|
Post by restless on Aug 20, 2015 3:19:01 GMT -5
I have an undergraduate degree, minor, and graduate degree in science. I read published, peer reviewed scientific journal articles for fun, on several branches of science from physics, to horticulture and agriculture, biology, to advancements in computing. I have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. I taught science part time at a community college while working full time in industry. I am an advocate for women who want to work in STEM fields of study. I have nothing against science. I love science. I love research. And data. And statistics.
And I think, based on my extensive reading of scientific articles, that GMOs created to enable herbicide use and insect killing are dangerous for our health and the environment because of the widespread use of herbicides and pesticides they were created to enable.
And as I stated previously, I don't think that there will ever be a seed company using GM technology to *only* create super nutritious, high yielding, short season, crops that grow without water in sand or in too much water in mud, or in salt water in Sunderbans, or in frost in The Tundra or cold shade in The Taiga and give poor subsistence farmers those miracle seeds year after year. Why? Because how will they make money? Who is going to pay for that?
In the current model, financially successful for GM seed companies, the goal is not feeding the world. The goal is pesticide sales: buy the seed, buy the pesticide to spray on later, buy the pesticide already in the seed, buy the seeds again next year, buy more pesticide next year because your weeds are evolving.
Evolution, you say? Exactly why GM monoculture crops are dangerous. Let's say some rich person spends their billions developing a super wheat that will grow in terrible conditions that is high in protein, iron, calcium, vitamin A, and vitamin C and gives the seeds away and keeps giving them away year after year. Everyone plants them. Everyone. And then a blight comes along and wipes out the plant. All of them. Diversity is better. It's much better not to have our eggs in one basket.
|
|
|
Post by claude on Aug 20, 2015 7:22:04 GMT -5
There are marvelous new technologies emerging thru testing..you mention insulin..ask anyone with a pancreas that is not functioning..they can be lifesaving. There are many medical breakthroughs that are researched and retested over years. Say drugs for instance..you use them after they are tested for years..on the market...and AFTER decades of use...find that they cause damage..like Tylenol or Advil. These are tested, and retested and yet some people suffer liver and kidney damage with its use. The GMOs in our food supply are not tested over time. We are the lab rats. They are only tested for 6 months by the very company that wants to sell them for profit. I'm old enough to actually personally know people who were injured by agent orange during the Vietnam era. Agent orange was touted as 'a safe way to eliminate foliage' around American soldiers. How many people still contine to spout "roundup disapates and becomes inert after 24hours' You know..even though it persists far longer than that and is far more toxic if tested with the inert ingredients in the actual product on the shelves. Testing was only on one ingredient..any pharmacist asks you what other medications you are taking because inert ingredients compound the toxicity of the product in question. We have over 60,000 chemicals in use..in the market today. A scientific mind would question what/why we need these in our food supply. Why studies are not long term. And why independent studies are not done (money). And why the word of the producer (who has lied previously with disastrous effects -agent orange now reintroduced as d2-4) who is profiting from its use is the only group who is not in denial of science? The premise that anyone who disagrees with you isn't dealing with the facts correctly?
|
|
|
Post by claude on Aug 20, 2015 7:57:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brownrexx on Aug 20, 2015 8:10:07 GMT -5
Everyone plants them. Everyone. And then a blight comes along and wipes out the plant. All of them. Diversity is better. It's much better not to have our eggs in one basket. This is a very big concern no matter what "type" of GMO's are grown. You can think that you are doing a wonderful thing by feeding a starving child today but starve the entire continent later when crop failure causes a wide spread famine. I am certainly not anti-science either with a BS in Biology, I taught high school Biology, worked as a cancer research technician at a major medical center and 20 years as a chemist working in the lab of a world wide corporation. I think that resources would be better spent on controlling overpopulation and learning how to farm in a way that is sustainable. The answer is not to just keep producing more and more food, using any means, to support a burgeoning population. No matter what food is produced, if the population continues to increase - resources WILL run out. Look at the situation with water in CA today and this is in our own country!
|
|
|
Post by restless on Aug 20, 2015 8:12:36 GMT -5
It's happened before. The examples that are always thrown around are the Irish Potato Famine and the Gros Michele (spelling?) variety of banana.
|
|
|
Post by brownrexx on Aug 20, 2015 8:18:31 GMT -5
And don't overlook what happens to other species when their population exceeds sustainable levels - there is a big die off. It may be unpleasant but it's the basic biology of supply and demand.
|
|
|
Post by octave on Aug 20, 2015 9:04:25 GMT -5
What is the problem with science? I just feel as if you all are commenting based on your views and opinions and I'm trying to have a fact based discussion. Did you know their are natural "GMOs" not made in a lab but made by nature?
I think you are mistaking natural selection/spontaneous evolution with GMOs
What is the problem with altering the genetics of a plant in a SAFE way and testing it properly before releasing it?
