GMO discussion with teacher

[chicken_boy_Kurt]

Quote:
That's different. It's called natural selection and, as the name says, happens naturally.

In genetic modification, a gene is either added or taken away by humans.

 

[chicken_boy_Kurt]

Quote:
Yes. I didn't know that and I never said I was perfect. Despite this source being potentially flawed, I am still choosing to be suspicious of GMOs until some significant proof arises that there are no health complications.

I believe that food is healthiest in as natural a state as possible.

 

[SarahBeth9394]

Quote:
well i don't know what being from California has to do with any of this. But i don't think anyone is always right, but the fed's have cut water to some farmers here. But most things that the government gets in to gets screwed up

The point being, that your state's economy has been severly hampered, by environmentalists, and thus, a large portion of the nation's food supply. Dealing with problems, which are immediately in front of us, with solutions as simple as lifting onerous, arbitrary regulations, and turning the water back on, would eliminate a huge portion of any food shortage, and reboot the economy in one fell swoop. Instead, we'll play around with plant genetics, hoping to get a few more kernels on an ear of corn, which can take years, and in the end, due to hybridization, create the possibilty of a major disaster, if other factors are involved....Like having environmentalists shut off the water supply to your crop.

That place has been economically decimated over a little fish. If they would turn that water back on that community could be saved. It would take a few years to get the ground revitalized and healthy enough to produce but in the mean time property would regain value, people would begin to invest in futures there and jobs would be created. So much of our economy is in shambles because of over regulation. And that community is a perfect example of it.

 

[chickened]

Please explain the difference then other than by whose hand it occurs. Cancer is naturally occuring also.

Quote:
That's different. It's called natural selection and, as the name says, happens naturally.

In genetic modification, a gene is either added or taken away by humans.

 

[chicken_boy_Kurt]

Quote:
That's different. It's called natural selection and, as the name says, happens naturally.

In genetic modification, a gene is either added or taken away by humans.


Natural selection happens with mutations in DNA. Genetic modification happens when we add a gene from another species or take away a gene we don't like. So it could, in theory, happen without us, but the way we do it is very different. That probably isn't what you wanted to hear, and you probably think I just restated what I have already said.

(The way genetic modification is actually really interesting, and I respect how far science has come.)

 

[trailchick]

Quote:
GMO corporations, such as Monsanto, own the patents on these crops which means that you can't save the seeds from a previous crop to use the following year without garnering their permission and paying them more of your hard-earned $$$. THERE ARE NO PATENTS ON NON-GMO PLANTS!! Anyone can save the seeds they produce from their non-GMO crops and use them any time they want without the permission garnered from some corporation.

At this rate, these companies will hold the rights to all our food sources and you'll have no say in the matter. How does that help everyone, the haves vs the have nots? It only helps the corporations control your lives even more than they already do. (follow the money!!)

Think about all the food allergies out there these days... they were almost unheard of when I was a child and now they're rampant. What about the increase in child behavioral issues? Again, when I was a child, it was almost unheard of that a child "needed" medication to get through their school day. What about the increase in cancer? Yet again, when I was a child, there wasn't this huge need of having a cancer center in every major city. Who's to say it's not all related to the GMO's being spliced and diced with DNA that's not natural to those plants? We just don't know!

When it comes to the (alleged) safety studies of GMOs? The GMO corporations do their own studies and then submit their (alleged) findings to the FDA & USDA who then (allegedly) review these studies and approve them for human consumption. Neither of these government agencies actually do any of the studies needed!! That's much like letting the fox into your hen house for a weekend stay and then expecting your flock to be in good health when you let him out. (follow the money!!)

But to break it down for those of you wondering about whether or not your food is, in fact, GMO? If it doesn't say "Certified Organic", the odds are it's GMO. Even then, there's still a slight chance an organic crop has been contaminated by a GMO crop just down the road.

We live in a very chemical world and in a time when corporations are convinced they're our Gods now.

