Gmo

[CLAX1911]

Depends entirely on the GMO, and what it was made for. Potato's modified to hold more nutrients and be larger are perfectly fine. Corn modified to survive insecticides are iffy in my book and should be labeled as to which insecticides they were modified for.

I can't say your concerns are invalid. And as far as labeling goes, honesty with consumers is the best policy. So I don't disagree exactly, I simply want more information.

GMOs will be how we feed a 12 billion population when the time comes. So freaking out about them is counterproductive. But neither should we let any GMO hit the shelves without making sure they are safe individually.

Absolutely agree with you here.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes, herbicides are absorbed by plants.

In what concentrations? Do they become present in the parts of the plant we eat? Is it toxic to humans in the concentration that it's found in the part of the plants that we eat?

Do you have any proof at all for your claim?

 

[RAMOSS]

Can be or is? Who is to say there are any herbicides in crops?

Okay, so I read up on Bt-corn because I had no idea what it was. What they did was take a bacteria that lives in the soil and splice a bit of its genetic code into the corn. So because this is only the implanting of amino acids in a certain sequence, I can't see how it's harmful.

Well absolutely should test further. I'd be interested to know if it does have an effect on humans.

Isn't that true of every technological development? I figure if traditional methods were still pheasable we would still use them.

We can find out by doing laboratory tests on rats, for example. Some pesticides show a link to cancer. As for traditional methods.. there is a growing number of farmers who are returning to them because it is more profitable. First of all, there isn't the matter of the licensing and reuse of the seeds. The GMO's vs the conventional farming have not made a bigger yield in crops in the USA and Europe, despite claims that it would happen from Montesaro, although in some third world countries have benefited from insect and drought resistant strains. There is a YUGE difference between marketing claims and actual results.

 

[sangha]

I wouldn't be very skeptical if I didn't ask for evidence of this.

So show me the evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate


Glyphosate General Fact Sheet

 

[sangha]

In what concentrations? Do they become present in the parts of the plant we eat? Is it toxic to humans in the concentration that it's found in the part of the plants that we eat?

Do you have any proof at all for your claim?

So far, research indicates that there is no harm to humans from consuming GE crops. However, the consumption of GE foods is not the only point in the chain that can cause harm.

GE crops are designed to encourage the use of herbicides and pesticides, the use of which harms the environment and a wide array of organisms. GE crops also encourage other agricultural practices (ex. plowing, tilling, etc) that are also harmful to the environment.

And to add insult to injury, GE crops are no more productive than non-GE crops.

In addition, the use of GE crops reduces genetic diversity. Everyone who plants GE corn is planting the same genetically exact corn. No matter what the specific environmental conditions that exist on a particular farm, they grow the same exact plant. It does not matter if you are in India or the Idaho.

Contrast this with selective breeding, where farmers save the seed from the most productive plants on their farm. After years of doing that, they end up with a plant that is genetically optimized for the conditions that exist on *their* farm.

 

[CLAX1911]

We can find out by doing laboratory tests on rats, for example.

Oh absolutely and we should study the effects GMOs have on people.

Some pesticides show a link to cancer.

I'm not really talking about pesticides. It's a gene sequence in a crop.

As for traditional methods.. there is a growing number of farmers who are returning to them because it is more profitable.

I'm not so sure about that. If it was more profitable I'd think that is all there would be. Perhaps for certain crops or is.

First of all, there isn't the matter of the licensing and reuse of the seeds. The GMO's vs the conventional farming have not made a bigger yield in crops in the USA and Europe, despite claims that it would happen from Montesaro, although in some third world countries have benefited from insect and drought resistant strains. There is a YUGE difference between marketing claims and actual results.

So, are you saying that Monsanto has a bad business model?

 

[NeverTrump]

So I've heard a lot of claims about GMOs and I'm really wondering what even exists that isn't a genetically modified organism. To my understanding since the dawn of agricultural we have been genetically modifying our food.

Altering genetic material is just adding or subtracting amino acids.

So what is the harm?

At some point along the way, the Anti-GMO crowd became the Anti-Preservative crowd. As well as with a rigid ideology about Gluten-free and Lactose-free products. While I think some people belong to this category and get severe reactions, not everyone who jumps onto the bandwagon does. I am anti-preservative, meaning, I am allergic to different preservatives that pop up in all types of foods, but mainly baked goods. It's not Gluten, it's not wheat, it's not lactose. I've been tested. The doctors didn't know what was wrong with me so I had to do diet testing. I figured it out, and now I am eating mostly meats, fruits and veggies. I can still eat Gluten and Lactose.

