Maybe I made it not clear enough that I meant chemicals like dioxines when I mentioned poison. There are multiple issues with companies like Monsanto and Nestle.
Imo the worst danger is the worldwide spreading of genetically modified agricultural products against the wishes of the public. We do not want a company to own the copy right of our food products and the right to pollute the land with their unwanted and untested seeds. We do not want Monsanto to decide what we can eat in the future, that they own all our food, we do not want to give all that power to an unscrupulous company, no thanks. Luckily, in many countries people have been more alert in the last years and in some countries, for example Mexico and Argentina, courts and governments have started to uphold and protect the freedom of their farmers to plant whichever seeds they want and not be bullied out of their rights by Monsanto.
I am surprised that in the USA so few people stand up against the ruin of their country by such practices and other environmental crimes like fracking etc but maybe they are and we just do not hear about it because they have no media outlet anymore.
Funny, that you introduce climate change denial into the topic. I hope you do not believe that the "global green mafia" tells us fairy tales about the man-made climate change while Exxon Mobile and the Koch Brothers act from sheer goodness of their hearts funding the climate change denial groups .
Saint Jiub · Member since
"worst danger is the worldwide spreading of genetically modified agricultural products"
...
The worst danger is fear-mongering and selective mistrust of "settled" science. How can one believe that GMO's are unsafe when there is a strong scientific consensus that GMO's are safe?
I believe climate change is real, but disagree with the fear-mongering of the "global green mafia" extremists.
Summer in Chicago has been quite cool and pleasant.
My last 10 days in India have been mostly bearable (temperature always below 35 C) except for one extremely humid day. I was quite surprised and expected to be totally miserable.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
The worst danger is fear-mongering and selective mistrust of "settled" science. How can one believe that GMO's are unsafe when there is a strong scientific consensus that GMO's are safe? [/QUOTE]
^ the argument used to be "we don't know the long term effects." Now we do. They're 100% safe.
Science wins again.
YourValentine · Member since
Apparently I do not get my point across. I do not care if genetically modified food is "safe" or not. I do not want chemical companies OWNING ALL COPY RIGHTS on agricultural products, so we have to pay for any seeds available. Also, I want people to have a choice if they consume genetically modified products or not, this is not asked too much imo. It's not about science it's about economic monopoly. I do not think that paranoia is spread more in my country than in any other country but the vast majority of people here has defended the right to grow non-modified seed against EU rules so far and I hope it will stay that way.
To give you another example: There was an attempt to make a law that all communities in Europe had to offer the public water supply on the "open market" and allow private companies to buy the supply in competitive auctions. A public initiative managed to prevent this idea to become EU law. Millions of people took part in the first ever civilian law initiative in the EU. We did not think that water would be "unsafe" if provided by big companies but we want to be independent of profit oriented international "players" when it comes to our most basic needs. I understand that people think different in other continents but we want to have a say when it comes to basics like food, water, energy.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
I do not care if genetically modified food is "safe" or not. I do not want chemical companies OWNING ALL COPY RIGHTS on agricultural products, so we have to pay for any seeds available.[/QUOTE]
Indeed - these business practices are deplorable. It's becoming a monopoly like nearly everything else.
[QUOTE]Also, I want people to have a choice if they consume genetically modified products or not, this is not asked too much imo. It's not about science it's about economic monopoly. I do not think that paranoia is spread more in my country than in any other country but the vast majority of people here has defended the right to grow non-modified seed against EU rules so far and I hope it will stay that way.[/QUOTE]
In theory you're absolutely right. But you're in a minority on this one, as the majority of people who want GMO foods to be labeled are the anti-science vegan hipster idiots who think there's something wrong with GMO food and that their children will be born with a third arm. Labeling GMO food as such suggests that there is actually something different about it nutritionally, or that it somehow has some kind of unknown long term effect - both of which have been very thoroughly debunked by science.
I'm afraid there is no solution for people who want GMO food to be labeled for the very valid reasons you mention. If labeling did become mandatory, it would feed the ignorance of the growing number of conspiracy minded people who think GMO food is this evil frankenfood created by companies who want to depopulate the world.