The problem is that this type of genetic intervention does not result from an environmental necessity. All changes that happen in nature are a response (adaptation) to environmental conditions. Lab GMOs are not. They may (and do) actually create changes in the environments where they are introduced for which there is not "normal" response. In other words, GMOs are asking environments to adapt to the changes they (the GMOs) introduce. For some of these changes the environment's response is death (butterflies, bees, small insects); other times it's resistance and the creation of super-organisms. Scientists can control what they put out there, but not how the environment will respond to it.
I'm not sayin eliminate heirlooms or anything crazy I'm just saying the GMOs can be good if done correctly.
No, they can't.
Yes their are other ways to feed the world but this could be the cheapest, easiest, and most effective. You can doubt me and say its not true but then you would just be in denial of the established and agreed upon scientific facts and in that case this conversation is a lost cause.
The only lost cause here is that you are failing to see the whole picture.
|
|
|
Post by brownrexx on Aug 20, 2015 9:28:45 GMT -5
In other words, GMOs are asking environments to adapt to the changes they (the GMOs) introduce. For some of these changes the environment's response is death (butterflies, bees, small insects); other times it's resistance and the creation of super-organisms. Let's not forget that antibiotics were also going to "save the world" (and they have done a lot of good things) but now we have "superbugs" due to misuse of antibiotics. Will the use of GMO's be any different in their plan to "save the world"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 16:04:16 GMT -5
I want to be clear that I 100% agree that GMOs made to increase pesticide use is wrong. GMOs can be a good or bad thing.
like restless said "I don't think that there will ever be a seed company using GM technology to *only* create super nutritious, high yielding, short season, crops that grow without water in sand or in too much water in mud, or in salt water in Sunderbans, or in frost in The Tundra or cold shade in The Taiga and give poor subsistence farmers those miracle seeds year after year. Why? Because how will they make money? Who is going to pay for that?" These would be good GMOs. Maybe someday we can change things so companies aren't in control and we can use our technology to create these and not worry about profit. I'm hoping the people of the world will realize we have the capability to ensure that nobody starves to death. It's unlikely to be anytime soon but if we stop saying "GMOs are bad" and start saying "uncaring profit driven companies are bad and GMOs should be made/used properly" it might help more. "GMOs are bad" is misleading and incorrect. I'm also not saying we should only have GMOs but they should be in places that need them. We also need to preserve the non GMO genetics as well. Diversity is key.
Can you all at least see how GMOs COULD be a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Aug 20, 2015 16:51:51 GMT -5
Plain and simple: NO
|
|
|
Post by claude on Aug 20, 2015 17:36:51 GMT -5
GMO's were marketed as a way to DECREASE pesticide use...that's how they were allowed GAAS without extensive testing. The opposite is exponentially true. I no longer trust any marketing propaganda that comes out of chemical companies. They have slowly reduced the seed diversity by buying up over 60% of the seed companies...the GMO.seed...some are open pollinated which means if they cross pollinate ..they pollute those heirloom varieties that are grown within five miles...changing them permanently. There are Mexican and Central American tribes growers who have saved seed for hundreds of years...somehow these farmers are finding GMO corn traits in their century old crops. So how is It getting there? M offered to "give" them seed..and they refused.. Now..if M tests this seed (as they have before)and find their "traits" they can say that these people are stealing THEIR seed. These indigenous people have lived independently for centuries...saving their own seed..so why would they change that? They live in harmony with nature. In India ...pushing their feed the world propaganda They M "gave" Indian farmers seed..seed that was unlike the seed they had been/were saving...but the needed to buy roundup and fertilizers that they could not afford..causing Monsanto to TAKE their land by default...Indian farmers were committing sucide at a rate of 60 per week because they had lost lands that were in their families for generations...effectively taking away their livelihoods...the history of chemical companies and especially M are nefarious at best. No. I do not believe GMOs could be a good thing. I'm basing my answer on their past history. Their quest for power and profits.
The hybrids...that's another story..they work with nature for disease resistance and traits. Now you can't save hybrid seed either because it won't grow true. But when you purchase a hybrid..you know from the start that you cannot keep seed and you make an educated choice. You might get a wonkey offspring but that's the worst scenario..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 18:26:31 GMT -5
The problem is the companies that make the GMOs not the GMOs themselves. A GMO can be a good thing
|
|
|
Post by brownrexx on Aug 20, 2015 18:43:59 GMT -5
You don't seem to accept the fact that the GMO's are a mono culture that can lead to a catastrophic crop loss and resulting famine and loss of farm land.
GMO's ruin the structure of the soil and cause death of non target insects and birds.
GMO's have also not been tested over any length of time to look for unintended consequences.
This is NOT a good thing and it has nothing to do with profits or greed.
I think that we are going to have to just agree to disagree on this subject. I hear what you are saying and I can see that you have the welfare of poverty stricken nations at heart but I do not think that GMO's are the answer in the long run whether provided by profit hungry companies or not.
|
|
|
Post by desertwoman on Aug 21, 2015 21:35:37 GMT -5
After removing several offending posts, I am restating what brownrexx said earlier- that this thread is now locked to all further comments. Time to move on.
|
|