What's the fuss over GMO?

[Southern by choice]

Oh yeah GMO's don't hurt....right! Hmmm look at the countries that allow GMO's and their cancer rates since using GMO's. If you are still in denial then you are still in denial. GMO's and the companies behind them have patented their products, so when the wind blows on non-GMO crops the GMO companies sue the small farmer with heritage seed because trace amounts are found. Small farmer out of business and can't afford to fight the legal battle. Monsanto is buying up all the land. HMMMM look at all the politicians from both the left and right are behind this company. Do you really want one company along with our own government controlling your food? Are you aware that they are genetically modifying feed supplies for end results of sterility? Try to find heritage seed today.

GMO corn... produces it's own pesticide, bugs die from tryng to eat the plant, yet somehow that couldn't possibly affect us??

 

[SheepGirl]

I personally prefer to call it GE (Genetically Engineered). But anyway, I don't have an issue with it.

Senior year I took AP Biology. We learned about GE products and we also got to create GE bacteria with the same general method used by Monsanto to create GE crops. I will have to go back in my binder and look at the lab to see exactly what we did/what we made. But it was really neat.

 

[that's*satyrical]

Round Up is linked to CCD. Round up is the monsanto product that the GMO seeds/plants are made to be used with. Research monsanto and you will find so much lovely information. For sheepgirl, maybe GMO is not a bad thing being experimented with in a lab but when you make the earth and all that are living on it your lab/lab rats then it becomes an issue.

 

[animalmom]

OK so I've started, underline in bold print, started to do my own research, and so far I have a US Gov publication that says GMO is hunky dory, and two environmentally concerned websites that throw out lots of adjectives like possibly, potentially, inadequate. One of these environmental websites was condemning GMO because it COULD create superweeds that would only respond to more toxic herbicides like 2,4D, and then in the next sentence they claim that weeds are our friends and first cousins to the food we eat. So if weeds are good wouldn't superweeds be better?

I'll continue my own reading and I don't want anyone to think I don't accept their concerns as valid... at a glance it seems to me the research done by all those who benefit from GMO is inadequate. On the other hand though, how long does something need to be tested before it is accepted? After all time isn't over and if we tested all new ideas forever then we'd never have anything new -- good or bad.

Look at the history of medicine, which one could easily say is the history of being proved wrong, yet we rely on the town doctor because research is an ongoing process.

Someone asked if I considered ethics to be emotions and I've thought about that and have no conclusion for the poster. Do I think that a human life is more important that a sparrow? I think human life is more important than a sparrow. Would the loss of a specie upset me... probably not, it would be a shame, but species come and go and apparently must do so or we would be overrun with dinosaurs. Hey don't chide me for a silly example as it is as valid as most of the environmentally concerned examples.

I'm not saying it isn't out there, and I will continue to look for it, but I don't see any evidence of cancers, allergic reactions or anything else. Lots of writing saying something is bad because it is messing with Mother Nature, but no evidence. The truth is out there, somewhere and I'm confident it will be found.

A question, professing my great ignorance, for that's*satryrical... what is CCD?

My goal is to be armed with facts, not suppositions. May prove the facts back up all the suppositions, but I don't know that, yet.

 

[ragdollcatlady]

Genetic modification involves an inexact science that injects DNA from one organism into a completely different organism.

Bacteria that was found in a dumping basin full of round up and its chemical soup, that was not dead, therefore resistant to the chemicals, had its DNA taken and literally injected into corn, soy, etc to produce round up ready corn, soy..... This is not genetic manipulation by breeding and taking advantage of a naturally occurring mutation to again breed a different type of the same plant...This is creating a franken plant from different types of organisms.

The injected DNA is not placed in a specific spot in the DNA strand of the receiving plant either. Sometimes it interrupts the DNA of the host plant and causes unexpected and uncontrolled duplication, replication, and shorting out of the DNA in the receptive plant. The scientists "turn on" certain receptors and what not in the DNA that affects all the DNA in the cell not just the new part. There is speculation because of some of the unforeseen results, that some toxic genes that a plant has turned off or held in check over years of breeding and evolution, may be turned on by some of this messing around and "turning on" of those receptors and now, a plant that may have been safe for us to consume, will overnight have become toxic.....Sometimes, terminal codes are interrupted so some genes won't stop or die when they should.......

This is not the same as breeding 2 slightly different but still compatible plants for an increase of output or to advance one or 2 specific beneficial traits....it's a WHOLE different ballgame.......

There is way too much to get into here. Do our research. Read and look at the studies. Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception (books on the subject) put their sources and whatnot so you can find the articles and do your own investigating.

I don't know if the Genetic Roulette movie is still online for free, but I am sure you can find it on Utube...it is only about an hour and gives a lot of basic information to help anyone who truly wants to understand this issue....the books of course delve much deeper for those of us that want more info.

 

[Southern by choice]

Great discussions!

I do find it very interesting how Monsanto's lawyers were eventually put into high government positions that all evaluate (supposedly) the safety of the "products".

 

[that's*satyrical]

CCD- Colony Collapse Disorder. Someone had mentioned it was not related but many people seem to think round up may be a cause. There is a link to GMO concerning round up and if you research you will find it. Therefore, they are related. And the head of the FDA used to work at Monsanto. So yeah, you probably won't get straight up information from the government either. Welcome to a world of political agendas for monetary gain.

http://petovera.com/professional-we...bama-administrations-revolving-door-politics/

This article may be biased but it is a fact that the fda is headed by a monsanto exec. Conflict of interest? I think so.

 

[that's*satyrical]

Furthermore research how much money so many corporations put into keeping GMO's from being labeled. Do you really think someone that spends over 35 million dollars to keep something from being labeled really cares about saving human lives? Aren't there better ways to feed people if that is their greatest concern with 35 million dollars??? This is not money for research to make GMO's safer or to help people without a lot of money plant their own food using GMO crops, this is to prevent it from being LABELED. Seriously? Shouldn't you be proud and want it labeled if it's so great??? Just sayin' Doesn't take much to read between the lines.

 

[Pearce Pastures]

I have to wonder if this is really about learning about why people are upset about the resistance to company's labeling GMO's since many valid points are being presented, ethical and logical, but they don't seemed to be satisfying the OPs inquiry into why the fuss. 90% of the population has requested to have these products labeled, so at the least the consumer can better make a decision for themselves what they want to put into their mouths and the mouths of their children. DDT, natural selection, human environmental impact, pesticide usage....not sure where these come into play with wanting to know why many simply want GMO labeling.

 

[that's*satyrical]

I have to wonder if this is really about learning about why people are upset about the resistance to company's labeling GMO's since many valid points are being presented, ethical and logical, but they don't seemed to be satisfying the OPs inquiry into why the fuss. 90% of the population has requested to have these products labeled, so at the least the consumer can better make a decision for themselves what they want to put into their mouths and the mouths of their children. DDT, natural selection, human environmental impact, pesticide usage....not sure where these come into play with wanting to know why many simply want GMO labeling.

I guess it's because almost all of these issues feed into the reasoning WHY so many people want GMOs labeled? So they can decide whether or not they want to be privvy to supporting such agendas. Plus, I want some say over whether or not my kids and animals are exposed to them. Although it is darn near impossible to avoid them altogether I at least want to try to keep their exposure to a minimum.