Heart and Mind Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Out of sudden i felt surprised by the fact that i have never seen anyone mentioning this thing here. Just out of curiosity, i want to know how you feel about this topic. How do you feel having almost no control about what you eat anymore (more directed at americans, i guess)? What's your oppinion on GMO's? And on pesticides? And the decreasing fundamental insect numbers due to the ones before (bees, etc)? It's actually quite surprising no one has ever said "Monsanto" in this website (http://www.curvage.org/forum/index.php?action=search2). I hope it's not like reddit, where (http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1yqz5s/badmouthing_monsanto_isnt_allowed_on_reddit/) you apparently cannot discuss it ;D I'll start by showing my opinions on this topic: GMO's: [img width=500]http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/HUNGRY-DEFEATED-MONSANTO-FARMER-OPPOSITE-OF-AMERICA-BURNE-CROPS.jpg Pesticides: "If it's not safe to breathe, how is it safe to eat?" [img width=500]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMR93UwTe7QHUg-sV9G32McpENvWfRqvLCzsj8EQFMxwOLZtjPPQ Bees: [img width=500]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WQAYAl8OBIQ/UfGI2ofZ8bI/AAAAAAAAATE/bYO9VfoFnJU/s400/monsantonaturalistterrenceingramstolehives.jpg Monsanto: [img width=500]http://asset-e.soup.io/asset/4092/4007_ec6d_960.jpeg [img width=500]http://globalgoodgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/monsanto.jpg .. Thank you for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronin76 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 As someone who likes to have choices, not crazy that GMOs are hard to get away from (also goes towards my love of having money since you can get away from them by paying for organic etc.) As someone who understands science, don't really worry about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Archaic Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I'm not sure if posting a bunch of memes counts as giving "your" opinion technically but bait taken. First, what do you mean not having any control over what we eat? You have a lot of options of what kind of food you get. You can get organic, local food if you wanted to, even though it's been shown the organic food movement is mostly a scam. Blog article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ There's a pile of research that says GMOs have never been proven to be harmful to humans. I think when people hear the word "genetically modify" that sounds scary and scientific to most people, and they don't really understand how GM is done and so they tend to fear things they don't understand. All Genetic Modification means is that the plant has been bred with certain desirable traits. Plants are being grown now that use less water, are more resistant to insects and diseases, produce more yield, and grow quickly. It is not possible to produce the amount of food we need without using GMO technology, unless you want to deforest the rest of the world and let billions of people starve. No one is going to go for that pipe dream if those are the consequences so keep dreaming of an organic food revolution because it's never gonna happen. On pesticides, that's also a complex issue. Pesticide means a chemical application that deters insects. Pesticides can be made from a lot of different things, as explained in the blog article, and can even be organic. Neonicotinoid pesticides are the ones getting a lot of attention because it's been shown a strong correlation between their use and bee colony collapse. My approach is, if there's research showing it's having a bad impact, ban it. That doesn't mean we should get rid of all pesticides all together. And just because you can't breathe it in when it's being applied it doesn't also mean it's not safe to eat. You wouldn't feel very good if you drank dish soap but do you honestly believe that when you wash your dishes they become toxic? It's the concentration, it's safe. As for Monsanto, they are a large conglomerate that owns a lot of stuff besides agriculture so you should naturally be skeptical of their business practices. Just like Walmart and McDonalds and Goldman Sachs they are going to do whatever is in the best interest of their corporation so that usually means screwing people over and generally trying to take control of policy. They are not the only company that can produce GMOs however, so you should remember to really keep those two ideas seperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamqball Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 As Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth said, "Technology is not intrinsically good or evil. It's how it's used. Like the Death Ray!". When used by created by a private company, odds are the modifications to a crop are going to benefit them rather than the consumer. However, modifications can also be beneficial, creating more productive and nutritious food crops. Texas A&M engineered a purple carrot a few years ago that had a number of additional vitamins when compared to a normal carrot. I also remember hearing about a genetically engineered variety of rice that is now being grown in some areas, and has effectively prevented night blindness (due to lack of a vitamin, A I think) in those areas. The key is oversight by the government, but it seems regulation has gone out of fashion recently. I am extremely hopeful about the future of GMOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gricha Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 As a european, my view on GMOs may be different from the man