What I really don't get is...what's wrong with normal food? I mean...if you can't tell the difference between a family farm grown (without the use of machinery) tomato and one bought in the stores, your wild. You must have lost your taste buds and ability to perceive. There is something delicate about the vegetables we eat. Why tamper with it when it's exactly the way it should be?
reading objectively? Anyone who approaches the subject with an objective opinion would realize that the science of GE is amazing but still be able to admit the gross negligence and lack of saftey responsibility Monsanto has when making food for us to eat. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
this is all subjective My.main issues with gmos are real things. Allergy potential (gmos cause severe allergies in some people) Copyright laws that allow you to patent living organisms aand.dominate the food supply. Pesticides being grown inside Tue plant that cannot be washed Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
A homegrown vegetable versus a grocery stores...subjective, of course, but I dunno bout you I get a lot less flavor out of grocery store bought items. Granted I'm lucky as hell cuz my mom has a pretty big garden I can gobble up. It's a noticeable difference imo. Must fruits look advertising ready for.us to eat? I've never knowingly ate a GMO vegetable tho, but the things you've mentioned cheese me off.
It's difficult to march with 3 legs and 4 arms. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
This ^ has to be the silliest post I've ever seen. Meanwhile the government continues to confiscate half of our earnings, continues to usurp our liberties, continues to murder people around the globe, and nobody cares.
I think a lot of ignorance goes into protesting against genetic improvement. They have been responsible for making foods more productive, more disease resistant, and frankly look better and taste better. I cannot wait until they make a plant that you can prune the buds and they grow fast enough you can use a plant as a perpetual grow. they could alter the high THC level and even make the leaves start to taste better so you would not have to trim. Imagine being able to have a plant that genetically repels molds and insects. How about a plant that needs only 4-6 hours of light to be productive highly productive? It could save on all the power wasted by current growers! I be you hate gluten too. LOL!
LOL. This is truly another "first world" problem; much ado about nothing. Mother Nature, in response to disease or insects, will genetically modify. Who fucking cares if man does it? I bet the malnourished people around the world don't give a shit.
The main concern I have with these pesticide-resistant strains of crops is that they will eventually become dependent on pesticides. As we continue to drench these crops in increasing amounts of pesticides (because of the growing resistance by unwanted species to pesticides) I am not sure what is keeping the engineered crops from developing a dependency. It seems that once you introduce something into an ecosystem and increase its presence for multiple generations, other species will adapt to it, either becoming resistant or developing some kind of symbiotic relationship with the new foreign presence. Could this be understood by Monsanto? Is this another technique for establishing a monopolistic enterprise, or are my fears entirely unfounded?
CC: The "monopolistic enterprise" I worry about is the state. Monsanto cannot confiscate my house, retirement account, break my door down in the middle of the night and drag me away, nor torture or kill me.
SO far their tomato are not taking over in a slithering creepy night time strangulation upon humanity. Enjoy the brilliance from the same kind of minds that gave you facebook.
No, I totally agree. We've had this conversation before. However, the dependency of plantlife on pesticides is still very troubling. What I'm saying is, if Monsanto controls the majority of a given plant species/strain and then makes that species/strain dependent upon their pesticide, then they essentially will develop an artificial monopoly without puppeting the state. This would mean that plants would require their product, meaning that Monsanto would basically have a tax or payment collection on any plant life affected by this development. I don't know enough about the science behind this, so this is obviously pure speculation. However, it seems pretty reasonable to expect that plants will develop a dependency on these pesticides given enough generations of conditioning. Facebook was backed by the US Gov as basically an advanced data mining and social engineering tool. I don't even use Facebook, so I can't really relate to your post. http://youtu.be/UJqGbA2tLww
You do not have to use it to understand. That would be an issue of limited ability to reason. Plain and simple, some smart guys made a product most people use and enjoy and got rich off of it. Nothing wrong with any of that. i don't use it either btw.
