|gmol - 2013-09-24 |
zomg gmoz...rats, tumors corn! amirite guys? I love the syringes...
Unless this is a beautiful switch an bait, the premise is uninformed.
He should really be asking, "can I find food without either soy or corn in it?"...those are really the only GMOs around (no wheat, there was a tomato that didn't do vey well....HI papays...I hear an apple is coming).
I don't like the whole "feed the world" schtick either though, most of that that corn and soy is used for animal feed. Before we talk about feed all those poor people, we should really ask ourselves about water security, storage technology and what those lines on the maps really mean.
GM is also used to refer to the process of terminator seeding, which is a fairly insidious practice itself.
There are other GM crops you didn't mention that are significant, like papaya, which was actually saved from extinction by GM, rapeseed (for Canola), salmon, cotton, some potatoes, sugarbeets, and some squash varieties. It's true corn and wheat are the biggest deals right now by a long shot.
I mentioned papayas (even identified the state) right above, albeit with a typo.
GMO potatoes aren't on the market yet AFAIK. No commercial GMO canola (rapeseed).
Cotton, yes, squash yes, sugarbeets yes....I guess I don't think of those a lot when it comes to what people are most worried about consuming.
To be clear, there is no GMO wheat yet.
About seed stuff, meh, farmers seem to enjoy being portrayed as helpless guys that just want to do god's work. I'm sure there are a lot of nice hardworking farmers, but it isn't as if they aren't businessmen. I am annoyed when they resort to pseudoscience...
my bad on canola, I was reading about just europe.
|SteamPoweredKleenex - 2013-09-24 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any of these anti-GMO people ever produced any evidence of any kind of toxin in genetically modified foods? Just about every citation I read on anti-GMO blogs trace back to other blogs or sites that just say something like "our study showed that natural organic crops were 10% higher in nutrition than the GMO crops, which also killed every other plant within 10 feet, caused birds who flew over the field to drop from the sky, and made any nearby infants start chanting Satanic ritual hymns."
I've seen posts about Monsanto being Hitler (which is somewhat justified for their business practices) but I've yet to see anything credible linking any GMO food crop to disease in the people eating it. It's even more wacky when I read conspiracy theories that they're DESIGNED to kill people for whatever reason the voices in their heads tell them this week. I don't know if it's occurred to them that dead people don't buy a lot of food, but hey, it's a free internet...
Toxins are not the only concern, there are threats to biodiversity, there's the fact that they increase natural resistances among pests and parasites, forcing farmers to buy into the GM model. I think it's fair to assume that programming tomatoes to develop toxins which are resistant to pests and tolerant of Roundup might be cause for alarm, and that the FDA does not always do a good job in keeping bad shit off the table.
While there's no shortage of whacked reactionary zeal over GMO toxicity, it is not entirely unsubstantiated. Poke around Google Scholar, you'll get better results.
I think we talked about this here before. Agriculture itself is a threat to biodiversity, sort of the whole point.
Recall, there are no credible concerns regarding the safety of that we an buy to eat. The papers baleen links to aren't just random ones, the 1st has already met considerable crit regarding its validity:
Yeah, monocultures are nothing new. It's why we have the song "Yes, We Have No Bananas" due to blight in the 1920's and us humans giving it a buffet it tore through like wildfire. Bananas, and many of our fruits and veg are also GMOs, they just went the slow way 'round to create the freak-fruits we eat vs. the ones that were actually found in nature.
We already use pesticides that bugs gain resistance to. Plants already make loads of chemicals that are bad for us in large amounts. I'd also say that there's a greater environmental threat from the fertilizers we're filling our rivers and streams with from run-off, which are leading to algae blooms, among other things.
Monsanto needs to have its patent and monopoly tactics curtailed, not the actual alterations to the plants for bug resistance, higher yield, etc. unless there's actual peer-reviewed evidence that the result is in some way detrimental to those who consume it.
In response to Kleenex a good example is the potato, it's from the nightshade family but that doesn't seem to phase people.
Some of the big issues are also subsidies for farmers forcing select crops which has helped to reduce crop rotation.
GMO isn't bad in itself, it's just a tool. It's how we use it. These freak outs are silly, when do we get to sit and talk like adults about what we want to do with these tools and the pros and cons? (I get there is more to it then that, but so many topics become a two party bickering fest).
and we crave tomatoes more than any fruit because it's basically a poison to us... everyone is allergic to tomato
What are you talking about chairs?
I know people that hate tomatoes, and most people can eat them just fine without an allergic reaction.
|StanleyPain - 2013-09-24 |
Oh good, more retards who confuse the GMO industry with GMOs themselves.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|