I'm of the belief that if we keep messing around with Mother Nature or God s/he'll come back and bite us in the tush for it in a very big way.

The reason Monsanto is creating GMO soy, corn alfalfa, etc. is to be able to use what they are calling "Round Up Ready" crops. The company also manufactures "Round Up" which is a poisionous herbicide. These crops are genetically modified to withstand the application if a poison that would otherwise kill them. There have not been enough study to determine what the consequences are to the animal bodies that consume the GM crops. In the same way hormones and heavy metals are contained in the products we eat, such as cattle and fish, we dont know the long term effects.

Monsanto will rule the world because they want the royalties of their GMO's grown crops, one cant plant the seeds grown from their GMO's, and a farmer cannot stockpile the seeds they grew from GMO crops.

Any one can go online to reseasrch more RE: GMO's and the practices of companies creating them.......

 

[chickened]

I think you just reaffirmed my point. When nature does it it is PERCIEVED as good but when man does it it is bad... like I said "by whose hand". The "action" resulting from the tampering and the end results are the same regardless. Until that question can be answered I stick by my statement. It may be bad for you but that is still mere speculation.

Given the amount of glyphosphate sprayed on the planet every day, it is probably safe to say that glyphosphate is not violently toxic to people or animals. People do not have the same enzymes in their cells that plants do, just like human cells and bacteria differ enough that antibiotics kill bacteria cells but not human cells.

I found this as a good middle of the road statement about glyphosphate. Glyphosphate blocks the production of a certain enzyme in most plants which is why it works so well.

 

[trailchick]

Check this site out:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_Controversy


The rise of the superweeds
Among the issues with GMOs, the manufacture of herbicide tolerant (HT) biotech crops, particularly Monsanto's RR crops, has resulted in the creation of hard-to-kill "superweeds."

As stated above, the overuse of Roundup itself (similar to the escalating quandary of antibiotic overuse in humans) is prompting the evolution of resistance to and thus a loss of efficacy for the herbicide, something that Benbrook refers to in his 2004 report Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years as "the unraveling of HT technology". Suggestions to control resistance include increasing the applications which, of course, only exacerbates the problem.

Moreover studies indicate that genes engineered to instill resistance to herbicides can migrate to non-GM crops - such as those that may be found on a neighboring farm, and even related wild plants - among the very weeds the herbicides were designed to kill (horizontal gene transfer, transgene escape) via pollen. This has alarmed many in the scientific community.

In October 2005, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, "On two separate soybean fields in the northwest part of the state [Missouri], scientists have found common waterhemp, also known as pigweed, that shows signs of resisting glyphosate herbicide." Farmers had planted Roundup Ready soybeans on the same fields every year since 1996. "Waterhemp taken from their fields last year withstood eight times the recommended dose of Roundup. If field studies planned for next summer show that the ability is inherited by new generations of waterhemp - something that [University of Missouri at Columbia assistant professor and extension weed scientist Kevin] Bradley considers 'highly likely' - then it will be classified as Roundup resistant," wrote the newspaper.

Says the article: Cross-Pollination Leads to Triple Herbicide Resistance:

One of the risks frequently cited in association with transgenic crops is the escape of a foreign gene via sexual reproduction. The recipient plant in such cases may be a non-transgenic variety of the same crop or a sexually compatible relative. Depending on the gene and trait considered, adverse environmental or agricultural impacts may result from such transfers, ranging from issues of genetic purity of neighboring crops to the generation of "super weeds."

I would be asking everyone on this site to look in to this further.......

 

[chickened]

I think eventually roundup will not work on any plant if plants keep adapting, which they do naturally by the way to other environmental conditions not applied by man. I have alot of weeds that are already resistent to roundup and have sprayed about 50 gallons of the stuff in 15 years on one spot in my property and before that it was never sprayed. That is the problem with research that is taken for granted that you never really know what plants prior to studies have a natural resistence already. It is called survuval of the fittest and occurs within all species.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
do you know anything about source watch ??