in the street across the ocean (here, many countries have banned them, and european commission doesn't really know what to say but mainly allows countries to do that). I'll also add that I have a good scientific background. My general view is that GMOs haven't been safeproofed enough to be used in wide scale. They may not have been proven to be harmful, but I feel we need to do more extensive and longer tests about that. I'm also not sure they are the only solution to providing food for the world - there are, IMO, many things to be done first to improve productivity and food supply in many countries, especially those that use agricultural lands to produce goods for exportation before trying to feed their own population. However, I would support fundamental and applied research on GMOs. I'm less negative about pesticide. I don't think a wide-scale use of pesticides is a good thing, but I think occasional use is hardly avoidable. However, once again, there might be other agricultural techniques to relearn in that domain, like crop mixing, who helps fighting against nuisibles without using as much pesticides. It would lead to less productivity and less value created, but would probably benefit to the environment and general public's health. This being said, it's only my opinion, and I don't even try to eat organic food, so it's not like I'm trying to avoid pesticides and GMOs (GMOs can be found in food in Europe in relatively small quantities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellymon Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 lol. stupid hippies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblesticker Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 ... most people... don't really understand how GM is done and so they tend to fear things they don't understand. This. A thousand fucking times, this. We've been genetically modifying our crops for thousands of years. The only difference now is that we can do it faster in a lab, now that we actually know what we're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great City - Great City Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 The 'GMOs are bad' conspiracy is so stupid, it's not based on fact what-so-ever. Archaic covers the issue perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinnyCollegeBelly Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I'm not sure if posting a bunch of memes counts as giving "your" opinion technically but bait taken. First, what do you mean not having any control over what we eat? You have a lot of options of what kind of food you get. You can get organic, local food if you wanted to, even though it's been shown the organic food movement is mostly a scam. Blog article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ There's a pile of research that says GMOs have never been proven to be harmful to humans. I think when people hear the word "genetically modify" that sounds scary and scientific to most people, and they don't really understand how GM is done and so they tend to fear things they don't understand. All Genetic Modification means is that the plant has been bred with certain desirable traits. Plants are being grown now that use less water, are more resistant to insects and diseases, produce more yield, and grow quickly. It is not possible to produce the amount of food we need without using GMO technology, unless you want to deforest the rest of the world and let billions of people starve. No one is going to go for that pipe dream if those are the consequences so keep dreaming of an organic food revolution because it's never gonna happen. On pesticides, that's also a complex issue. Pesticide means a chemical application that deters insects. Pesticides can be made from a lot of different things, as explained in the blog article, and can even be organic. Neonicotinoid pesticides are the ones getting a lot of attention because it's been shown a strong correlation between their use and bee colony collapse. My approach is, if there's research showing it's having a bad impact, ban it. That doesn't mean we should get rid of all pesticides all together. And just because you can't breathe it in when it's being applied it doesn't also mean it's not safe to eat. You wouldn't feel very good if you drank dish soap but do you honestly believe that when you wash your dishes they become toxic? It's the concentration, it's safe. As for Monsanto, they are a large conglomerate that owns a lot of stuff besides agriculture so you should naturally be skeptical of their business practices. Just like Walmart and McDonalds and Goldman Sachs they are going to do whatever is in the best interest of their corporation so that usually means screwing people over and generally trying to take control of policy. They are not the only company that can produce GMOs however, so you should remember to really keep those two ideas seperate. You seem to contradict yourself when you say that there are a lot of options when it comes to "what kind of foods you (can) get" yet say that "It's not possible to produce the amount of food we need without using GMO technology." