Okay, so I have been doing some research and watching some videos on the topic of GMO's and my convictions that they are unhealthy and dangerous for ourselves and the environment have lessened. I really am not so sure any longer that buying strictly organic and avoiding gm foods at all costs is the way forward or is really necessary.
I am not saying that I am now pro GMO and that organic foods have no place but that I am instead more open to the idea that if done properly and ethically genetic modification can prove beneficial.
Prior to this, I didn't really have any strong reasoning or evidence for why I thought GMO's to be harmful, but instead simply believed what I read and what I was told. From the, admittedly limited as of yet, research I have been doing, there does not seem to be any credible evidence indicating that gm foods are harmful. There are however many studies which show that they are safe. I know, I know, all these studies and the institutions responsible for them stand to make a profit from gm foods and therefore these studies have no integrity. I agree that may be the case with some, but I find it hard to believe that ALL of these studies meet that criteria and that none of them have any legitimacy.
Yes, many of these multinational corporations are unethical and messed up, I am not disagreeing with that, but using that as reasoning for why gm foods are harmful is a bit of a stretch.
I still advocate growing your own produce where possible, and buying directly from farmers at markets, but I don't know if I will be so scrutinizing in my questioning of the food's gm status any longer.
Maybe I am again simply believing what I am being told and am not really thinking for myself, but the arguments against gm foods, not business practices, really do not seem founded.
I haven't turned into a shill have I?
Absolutely! GMO's done with some level of oversight and concern for longterm effects could actually be used to make food healthier and longer lasting and, nigh, as nutritious as plausible.
GMO's would be an incredible creation! If they weren't used to:
1. Splice Genetic strands of DNA in ways that create cascading collapses of cellular integrity when used as sustenance by another cell.
2. Cultivate the extreme uses of heavy carcinogenic substances as pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides to the point the food itself absorbs these chemicals and become toxic partially too.
3. Parasitically effect all organic foods 'contaminating' them by swapping DNA, causing non-GMO crops to become GMO crops.
4. Use specific DNA sequences to terminate reproductive capabilities, producing infertile foods that can't be used to further grow more food (terminator gene, it's why my damn avocados which aren't organic NEVER GROW when I plant the seeds!)
5. Though not directly attached, but indirectly, the current manner of farming leeches the soil of nutrients, since most organic crops need to be typically swapped over time (not that they all do it, because to save money...) it more quickly takes away viable land to grow upon (literally kills the land by leeching it of all nutrients over time.)
That's five right off the top of my head.
GMO's would be good if they were put to an ethical use and the technology used for more proper reasons, not to produce infertile plants and make a profit while slowly making sick everyone who eats them. You don't notice it the first three decades, but now the effects are showing and will continue to do so as more people continue eating this food.
GMO's, like Vaccines, would be world altering technologies for good, that could make life sequentially easier in time as the foods are bettered into 'superior' or perhaps unnatural but 'boosted' forms 'naturally' (Genetically modifying them in ways that aren't butchering DNA), and in time even end all form of sickness beyond allergies to certain things, if not those too with proper advancements in the vaccine technology field.
But instead these technologies are used in the most brash coarse way one could socially figure.
But ultimately, the perceptions depends on what areas you look into. Health wise, it's nothing to be concerned about in the short term, it is perfectly safe immediately speaking, as the body can detox all the chemical sprays and repair all the broken cascaded ruptured cells that used those portions of sustenance to feed from.
It's like running an engine with thick motor oil, it runs heavier but it's essentially unnoticable. But don't expect to make it to 500k miles. After 250k you'll start breaking down because your engine has been working so much harder the entire time, and the gradual change in feeling from natural healthy oils to thick heavy oils was unnoticable (no one likes to notice feeling crappier constantly).
Or you can just look at a cellular level. Cancer.
Or you can look at some of the non-debunked studies of GMO foods in animals, typically, Cancer. Sometimes, odd internal physiological changes that are unnatural and further damaging over time if not healed. OR!
OOORRR
You can not look at any scientific studies as they're all convoluted by poor mainstream science malpractices and disinformation malpractices (yay money and greed) to push the scientifically dubious mainstream follower to a special agenda.
Or that's a conspiracy.
Because the company that made chemical weapons also now makes my food.
Nothing to see here my friend, it's a useful and powerful technology put to a different kind of use.
Kind of like how the useful and powerful system of money can be used to feed every person on earth, it's just put to a different kind of use.
