Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
deleted, double post
Last edited:
"No GMOs" on Food
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gmo foods
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Very unlikely it has anything directly to do with GMOs. Most likely a reaction to glyphosate. So while it is true that lots of GMOs are glyphosate resistant, wheat and other related flours generally contain no GMOs. The do however often contain traces of Glyphosate used to kill weeds before planting, and desiccation at harvest. And yes that has been linked to human diseases. Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance
Never really understood about Vegans that don't care about the suffering of others. Is that really even Veganism? or simply an Eating disorder? Every Vegan I ever met in real life was very compassionate to all life and maybe even a bit too hypersensitive to the suffering of others. So I would think that knowing how harmful certain uses of GMOs and pesticides can be, you would actually GAF
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
This is why GMO is and will be a problem, just like non-GMO hybrids are now but worse. The farmer's goal is always to produce more food, with sustainable ecology taking a back seat. More food means higher population, greater obesity, more pollution, greater land use, and less resources available for improving the environment because we are tapped out just trying to satisfy the ever-increasing population. GMO makes this worse because it is more effective.
The other problem is that GMO makes it too easy to make dramatic changes to an organism, with potentially equally dramatic side effects. Sooner or later we are bound to screw up, producing eg. a plant that is immune to weedkillers that becomes an even greater pest, or has carcinogenic properties that we don't discover for another 30 years (by which time the whole world has switched to it giving millions a death sentence).
There is nothing inherently wrong with GMO. But like all technologies it will have negatives as well as positives. We thought oil was great - and it was - but now it's poisoning the planet and we can't give it up. Exotic species have been introduced to many places in the world for farming or sport etc., only to become huge pest problems. As GMO technology gets better, eventually we will be able to design any organism we like without being limited by heredity or environment. That gives us enormous power - and we all know where that will go when nothing must stand in the way of profit.
The main problem I see with GMO is that it allows us to push environmental concerns further into the future where they will be a bigger problem, rather that dealing with them now - just like we did with energy. Right now I am working with scientists who are trying to develop new plant varieties, but nobody is talking about whether we will have an environment left to grow them. Sure they know that global warming is real, America is running out water etc., but that's not 'their' problem.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Problem is people lump all GMO's together.
And I am convinced there a lot of "Big compnaies are EVIL" thinking here. I am convicned that if it was a Goverment Agency doing the development, a number of these people would be in favor of it.
And I am convinced there a lot of "Big compnaies are EVIL" thinking here. I am convicned that if it was a Goverment Agency doing the development, a number of these people would be in favor of it.
Hypersensitive is the word.
I'm OK to eat food with gluten. But I care if it affects others.
I think you're splitting hairs and being hypersensitive to say that GMO necessarily means pesticide resistant.
AND I still don't KNOW if the whole Roundup thing is an Availability Cascade / Mass Hysteria or not.
I have lived and worked in a conventional farm / farming area for nearly 50 years, BTW, and have not heard anything of anyone on the farms being harmed by Roundup.
I do not mind GMO per se, but I do mind some types of GMO. For instance, GMO that causes plants to generate their own insecticide. I would like to know more about which insecticide, and how much I would ingest if I eat the crop. This information is not available, so I play safe, and avoid GMO, unless I know specifically what kind of GMO I am buying.
I am also concerned about GMOs making crops more expensive for farmers in developing countries, and I am worried about the effects of glyphosate and other herbicides on the environment.
All of this makes organic foods safe for me.
I am also concerned about GMOs making crops more expensive for farmers in developing countries, and I am worried about the effects of glyphosate and other herbicides on the environment.
All of this makes organic foods safe for me.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Insecticide is a bit of a misnomer. There is no GMO that produces chemical "insecticides" or "pesticides" as commonly known to laymen. That was a bit of purposeful misdirection and obfuscation to try and lump all GMOs together as dangerous and the wrong sort of use.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
This is one of the great myths spread by anti-GMO luddites.
The information is readily available, for a start. More important is the claim that these insecticides are potentially dangerous and untested.
The use of the generic term 'GMO' is always a warning sign to me that perhaps that person is not especially well-informed about the subject.
Let me give an example of a specific genetically-modified plant: Bt Corn.
Organic farmers protect their corn by seeding the ground with Bt bacteria, which produces a toxin that kills a few selective insect pest species. The plants absorb the toxin, and are protected.
Bt corn is simply corn with this substance already in it. In all other respects, it is EXACTLY THE SAME as organic corn. It just takes out the stage of separately sowing the ground with bacteria.
This is what I mean by luddism. There is no difference between organic and GM corn, but somehow the suspicion remains that somehow it must be dangerous. If the claim is that it's untested, then organic corn is also untested.
Do you have evidence that GMOs are making food more expensive for farmers? My understanding is that it's the opposite.
For example:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...panel-models/5CA93DBEDB984616D777279709AC825B
My biggest concern about the anti-GMO movement is how it has affected aid to impoverished countries. Countries in Africa have refused food aid from the US and even allowed perfectly good food to rot while people went hungry because of unfounded fear of GMOs.
Armitage72
Philosopher
I frequently have to deal with this at work. Just last week I was talking with the superintendent of a school district whose teachers were throwing a fit because the label of one of our disinfectants referred to the product as a "pesticide" (mandatory EPA language). I explained to him that anything that kills or repels a "pest" is a pesticide, and bacteria and viruses are classified as "pests", making a disinfectant a pesticide.
From what I recall from when I worked in state pesticide regulation, the plants genetically modified to produce pesticides typically incorporate genes from bacillus thuringiensis, so that the plants produce the same proteins as the bacteria, which are toxic to insects but not to people and animals.
