Question on GMO feed

[judyc]

As to Bt, here's a nifty little article about Bt in the bloodstream of pregnant women and their unborn babies!

This test was performed in Canada.

Of course, the GM promoters deny, deny, deny. However, they don't test any people themselves.

 

[GreenMountainEric]

1. Corporate greed over service to humanity- It's entire buisness model is designed to trap farmers into a system of economic dependance, to turn famers into indentured servants who can never return to traditional farming after their soil has been destroyed by roundup.

2. Death over life. GM corn grown a toxic chemical inside each and every corn kernel.

3. Secrecy over Transparency- Monsanto spent millions of dollars to defeat Proposition 37 in Californa-- a bill which would simply require GMO's to be indicated on food labels.

4. Domination of technology rather than sharing of widom- When Monsanto's GMO seeds blow into the fields of farmers who are trying to avoid growing GMOs, Monsanto uses its patent "rights" to sue the farmers and claim they "stole" Monsanto property.

5. Artificial manipulation of nature rather than honoring of nature. Terminator seeds threaten all human life on the planet. Billions of lives are threatened by self-terminating seeds.

6. Environmental destruction over environmental stewardship- Actual crop yields lower than organic farming over a 5 year period.

7. Scientific deception over scientific proof- Instead of testing GMOs for long periods on animals, Monsanto-funded scientists test GMOs a mere 90 days and then adamantly declare the food to be "safe" for a lifetime of consumption by humans.

One thing that should be known about #4......... Those cases are far more complicated than that. In most of these cases, the farmers saved corn from their harvest, and planted it the following year (Which was against a contract that they had signed). As far as the "wind-blown" issue, that was farmers purposely harvesting the outside rows, of their fields, for seed to replant. They figured "Why pay more money for roundup ready corn, when we can let it cross pollinate and plant it next year. They were asking for trouble......

Monsanto did go overboard on the lawsuits, but the farmers were, in fact, stealing the technology. I really hate to admit all of this, because I am very strong against GMOs, and Monsanto. But I try to keep my blinders off when it comes to facts vs rumor.


Also- #6 Is so completely false, that it isn't even funny. GMO Yields are almost 2x organic yields even after 10 years of continuous use. I don't know how anyone could even state that.

 

[Spifflove]

Also- #6 Is so completely false, that it isn't even funny. GMO Yields are almost 2x organic yields even after 10 years of continuous use. I don't know how anyone could even state that.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/feb10/organic_corn_soybean_yields_exceed_conventional.php

 

[Tarac]

I have extensive personal experience with GMOs being that I am a medical researcher; I have created GMOs myself and they are unquestionably useful. It's not something you can blanket label as good or bad. There are risks involved with some, terminal wheat is always the one that comes to mind for me and I do absolutely agree that there are all kinds of handling issues that circle around the corporate side of the technology but that is generally the case for anything that deals with large amounts of money, GMO or otherwise, correct?


There are huge numbers of perfectly harmless and practical GMOs out there, the vast majority of which I would wager are of great benefit- even life saving- don't believe me? Meet someone with diabetes who survives by supplementing insulin, which is produced by a GMO rather than giant factory farms full of pigs like we did in the dark ages...far more environmentally conscious to use bacteria to make this for us and with obvious benefits to the human population as well... or double producing crops that literally saved millions of lives in Africa during the incredible drought related famine a couple of decades ago.


I am not a promoter in the way that you accusingly describe, I do not work for private industry and I have no other motivations in my professional investigations other than to understand the mechanisms of disease on the molecular level by characterizing cellular chemistry- specifically protein signaling.


BT is actually a great thing, it keeps synthetic pesiticides out of your diet and high probability that you are exposed to it all the time anyway. It's insect specific, in fact specific only to certain kinds of insects even, and so far has not been found to to cause any health issues despite being suspected and investigated on several occasions. So generally unless you are part bug you have no need to worry. Does that mean you should eat it? Not at all, you can chose to eat what you wish and I personally feel that if you don't need something then why eat it? But I also don't think making BT out to be some invisible monster is a bit far fetched and ultimately is counter-productive because the alternatives are either less available food or more use of synthetic pest control measures. A real, public-interest and highly credentialed institution in one of our most reluctant states (UCSD and Davis) has a very nice synopsis here, one specific and one regarding the anti-BT claims:


http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/index.html


anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf


They are fair, they indicate the potential for allergic responses (for both BT and natural occuring products like peanuts and lactose).