Here's my take:
When we spray our plants with pesticide, or imbue them with genes meant to destroy other living beings, that has ripple effects throughout the ecosystem, including in our own ecosystems: our guts. So many studies are coming out now that say things like autism spectrum disorders are associated with improper (extremely low) gut bacteria levels. I personally believe that this is because of pesticides and our conventional food system (they kills bugs, why wouldn't it kill bacteria? They aren't that specialized). GMO, at this point in time, are mostly specifically made to withstand as much pesticides as possible at this point. Again, if we analogize it with the human body - the pesticides are supplanting the plants' own immune systems. So "organically" grown plants are healthier, in that they have developed their own immune systems, and weaker plants in the gene pool are allowed to die and be consumed by pests, if necessary, and the stronger ones live, with much better nutrient systems in tact.
In fact, most people who are "gluten sensitive" are actually Round-Up sensitive - wheat is harvested when the plant has dried completely and died. Wheat plants are genetically modified to withstand and then are sprayed with Round-Up NOT because it kills the bugs, but it hastens the death and therefore harvest of the wheat crop. They are doused at the very end of their life cycle and then harvested, and then people eat whole meals with the backbone being conventional wheat - and this makes some people very sick! And then, cutting out gluten DOES make them feel better - but it isn't celiac, it's Round-Up.
Not to mention, GMO patents on seeds are a huge scam - if your neighbor uses GMO, and those genes cross-pollinate into your crop, and your crop tests positive for the patented genes, the patenter (Monsanto) owns them and your profits. Also, farmers aren't allowed to replant their seeds from year to year - it goes against whatever laws they have set up to scam the farmers as much as possible - each year you must buy new seeds from Monsanto. The freedom for farmers to save and trade seeds has been stifled.
Right now, the GMO movement is an attempt for a few companies to control the food supply more and more in the future. As Van said, companies that used to make chemicals of destruction - Agent Orange, et al. The "it could feed the world!" argument is OK, except that we could already feed the world with the food we grow, we just waste it. And most gmo crops do go to feed cows/chickens/etc, so we are consuming them en masse that way, as well. Anyway. If anything tips me off, it's the "pro-GMO" movement - if you want to see paid shills in action, go somewhere like Reddit and make an anti-GMO thread or statement, and watch them come out of the woodwork. They do have a lot of decent pro-GMO propaganda. I'm not anti-GMO per se, but I am anti-chemical pesticide and anti-gene patents.
If you need any more convincing about what side of the aisle groups like Monsanto and Dow are on, there are documentaries you can watch about what has happened in some rural areas of other countries where they have been basically sold the equivalent of "magic beans" - I watched one from PBS on India - 'oh, no crops will grow? Here, buy are relatively expensive seeds, and this magic chemical potion, and EVERYTHING will grow' - well, GMOs don't supplant a drought or poor land quality, so many farmers lose their livelihood in this "investment", and farmer suicide is a large problem in some of these communities that have been swindled.
I can't help but see a great deal of propaganda and manipulation on both sides of the argument, which is really off putting. Some of the arguments I have seen made against gm foods have been rather cringe-worthy (not anyone on this board) and it is clear to me that there is an agenda. I was well aware of this on the pro-gm side of the argument, but not so much on the anti-gm side.
I have come to realise that I have been rigid and uncompromising in my beliefs, which weren't all that educated or intelligent in the first place.
I don't think that any conclusive or general statements can be made on whether gm foods are safe or not. It is instead a case of doing the research on each individual gm crop and coming to my own conclusions as to whether or not it is safe to consume. I think I need to go back to the start and really educate myself well on this topic.
(09-23-2015, 10:56 AM)Jade Wrote: [ -> ]When we spray our plants with pesticide, or imbue them with genes meant to destroy other living beings, that has ripple effects throughout the ecosystem, including in our own ecosystems: our guts. So many studies are coming out now that say things like autism spectrum disorders are associated with improper (extremely low) gut bacteria levels. I personally believe that this is because of pesticides and our conventional food system (they kills bugs, why wouldn't it kill bacteria? They aren't that specialized). GMO, at this point in time, are mostly specifically made to withstand as much pesticides as possible at this point. Again, if we analogize it with the human body - the pesticides are supplanting the plants' own immune systems. So "organically" grown plants are healthier, in that they have developed their own immune systems, and weaker plants in the gene pool are allowed to die and be consumed by pests, if necessary, and the stronger ones live, with much better nutrient systems in tact.
Organic farming also uses pesticides, herbicides, insecticides etc. The difference between it and conventional farming is that organic farmers do not use synthetic/man made chemicals, which are supposedly worse, but I am not so sure anymore. The synthetics appear to be more effective in performing their duty (killing bugs), and therefore less of them need to be used in comparison to those which are organic. In fact, because of genetic modification, some plants produce their own insecticide and therefore it is not necessary that they be sprayed at all or as much. Does that then not mean that less chemicals are used in conventional farming practices? I understand that there is much more to consider then the quantity of chemicals used, but it is an argument which I have been spouting and now realize is mistaken.