I am generally against insecticides in my food. Whenever insecticides are reviewed, safe levels are always lowered, never raised. The accusation of laziness is true: I do think I have more interesting things to do than check for “readily available” scientific articles describing every modification made to every food item that I buy. Especially when there are safe alternatives.
Besides I doubt that it is so easy to identify exact what seed has been used when looking at the stuff in the supermarket.
And I am supposed to know this information when deciding to buy corn flour? When searching for information on the toxin, I found this in the Wikipedia article: “2012 European regulatory peer review of five approved strains found, while data exist to support some claims of low toxicity to humans and the environment, the data are insufficient to justify many of these claims.”
The toxin does not seem to occur naturally in corn, as I thought you implied, but is used by organic farmers because it is generally thought that it is harmless. But as always with this sort of things, nothing is completely harmless, and compromises have to be made.
Interesting article. I wondered if it might be partial, because not a single argument against BT corn was investigated, so searched and found this: Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment
The paper is generally critical about claims of farmer suicides in connection with Bt cotton, but also finds that in some areas, particularly where the threats against normal cotton were minimal, it has led to ruin and suicides.
It always helps to look at things from both sides, because very few things are as clear cut as they look to be.
Last edited:
"Bt cotton is accused of being responsible for an increase of farmer suicides in India. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of evidence on Bt cotton and farmer suicides. Available data show no evidence of a 'resurgence' of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. Nevertheless, in specific districts and years, Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, but its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted."
Farmers’ lack of information on growing conditions, pesticide use, the importance of planting proper seeds and the earnings to be expected from using this technology seem to be behind the controversy shrouding Bt cotton’s performance."
Seems to suggest that it isn't the GMO that is the issue but more ignorance and mishandling.
Farmers’ lack of information on growing conditions, pesticide use, the importance of planting proper seeds and the earnings to be expected from using this technology seem to be behind the controversy shrouding Bt cotton’s performance."
Seems to suggest that it isn't the GMO that is the issue but more ignorance and mishandling.
Quite true, I did say that the paper was positive about Bt cotton, but it is not the only possible quote you could find. They also concede that in some areas there could be a connection to indebtedness and suicides, even if the studies are not robust.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
The study says they 'cannot reject a possible correlation' between the introduction of Bt cotton and suicides in one or two specific areas.
Weak sauce indeed.
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
It is not a commercial enterprise because there's no interest. If you pay them to get those seeds, it is essentially a donation to the professor's program rather than a purchase of seeds (in fact, that's how it is framed).
If there was interest & it became a commercial enterprise, do you really think that it would not be priced more similarly to other offerings?
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
But really, most importantly, glyphosate is a threat to our Second Amendment rights. Why? Because it causes mass shootings, of course! Do we think that these silly hunks of metals shoot themselves like the silly libs think they do? Of course not! Kids shoot guns & glyphosate makes them do it.
You did cite Seneff as authoritative, right? Of course you did!
In case you missed the sarcasm, Seneff is a crank. End of story.
Do not cite.
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
Right, and the obvious solution is to switch everyone to labor intensive, and unproductive agricultural models that require even more land area. Oh wait!
Utter nonsense. Your comments about chelation are way off target. Even if the part about chelation were correct, the stoichiometry is all wrong. Namely, there's way more stuff to chelate in the environment than there is glyphosate in an agricultural application setting. However, you are not even correct about that. It's not a particularly good chelator.
As for soil health, one of the worst things you can do for soil is till it. Glyphosate helps address that issue by making no or low till easier and can actually help improve the soil as a result.
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
I hope that you weren't sitting around drinking coffee when you wrote that (I'll take it for granted that you weren't smoking a cigarette too).
I am sure I get lots of unwanted stuff in my food. I can only avoid that which I know about. There is also a lot of non-GMO stuff that I do not want to ingest, but do it anyway because I don’t know about it, or I can’t avoid it.
Such is life.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Oh so rural people are not allowed meaningful work any longer? Unfit for anything higher than service clerks and staffers at the Big Box Stores? Have you even ever seen the economic destruction present in rural areas? When in America did hard work suddenly become a negative thing, to be avoided at all costs, even to the point of destroying the very land that supports civilization?Right, and the obvious solution is to switch everyone to labor intensive, and unproductive agricultural models that require even more land area. Oh wait!
Just exactly how do you define "productive"? Yields per acre? or yields per manhour worked? Did you include all the "farmed out" land that was abandoned after destroying it's capacity to be productive in your calculations? Because modern regenerative ag yields per acre are much better than industrialized ag. More profitable for the farmer too, even counting all the horrible labor which is such a negative thing for you, but a meaningful job and way to raise a family for that poor farmer. You tried to troll me with that post, and gee, it worked.You talk about individual parts of a destructive system, while I talk about the system as a whole. Sure Gyphosate is a poor chelator, but even you admit it is a chelator, binding up nutrients that would otherwise be bioavailable to plants. By that characteristic alone it couldn't make much of a difference. That certainly is not the only characteristic important to the system however. Reducing the ability of the soil food web to make minerals bioavailable to the crops, combined with the effect of making minerals that would otherwise already be bioavailable unavailable makes a huge difference though.
The sort of "benefits" of no till you are talking about can only be seen as a benefit when compared to the even worse systems of both tillage and excessive agrochemical usage. It's like arguing less bad is actually good, because it could be worse. Don't settle for less bad, when we actually can restore ecosystem function and ecosystem services to the land, without reducing our capacity to provide food and fiber to the cities.
Last edited: