GM Food

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 14 Responses
  • lowimpakt1

    hunger is caused by structural inequality, poverty, war, water scarcity, climate change.

    We currently waste between 30 and 50 percent of food produced and the food that we do produce is not share equally

    none of this is resolved by patented strains of bananas.

    • True. But those banana trees with the added Vitamin A are an inexpensive and sustainable way of keeping 'at risk' kids from going blind.Morning_star
  • moldero0

    • our ability to address our "needs" has put humanity right in the middle of an extinction age that we caused starting in the last 250 years.
      GFY NTD
  • formed0

    To clarify, I do think there is a place for gmo's. The problem lies in how things are currently being done. The priority is on monopolizing the world's food supply and profiting from it (see TPP).

    It's kinda like this (perhaps a bad analogy, but I'll give it a go)....if you have AIDS or another horrific disease you would probably take some somewhat experimental drug that could save and make your life much better.

    There are places in the world that have horrible conditions, no resources, etc., that could benefit dramatically from gmo's, that's pretty clear.

    To the analogy, I don't think we should feed an experimental AIDS drug to everyone just so the company can make trillions, but the AIDS patient should have access IF THEY WANT IT.

    So many countries have banned it while the US gobbles it down. The lobbying dollars behind gmo's is staggering. Just look at the labeling battle. Why, in God's name, should we not know what our food is??

    It should give anyone pause and we all should demand more research. The "pro-facts" are only isolated and, from what I've read, largely isolated and untested.

    Just like RoundUp (Monsanto's other darling), it was "safe" forever but now is proven to be a carcinogen.

  • ETM2

    I think the problem with GMO is that it's lumped into one single argument, when there are good and bad aspects.

    People feel that splicing plant stalks to disrupt and alter a species for the benefit of humans is more natural then splicing genes directly. Is it though?

    For hundreds of years we've already worked to create tastier, juicier and hardier food with grafting and other techniques. So were those techniques morally superior? Guaranteed better for the body? They technically aren't 'natural' in the sense that nature intended them.

    I honestly don't have a solid opinion yet. Signal to noise is such a problem. But with population and climate change, GMO is the inevitable future, regardless of popular opinion. Look at California's environmental landscape for the last 5+ years.

    • Aye, I'm much more comfortable with gene swapping between, say, 'within plants' than I am of 'plants and jellyfish'.detritus
    • ^ Or dinosaurs and frogs.ETM
    • ESPECIALLY dinosaurs and frogs.detritus
    • There are good and bad aspects. But genetically modify things in a laboratory is far different from cross breeding.formed
    • It has nothing to do with 'what nature intended' and everything to do with what is safe (and beneficial).formed
    • Life...uh...finds a wayyuekit
    • "For hundreds of years we've already worked to create tastier, juicier and hardier food with grafting and other techniques."

      quite the opposite actually
  • Morning_star1

    It's interesting that you take that tack Formed. I have literally just read that the Gates Foundation is trying to promote the use of GM Bananas in certain third world countries that are modified to carry Vitamin A. This would save thousands of children every year from going blind.
    The anti GM lobby has been spreading disinformation amongst the people most effected by Vit A deficiencies claiming that the GM Bananas will make you sterile or gay or worse.
    The impact from the health benefits of the GM Vit A Bananas is undeniable. What i don't get is the argument from the Anti GM supporters that justifies keeping kids susceptible to blindness.
    I suppose it's not as cut and dried as 'GM is either Good or Bad'.

    • Gates also owns a TON of Monsanto stock. 500,000 shares, actually. Not to mention their pressuring countries to lift their gmo bans.formed
    • Like a lot of things, the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.formed
  • formed1

    There's plenty to support the anti-gmo movement, it's not just some feel good hippy bs.

    And on the other side, there's little to suggest that gmo's are just fine for everyone beyond "hey, we haven't killed a population yet".

    It's all about money. It was a smart business move (Monsanto and others). Control food and create an ongoing revenue stream (patented seeds that have to be bought every year), market it as "we can grow in the desert and feed the world! We'll eliminate famine and make the world a healthy place!".

    Yeah, that's nice, let me know when they start actually doing that. Imho, that lie and the control they have over our food (and farmers) is enough to boycott gmos.

