Speedwell

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't important, just not as relevant to the entire field of direct genome modification as you make it out to be.

That's right, we don't know, so what are you proposing, and on what scientific basis?

dakota44

Sultan....who is the premier marketer of GMO seeds? Monsanto. Who literally dominates the food supply? Monsanto. I think the open question of GMO crops has to include the overwhelmingly major player in that field. Monsanto. I also think that simply saying yes or no to GMO crops, without considering what the modifications are, is a tad wrong.

Speedwell

I'm in complete agreement with this statement. Have you thought about it?

dakota44

So in other words....you have no scientific proof to support your position. I see.

Speedwell

Haven't seen much from you, yet. I propose the combatants retire from the field and figure out where they dropped their lances.

SultanOfSwing

That kind of falls under 'it is what it is' for me. Unless we can all jump in a DeLorian and go back in time - the damage is already done.

Like I said, if you don't like what is on the mass market, then grow your own food. It can be done without using their seeds, plenty of people do it. Just because I choose to buy the food I can afford and obtain conveniently, be they GMO or not, should be neither here nor there.

dakota44

I have. I take a fair bit of flack here for positions that I sometimes put forth. That's fine. But one thing for sure. If a subject is interesting and important to me I do all of the reading on the subject that I can. Whatever I can find, usually both sides of the coin. I have been following the GMO food issue for years. What I see, I am not fond of.

Two primary reasons. First, we do not know everything that companies like Monsanto are doing in terms of modifying crops. Second, the goal of Monsanto is, by their own admission, to control the food supply for the world. The method they use to to modify a seed, patent it and then sue pretty much everyone that has a farm for patent infringement even if they were victims of GMO seed blowing on their property and they have never planted GMO crops. The have sued over 400 farmers, bankrupting most of them.

The beauty of the natural food system, with responsible hybridization, is the wealth of different varieties of the same basic food. This is a good thing because if one variety disappears, there are others to plant. Once there were about 5,000 varieties of potatoes. Now, the majority of those are gone. Once there were 10,000 varieties of rice, now more than 80% of those are gone. Monsanto wants to do away with the natural varieties of seed so that in the end there is only one variety of corn, theirs. Only one variety of Soy beans, theirs. And the list goes on. A healthy food system cannot survive that way.

While there no doubt can be some real benefit from GMO modified foods, done properly, we are not there now. The whole idea of even patenting a GMO modified crop is wrong in my opinion. Once upon a time most of the agricultural advancements were the product of research done in agricultural universities, funded by the government and the discoveries available to all without patent restrictions. That was the correct way, in my opinion.

Anyway, if what opinions I express are considered in some way of target, my apologies. But I would not agree.

dakota44

Actually I posted a few links with relevant information in terms of problems with GMO crops a number of posts back. Not my fault he did not read them.

dakota44

The damage can be undone, to some degree. The grow your own food idea isn't very practical for about 80% of the population.

SultanOfSwing

Use your loaf - no corporation is going to change its mind if that change involves not turning a profit. It's the world we live in, like it or not. Personally, I think it's arse-paralysingly banal but luckily I am not immortal, so I'll continue to please myself until I snuff it.

For many, 'tis better to have something to eat, whatever it is, than to have a bunch of insufferable eco-tards bleating on about what one should be doing, et cetera.

dakota44

Those insufferable eco-tards that you refer to happen to include a shitload of farmers who disagree vehemently with GMO. Farmers who have for generations been quite successful at bringing in large harvests with natural seed. Farmers who see what is happening with soil destruction, super weeds and more as a result of GMO planing.They also include scientists and medical professionals. But no worries.

SultanOfSwing

A bit of well-directed hyperbole gets a rise out of you more effectively than a well-placed altar boy gets a rise out of a priest's cock.

steveq

Hybridising by just cross-breeding ? You're having a laugh. Hybridising's was done for the last 80 years with hard radiation, or mutagens and teratagens. - part of the drive to GMO was to REDUCE the chances of making something very nasty, by putting real science into adding and removing bits.

steveq

Lets see the peer-reviewed evidence then ? If as many people as you claim are that worried, it should be well documented in the literature by now. God, you could make your entire career from one paper demonstrating "GMOs are bad"

We didn't need GMO to destroy soil back in the 1930s.

dakota44

No, you didn't need GMO to destroy soil in the 30's. Just a drought. Hardly an apt comparison. Try these on for size.

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ar.20878/full

The effects on yield, weed and insect resistance.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/...bal-yields.htm

How about the opinion of American Academy of Environmental Medicine?

Genetically modified foods…
Are they safe?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.

Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Since then, findings include:

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:

If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/