I am not going to argue about it because I know that people will chose to believe whatever they want and shoud be allowed to make dietary decisions for themselves (note that means not trying to subject others to your dietary decisions by bludgeoning them with latest propaganda on your side of the issue, which ever side that is). However I did want to at least mention, being that I am highly educated and directly involved in this type of work, that it's important to take ".orgs" and the like with a few grains of salt and to be more judicious when you review literature. It's frankly a bit offensive to me personally because the type of language you use literally demonizes me and the work that I do which is entirely in the spirit of trying to improve the quality of life of the people around me, not to make money for some big company subverting and hiding information so they can sell something to you.


I realize not everyone has access to scholarly literature because it requires expensive subscriptions and institutional access to reputable journals, but next time you want to spread anti-GMO propaganda by quoting some random .org or a single study think of me. Think of the catastrophe of the anti-vaccine movement from that now debunked, by the author's own admission, single European study- children died because of that nonsense and we are still combatting the after effects even though it is now known that the study was flawed and the data was intentionally fudged.


Like I said, I am very aware of the potential dangers for the handful of GMOs that are always waved around to scare people away from benefitting from technology they do not understand. I'm as liberal as they come, really. But I will keep making recombinant organisms in the pursuit of understanding the root human diseases and I will not feel like I am a bad person for doing so. Please be conscientious and be aware that there are untrustworthy sources of "social media" on both sides, just as wrong and equally dangerous. Just because something one reads or hears agrees with the emotional way one responds to the world doesn't mean it is valid.

 

[Spifflove]

@tarac Although I find nothing wrong with your post, other than vaccines [which is a side issue and would take a forum in and of itself], and that if you are who you say you are your post can be accepted at face value. However, as is the case with all things, it is not the inventor of a product whose scruples I question but the people who stole the invention for their own benefit. The creator of the TV probably was not interested in propaganda. The first people to see TV's potential were.

I am a simple man with a few backyard chickens. I do know how to use paragraphs, however.

 

[GreenMountainEric]

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/feb10/organic_corn_soybean_yields_exceed_conventional.php

One 17 Acre study, that was done on a very small scale, does not offset the fact that Nationwide Organic yields are 35% lower than conventional. My farmers would be tickled pink if they could get yields of 180 bu/acre!! GMO corn, that has been planted on the same farm for more than 10 years in a row, can still put out a yield of 180-195 bu/acre. My Organic producers struggle to get more than 140 bu/acre. These farmers do this for a living. If there was a way to get 190 bu/acre, they would be doing it.....

 

[Spifflove]

One 17 Acre study, that was done on a very small scale, does not offset the fact that Nationwide Organic yields are 35% lower than conventional. My farmers would be tickled pink if they could get yields of 180 bu/acre!! GMO corn, that has been planted on the same farm for more than 10 years in a row, can still put out a yield of 180-195 bu/acre. My Organic producers struggle to get more than 140 bu/acre. These farmers do this for a living. If there was a way to get 190 bu/acre, they would be doing it.....

Well that sounds like your area of expertise. That would take alot of research for me to understand, which I am not being paid to do. However, if you are interested in increasing yields, you might look into aquaponics. Fish feed the plants, plants feed the fish, all kept warm by compost. Ladybugs cruise the dome looking for pests to eat.

 

[GreenMountainEric]

Well that sounds like your area of expertise. That would take alot of research for me to understand, which I am not being paid to do. However, if you are interested in increasing yields, you might look into aquaponics. Fish feed the plants, plants feed the fish, all kept warm by compost. Ladybugs cruise the dome looking for pests to eat.

Absolutely. There is a lot of innovation in the Organic sector that is taking shape, and I am very excited about it. Believe me, Spifflove, I am on-board with you...... I do not believe that GMOs are good for anything long term. My entire business model is built around that. I don't think that Organic practices will ever "outperform" modern science practices, but I do think it is a more sustainable, and a better long term choice. You never know what might happen when you start messing with mother nature.

 

[Tarac]

Quote:
Actually, a side issue too- How do you use paragraphs on this forum? I used them, I tried double returns and everything and they display fine when I type but then they post as one long string when I submit. Not sure if it's something with my computer specifically or what. Also, I really urge you to look into the vaccine issue more closely, using scientific literature not unverifiable websites. The whole hysteria really was based solely on a single UK study which has been destroyed, re-checked, and even the principal investigator publishing the work now admits to fabricating his data. But yes, another issue. This very post, by the way, has three paragraphs as I see it now. When I submit it I am sure it will have one. I am who I say I am and I not only know how to use paragraphs but I know how to publish paragraphs about the GMO products I use in my lab.

 

[ellandeeranch]

Boy, the one thing I can say about GMO's is that they sure seem to get people fired up.

GMO...Generates Massive Objections, maybe?

Richard