I think what happens to a lot of people is that, they get bad stomach cramps from eating or drinking certain foodstuffs and they've been led to believe by friends or relatives that they must be "lactose-intolerant," or "allergic to Gluten." Peer-pressure in it's purest form. Many in my family said the same things about me, but I can drink milk just fine and still eat pasta. So it might be that they just didn't do enough actual research on these things to make a coherent finding about what they are actually allergic to and just stopped at "All gluten." Did they really do the experimenting on themselves that I did? I doubt it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Oh absolutely and we should study the effects GMOs have on people. I'm not really talking about pesticides. It's a gene sequence in a crop. I'm not so sure about that. If it was more profitable I'd think that is all there would be. Perhaps for certain crops or is.
So, are you saying that Monsanto has a bad business model?

Well.. let's just say honesty is not in their business model. Their marketing has exceeded their crops performance.

 

[CLAX1911]

So far, research indicates that there is no harm to humans from consuming GE crops. However, the consumption of GE foods is not the only point in the chain that can cause harm.

I'm still getting the same language. Harm can occur at any point during the development of technology at any time to anything.

Saying something can happen doesn't mean that it will or that it does.

All your saying is that something could happen that's true about any choice we make at any time.

Don't be so vague. Show me that it has happened.

GE crops are designed to encourage the use of herbicides and pesticides, the use of which harms the environment and a wide array of organisms.

Actually agriculture itself or more the existence of pests encourages pesticides and herbicides to be used. You have to do that to protect crops. So far the damage to the environment seems to be manageable.

GE crops also encourage other agricultural practices (ex. plowing, tilling, etc) that are also harmful to the environment.

No, again the practice of agricultural encourages that.

And to add insult to injury, GE crops are no more productive than non-GE crops

I haven't seen an injury to add insult to. You said agriculture damages the environment. I'd say it's worth it not to be hunter gatherers.

 

[CLAX1911]

Well.. let's just say honesty is not in their business model. Their marketing has exceeded their crops performance.

Okay so they oversold it.

 

[CLAX1911]

At some point along the way, the Anti-GMO crowd became the Anti-Preservative crowd. As well as with a rigid ideology about Gluten-free and Lactose-free products. While I think some people belong to this category and get severe reactions, not everyone who jumps onto the bandwagon does. I am anti-preservative, meaning, I am allergic to different preservatives that pop up in all types of foods, but mainly baked goods. It's not Gluten, it's not wheat, it's not lactose. I've been tested. The doctors didn't know what was wrong with me so I had to do diet testing. I figured it out, and now I am eating mostly meats, fruits and veggies. I can still eat Gluten and Lactose.

I think what happens to a lot of people is that, they get bad stomach cramps from eating or drinking certain foodstuffs and they've been led to believe by friends or relatives that they must be "lactose-intolerant," or "allergic to Gluten." Peer-pressure in it's purest form. Many in my family said the same things about me, but I can drink milk just fine and still eat pasta. So it might be that they just didn't do enough actual research on these things to make a coherent finding about what they are actually allergic to and just stopped at "All gluten." Did they really do the experimenting on themselves that I did? I doubt it.

Well, I think there are people who think that things like gluten and lactose are just in general bad for you. I don't know why they think that, but they do. I became lactose intolerant in my adulthood. But there are dairy derived products I can eat due to low presence of lactose. I figured this out through experimentation.

 

[CLAX1911]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate


Glyphosate General Fact Sheet

So intentional ingestion of large quantities can be fatal. But unless you're suicidal I don't think you'd intentionally drink a large quantity of round up. Accidental exposure may result in mild symptoms. And you're really only susceptible to that in its wet form.and you should always thoroughly wash produce before you eat it.

The damage to the environment is minimal and worth the risk if you ask me.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Genetic engineering is *not* a quicker version of selective breeding. With selective breeding, you cross pollinate two plants of the same species. With genetic engineering, you take the genes from one species and insert it into the genome of a completely different species.

IOW, GE produces results that selective breeding cannot, such as crops that produce a protein that is toxic to insects - the result of having genes taken from a bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis) inserted into crops like corn.

I am aware of that. I was using an oversimplification. You can cross barley and rye the hard way...or the easy (GMO) way.

I am quite aware of it because of my tank of Glo-Fish which are a cross between a Zebra Danio and the florescent gene bits from several marine invertebrates.

 

[sangha]

I'm still getting the same language. Harm can occur at any point during the development of technology at any time to anything.

Saying something can happen doesn't mean that it will or that it does.

All your saying is that something could happen that's true about any choice we make at any time.

Don't be so vague. Show me that it has happened.

I am not saying that something *could* happen. I am saying that something *does* happen - namely increased use of pesticides, herbicides and agricultural practices that degrade the environment

And I do not see how any reasonable and halfway intelligent person could doubt that GE crops increase the use of insecticides and herbicides. After all, that is what they are designed to do. Genetic engineers do not make plants herbicide resistant so that farmers will not use herbicides. If farmers did not use herbicides, there would be no reason to grow herbicide resistant crops.