The next question is then whether the organic chemicals are in some way safer (for our health and for the environment) than those which are synthetic. Again, after having done some research, this does not seem to be the case, and in fact, some organic chemicals may be even more harmful than their synthetic counterparts. This is what I meant when I wrote I have been guilty of rigid thinking. Sure, some organic chemicals and practices may be better in some instances, but in others, conventional practices and synthetics may be more effective and safe.
You might be right that because of the increased effectiveness of the chemicals used that necessary bacteria are killed, and that is damaging to our health, but I simply do not know at this point if that is true or not.
The rest of your post I agree with, but again, because these companies are effed up, does that then mean that genetic modification and non organic farming practices are the same by extension?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scie...riculture/
This article explains quite well where I am coming from.
I don't know, does Microsoft release horrible Operating Systems to slowly force people to buy the next best Operating System they make as an incentive to push people off their old OS?
Why would a corporation (single 'person' entity) designed to get your money actually care past a certain reasonable threshold (upheld publicly)?
You're right, it is an individual choice.
So why is GMO labeling basically becoming illegal? Where's the individual choice??
(09-24-2015, 03:03 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know, does Microsoft release horrible Operating Systems to slowly force people to buy the next best Operating System they make as an incentive to push people off their old OS?
Why would a corporation (single 'person' entity) designed to get your money actually care past a certain reasonable threshold (upheld publicly)?
You're right, it is an individual choice.
So why is GMO labeling basically becoming illegal? Where's the individual choice??
The argument goes that they are afraid that people will not purchase them simply because of the label, not because of any legitimate health concerns. They are afraid of losing money. Basically, why label if there is no real reason for it?
I think that because it is such a hot topic and because many want labelling, it would be a good idea. That way people can make a choice. If the products really are not harmful, then the results will speak for themselves, although I have seen it said that gm foods have already been proven safe by science and that there is a consensus among the authorities.
No real reason for labeling. Approved safe. Worried labeling will reduce sales.
Too confusing for me, I suppose
(09-24-2015, 05:06 AM)Billy Wrote: [ -> ]The argument goes that they are afraid that people will not purchase them simply because of the label, not because of any legitimate health concerns. They are afraid of losing money. Basically, why label if there is no real reason for it?
I think that because it is such a hot topic and because many want labelling, it would be a good idea. That way people can make a choice. If the products really are not harmful, then the results will speak for themselves, although I have seen it said that gm foods have already been proven safe by science and that there is a consensus among the authorities.
I think it goes down to trust, and to anyone who understands business it is all about trust. Would you trust any company that would want to hold information from you because they think you wouldn't want the product? If the company doesn't trust me as a consumer why should i trust them as a producer ?
I also agree labeling is the correct choice. let the people decide
Quote:Organic farming also uses pesticides, herbicides, insecticides etc. The difference between it and conventional farming is that organic farmers do not use synthetic/man made chemicals, which are supposedly worse, but I am not so sure anymore. The synthetics appear to be more effective in performing their duty (killing bugs), and therefore less of them need to be used in comparison to those which are organic. In fact, because of genetic modification, some plants produce their own insecticide and therefore it is not necessary that they be sprayed at all or as much. Does that then not mean that less chemicals are used in conventional farming practices? I understand that there is much more to consider then the quantity of chemicals used, but it is an argument which I have been spouting and now realize is mistaken.
This is a good point. However, I believe plants and our ecosystem respond better to natural pesticides in general cooperate better with naturally occuring systems that prevent pests - mostly a healthy, vibrant ecosystem as opposed to a monoculture. And some chemical pesticides have wreaked such a havoc on our ecosystem (see: DDT). Honestly, I prefer *really* organic pesticides - like praying mantis, or chickens who patrol the crop rows and eat the problem bugs. Again, if you can facilitate a healthy ecosystem, needing to supplant the immune system of plants is much less likely.
Quote:The argument goes that they are afraid that people will not purchase them simply because of the label, not because of any legitimate health concerns. They are afraid of losing money. Basically, why label if there is no real reason for it?
The FDA, who is in charge of the labels, is hardly trustworthy, IMO. Do some research on that and see where it leads you.
Quote:I don't know, does Microsoft release horrible Operating Systems to slowly force people to buy the next best Operating System they make as an incentive to push people off their old OS?
I worked on an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft back in the day, where persons of the State of Iowa received over $400 million in compensation. The amount of horrible, backhanded things that Microsoft did/does in the name of eliminating competition and furthering their monopoly is insane.
The discussion of synthetic vs. organic methods for combating pests is certainly valid. The issue with the organic label is that it has become very industrialized. In the (not so) distant past, you could count on organic food to be grown by farmers who were doing so out of concern for the environment and health of the plant and consumer, but as organic has become more and more trendy, it's natural that it would become industrialized and lose its core value. In the past, you could count on an organic label to imply that it was grown responsibly, despite the regulations not necessarily enforcing that responsibility. It is certainly not the case now, as the organic label is becoming more and more of a marketing tactic rather than simple information.