    • Sorry, but this is a fairly monodimensional view - outwith Monsanto et al, there's plenty of decent, moral and worthwhile GM research.

      eg. http://c4rice.irri.o…
    • the whole GM thing is a bit overwrought - eg. we've only very recently come up with accurate 'narrowcast' gene swaps in the form of CRISPR. ...detritus
    • ... Everything in the decades prior was quite broadbrush and hit and miss and therefore inaccurate.detritus
    • https://en.wikipedia…detritus
    • Sure, like I said, once the gmo's start saving the world and not making [Monsanto] more money, I'll listen. Oh, and we get labels.formed
  • set2

    They can grow with far less nutrients in the soil, which means far less nutrients in the product, which means far less nutrients in the body. Yet they'll sell them for the same price.

    That and they contaminate non GM crops.

    It's an incredibly dangerous road to go down, for all of us.

    • we've done it without GM as well
    • Yes I know, sad times. I read that the average vegetable has something like 25% of the nutrients it did 100 years agoset
    • yep, some fact on it - http://www.scientifi…imbecile
    • Thanksset
    • the buyers are pretty selective these days (proved by anti-gmo sentiment in itself)drgs
    • you can use GM to make beautiful and nutritious apples vs just beautiful apples: option 1 without any doubt bc of same development cost, and not same fin. riskdrgs
  • Milan1

    Last night I ate some strawberries that looked dark red and ripe as fuck, but were completely bland and tasteless. Fuckin swindling GM cunts! This is what happens when you mix liberal capitalism and GM.

    • Did you just complain about having strawberries in winter?!??!zarkonite
    • those were not strawberries. LOLKrassy
  • ideaist1…

    "There is controversy over GMOs, especially with regard to their use in producing food. The dispute involves buyers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to GMO food are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population. In 2014, sales of products which had been labeled as non-GMO grew 30 percent to $1.1 billion.[140]"

    Tell the public what they're eating.

    They have purchasing power and can decide to support, not support or be impartial to GM / GMO food.

    GM / GMO is certainly the next step in mankind's desire to control nature; for better or worse.

    I, for one am moving from a consumer (of food) to a producer moving to a community of like-minded individuals who see food as part of said community.

    You are what you eat.

    • (Ex Dr) Gillian McKeith completely ruined the whole idea of 'you are what you eat' for me.Ianbolton
    • And if we can feed a whole nation of starving Ethiopians by growing corn in sand via GM then that's fine by me.Ianbolton
  • detritus1

    Once they get a C4-strain of rice growing, a fuckload of the concerns will be washed away, regardless of morals or politics.

  • vaxorcist0
  • imbecile1
  • lowimpakt2

    It depends on what aspect you are looking at. and what type of scientific evidence you need.

    My main concern would be the corporate ownership of the foundations of the global food system.

    The claims that GM will end world hunger is nonsense because hunger doesn't exist because a lack of food.

    Both of these are important issues that a natural scientist wouldn't be very good at explaining.

    • I upvoted you, but I think the main concern of 'world hunger' is in feeding the next n billion - GM is 'this century's Haber Bosch process'.detritus
    • but yes, ©opybullshit on 'discovered' gene values, etc, is comprehensively reprehensible and Best Avoided at all costs.detritus
  • drgs3

    I do not understand why anyone needs to have it explained: the less chemicals you put into the soil (GM foods allow you to do exactly that), the better for the environment and for the quality of the product

    I want to eat exclusively genetically modified vegetables, the more modified the better

    • This is kind of where my thoughts were heading but the Anti-GM lobby is rabid in its insistance that it's the road to hell. Is it really all hot air. Thanks.Morning_star
    • Modified to increase a plant's own chemical defence against pests? And what if said 'natural' defences are more carcinogenic than synthetic stuff, sprayed on?detritus
    • what if, if only, if possibly maybe, supposedly if we never get past "what if" and continue using chemicals for fucking nothingdrgs
    • I'm actually quite pro-GM and Organic, etc, but it's a simple fact that 'less chemicals in soil' != 'better quality ie. [healthier] of product' necessarily.detritus
    • 'chemicals' being synthetic pesticides and herbicides, I mean, not water or fixed nitrogen...detritus
  • Morning_star

    I've been looking into the industry of GM and it's confused to say the least.

    The Anti-GM voice is very loud and passionate but lacking in research and evidence supporting their position and the Pro-GM voice is swamped with scientific evidence and research but very few supporters willing to break ranks.

    Are GM foods as abhorrent as the Anti-GM lobby suggest?