Look up golden rice - we need companies like Monsanto for the good that they're doing. They have saved millions of lives. And only the big companies can be in on this as it requires billions of dollars to invest in the technology. But with the good comes the bad, and all I can say is - welcome to the 21st century where it's greed above all else. Most companies start with good intentions, but when they get too big their greed trumps almost all else.
pittrek · Member since
What the fuck happened in Virginia? Seriously, how is it possible that some random asshole can buy a weapon and murder 2 people on live TV? This is a seriously messed up world
Chief Mouse · Member since
Hmm, this seems pretty bad if true - [url=http://gmwatch.org/news/archive/2014/15710-new-study-shows-honeybees-harmed-by-herbicide-used-on-gmo-crops]http://gmwatch.org/news/archive/2014/15710-new-study-shows-honeybees-harmed-by-herbicide-used-on-gmo-crops[/url]
Honeybees essentially are vital to our planet's life and food.
YourValentine · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
I do not care if genetically modified food is "safe" or not. I do not want chemical companies OWNING ALL COPY RIGHTS on agricultural products, so we have to pay for any seeds available.[/QUOTE]
Indeed - these business practices are deplorable. It's becoming a monopoly like nearly everything else.
[QUOTE]Also, I want people to have a choice if they consume genetically modified products or not, this is not asked too much imo. It's not about science it's about economic monopoly. I do not think that paranoia is spread more in my country than in any other country but the vast majority of people here has defended the right to grow non-modified seed against EU rules so far and I hope it will stay that way.[/QUOTE]
In theory you're absolutely right. But you're in a minority on this one, as the majority of people who want GMO foods to be labeled are the anti-science vegan hipster idiots who think there's something wrong with GMO food and that their children will be born with a third arm. Labeling GMO food as such suggests that there is actually something different about it nutritionally, or that it somehow has some kind of unknown long term effect - both of which have been very thoroughly debunked by science.
I'm afraid there is no solution for people who want GMO food to be labeled for the very valid reasons you mention. If labeling did become mandatory, it would feed the ignorance of the growing number of conspiracy minded people who think GMO food is this evil frankenfood created by companies who want to depopulate the world.
Look up golden rice - we need companies like Monsanto for the good that they're doing. They have saved millions of lives. And only the big companies can be in on this as it requires billions of dollars to invest in the technology. But with the good comes the bad, and all I can say is - welcome to the 21st century where it's greed above all else. Most companies start with good intentions, but when they get too big their greed trumps almost all else.
[/QUOTE]
You are wrong about the assumption that only vegan idiots are sceptical vs genetically modified food.
In fact, there is a labelling duty of such food required by European Union law and we are not a continent of illusionist science haters and vegans, that is just presumptuous. Actually, we do want to protect ourselves against the power of chemical global companies who want to own out food and water. I find it very revealing when propaganda by such powerful lobbyists is sold to me as solid truth.
Somehow I expected that the "golden rice" issue would come up but guess what - it does not work. It's just another big fat lie by those gentech companies which has been fed to the public but has been proven wrong by virtually all independent scientists and institutes. Just look at some non-industrial websites and you will learn the truth.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
I do not care if genetically modified food is "safe" or not. I do not want chemical companies OWNING ALL COPY RIGHTS on agricultural products, so we have to pay for any seeds available.[/QUOTE] Indeed - these business practices are deplorable. It's becoming a monopoly like nearly everything else.
[QUOTE]Also, I want people to have a choice if they consume genetically modified products or not, this is not asked too much imo. It's not about science it's about economic monopoly. I do not think that paranoia is spread more in my country than in any other country but the vast majority of people here has defended the right to grow non-modified seed against EU rules so far and I hope it will stay that way.[/QUOTE] In theory you're absolutely right. But you're in a minority on this one, as the majority of people who want GMO foods to be labeled are the anti-science vegan hipster idiots who think there's something wrong with GMO food and that their children will be born with a third arm. Labeling GMO food as such suggests that there is actually something different about it nutritionally, or that it somehow has some kind of unknown long term effect - both of which have been very thoroughly debunked by science.
I'm afraid there is no solution for people who want GMO food to be labeled for the very valid reasons you mention. If labeling did become mandatory, it would feed the ignorance of the growing number of conspiracy minded people who think GMO food is this evil frankenfood created by companies who want to depopulate the world.
Look up golden rice - we need companies like Monsanto for the good that they're doing. They have saved millions of lives. And only the big companies can be in on this as it requires billions of dollars to invest in the technology. But with the good comes the bad, and all I can say is - welcome to the 21st century where it's greed above all else. Most companies start with good intentions, but when they get too big their greed trumps almost all else. [/QUOTE]
You are wrong about the assumption that only vegan idiots are sceptical vs genetically modified food.