Actually agriculture itself or more the existence of pests encourages pesticides and herbicides to be used. You have to do that to protect crops. So far the damage to the environment seems to be manageable.

Wrong on all counts. Integrated Pest Management (google IPM) is just as efffective at reducing loss to insects and no-till farming eliminates weed pressure. Also, the damage to the environment is not manageable. It has been getting worse and worse every year.

No, again the practice of agricultural encourages that.

I haven't seen an injury to add insult to. You said agriculture damages the environment. I'd say it's worth it not to be hunter gatherers.

I did not say that agriculture damages the environment. In fact, when done correctly", agriculture improves the environment by building soil (currently, we lose millions of pounds of topsoil every year), sequestering carbon out of the air and into the soil, requires absolutely no polluting chemicals (such as insecticides, fungicides, chemical fertilizers, and herbicides), and reduces the need for irrigation (which produces polluted runoff)

 

[sangha]

So intentional ingestion of large quantities can be fatal. But unless you're suicidal I don't think you'd intentionally drink a large quantity of round up. Accidental exposure may result in mild symptoms. And you're really only susceptible to that in its wet form.and you should always thoroughly wash produce before you eat it.

The damage to the environment is minimal and worth the risk if you ask me.

You have no idea what the damage to the environment is.

 

[Hypnotoad]

FYI - Genetic engineering has a much higher failure rate than selective breeding and GE techniques have never produced a plant that is resistant to disease

But you can weed through (pardon the pun) the failures at a much faster rate than just crossing.

And yes there are resistant plants.

 

[Hypnotoad]

This really doesn't address my question.

Is herbicide toxic can it be absorbed by crops?

Read the precautionary statements of this "garden safe" herbicide.

Weed & Grass Killer (Ready-to-Use) | Garden Safe

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water. To protect the environment, do not allow pesticide to enter or run off into storm drains, drainage ditches, gutters or surface waters. Applying this product in calm weather when rain is not predicted for the next 24 hours will help to ensure that wind or rain does not blow or wash pesticide off the treatment area.

Less of this used would be better than using more.

 

[sangha]

But you can weed through (pardon the pun) the failures at a much faster rate than just crossing.

No, not really. It is not as simple as inserting a gene into a plant and then selling it. It requires years of testing. That is why, with millions of acres of GE crops being planted, yields have not increased any faster since GE crops were first introduced in the 1990s.

Below is a chart on corn yields. Corn is the most commonly planted GE crop. Note how yields starting increasing in the 1940s with the advent of the Green Revolution and the widespread use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, etc. Also note how the increase in yields have been steady over many decades. If GE crops increased yields, then why didnt yields explode after 1990 when GE crops were first put into production?

And yes there are resistant plants.

Yes and no. Potatoes have been GEd to be resistant to a fungus, but in the field they have proven to be no less resistant to disease than non-GMO potatoes.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am not saying that something *could* happen. I am saying that something *does* happen - namely increased use of pesticides, herbicides and agricultural practices that degrade the environment

And I do not see how any reasonable and halfway intelligent person could doubt that GE crops increase the use of insecticides and herbicides. After all, that is what they are designed to do. Genetic engineers do not make plants herbicide resistant so that farmers will not use herbicides. If farmers did not use herbicides, there would be no reason to grow herbicide resistant crops.




Wrong on all counts. Integrated Pest Management (google IPM) is just as efffective at reducing loss to insects and no-till farming eliminates weed pressure. Also, the damage to the environment is not manageable. It has been getting worse and worse every year.



I did not say that agriculture damages the environment. In fact, when done correctly", agriculture improves the environment by building soil (currently, we lose millions of pounds of topsoil every year), sequestering carbon out of the air and into the soil, requires absolutely no polluting chemicals (such as insecticides, fungicides, chemical fertilizers, and herbicides), and reduces the need for irrigation (which produces polluted runoff)

All I see is a bunch of unsupported claims to get proof and then come back.

 

[CLAX1911]

You have no idea what the damage to the environment is.

You apparently don't either.

 

[CLAX1911]

Read the precautionary statements of this "garden safe" herbicide.

Weed & Grass Killer (Ready-to-Use) | Garden Safe



Less of this used would be better than using more.

Will from an economic standpoint even yes of course.

 

[sangha]

All I see is a bunch of unsupported claims to get proof and then come back.

I already posted links that prove what I said, but as the last election demonstrates, facts are not always enough to convince some people

 

[sangha]

You apparently don't either.

"I know you are but what am I?" is PeeWee Hermans shtick, not yours

 

[CLAX1911]

Delete

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, you're right Deuce. If the story had been reported by NBC or CBS or Fox, we could rest easy knowing it would be true and accurate. :lol:

You use a tabloid as a source, you get laughed at. That's just how it goes. These people also report on bat boy and bigfoot sightings.