Posted on 02/25/2013 6:16:14 PM PST by neverdem
Well, the green revolution of the 60’s and 70’s was in a sense GMO foods. They crossed varieties of grains and others that never, ever would have crossed in the wild..
But it is very, very different from using a Luther Burbank type approach versus taking a gene that doesn’t exist in any variety (like the BT, Bacillus thuringiensis gene) into crops that are eventually absorbed by human digestion.
IIRC, it has been proved that this can have some real bad effects on animals that eat these foods, because the BT toxins kill off the natural intestinal flora.
What the Left will do next is indicate that in reducing weeds and pests on human food these GM croplands put additional pressure on natural lands because all those weeds and pests have moved on. You can’t win with the Left - a broken mind appears to stay broken despite large doses of logic.
Will88 is right. Human beings have a long tradition of fear and ignorance. It is a basic right. No man can be forced to know.
Yep. Monsanto and crew have been fighting tooth and nail to try to stop GMO-free foods from being labeled as such:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24246.cfm
Interesting case before the Supreme Court last week. A 70 year old farmer in Sanborn, IN went to his local feed store and bought bags of soybeans that had been bagged for feed. He planted them as a double crop after his winter wheat and gambled on the fact that the RoundUp Ready genes were passed on. He seeded and treated with ROundUp and sure enough, the beans grew weed free. Monsanto sued him for patent violation. Very interesting case. (Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Co.)
The thing that struck me is that genetically modified plants and seeds are getting loose in the environment. It is bound to have unpredictable side effects as you have pointed out with your posts here. In theory, an unanticipated mutation or cross pollination could leave us without a species of food crop.
Yes. This is the reason the companies are so strict about catching and replanting the seed.
The technology belongs to the company and they have spent billions to develop it. You agree to that when you buy the seed. You don’t have to buy the seed but if you do you have to agree to their terms.
True, if you have planted Roundup ready corn and follow it with Roundup ready cotton then the corn that comes up in the cotton can’t be killed with Roundup. It is a pain and you have to spray with Fusilade or some other product.
We’ve only grown corn once but we just cultivated and the corn shaded out the cotton that was left.
Around here a lot of farmers aren’t planting the 10% refuge acres and the insects may become immune and if you don’t use a high enough rate of roundup and kill all the weeds those that survive will be roundup resistant.
None of you have any clue how many have died from GMO food or any other substance used by humans, other than those that have short term lethal impacts. GMO foods have only been common for ten to twenty years and like anything else, the long term effects are not yet known.
But it continues to amaze how the shills for GMO foods are so willing to withhold very basic information from consumers that could easily be provided. You and others are right there in a long line of self-important know-it-alls (or bought off parrots) who will deny basic rights to others for whatever personal agenda you might have.
Few things in modern life are simpler: give consumers basic information about products and let them decide what they want to purchase. BUT, that's what you and others are afraid of: consumers with the knowledge and freedom to make their own decisions.
You're playing Big Brother, whether you're honest enough to admit or not. But, whatever, turn on your big HDTV Big Brother monitor and do your required morning exercises, then BB will give you further instructions in how to live your life.
Its hilarious and pathetic: folks afraid to let individuals make individual decisions so they withhold basic information. Some folks just don't like freedom, especally for people other than themselves. Those tendencies have been around forever.
But you agree that companies can still label their foods as non-genetically engineered, right? When they do, shouldn't scared consumers, like you, beat a path to their door? They are free to do so, and you are free to seek them out. Demanding that the industry react to a problem that doesn't exist is not how rational people, and rational societies, behave.
Consumers have a right to know what they are buying, and to buy or not buy based upon what, in their judgment. is best for them.
I can only imagine how boring dinner is at the Will88 household since you don't serve any products that have been genetically modified. Tell me what you and your family eats to avoid the dreaded GMO foodstuff. Other than a few tree nuts, and a number of species of fish, I have a hard time thinking of any foods that have not been genetically modified over time. It doesn't matter if it is selective breeding or splicing with a gene gun, the results are the same - the latter just gets you there faster.
You want to scare stupid people for no reason other than to benefit those who are pushing non-GMO food. Yup, it's the non-GMO industry that wants this as much as possible. Hey, we should demand that any product containing dihydrogen monoxide be listed as such on the label! That's stuff kills a lot of people every year, especially children. If people knew their beverage contained this dangerous stuff, they would be better informed and could make the "right" decision. It's their right to know, dammit!
You want government to be Big Brother and decide what consumers can or cannot know about what they buy.
You've said a lot of inane things over the years and this is another. Here you are arguing that the government should force industry to label something on their packages that has been going on for thousands of years, to create concern where none exists. You could be a good little liberal employed by the CSPI. This is the kind of crap they do every day of the week. In their (and your) twisted world, Norman Borlaug was an evil man who should never have subjected so many starving people to the needless risk of GMO foods. Of course, Rachel Carson was a hero because she alerted us to the dangers of certain chemicals in our environment. Saving us from those chemicals only cost the lives of tens of millions, mostly children, but she protected our rights, and the rights of animals.
