Just one more reason to NOT vote for Hillary.  And one more reason to demand CHANGE in Washington.  And one more reason to buy directly from farmers you know and trust.

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

Tom wrote...

"In his presentation, Smith pointed to several studies from the 1990s showing rats fed GM food suffered liver damage, reproductive problems, and more."

Can you provide some specific information regarding this? I would like to know if I'm killing people. If someone can provide solid evidence showing that consumption of GMOs, in general, causes liver damage, reproductive problems, and more, I would have to find another career.

But right now I really don't see how, for example, making a papaya that expresses a specific viral protein, is resistant to infection by the virus, and actually contains LESS viral protein than a non-GMO papaya would be more dangerous than a non-GMO papaya.

Tom also wrote...

"But if GM foods are inherently unhealthy -- even worse than regular industrial food -- why haven't we seen more health troubles? When I contemplate that fact, I reflect that everyone I know who's over 30 either rigorously avoids industrial food -- or relies on the pharmaceutical industry to get through their days."

Might not be statistically significant. Most of the people I know who are over 30 don't worry about their food, are healthy, and have healthy children. Does this show GMOs are perfectly safe? Would you accept this as evidence?

Tom also wrote...

"It's a brilliant strategy, really. In a society already beset with chronic ailments and reliant on pharmaceuticals, you can introduce a whole array of dangerous foods, and no one would even notice."

You could also introduce a whole array of safer foods, free of...

copper ammonium carbonate, copper sulphate, copper oxychloride, rotenone, potassium salts of fatty acids, nicotine sulfate, veratrine, azadirachtin, salannin, potassium permanganate, and pyrethrin.

I firmly believe we should label GMO food. Are organic farmers prepare to label their products if the above chemicals were used? Shouldn't consumers be fully informed about how their food was grown and was was sprayed on the crops?

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

Pangolin wrote...

"Aside from the concerns about the safety of the food, biodiversity of the food supply is a concern. If a significant percentage of the US corn crop comes from a few closely related genetic lines and that corn crop provides a majority of the calories that people eat we have a problem. All it takes is for the inevitable bacterial, viral or fungal disease to find a chemical attack to those crop lines and we starve."

This problem arose before the advent of GMOs and is a problem that would have to be addressed even if GMOs were not an option. It was not created by GMOs. It probably started the moment human beings gathered seeds from their favorite plants and passed them on to other groups. The potato famine obviously occurred before GMOs. We did not learn our lesson. Vast monocultures of corn and wheat were grown before the advent of GMOs.

I still think we should focus on the underlying problems:

Corporate control of plant diversity.

Corporate control of biotechnology.

Corporate control of evaluation of our food safety.

Application of harmful chemicals to our food.

Those concerned about food security should be trying to find ways to ensure farmers acquire full control over seed they purchase, ensure puplic institutions maintain control over the genetic commons, and that independent panels of scientist evaluate ALL concerns we have regarding food.

I'm interested in GMOs because I do not want ANY toxic chemicals, preferably NO chemicals, sprayed on my food. I'd like to be able to purchase produce and know, for sure, that copper isn't poisoning the soil somewhere and rotenone isn't poisoning aquatitic animals somewhere.

Eliminating GMOs will not eliminate the majority of problems being discussed by those opposed to GMOs. It will only delay finding real solutions.

How about turning anti-GMO activist?  You know all about it.  Might be harder to get payed though.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Hello All.

Can someone please direct me to a concise, accurate, and complete account of Árpád Pusztai's experience evaluting GM potatoes? I would like to know precisely what he recalls regarding how the experiment was done and what happened afterwords.

I was attempting to look into it and it looks like a moving target. I should point out that the WHOLE matter -- his perspective and the Rowett Institute's perspective -- looks like a moving target, everyone involved changing their stories as events unfolded! Neither side did themselves any favors by changing their stories! And my admittedly limited information suggests neither can really be trusted!

I appreciate GreenEngineer's suggestion that I read about this case. Everyone should be more informed about the potential consequences of their work.

I suppose I could set up a home business testing food for transgenes. Then I could live in the middle of nowhere and not have to commute to work. There are probably enough people out there who are concerned and could provide a decent income. Oh oh... just gave the idea to someone else! Doesn't matter. I would have to see some pretty strong evidence that all GMOs are a threat to humanity and the rest of the world before I joined the rest of you. Keep it coming.

I think there are real fears behind GM foods. What was wrong with "real" "whole" non-GM food?