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamhamandeggs Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 You seem to contradict yourself when you say that there are a lot of options when it comes to "what kind of foods you (can) get" yet say that "It's not possible to produce the amount of food we need without using GMO technology." That's not a contradiction. It does, however, suggest a serious logistical problem for people who advocate outlawing GMOs. Starving is absolutely possible, just undesirable (especially here). Similarly, keeping food costs low is desirable, but possibly not doable if you want it "organic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotundAdmirer Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 We've been genetically modifying our crops for thousands of years. The only difference now is that we can do it faster in a lab, now that we actually know what we're doing. Definitely. Modern-day crops like corn, bananas, and pineapples would have never existed without human intervention and cannot reproduce on their own. If you want to argue against using GMOs, you're more than a thousand years too late. Regardless, I don't know much about modern GMOs or environmental consequences of using them, but I'll take my information from facts not opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblesticker Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 You seem to contradict yourself when you say that there are a lot of options when it comes to "what kind of foods you (can) get" yet say that "It's not possible to produce the amount of food we need without using GMO technology." That doesn't imply that all food available is produced from GMOs. The luxury of being able to pay high prices for locally grown organic foods is afforded because of high-yield food production through "non-organic," regular-ass farming and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickloud Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Saying "GMOs are bad" because Monsanto is sketchy seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me. Genetic modification as a scientific endeavor is morally neutral and without agenda. If Monsanto's specific GMO products and business practices are the issue, then I think your gripe is with capitalism, not genetic modification. Considering the points already made, and the fact that GMOs have the potential to massively improve the human condition, maybe even end mass starvation, I'm fully in favor of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mx Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 First you use GMO's to reduce the use of pesticides, then nature adapts and then you'll have to buy both - GMO's & pesticides from Mosanto, Bayer or who else sells this stuff. I prefer the non-GMO stuff without paying for licence fees of Monsanto & co. Patents on seed, plants & animals should be prohibited worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heart and Mind Posted March 13, 2014 Author Share Posted March 13, 2014 Saying "GMOs are bad" because Monsanto is sketchy seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me. Genetic modification as a scientific endeavor is morally neutral and without agenda. If Monsanto's specific GMO products and business practices are the issue, then I think your gripe is with capitalism, not genetic modification. Considering the points already made, and the fact that GMOs have the potential to massively improve the human condition, maybe even end mass starvation, I'm fully in favor of them. If they could say GMOs are completely good and not harmful, they'd label them. Seems logical. And you're right, my gripe is with capitalism, but also with genetic modification (in some ways). This point kind of says "lmao no" to both improving human condition and ending mass starvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinnyCollegeBelly Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Fine, I suppose that since I started a thought that I might as well finish it. A lot of ant-GMO base individuals base their understandings in pseudoscience. And while everyone chooses to believe the information that they want to believe I suppose there is some truth to that. However, Genetically Modified Organisms are not necessarily detrimental to the environment as the anti-GMO lobby likes to harp on. It is only when we set face on the moon, that we realize the footprint that we have left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heart and Mind Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 Fine, I suppose that since I started a thought that I might as well finish it. A lot of ant-GMO base individuals base their understandings in pseudoscience. And while everyone chooses to believe the information that they want to believe I suppose there is some truth to that. However, Genetically Modified Organisms are not necessarily detrimental to the environment as the anti-GMO lobby likes to harp on. It is only when we set face on the moon, that we realize the footprint that we have left. Anti GMO lobby is nothing compared to the pro GMO one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mx Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Fine, I suppose that since I started a thought that I might as well finish it. A lot of ant-GMO base individuals base their understandings in pseudoscience. And while everyone chooses to believe the information that they want to believe I suppose there is some truth to that. However, Genetically Modified Organisms are not necessarily detrimental to the environment as the anti-GMO lobby likes to harp on. It is only when we set face on the moon, that we realize the footprint that we have left. GMO's may or may not harm in the long term. I simply want the freedom of choice. For example, I (like almost all Europeans) don't want honey from GMO pollen. Unfortunatly bees can't differ between GMO and non-GMO pollen. The funny thing is, if I were a beekeeper and my bees collect GMO pollen and I sell honey made from GMO pollen, a company like Monsanto could sue me for infringement of a patent because I haven't payed license fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickloud Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 