But what I think is a more important issue, as TTP touched on, is soil health. Using synthetic fertilizers, while in itself is not harmful to the plant or the consumer, perpetuates a method of farming that is ultimately harmful to the environment. The most effective method of fertilizing soil organically necessarily involves building up and maintaining a natural soil health. If we shrink our lens onto the ecosystem simply to the soil in which the plants are grown, you would be shocked at how thriving actual healthy soil is. It is teeming with life, from microbes to worms to bugs, all of these things interacting in a way that grows healthy plants and ensures that healthy plants could continue to grow even if the farming was stopped.
Using synthetic fertilizer makes this ecosystem completely invalid, as it is able to deliver exactly the right kind of nutrients directly to the plant at exactly the right time, all controlled by human oversight. There is no need to tend to soil quality, as the soil at that point simply becomes a base in which to deliver your fertilizers. The ecosystem within the soil is neglected and ignored and it slowly dies as the ecosystem is killed off to only support a single type of living organism (whatever crop you are growing). If you watch an organic field tilled and plowed, you'll notice birds all over the place coming to pick out the worms in the soil. Watching a non-organic field, there are no birds, because there are no worms (at least, if the field has been used consistently without soil care).
Eventually, a field becomes barren and there is a ripple effect moving out to surrounding ecosystems, harming a wide range of life.
To me, it is a matter of philosophy and principle much more than a matter of health (though I do care about the health aspect). GMOs and synthetic chemicals (and some organic chemicals) are utilized in a way which is meant to dominate nature and eliminate natural biodiversity. They are, by their nature, separating us from the process in which the Earth provides us with sustenance. They strive to control the environment and strive for a sanitized canvas, free from any sort of actual nature. GMOs don't necessarily need to be used this way, but it is how they are being used.
I believe that we, as humans, must learn to see ourselves as stewards and companions of the Earth, rather than a pinnacle species with dominion over the natural world. There is good evidence that permaculture practices can provide plenty of food for the world so long as they are implemented locally (which is implied in the nature of permaculture). Leaders in the permaculture field, such as Geoff Lawton, have been able to create sustainable food growing systems in environments that must typically import food from more "fertile" places. If implemented world-wide, permaculture would drastically reduce the need to transport food from one area to another. On top of that, the philosophy behind permaculture strives to achieve a relationship with nature that I feel is exactly the type of relationship we need to come into harmony with the Earth.
I do think that it would impact both our personal health as well as environmental health, but more than that, it would help orient humans to see the Earth as more than a realm to dominate and bend to our wills, but as a world that is not separate from us. Working with our environment, rather than against it, is a central tenet to my own living philosophy which is informed by the Law of One. And anyone who desires to live out this type of philosophy should be able to make informed purchases of their food. Maybe not every non-GMO product is going to be more healthy for the environment, but "voting with your money" is a small first step in eliminating the mentality of domination over nature.
(09-24-2015, 01:46 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]The discussion of synthetic vs. organic methods for combating pests is certainly valid. The issue with the organic label is that it has become very industrialized. In the (not so) distant past, you could count on organic food to be grown by farmers who were doing so out of concern for the environment and health of the plant and consumer, but as organic has become more and more trendy, it's natural that it would become industrialized and lose its core value. In the past, you could count on an organic label to imply that it was grown responsibly, despite the regulations not necessarily enforcing that responsibility. It is certainly not the case now, as the organic label is becoming more and more of a marketing tactic rather than simple information.
This is my core concern. I do not know if the extra money I am spending on food is actually making a difference and contributing to something positive and beneficial or whether it is a waste. For all I know, I am actually hindering technological advancement which would see an improvement in agriculture and safety. I am starting to think that I have been taken advantage of due to my lack of education and knowledge on the subject. My reason for buying organic is because of some vague notion that it is somehow better for ourselves and the environment. Again, I am not saying that this isn't the case, but that instead I have no substantial reasons for believing so.
Quote:But what I think is a more important issue, as TTP touched on, is soil health. Using synthetic fertilizers, while in itself is not harmful to the plant or the consumer, perpetuates a method of farming that is ultimately harmful to the environment. The most effective method of fertilizing soil organically necessarily involves building up and maintaining a natural soil health. If we shrink our lens onto the ecosystem simply to the soil in which the plants are grown, you would be shocked at how thriving actual healthy soil is. It is teeming with life, from microbes to worms to bugs, all of these things interacting in a way that grows healthy plants and ensures that healthy plants could continue to grow even if the farming was stopped.