And I think that's what I was saying. Objectively, GMO's make things possible that otherwise wouldn't be. However, has that science always been handled correctly? I suppose not...although I can't point to anything that I have experienced that makes me believe monsanto is an evil corporation that wants to kill it's consumers. That seems counter-intuitive to me, but whatever... You are oversimplifying some of that. The "pesticide" is not inside the plant. It can't be washed off because it's not a pesticide. The "copyright" stuff is not correct...there are plenty of non-gmo foods that can be grown without permission...monsanto only has a right to collect fees on crops that it has genetically engineered. And the allergy stuff is not proven. It might be true...but studies are very inconclusive. I've addressed this several times, but in going to again, because you genuinely seem interested. First, I'm not saying gmo's are the answer. However, this is what I know, from personal experience. I farm. I have raised conventional corn, and gmo corn. I assure you, I use WAY more chemicals on conventional corn than gmo corn. Here's why: Corn typically requires herbicides to reduce weed pressure. Gmo corn allows me to accomplish that with, typically, two treatments of glyphosate and one of metalachlor + atrazine. Glyphosate is a relatively safe, non-systemic herbicide that is neutralized upon contact with the soil. Conventional corn would have a herbicide regimen as follows: metolachor + atrazine Glyphosate Halosulfuron Dicamba 2, 4-d Clopyralid Flumiclorac Some of those are optional, depending on weed pressure, but there are literally dozens of others that can be used... That doesn't include insecticide issues. Gmo corn has the ability, due to the BT gene, to kill insects that attempt to eat the seed. Other genetic engineering allows the corn to resist pests that attempt to bore into the stalk, clip the silks, or eat the ear of corn. In conventional corn, we attempt to do the same thing, but we dump insecticide out on the ground with the seed, then later we fly more insecticide over the top of the crop. And yes, resistance can build up. That's why you rotate crops, and use crops that are engineered for different chemicals. So, you see, from my perspective, gmo corn allows me to raise corn with LESS pesticides, not more. Now, again, I'm nor saying they are a perfect solution. I'm not saying they are as bad as some believe. I'm moving my operation away from these types of cash crops anyway, but of I were to go back to raising corn, it wood be gmo corn. Speaking from an economic and agronomic perspective, that makes the most sense for me.
That's part of the Monsanto apologist problem. We don't think Monsanto is trying to kill us. Its like you said. That would be counterintuitive. Its more like gross negligence. Bt plants produce the bt toxin inside the plant itself. Not a pesticide? Call it what you want. It makes insects stomachs explode and hasn't been proven safe for humans. So much fail here. Where to start? The majority of crops now are gmo Gmos can pollinate non gmo.crops making them illegal.to.grow. Also its not as though you have many.options You say you can just grow something else. But not everyone can grow their own food. I live in an apartment in Vegas. Its hard enough to get things to grow here, and I only have enough room for maybe 2-3 tomato.plants tops. Soybean oil by some estimates accounts for almost 50% of the average American calorie intake. That's fucking crazy. Eventually Monsanto will.have a monopoly. This is a pretty simple.concept. Not proven by "main stream" Meanwhile people like me who are allergic to corn and soy, are sitting here saying, "you fucking idiots, its obvious I'm allergic to gmos" There are numerous accounts of doctors curing corn and soy allergies by swiching papatients to non gmo. I personally havnt tried because my allergies scare me. I'm am extremely highly allergic to soy. And what a coincidence my allergies magically appeared right after gmo soy hit the market. I agree with this part to an extent. And like I said I'm pro gmo just anti negligence. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I'm sorry dude but you're gonna have to do better than gmo's made me have allergies. I don't know who you are and I really don't trust anecdotal evidence when it comes to medical issues. Unless you can provide some links to some decent studies it's hard for me to believe anything you're saying. The rational that you are using is the same rational that anti vaccine loons use. Just because you got a soy allergy around the same time gmo's introduced does not mean one has a causative effect over the other, but is more likely correlational. I mean it's possible you're right sure but it just doesn't seem that likely. If it was true then I'm sure we would have many well respected independent studies documenting this issue. People always say there's all these studies showing how horrible gmo's are, yet they're never able to produce them. I would love to see some of proof of the accusations you make. Also you are aware that there are a lot of gmo's which don't produce this bt toxin. I don't like generalizing all gmo's as just that because there are a wide range of gmo's with different purposes. I agree that trademarking genetics is bullshit and should be illegal and that Monsanto is a shady company who commits sketchy business tactics, but until I see some decent evidence to suggest they cause health issues I have hard time taking your word.