One serious point is that we're putting altered DNA into our systems when we consume GM foods. The purpose of DNA is to bind and replicate. Once this gets into our systems how do we know (for example) how a tilapia-spliced tomato is changing our bodies?

GM foods (like GM fish) are often more aggressive than non-GM. They take over an ecosystem and eradicate the diversity that once was.

This aggressive takeover and fall of genetic diversity provides us with monocultures. Monocultures are horrible in any environment. Does anyone need to be reminded of the potato famine? We currently have monoculture soy and corn in the U.S., what happens when the corn crop fails, like it did in 1970?

By picking GM foods over "regular" foods we are marking the "regular" food for extinction. We already know that by tearing down the rainforests we are killing off potentially medically helpful plants and animals. By picking GM over non-GM food, how do we know what vitamins and nutrients we are saying goodbye to? What is wrong with eating potatoes and spinach? I don't need a potato spliced with iron from spinach.

On a slight tangent, the argument that we're helping feed developing countries through GM foods is bs. Developing countries are starving and can no longer feed themselves b/c we have erected our corporate plants (like coca-cola) in these countries. We buy up land and put toxins into the ground (through factory waste) so family farmers can no longer work the fields, forcing them into cities, which creates a cheap labor force by overpopulation. This drives the people, who could once grow their own foods, into the factories and now they don't have the time to farm for themselves. They are forced to buy their food (imported) which keeps them working and keeps them buying. Let's try to solve the root of the problems instead of creating solutions for problems we implement.

I realizing you are just adding a bit of humor to the conversation, but do you really want to "vandalize" another thread?

hehehehehehe

I'm probably opposed to GM animals as much as anyone else is, especially if it is for entertainment. This thread is about GM plants.

Regarding whipping up enthusiasm among the peasants and marching down to my place of work, I don't think violence is a good approach. Keep in mind... one could also whip up enthusiam among the peasants and march down to the offices of anti-GMO people. All one would have to do is persuade them that "environmentalists" are opposed to GMOs because they really want to reduce the human population via cutting off our food supply. I really don't want to live in world where we solve our problems by exploiting ignorance and fear. It really isn't working too well right now.

Still... I appreciate amazingdrx's efforts to stir up discussion. Keep up the good work!

Huns, and Visigoths!

  No need to worry about villagers nowadays wisci.  They won't march unless there's a big thanksgiving sale at best buy.  And they sure aren't paying attention to my suggestions.

Those kitties are pretty cool though.  You have to admit.  I bet they will be going for 1500 a cat in local per stores soon.

What about a chimp with human genes to do yardwork.  Say around a 45 IQ?  When will they be mass produced and inexpensive?  This would solve the immigration problem.  

Humor, it's a good thing.  Keeps the tears at bay, hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Try to focus on the plants.

No glowing cats. No GM animals for yard work. Have we not learn our lesson? A chimp with an IQ of 45 would probably neglect doing the important work around your house and try to bring democracy to the neighbor's yard instead... if you know what I mean...

I know that you were joking (sorta) and that wiscidea wants us to stay with plants and not animals, but your comment about the monkey slaves made me think about...

The Monkey Matrix

Coming soon to a theater near you!

To wiscidea, don't you worry that reducing biodiversity in our food supply using GM makes us at risk for a catastrophic "potato famine" or "dutch elm disease" type event?

cmello

Hello cmello.

The reduction of biodiversity in our food supply by any means creates an accident waiting to happen. I firmly believe we have to move away from extensive monocultures of hybrid plants.

GM plants did not create the problem and do not have to worsen the problem.

As I've mentioned earlier regarding potatoes, they are already clonally propagated. Genes conferring resistance to different diseases could easily be put into almost any cultivar grown. Our lab in particular is working with Asian countries to put the desired genes into varieties the local farmers prefer to grow. They can then use these in their conventional breeding programs if they wish to.

I would propose something similar be done when genes conferring resistance to various diseases are added to other cultivated plants. It should not be done in a manner that encourages clonal propagation and establishment of monocultures of a few varieties of each species everywhere on Earth. Rather, the modified plants should (1) be appropriate for a region and culture and (2) useful for conventional breeding or propagated by open pollination.

I wish to add useful genes -- reducing chemical inputs -- to a cultivated plant's gene pool, not reduce biodiversity.

I probably did not explain this well. I'll work on it. Feel free to ask additional questions.