In fact, there is a labelling duty of such food required by European Union law and we are not a continent of illusionist science haters and vegans, that is just presumptuous. Actually, we do want to protect ourselves against the power of chemical global companies who want to own out food and water. I find it very revealing when propaganda by such powerful lobbyists is sold to me as solid truth.
Somehow I expected that the "golden rice" issue would come up but guess what - it does not work. It's just another big fat lie by those gentech companies which has been fed to the public but has been proven wrong by virtually all independent scientists and institutes. Just look at some non-industrial websites and you will learn the truth. [/QUOTE]
I thought mites were the cuprit for CCD, but the Organic Consumers Association blames the modified organisms (GMOs) based on questionable research ... so the evil of GMOs must be true. LOL
GMO food is a more complicated subject than many people realised. There hasn’t been a decisive conclusion about it yet (I’ll elaborate on it later), or if there is, it is buried under much propaganda and lunatic acts from both side. I wanted to reply to this thread a long time ago, but I needed to read more.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Look up golden rice - we need companies like Monsanto for the good that they're doing. And only the big companies can be in on this as it requires billions of dollars to invest in the technology. But with the good comes the bad, and all I can say is - welcome to the 21st century where it's greed above all else. Most companies start with good intentions, but when they get too big their greed trumps almost all else. [/QUOTE]
Since you cited yellow rice, I’ll start from it. It in fact does not provide direct vitamin A (retinol), but beta carotene instead, which is abundant in carrots, spinach, kale etc. And beta carotene can only converse to vitamin A with the help of fat & oil. The vitamin A deficiency in some population can’t possibly result from the lack of spinach or carrots (it’s like the cheapest vegetable!) but rather from the lack of fat and protein, or more trivial, from the carrot disliking (99 out of 100 children don’t like it, god bless them). Golden rice doesn’t resolve this problem.
Link for full properties of vitamin A here:
[url=http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/vitamin-a-saga]http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/vitamin-a-saga[/url]/
(ignore the attack toward yellow rice in that article. It was written a while ago when yellow rice hadn’t strongly developped yet. Their assertions about vitamin A are still correct.)
The studies which supported golden rice, cited on its official website, don’t prove anymore than that: they tested it on healthy children, together with a balance diet, which consists of meat and other oil factors. There’s not much point in such studies if golden rice targets poor populations, who can’t afford meat. Moreover, beta carotene in healthy bodies converses more easily to vitamin A than in poor health bodies, so another point annihilated. Even worse, such article of Guangwen Tang was retracted from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition because of lack of consent from parents of said children. So I wouldn’t trust it on logical base or on moral base.
There’s no proof yet that yellow rice would reduce the vitamin A deficiency rate in a wide population. If you see such proof, please let me know.
Therefore, yellow rice could be considered at best as a more eatable alternative of carrots, not the savior that GMO media has hyped (and who guarantee that children will like that strange rice - yewp! - better than carrots?) The intention of yellow rice engineers might be good, but it is being used to spearhead the pro-GMO campaign in a misleading way.
Addional information: excessive amount of plant-based beta carotene might even burden the body, that has nothing to do with vitamin A overload.
Now, back to GMO food in general. It might not be harmful in itself, if we are to trust the lab tests so far, but the many effects around it are fatal. The first effect is to increase the use of herbicide, as in Monsanto’s Roundup case. The overuse of Roundup lead to superweed, for which Monsanto intend to deal by more intense herbicide, and more herbicide-resist GMO plants. [b]That leads to a never-ending rise of herbicide in the environment.[/b] I don’t need to cite the harmfulness of chemical herbicides here. The “safe” property of glyphosate and other Monsanto products are always in questions, they might be not directly harmful to human but they kill certain kind of species, other than weed, which in turn has effect on the environment. Bees are one of the victims.
The pro-GMO campaign might say optimistic words about future plants growing on Sahara deserts, plants with insect-resist property so to reduce the use of herbicide, but that’s not the (principal) reality. The reality is in the contrary direction: in the give-me-more-herbicide way. “At least 27 corporations have initiated herbicide-tolerant plant research, including the world’s eight largest pesticide companies Bayer, Ciba-Geigy, ICI, Rhone-Poulenc, Dow/Elanco, Monsanto, Hoescht and DuPont “, cited from this article
[url=http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/the_ecological_impacts.html]http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/the_ecological_impacts.html[/url]
That’s, by the way, is a good article about ecological Impacts of GMO crops on Agroecosystem health. It saves me from typing several of my opinions.
