ill. and even a CC golfer died due to the "good luck" lick of the ball. herbicides, fungicides and pesticide are not things to be flipped about. they are deadly.

To keep their green pure look, golf courses can use some pretty nasty, long-term stuff.

The reson GMO Roundup crops and bt crops became popular is exactly because of this.....

Roundup does not last nearly as long in the soil, nor is it nearly as toxic to mammals compared to the old chemicals we used to use.

With bt gmo crops, we don't have to use the nasty insect sprays we used to use.

So, these GMO crops became popular because they reduce the exposure to the old nasty chemicals that were used.

Many of the anti-gmo orginizations understand this, but they are politically motivated to fund themselves, and slant their 'studies' to ignore these facts.

It would be wonderful to not use any pesticides at all, but the weeds, insects, and diseases take over. We can't shut down our hospitals for people, we can't stop protecting our crops.....

We need to do some weed control, we need to keep insects at bay.

GMO corn and soybeans and sugar beets and alfalfa allow us to keep insects and weeds away with less harsh chemicals than without the GMO crops.

What you grow in your garden plot, and how you tend to those crops is your business.

Perhaps some day the GMO stuff will go too far - I think as they get farther with animals and humans in this, I too will get squimish about it.

But the current gmo applied to current crops makes the world generally a little safer, with less harmful chemicals being used, and doing a better job controlling pests to allow the potential for a bigger crop each year.

It's not a perfect world, and GMO's likely are not the perfect solution, but at this point in time, they are overall 'better' than some of the other options we have in front of us.

Those who so passionately and totally oppose GMO's so as to follow false studies, and extreme views often don't see that the alternatives to GMO crops at this time will have worse results than what we have with the GMO crops.

This topic brings strong feelings, I know I've been in the arguments before, this is just my calm view and we all can have views on it I know.

--->Paul

farmerDale · #92 12/17/12, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasoneakers

And you have a link that he was a BSer?

You don't believe anything from the UN but you believe your government when they say GMO is safe? Odd

With Percy schmeiser, being his neighbor is enough. See, I know some of his neighbors. They know percy was indeed a "schmeiser". If you knew anything about canola, you would realize his story holds no water whatsoever.

rambler · #93 12/17/12, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

either way imo they NEED labelled.

They are. GMO crops are considered to be part of the normal every day grain/ sugar/ feed supply.

(Edit, 'cause I worded things poorly the first time....)
======
So you can buy these crops/ foods/ feeds without any labeling, and assume they contain at least some gmo crops.

Or, you can buy crops/ foods / feeds labeled 'Organic' and the Feds oversee that these labeled products do not have GMO in them.

Or you can buy crops / foods / feeds labeled 'Natural' and have a private group's promise that these labeled products do not contain GMO crops.
=====

So, the labeling issue is taken care of, you already have it.

Done deal.

--->Paul

silverseeds · #94 12/17/12, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambler

They are. GMO crops are considered to be part of the normal every day grain/ sugar/ feed supply.

If you buy these crops or processed foods and they are labeled 'organic' or in many cases labeled with some sort of private 'Natural' stamp, they will not have more than 2% gmo in them, probably much less.

So, the labeling issue is taken care of, you already have it.

Done deal.

--->Paul

Organic is labelled GMs are not of course. But you knew that, just trying to confuse the issue I guess.

As for the mentioned, Percy schmeiser... looking at the data available. seems clear he didnt BUY GM seed, rather its pollen blew into his fields, then he purposely selected out the GM traits.

We are free to breed with traits of ALL other types of patented crops except GMs. Literally because they are so "novel" they get a type of patent others cannot get. All while the industry tries to claim nothing is different. Kinda funny in a sick sort of way.

tailwagging · #95 12/17/12, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambler

To keep their green pure look, golf courses can use some pretty nasty, long-term stuff.

Yup they do. and they are allowed to even knowing that a human is walking and handling their ball ever day the play is good. doesn't make me trust the govs judgement.
Scary stuff indeed.
GMO might be the safest way out there BUT I want the choice to eating it or not. label the dang stuff. if I still want the chez it it will be my choice. Just because they fight not to do so I will show my vote and buy when I can non-GMO.
I buy and support Non GMO seeds because I want the choice to keep or not.
For me it is about my right to choose.

Paquebot · #96 12/17/12, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blooba

So the question still remains, Did dinosaurs really have cancer?

You didn't look in the right place. Bones can also become cancerous.

www.nature.com/news/2003/031021/full/news031020-2.html

Martin

PrettyPaisley · #97 12/17/12, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooman

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.

Yes-my statement was broad. Tell me why there are people living in the deserts of other continents where NOTHING natural will grow? Because the food like products are dropped from the sky to feed them. There is a reason Mother Nature didn't make the desert lush. Humans en masse aren't supposed to be living there.

We do NOT have to have GMOs to feed the world. The GMO creators would like you to believe that so they pull at your heartstrings - but the truth is there is plently of land that could grow real food, without CAFOs and 35000 acre soybean fields if people would turn off their tvs and get their hands dirty. If an over-mortgaged 2 car household wasn't the thing to be, but someone who took their perfectly manicured "lawn" complete with an annual Chem-Lawn subscription and grew a yard with some tomato plants and an apple tree-we could "feed the world".

Be careful slinging the "sustainability" word around. You can thank the UN's Agenda 21 for that buzz phrase. I'm not talking sustainability, I'm takling RESPONSIBILITY. Humans live well for many hundreds of years without "science" (an arrogant ego-filled industry) whilst following the ebb and flow of Mother Nature. We have simply become too big for our britches and are now reaping what we have sown. Your science can be read any way your opinion sways you. I haven't a need for manmade science. I believe in how the world works without a need for scientific reason. I trust in the earth and Mother Nature to provide proper nourishment for my family.

I have two children. I am still ahead of the curve because my scientific heat-your-lunch-in-the-microwave-in-a-Ziplock-bag sister refuses to procreate. (Thank God for the little blessings.) Had I started sooner I would have had a litter-I was just too self absorbed to see what is really important until I had my first. Too busy with Hamburger Helper and American Idol to realize I was a part of the problem.

And while I take no issue with how many children the Duggars choose to birth or what how they follow their God, I do think they owe far more to the earth considering how much they consume. Raising a few dozen kids on tater tot casserole is not "sustainable". Never you worry-they will not produce many more generations with a diet like that.

wannabechef · #98 12/17/12, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrettyPaisley

You have NO CLUE what my children eat every day. None.

And buy into the stats all you want. It makes no difference to me. Grow your GMOs. Feed them to your kids. But keep your ignorance away from mine.

Do your kids eat vegetables?

wannabechef · #99 12/17/12, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasoneakers

Its called glyphosate. DUHHHHHH!

Knows it's safe. Doesn't know what it is though.

Speaking of which, drink some of it and tell us how its safe.

J

I know how to spell it...spelling nazi. Typing on these phones is difficult.

And I would drink it with zero issues... (but why?) I am around herbicides everyday...its my job

wannabechef · #**100** 12/17/12, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tailwagging

i have a bit of insight on sprays. hubby worked for 18 years Greens keeper for a golf course. I know what training he had to do each year and the protection suit he had to wear.
and first hand seen one of his co-worker who didn't, that got deathly ill. and even a CC golfer died due to the "good luck" lick of the ball. herbicides, fungicides and pesticide are not things to be flipped about. they are deadly.

Not sure what chens he was sprayibg but none of the chemicals we use on lawns (the same as used in golf courses) require any suits...just long sleeve,pants and gloves.