That sounds like a hideous abuse of patent law, not a problem with the principles of genetic modification. I'm all for regulating the fuck out of companies like Monsanto that pull those sorts of shenanigans. But I don't want to see potentially beneficial science hindered by politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest primitive Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 If they could say GMOs are completely good and not harmful, they'd label them. Seems logical. In my state, there was a bill about GMO food labelling in the last election. People for labeling took that same position (in between the fear mongering) and said that "well, if it isn't bad for you, then you shouldn't be afraid to label them (but really they totally are bad for you no matter what 'science' says so stfu)." Thing is, most people are idiots. They read "genetically-modified" and get freaked the fuck out and won't buy it just out of scientific illiteracy, kind of like they are already. For instance, Penn and Teller did a thing about this a while back where they pointed out that people are just afraid of scientific terms in general due to a lack of understanding. They passed out a petition at an anti-GMO rally to ban dihydrogen monoxide since it's unregulated, is known to cause death from inhalation, is a component of acid rain and soil erosion, gets used in nuclear plants, etc. Of course, they got a ton of signatures. Of course, for anyone who paid attention for more than three seconds in 9th grade science class should remember, dihydrogen monoxide is fucking water. Hence why I, and thankfully enough other people, voted against the labeling bill. Yeah, "the freedom to know" sounds all well and dandy until you realize that it will scare dumbies away from the thing that could very well solve world hunger. Yes, Monsanto are pretty fucking evil, but as someone else said, that doesn't make GMOs evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotundAdmirer Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Yes, Monsanto are pretty fucking evil, but as someone else said, that doesn't make GMOs evil. True. Science and technology have no moral disposition. With that being said, there are potential problems through use of GM crops (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732) as with all newly-developed technology. Conducting additional studies will lessen these unintended consequences, but there needs to be further understanding by the average person about genetic modification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heart and Mind Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 Yes, Monsanto are pretty fucking evil, but as someone else said, that doesn't make GMOs evil. Maybe, but i don't think a corporation with no respect for life itself will be able go around it's ways and benefits to produce the best GMO technology is capable of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great City - Great City Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Maybe, but i don't think a corporation with no respect for life itself will be able go around it's ways and benefits to produce the best GMO technology is capable of. I don't understand what you wrote, could you please clarify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heart and Mind Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 I don't understand what you wrote, could you please clarify it? Yes, i tried to write just one sentence and it turned out quite poor. I know genetic modification has worked in the past several times, without known side effects. To some extent, science can manipulate Nature in a way that works (more for man than for Nature but it's not a big deal). On the other hand, Monsanto is clearly a huge capitalistic corporation. So, it seems logical to me that their concern is the mass production of their products, and, therefore, the profit. That could happen by rushing things, preferring faster development of the product over the quality, or something like that. I'm not saying it'll lead to this* but GMOs produced carelessly by a corporation focused on profit kind of make me way to stay away from them until proven safe. Which they haven't been. * http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/gm-tryptophan-ems-killed-37-and-permanently-disabled-1500-people/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mx Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Maybe, but i don't think a corporation with no respect for life itself will be able go around it's ways and benefits to produce the best GMO technology is capable of. I don't understand what you wrote, could you please clarify it? Companys tend to outsource the possible side effects of their products, especially the costs to the environment. If the companies owning nuclear power plants were forced to assure themselves against all possible side effects including a nuclear meltdown like in Tschernobyl or Fukushima (btw: "Fukushima" literally means: "Good-Fortune Island", find the irony), nuclear energy would be entirely meaningless to the worlds power supply. The companies couldn't afford the costs of insurance coverage and expenses. The traditional way of genetic manipulation was a history of trial and error. With the new technics you can put genes or parts of it in places of the genetic code where they would never take place otherwise. The technology is still very new. Radioactivity was discovered in 1898. Since 1986 we know that even the civil use of it may have serious side effects. In 2011 it became clear that even the Japanese can't handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now