Using synthetic fertilizer makes this ecosystem completely invalid, as it is able to deliver exactly the right kind of nutrients directly to the plant at exactly the right time, all controlled by human oversight. There is no need to tend to soil quality, as the soil at that point simply becomes a base in which to deliver your fertilizers. The ecosystem within the soil is neglected and ignored and it slowly dies as the ecosystem is killed off to only support a single type of living organism (whatever crop you are growing). If you watch an organic field tilled and plowed, you'll notice birds all over the place coming to pick out the worms in the soil. Watching a non-organic field, there are no birds, because there are no worms (at least, if the field has been used consistently without soil care).
Eventually, a field becomes barren and there is a ripple effect moving out to surrounding ecosystems, harming a wide range of life.
To me, it is a matter of philosophy and principle much more than a matter of health (though I do care about the health aspect). GMOs and synthetic chemicals (and some organic chemicals) are utilized in a way which is meant to dominate nature and eliminate natural biodiversity. They are, by their nature, separating us from the process in which the Earth provides us with sustenance. They strive to control the environment and strive for a sanitized canvas, free from any sort of actual nature. GMOs don't necessarily need to be used this way, but it is how they are being used.
I believe that we, as humans, must learn to see ourselves as stewards and companions of the Earth, rather than a pinnacle species with dominion over the natural world. There is good evidence that permaculture practices can provide plenty of food for the world so long as they are implemented locally (which is implied in the nature of permaculture). Leaders in the permaculture field, such as Geoff Lawton, have been able to create sustainable food growing systems in environments that must typically import food from more "fertile" places. If implemented world-wide, permaculture would drastically reduce the need to transport food from one area to another. On top of that, the philosophy behind permaculture strives to achieve a relationship with nature that I feel is exactly the type of relationship we need to come into harmony with the Earth.
I do think that it would impact both our personal health as well as environmental health, but more than that, it would help orient humans to see the Earth as more than a realm to dominate and bend to our wills, but as a world that is not separate from us. Working with our environment, rather than against it, is a central tenet to my own living philosophy which is informed by the Law of One. And anyone who desires to live out this type of philosophy should be able to make informed purchases of their food. Maybe not every non-GMO product is going to be more healthy for the environment, but "voting with your money" is a small first step in eliminating the mentality of domination over nature.
Don't you think that there is a distinction between dominating the environment and working with it in a more effective way? Maybe nature is there to be played and tinkered with, and as long as that is done carefully and with respect for life, why not? We have been tinkering and genetically modifying food for thousands of years now, it is not anything new. I don't know what nature is anymore. I think it is something which is constantly changing.
I am going to keep shopping organic for the time being, but I shall keep questioning. Besides, shopping in supermarkets is neurotic heh.
The studies showing GMOs to be 'safe' cut off at 3 months. The cancers appeared at 4 months. The rats developed cancerous tumors that would be the equivalent of a basketball in a human! At 4 months!
It's a classic example of 'Figures don't lie but liars can figure.'
GMOs are poison. The research is clear, but it has been suppressed here in the US. (and lame attempts made to discredit the research done in other countries.) Nearly all countries except the US have banned them.
Organic fruits and veggies are less likely to be GMO contaminated, but Not necessarily. 'Organic' refers to how the crop is grown, Not how it's been hybridized or genetically modified. So it is now necessary to seek produce that is labeled 'Non-GMO Certified' to be sure.
Nearly all soy, corn and canola are contaminated. We buy only blue corn, or certified non-GMO in the case of soy, corn and canola.
Some varieties of zucchini, papaya, and other crops are now GMO also. It's just evil!
...
(09-24-2015, 10:44 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]The studies showing GMOs to be 'safe' cut off at 3 months. The cancers appeared at 4 months. The rats developed cancerous tumors that would be the equivalent of a basketball in a human! At 4 months!
It's a classic example of 'Figures don't lie but liars can figure.'
GMOs are poison. The research is clear, but it has been suppressed here in the US. (and lame attempts made to discredit the research done in other countries.) Nearly all countries except the US have banned them.
Organic fruits and veggies are less likely to be GMO contaminated, but Not necessarily. 'Organic' refers to how the crop is grown, Not how it's been hybridized or genetically modified. So it is now necessary to seek produce that is labeled 'Non-GMO Certified' to be sure.
Nearly all soy, corn and canola are contaminated. We buy only blue corn, or certified non-GMO in the case of soy, corn and canola.
Some varieties of zucchini, papaya, and other crops are now GMO also. It's just evil!
...
I don't know Monica, I really don't.
Living in Australia, I don't have to worry about GMO's as long as I buy local, with the exception of canola and cotton. My focus is more on whether buying 'organic' is really worth it or not. I am having serious doubts about the validity of these practices and how beneficial they really are.
The only way to make the most informed and educated decision seems to be to study the scientific literature and come to my own conclusions, which is extremely challenging to say the least as I have no real background in science. What to do, what to do.
