Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BusinessWeek)   GMOPLTPE   (businessweek.com) divider line 6
    More: Scary, chipotles, Chipotle Mexican Grill, genetically modified organisms, soybean oil, designations  
•       •       •

5286 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jun 2013 at 10:25 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-19 09:19:05 AM  
4 votes:
I equate anti-GMO people who are against GMO products of all kinds on principle to be no better than anti-vaccination fanatics. Numerous studies have shown that GMO products are not more inherently dangerous than non-GMO products, and the studies that have alleged that GMO-products are hazardous to human health have generally failed to survive peer review or have been otherwise debunked.

GMO is just a tool - and it will be an essential tool for the next century as populations increase and we need to have higher and higher crop yields to feed everyone.
2013-06-20 02:53:12 AM  
2 votes:
I think most people that are concerned with GMO are concerned mostly with the roundup-ready crops available from Monsanto.

Regardless of whether or not any of you idiots think it can give you cancer or effect your health... it's the farming practice that's the big problem.  I don't know who said GMO crops tend to have less pesticides on them but that's misleading at best.  Maybe less "variety" of pesticides, but they have a crap-ton of roundup on them.  You know?  That shiat in the spray bottle that insta-kills anything you spray it on?  Grass, Dandelions, Lettuce, Ants...  But not crops that have been genetically modified to resist the roundup. i.e. Corn, Soy, Beets... etc etc.

The problem then becomes huge swaths of land (the entire farking midwest) covered in useless crops they have to process 4+ times to call "food" that they are also pouring massive amounts of poison onto.  Poison that seeps into the soil and kills it for generations.  The soil is a living thing too, and our agricultural practices are killing it.  See arsenic contamination in rice crops grown in the south if you need validation of this.

How much proof do you need that having one blatantly profit-minded company dictate our entire society's food culture is probably a bad idea?
2013-06-19 04:34:21 PM  
2 votes:

Trocadero: entropic_existence: Kibbler: Oh look, it's another Fark "anybody who worries about GMO is a moron" gangbang.

What are your specific concerns?

The fact that they've driven non-GMO seed stock out of existence, and now farmers are forced to pay for the expensive GMO license.


This one is easy to dismiss, because it just isn't true. What crop can I not go and buy seed for where I can't buy non-GM varieties?

The fact that a "destroyed" crop was discovered to grow wild where it shouldn't, and Monsanto can't figure out how the hell it happened.

I am assuming you mean GM canola found growing wild? Yes it is a concern, although ANY crop can spread and grow in the wild. They are plants after all. There are approaches that could be taken to prevent this, such as generating sterile GM varieties. But the Anti-GMO movement is firmly opposed to development of that sort of crop and there is currently a moratorium on it in the US. While this is an issue to monitor and follow, it isn't a "the sky is falling, ecological apocalypse" scenario.

The fact that when this crop was discovered, a new federal bill was in place shielding Monsanto from any litigation or inquiry about their screw up.

I'm not in favour of some of the legislation protecting large agri-business of any sort from litigation. But that is a separate issue from GM as a technology and its safety.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nobody is arguing that the altered DNA is going to hurt you.  The question is, "what that DNA is instructing the organism to produce?".  Not everything in GMO foods is simply an instruction set to make things grow faster.  Also, the entire European Union must be no better than anti-vaccers, because they have very strict regulations for this field.


Actually most of the Anti-GMO crowd is arguing that. People too ignorant to realize that everything we eat is full of DNA talking about how eating foreign DNA is bad for you.

I did my PhD in molecular evolution, I'm currently working in human genetics. I understand DNA and genetics pretty well. If we look at the biggest GM crops we have Bt production as a pesticide. Bt is approved for use as an organic pesticide BTW. There could potentially be issues related to dosage in terms of human consumption, but there has been a lot of work in that area beginning WAY before transgenic technology was even possible. The other major one is glyphosphate resistance. In both cases we are talking about a gene that produces a single protein or enzyme. We aren't dealing with genes that are involved in complex regulatory pathways or that create whole new metabolic pathways that could generate unexpected byproducts.

The EU regulations were enacted by politicians  played off of consumer ignorance, and it's pretty obvious they were done more because of economic and trade-related issues than anything.
2013-06-19 10:45:25 AM  
2 votes:

LesserEvil: Therein lies your problem. GMO grown foods probably have LESS pesticide and herbacide contamination since they are designed to be more resistant to pests and weeds, and that's part of the deal, increasing yields and decreasing overall costs.


So it is completely outside the bounds of possibility that there could be problems with GMO foods?  I did put the caveat that a legitimate scientific analysis would be required.  Margarine was supposed to be the great, technological leap that freed us from buttery heart disease, until we realized that the artificially-produced trans fats inherent in the hydrogenization process were killing people even faster.

"Willing to believe" doesn't mean "completely unwilling to see any other point of view."  Unlike some.
2013-06-19 04:42:34 PM  
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nobody is arguing that the altered DNA is going to hurt you.


Really?

The question is, "what that DNA is instructing the organism to produce?".

And the answer is "proteins."
2013-06-19 02:39:29 PM  
1 votes:

entropic_existence: Kibbler: Oh look, it's another Fark "anybody who worries about GMO is a moron" gangbang.

What are your specific concerns?


The fact that they've driven non-GMO seed stock out of existence, and now farmers are forced to pay for the expensive GMO license.

The fact that a "destroyed" crop was discovered to grow wild where it shouldn't, and Monsanto can't figure out how the hell it happened.

The fact that when this crop was discovered, a new federal bill was in place shielding Monsanto from any litigation or inquiry about their screw up.

But other than that, yeah, nothing to worry about.
 
Displayed 6 of 6 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report