A second point is about the lost of biodiversity and genetic diversity, by over-concentrating on several single GMO products, and seed-sterilising. Single crop has been proven to increase the risk of pest. So more money for Monsanto and Roundup? The damage from biodiversity lost is bigger than that. How many species has disappeared when human population explodes? I know an example, my own country, which has lost some of its precious rice natural breeds after relying too much on biotechnoly without precaution.
A third point is about the unknown effect of GMO crops on agroecosystem as a whole. You might ask that if it’s unknown then why make a fuss about it. But to predict is a function of science, no? Who knows if the herbicide-resist gene will not cross with another weed species? Gene flow is a realistic phenomenon. You alter the nature to its core (ie. its genes) and you have no idea what comes after. Sound spectacular, right? Superweed, or perhaps super pest. X-men? The lab tests don’t help either: how can you test on agroecosystem, which involve thousands of species, the earth, the water, the air, and practically everything surround us? I don’t know of such testing models. I do know that some models of climate changing, which map the earth, the air, the water, in a much more simple way than agroechosystem, those “simple” models require super computer calculations and are maintain by high sciene institutes. I don’t expect the same level for GMO tests.
As insisted in the article above, “current field biosafety tests tell little about potential environmental risks associated with commercial-scale production of transgenic crops”.
Moreover, the regulation of GMO safety research is not yet rigorous. Test on how many individuals? On how long? On which kind of lab animals? Does that even apply to human? You can’t tell if those tests are sufficiently effective or not.
There’s a test by Seralini et al. which stated that GMO food might cause tumors on rats. While I know that there’s some logical hole in their study, and their statistic is not rigorous (but not any less than those who claims GMO are safe), it deserves more look and further tests. But many people just jumped on the wagon and bashed that study, without even questioning the credibility of Monsanton or other corporations’ tests.
That leads to another question. We can’t properly test the GMO traits, because they are restricted by those companies, with the excuse of copyright. Now, if I will be eating something for the next 50 years, I would like that food to be at least “transparent”, no dark secrets hidden. All the conclusions draw so far are only [i]empirical[/i] ones. And the GMO research is as young as 30 years. What could it have said on long term effects, on human or on environment? Yes, I did read the link you provided. But that researcher, Alison Van Eenennaam, [i]has worked for Monsanto[/i]! I don't wholly discredit her work, but more independant results would be welcome. Also, as I said, environmental effects require a more complicated model than just some observations,
hobbit in Rhye · Member since
and 30 years is nothing compare to the evolution of human food.
Someone even compared anti-GMO with anti-vaccine campaign, in an effort to vilify the anti-GMO moves. They are not similar, by scope or by characteristiques. I don't take side in the GMO wars, but isn't the anti-vaccine an obvious failure? Vaccines have been proven effective and safe for more than a hundred years, which GMO can't compare with. More importantly, vaccines have been pitched against deadly diseases, and saved countless of life. The price of going no-vaccine is too big, you may bet the life of your beloved ones on it.
hobbit in Rhye · Member since
To confirm that, I have conducted some personal interviews with science people (the last interview is only yesterday, which ruined my potential friendship with that person, but I don't regret). Those are not renowned scientists, but at least are serious in their work and I know for sure that they are not funded by any side in the GMO wars. The interview results are frustrated. Out of 3 biology people, 2 replied "I don't care about the environment bollocks. My work is with the genes. It's still the same bloody tree/crop, why a fuss?" I asked them about Roundup, or glyphosate. They don't know what that is. "Go ask the chemists, that's not my job."
I asked a chemist, and he answered "The herbicide doesn't kill human or your dog. I don't care if it kill butterflies or such crap."
You get the gist.
BETA215 · Member since
:)
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
Somehow I expected that the "golden rice" issue would come up but guess what - it does not work. It's just another big fat lie by those gentech companies which has been fed to the public but has been proven wrong by virtually all independent scientists and institutes. Just look at some non-industrial websites and you will learn the truth.
[/QUOTE]
There isn't a single peer reviewed scientific paper that says there's anything wrong with golden rice - only conspiracy websites who call GMO food "frankenfood", purely on the basis that they don't understand science.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]hobbit in Rhye wrote:[/b]
GMO food is a more complicated subject than many people realised. There hasn’t been a decisive conclusion about it yet (I’ll elaborate on it later), or if there is, it is buried under much propaganda and lunatic acts from both side.[/QUOTE]