Meditate on it, and find what resonates most deeply within you, and act on it. It's the only way to find the true answer.
(09-25-2015, 03:04 AM)Jade Wrote: [ -> ]Meditate on it, and find what resonates most deeply within you, and act on it. It's the only way to find the true answer.
What feels right to me is to continue shopping organically, but many things that I once felt were right have turned out to not be so.
Well if it helps you out. Follow your flow. ...how to explain that. Imagine synchronicity happens by a present or 'future' moment pulling you to it. Do you buy the green eggs and ham or the organic green eggs and ham? Deliberate on it, allow a path to form (course of action) and go with what you feel you can do. If you're judging yourself. Maybe take a different course.
Time is a gift to yourself. Utilize it in ways that enjoyment ensues. What more right could you possibly do?
There's a reason there's no randomized control trials on humans.
(09-24-2015, 10:21 PM)Billy Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you think that there is a distinction between dominating the environment and working with it in a more effective way? Maybe nature is there to be played and tinkered with, and as long as that is done carefully and with respect for life, why not? We have been tinkering and genetically modifying food for thousands of years now, it is not anything new. I don't know what nature is anymore. I think it is something which is constantly changing.
I am going to keep shopping organic for the time being, but I shall keep questioning. Besides, shopping in supermarkets is neurotic heh.
Working with nature in a more effective way is what I was referring to with permaculture. The issue is that GMOs, as they are currently implemented, are representing the opposite end of that spectrum. The most common genetic modification is to allow plants to withstand being heavily sprayed by pesticide, so that all other life in the field is either directly killed or indirectly killed as a result of the ecosystem collapsing. Completely sanitizing a field so that the only living organism is the crop you are growing is clear domination, I think.
And there is a very big distinction with "genetically modifying" food by selective breeding and hybridization, which is
not what is referred to when we talk about GMOs. GMOs are specifically organisms with genes which were altered as a result of laboratory tampering. It is direct manipulation of the DNA and not a guided evolution.
This is important for a few reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that GMOs (as they are currently implemented) are, by their very nature, not sustainable. Farmers must continue to receive seeds from the person that creates them in a lab, and most of the time these purchases come with strict contracts meant to control the market. Selective breeding is something any farmer or seed grower can do, and seeds can always be saved from the crop to sustainably continue to grow the strain (except for with hybrids, but the hybrid seed market is not at all the same as the GMO market).
If there is a broader spectrum of "tampering with nature," I agree that there is not a distinct line and the ethics probably vary with context. But when it comes to directly manipulating genes in order to more effectively destroy the surrounding ecosystem, rather than guiding nature with a gentle hand to allow a balanced and sustainable ecosystem to provide food, I feel that these things clearly fall on the opposite ends of the spectrum.
(09-24-2015, 10:44 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]'Organic' refers to how the crop is grown, Not how it's been hybridized or genetically modified. So it is now necessary to seek produce that is labeled 'Non-GMO Certified' to be sure.
Organic certification does not allow GMOs. Organic farmers can lose their certification if it is found that their crop has been contaminated with GMO DNA. The actual planting of the seeds is very controlled, as the organic farmer has to provide receipts for all purchases and prove that all products used were organic compliant. The contamination factor is not heavily tested, I don't think, but they do regulate it. There is definitely a chance of eating a GMO contaminated plant despite an organic label, but it's not for the lack of trying from regulators.
(09-25-2015, 09:16 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]And there is a very big distinction with "genetically modifying" food by selective breeding and hybridization, which is not what is referred to when we talk about GMOs. GMOs are specifically organisms which genes which were altered as a result of laboratory tampering. It is direct manipulation of the DNA and not a guided evolution.
This is important for a few reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that GMOs (as they are currently implemented) are, by their very nature, not sustainable. Farmers must continue to receive seeds from the person that creates them in a lab, and most of the time these purchases come with strict contracts meant to control the market.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the way its unsustainable due to infertile seeds, but beyond that I would hug you, perfect summary of the worst issue of GMO's in my opinion.
(09-25-2015, 10:05 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2015, 09:16 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]And there is a very big distinction with "genetically modifying" food by selective breeding and hybridization, which is not what is referred to when we talk about GMOs. GMOs are specifically organisms which genes which were altered as a result of laboratory tampering. It is direct manipulation of the DNA and not a guided evolution.
This is important for a few reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that GMOs (as they are currently implemented) are, by their very nature, not sustainable. Farmers must continue to receive seeds from the person that creates them in a lab, and most of the time these purchases come with strict contracts meant to control the market.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the way its unsustainable due to infertile seeds, but beyond that I would hug you, perfect summary of the worst issue of GMO's in my opinion.