Millions of children die from vitamin A deficiency. Those evil GMO folks have found a way to create rice that offers the vitamin A that these kids are not currently getting. In your world of weirdness, this product would not come to market.
Where does your do-gooding end Will88? Are you also demanding that potatoes list arsenic as an ingredient? How about demanding that orange juice list limonene on the label? It's used in paint stripper after all. Lima beans have cyanide. Shouldn't that be on the package? The water you drink and the air you breathe contains benzene. Now that's one dangerous chemical. Why isn't the government warning people? When you roast meats, benzene also formed...where's the damn warning label? You don't even want to know all of the dangerous chemical compounds that are formed when coffee beans are roasted. Yet, I don't see any warning labels. What'sup with that? The foods you eat every day contain all kinds of cancer causing chemicals yet we don't see you crusading for basic labeling information to that fact. Why not? It's a basic right, isn't it? Looks like you have your work cut out for you, Will. Better get busy, there are a lot of rights to uphold and a lot of lives to save....now say it with me....FOR THE CHILDREN!!
That's the big problem, and the potential is to make glyphosate, the DDT of herbicides, virtually useless. It's a crime (literally), a theft from the American people who protected Monsanto's inventions and paid a premium on the resulting product for 34 years. Now that it's public domain, they're wrecking the usefulness of the product. Thankfully, I'm quite some distance from a farm, but I have little doubt that the genetics will make their way here some day.
What I want to know is how Monsanto found out that this guy planted the seed that he bought as feed. Unless this guy went about bragging and some weasel ratted on him or he wanted to take on Monsanto.
How would you like Yosemite choked with unstoppable weeds? Monsanto invented that product with no consideration for its attendant and demonstrable liabilities, because they are operating with the blessing of the USDA, FDA, etc. Now I have NO problem with GMOs in principle, but I do think that socialized risk has distorted research and product development priorities. That and Monsanto's ridiculously aggressive legal team.
These thug lawyers at Monsanto have sued farmers when RoundUp Ready pollen escaped and pollinated adjacent fields. What if I didn't want their damned genes, I'm supposed to pay a royalty anyway? Gad.
More government regulations for people who refuse to educate themselves! It is the conservative thing to do!!! / s
Herbal supplements are unregulated in dosage and untested for safety, and we don’t need to know the long term effects to know they can be lethal in the short term.
So because of regulatory capture we cannot trust the FDA, USDA or really any government watchdog.
Because of the profit motive we cannot trust big business or any business for that matter.
So the solution is?
I don't know specifically, but my guess would be he did tell his friends at the coffee shop that he got RoundUp Ready from the feed store for a few dollars per bushel and word got around to his Monsanto Seed Dealer who in turn made the complaint to corporate. Sandborn is a small rural community. Probably didn't have to change hands more than 3-4 times to get back to the dealer.
Correct. The reason terrorists flew two airplanes into the WTC is that the FAA had approved cheesy cockpit doors and unarmed pilots when no insurer in his right mind would. The Israelis had already shown us the solutions and they were ignored because of socialized risk.
Because of the profit motive we cannot trust big business or any business for that matter.
A correctly designed marketplace with appropriate antitrust laws can assure an effective competitive architecture with appropriate checks and balances. There are three interlocking forces involved: the owner of the asset at risk, the verifier of both performance to specification and efficacy, and the insurers of all three (not the same person).
If I get time, I'll post a diagram. Until then, and as to the role of verification, think "Underwriters' Laboratories" and what might happen if they had competitors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/health/16diet.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Since 1983, the American Association of Poison Control Centers has kept statistics on reports of poisonings for every type of substance, including dietary supplements. That first year, there were 14,006 reports related to the use of vitamins, minerals, essential oils — which are not classified as a dietary supplement but are widely sold in supplement stores for a variety of uses — and homeopathic remedies. Herbs were not categorized that year, because they were rarely used then.
By 2005, the number had grown ninefold: 125,595 incidents were reported related to vitamins, minerals, essential oils, herbs and other supplements. In all, over the 23-year span, the association — a national organization of state and local poison centers — has received more than 1.6 million reports of exposures to such products, including 251,799 that were serious enough to require hospitalization. From 1983 to 2004 there were 230 reported deaths from supplements
I am allergic to GMO wheat and had to switch to natural spelt in the mid 1990’s. That was before I went low-carb, though.
Just more nonsense from all of you. Nothing could be simpler: give consumers basic information about products and let them decide what to buy. But that’s precisely what the producers of GMO foods do not want to happen, just as some industries have fought country of origin labeling and other basic disclosures about their products for decades.
And if you’ve ever studied the conditions necessary for the free market most everyone here claims to support, you’d already know that knowledge as to price and product is necessary for both the seller and buyer under free market conditions.
But carry on with your nonsense and anti-freedom, anti-free market positions. Many have preceded you and many will follow, and they also all had their self-serving agendas wrapped in self-serving nonsense, just as you do.
(And another dumb and predictable tactic you use is to ascribe characteristics to others (FEAR) rather than addressing the real issue: the right of consumers to have basic information about products so they can make their choices based on their priorities and not yours.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.