Analysis Finds Monsanto's GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic Turns out GMO corn is less nutrient dense and contains many toxins... I really don't care what you people eat, but it never hurts to be informed. (I put the chart on here but it was too damn big, so I took it off)
I'm waiting for somebody to post an anti-GMO reference that isn't from Natural News or NaturalSociety That's like saying Obama is the devil, I heard it on Fox News!
I was actually hoping someone would post something in support of GMO's, as I try to look at all points of view. I've never read anything from this site, just thought it was interesting. I agree there is a bias here...but if you think about it it makes sense. Plants absorb the inorganic chemicals from fertilizers and pesticides...is it the GMO's that are bad or the chemicals used to grow them? Or both? Or neither? Was there analysis pure bullshit?
Also relating opinion (obama is the devil) to fact (chemical analysis of plants) isn't the best way to get your point across. You would be better saying something like "All Arab Muslims want to kill everyone that isn't Muslim, the government says so" Actually that doesn't make too much sense either, also opinion...but I don't feel like thinking about this right now, maybe later
Wait a sec, so Monsanto are the only producer of GM products in the entire world? It's very typical of conspiracy theorists to think in this way. One GM food company has done some bad things, so every single piece of GM food on the market is bad. I read an interesting article recently about how climate change is going to lead to famine, which will lead to the starvation of hundreds of millions of people around the world. GM foods can stop this from happening.
Not just that, but GMO crops have greatly increased the income of lots of small time farmers, because among other things, certain crops have been engineered to be ready for harvest like a week or 10 days sooner than traditional strains of those crops, therefore allowing 2 harvests per year instead of one. People act like huge, shady companies like Monsanto are the only ones benefiting from genetic engineering. I'm not denying Monsanto does fucked up things like suing farmers, but that doesn't make GM foods guilty by association.
This thread makes me think of that new KFC commercial about the boneless pieces of chicken. Now I will gladly admit that KFC chicken is delicious, but they are famous for animal cruelty and GM'ing their chickens. Whenever I see this commercial I just imagine a farm full of chickens somewhere engineered without bones, just flopping around in the dirt for 6 months before their their necks are rung.
You've spent too much time looking at the graphs and numbers and not enough time looking at the actual source (or lack thereof.) "The 2012 report 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, was reportedly shared with the owners of MomsAcrossAmerica.com by De Dell Seed Company, the only non-GMO seed supplies in Canada. De Dell Seed Company received the document from a company called ProfitPro, based in Minnesota." LMAO if those aren't conflicting interests, I don't know what are. And double LMAO that they say "was reportedly shared!" They don't even know where the fuck it came from hahaha! The most anyone can say about GMO foods and safety is: I dunno. There hasn't been a single study proving unequivocally that there is any real health risk with the foods currently on the market. That "lower levels of nutrients" argument is the same damn thing that people were saying 10 years ago about foods grown with pesticides compared to organic foods. If you actually look at the data, only a few studies ever showed this, and the nutrient differences were too tiny to really matter. This is especially true when you consider the fact that the use of pesticides dramatically increases crop yield, so in places like 3rd world countries you're better off growing your crops with pesticides, and you will ultimately end up getting more nutritional value per square acre. The same can be said for GMO foods. As a first-world citizen it's easy to be a douchebag and bitch that you want only the very VERY best food. As a third-world citizen, if you're bitching it's probably because you don't have any food at all. GMO crops can improve crop yield in a very big way. (Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries)They are a huge step in the right direction towards feeding the hungry around the world. Whether you want to eat them or not is up to you, and yes go ahead and label them so people can make that decision. But to fight for the categorical banning of these crops is to fight for keeping a very large sector of the world malnourished. Just something to think about.
I just think there is an ethical obligation to INFORM people about what they're truly putting in their body when you are dealing with things like GENETIC TAMPERING OF FOOD
When you say things like "GENETIC TAMPERING!", you're ignoring the fact that that's exactly what farmers have been doing for millenia. They take the seeds from the best crops and replant them, that's a basic form of genetic engineering. The techniques we have today are just more advanced. I really do believe that a lot of the opposition to GMO's comes from a lack of understanding of the science of what is going on, as displayed in this post.
I started to type exactly this out when he first posted but then figured it wasn't worth the time lmao.
Re-planting the seeds from the plants that thrive the most is a form of artificial selection, I'm not ignoring that fact at all.. Taking genetic material from a donor organism and splicing it into the genes of another is an entirely different thing.
How, exactly? Both result in substantially different genetic makeup of the organisms in question. Both could hypothetically result in food that is detrimental to your health. The only difference is that we have to rely on random mutations with artificial selection but not with genetic engineering. Thus, we have far more control over the process when we use genetic engineering. Your argument is an emotional, not logical, appeal.
Basically this, I could argue that it's much more dangerous to allow random mutations to take place, because we literally have no control over them except selective breeding, which is much less precise at pinning down genetic traits than contemporary methods. Furthermore, like Meursault has pointed out, no studies have unequivocally demonstrated an increased health risk from GM foods.
I will continue to plant a garden every year. Even moreso now that companies dont have to put "GMO" labels on their goods. I cant believe so many of the things happening in America these days. I feel like by the time Im an old man, I will have a small sheep ranch with my lover in Switzerland with a garden, away from people and chemicals. I dont hate America, I just hate what it has become.
It totally is logical, they are two intrinsically different actions We have natural vegetables vs. vegetables that have had certain genes from other donor organisms spliced into their genomes, resulting in the production of foreign proteins Bt-Corn: What It Is and How It Works | University of Kentucky Entomology