Yeah, I suppose that is probably worth its own mention. I'm not sure how wide-spread the use of self-terminating seeds really is, but even when a GMO is not self-terminating, most GMO seed contracts include a clause forbidding the farmer to save their seeds for use next year, forcing them to buy more from the company and opening them up to a lawsuit if they don't.
THAT, I did not know. That's ridiculous...
I can say the terminator-gene of infertility is very much present in the produce down here in Arizona. Not a single GMO fruit seed will grow out here. Not lemon, not orange, not pomegranate, avocado, tomato, nothing. Only the organic ones have sprouted (and then subsequently died because I can't figure out a good way to keep them outside for sunlight, and inside to not die of heatstroke.)
(09-25-2015, 06:16 AM)Billy Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2015, 03:04 AM)Jade Wrote: [ -> ]Meditate on it, and find what resonates most deeply within you, and act on it. It's the only way to find the true answer.
What feels right to me is to continue shopping organically, but many things that I once felt were right have turned out to not be so.
Fear of failure or being wrong shouldn't be a reason to stop one from going forward. Have faith in the self that the right thing to do will appear in the moment. If you end up that you are swindled by the organic movement, or halting science by not supporting GMOs, then that is just a lesson to learn down the line. But, the truest path is the one the deep self wants to take, not the one that the mind thinks is safer, even if it is "wrong".
The only thing wrong is wrong itself.
(09-25-2015, 09:16 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Working with nature in a more effective way is what I was referring to with permaculture. The issue is that GMOs, as they are currently implemented, are representing the opposite end of that spectrum. The most common genetic modification is to allow plants to withstand being heavily sprayed by pesticide, so that all other life in the field is either directly killed or indirectly killed as a result of the ecosystem collapsing. Completely sanitizing a field so that the only living organism is the crop you are growing is clear domination, I think.
Wouldn't such a genetic modification, as well as others like inserting certain DNA into a plant so that it produces it's own pesticide, mean less use of pesticides? Isn't that better? Organic farming uses pesticides as well, perhaps even more so. I guess the question to be asked is whether the pesticides used in organic farming are more beneficial or less harmful for the environment. I am being simplistic, I know. I am sure there are more differences between the two farming styles then just the types of pesticides and fertilizers used (i.e. the use of monoculture). What you seem to be suggesting, and correct me if I am mistaken, is that conventional farming methods along with the use of GMO's minimize biodiversity and weaken the ecosystem.
Quote:And there is a very big distinction with "genetically modifying" food by selective breeding and hybridization, which is not what is referred to when we talk about GMOs. GMOs are specifically organisms with genes which were altered as a result of laboratory tampering. It is direct manipulation of the DNA and not a guided evolution.
Yeah, when we talk about genetic modification in food, what we are generally discussing is something called 'transgenesis', which is "the process of introducing an exogenous gene — called a transgene — into a living organism so that the organism will exhibit a new property and transmit that property to its offspring". Unless I am mistaken, the reason this method is used over selective breeding is because it is faster and more specific.
Quote:This is important for a few reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that GMOs (as they are currently implemented) are, by their very nature, not sustainable. Farmers must continue to receive seeds from the person that creates them in a lab, and most of the time these purchases come with strict contracts meant to control the market. Selective breeding is something any farmer or seed grower can do, and seeds can always be saved from the crop to sustainably continue to grow the strain (except for with hybrids, but the hybrid seed market is not at all the same as the GMO market).
Agreed.
(09-26-2015, 05:32 AM)Billy Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2015, 09:16 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Working with nature in a more effective way is what I was referring to with permaculture. The issue is that GMOs, as they are currently implemented, are representing the opposite end of that spectrum. The most common genetic modification is to allow plants to withstand being heavily sprayed by pesticide, so that all other life in the field is either directly killed or indirectly killed as a result of the ecosystem collapsing. Completely sanitizing a field so that the only living organism is the crop you are growing is clear domination, I think.
Wouldn't such a genetic modification, as well as others like inserting certain DNA into a plant so that it produces it's own pesticide, mean less use of pesticides? Isn't that better? Organic farming uses pesticides as well, perhaps even more so. I guess the question to be asked is whether the pesticides used in organic farming are more beneficial or less harmful for the environment. I am being simplistic, I know. I am sure there are more differences between the two farming styles then just the types of pesticides and fertilizers used (i.e. the use of monoculture). What you seem to be suggesting, and correct me if I am mistaken, is that conventional farming methods along with the use of GMO's minimize biodiversity and weaken the ecosystem.
In the specific instance you are talking about, such as Bt-Corn, there might be an environmental benefit if its implemented properly. In fact, the pesticide it produces is the exact same kind of pesticide an organic farmer would spray, so I do think there could be benefit having the corn produce it naturally so that excess pesticide doesn't run-off and that there are no health dangers for the people working with the pesticide.
I'm on the same page as you when it comes to the organic pesticide thing. Many emotionally manipulative images show farm workers in masks and hazmat suits spraying plants with pesticide with questions on how this could be safe to eat if the workers have to wear such protective gear. I've sprayed Bt before and the instructions are very clear about needing to wear a mask and to not touch the pesticide. I'm not sure how harmful Bt is to a person who might inhale it or get it on their skin, but based on the warning labels, it is probably pretty dangerous. And so even if you are buying organic, there may be people in protective gear spraying the crop anyways.
But this is a narrow example of how GMOs might be beneficial. So far as I'm aware, Bt-Corn is the only crop that utilizes this technology. And grown in monoculture with synthetic fertilizers, it's still ecologically dubious. I would also say that organic corn, grown in monoculture and sprayed heavily with Bt, is also ecologically dubious. But probably less-so due to the health of the soil. But this is part of the issue of the industrialization of the organic certification. If you read literature from some of the pioneers of organic production (check out
The New Organic Grower by Eliot Coleman), there's little, if any, mention of organic pesticides. Emphasis is placed on creating a balanced ecosystem that eliminates the need for pesticides all together. And even now, if you go to a small farm that grows organically, they'll probably tell you that they try to spray as little as possible with the goal of not spraying at all. It's likely not true for the mass organic producers.
Even with the potential benefits of crops that produce their own pesticide, the much more common use of GMOs is to create "Roundup Ready" crops, which do not produce their own pesticide but rather cause them to be able to withstand heavy spraying of the herbicide that kills all other plants in the field. This more common use of GMOs
promotes pesticide use instead of discouraging it.
Quote:Yeah, when we talk about genetic modification in food, what we are generally discussing is something called 'transgenesis', which is "the process of introducing an exogenous gene — called a transgene — into a living organism so that the organism will exhibit a new property and transmit that property to its offspring". Unless I am mistaken, the reason this method is used over selective breeding is because it is faster and more specific.
On top of those reasons, it's also able to be controlled and industrialized by corporations, turning a hefty profit. It's really unnecessary, but the GMO companies are good at spinning GMOs to seem as though the future of our food production system will rely on them, and that these modifications will be the only way to effectively produce food for the world's population. It simply isn't true, and it's one of my problems with the GMO industry. There are many other solutions to the issues caused by mass-producing crops in monoculture, ones that don't include either genetic modification or pesticides.
I imagine that there could be a positive use of GMOs in helping to create more sustainable systems, but I don't think there are any examples where that is the case.
(09-25-2015, 02:44 AM)Billy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know Monica, I really don't.
There is a 2-hour documentary about the European research. Monsanto ended their studies in the 3rd month. Or, rather, they only reported the results from the first 3 months. The cancers appeared in the 4th month. It just takes longer with humans. Seems pretty conclusive to me, but then, I saw the research video. Perhaps you might want to see it for yourself and then decide.
(09-25-2015, 02:44 AM)Billy Wrote: [ -> ]My focus is more on whether buying 'organic' is really worth it or not. I am having serious doubts about the validity of these practices and how beneficial they really are.
The only way to make the most informed and educated decision seems to be to study the scientific literature and come to my own conclusions, which is extremely challenging to say the least as I have no real background in science. What to do, what to do.
I don't think one needs to have a science background to conclude that foods saturated with dozens of toxic chemicals, even up to 100 toxic chemicals found on a single lettuce, is harmful, and foods without said chemicals are safer. It really isn't rocket science.
We simply have to choose foods with toxic chemicals, vs. foods without toxic chemicals. It seems like a pretty easy choice to me!
...
Quote:Madrid| Doctors of the Carlos III hospital confirmed this morning in a press conference, the first case of human death caused by the ingestion of genetically modified food. Juan Pedro Ramos died from anaphylaxis after eating some recently developed tomatoes containing fish genes, which provoked a violent and lethal allergic reaction.
This surprising announcement comes after the autopsy of the 31-year old Spanish man who died at the Madrid hospital in the beginning of January. The young man’s health rapidly deteriorated after he suffered an unexplained allergic reaction, and all the drugs used to refrain the anaphylaxis were entirely inefficient. The team of experts claims to have been able to determine that the genetically modified tomatoes that the victim ingested at lunch were the cause of the allergic reaction that caused his death.
Also check out the poor rat in the pic:
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/doctors-...d-by-gmos/
...
Hi, non-GMO fans.
One asks:
Quote:Are GMO's actually bad?
What do you think of the "Round up ready" corn ???
_THAT corn is "GMOed" to endure the spraying/ hoseing
of the ALL KILLING "Round up" !!!!
So the corns are weted with the poison, and the roots
drink the poison that goes in the GMO corn.
??? IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO EAT THAT stuff ???
!!! The answer is NO !!!
Sooooooo we eat 99% ORGANIC !
Blue skies.