Posted on 12/07/2017 4:01:09 PM PST by Kaslin
Opponents of genetically modified (GM) crops raise a number of questions and objections to growing them and including them in the food supply. Although they cite scientific research to support their claims, a careful review of the literature suggests there is very little evidence to support any of the claims about harmful health effects of GM food. For this reason, combined with the many potential benefits, governments should not restrict the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Opponents place a great deal of emphasis on the fact that many GM crops have been engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, the active chemical in Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate is used with genetically modified corn, soybeans, sugar cane, canola, and other crops grown in the US. Critics claim that glyphosate is an endocrine disrupter. It allegedly harms gut bacteria, and contributes to a variety of health problems including cancer, autism, allergies, obesity, and Alzheimer’s.
The claims about the negative health effects of glyphosate are not borne out by epidemiological studies of glyphosate and health outcomes or glyphosate and cancer. The most prominent arguments for the harmful health effects of glyphosate are not presented by people with expertise in relevant fields such biology, epidemiology, or chemistry. Consequently, the European Union just voted to renew the license for glyphosate use, siding with sound science against radical activists.
There is also little evidence of harm caused by consuming GM foods. Several scientific organizations including the American Medical Association and the World Food Organization have issued statements that GMOs are not likely to present risks for human health. Many scientists have rigorously tested assertions of anti-GMO advocacy groups, such as the Institute for Responsible Technology, about the health effects of GMOs, and have found little statistical evidence of toxicity caused by GMOs.
Studies that have found harmful effects have been found to be flawed or have results that have not been replicated by follow-up studies. For example, one study claiming that GM corn causes cancer involved a breed of rats that are naturally prone to tumors and was subsequently retracted by the journal.
GM foods have not been around long enough to determine whether they have harmful long-term health effects on humans. Thus, some argue that GMOs should be prohibited until we know more about their long-term effects. If governments used a precautionary principle to prohibit the use of every technology that might someday be found to have harmful effects, many improvements that have raised our standard of living, improved health, and extended lives would never have become commercially available.
After biotech crop varieties, many of which were resistant to glyphosate, became commercially available in 1996, numerous farmers around the globe adopted them. Using glyphosate to control weeds means farmers can save time and fuel with reduced soil erosion by not plowing to control weeds.
Although research studies have generally been unable to find evidence of harmful health effects from glyphosate, some evidence suggests it does cause some other harmful consequences, such as reducing earthworm populations. It may also harm other beneficial bacteria that live in the soil. The longer it and other chemical herbicides and pesticides are used, the more weeds evolve to adapt to it so that higher and higher doses are required.
Life inevitably involves tradeoffs. We accept some risks (e.g., of dying in an accident commuting to work) to reduce others (starving for lack of income). This principle applies to environmental risks just as much as to any others.
The environmental harms that can be attributed to glyphosate and GMOs should be compared to the benefits. Glyphosate is often used instead of more toxic herbicides. Likewise, some crops have been genetically modified to be resistant to insects, reducing the need for pesticides. Genetic modification combined with the use of glyphosate reduces production costs and increases yields. It enables farmers to conserve energy, soil and water, reducing their production costs and the amount of soil washing into rivers and streams.
Over time, there may be a need to find new and better ways to control weeds and insects, as existing weeds and insects develop resistance to herbicides and natural pesticides released by GM crops. Nevertheless, genetic modification, herbicides, and pesticides have made important contributions to the supply of abundant, low-cost food that has benefitted billions around the world. As I’ve noted before, genetic modification offers promise for the development of more nutritional varieties of crops that can be grown in parts of Africa, where malnutrition continues to contribute to death and the poor health of millions.
Herbicides and pesticides increase yields in a cost-effective way or farmers would not use them. Careful research, government regulation, and consumer choice have led to the demise of many of the most harmful pesticides and herbicides, with insect resistant crops and glyphosate replacing them. According to one estimate, the adoption of GM insect resistant and herbicide tolerant technology has reduced global pesticide spraying by 8.1%. A recent study estimated that banning glyphosate in the UK would decrease yields of wheat and oilseed rape by 12–14 percent due to more weeds.
Because of modern agricultural methods including pesticide and herbicide use, GMOs, chemical fertilizers, and factory farming, food has become much more abundant and affordable in many parts of the world today than it was even 30-40 years ago. The improvement in human health and wellbeing from a more abundant and nutritious food supply far exceeds any side effects that may have occurred from the use of pesticides or herbicides. Good research continues to discover new crop varieties and alternatives to the most harmful pesticides and herbicides and may also reveal better alternatives than some existing GMO crop varieties. In many cases, developing, planting, and cultivating genetically modified crops can improve nutrition and contribute to better stewardship of the land and soil.
It’s not the genes it’s the ding dong patents on seeds that pollinate with neighboring farms leaving them liable to prosecution for copyright infringement. Capitalism = competition. Kill the monopolist.
No hurry. Safe travels to you!
Heirloom tomatoes are the best.
There is ample research regarding Roundup, but it is disregarded in the same manner that climate change deniers are disregarded. It doesn’t fit the political agenda. Here is a good article published in the Scientific American on the inert ingredients that magnify the harmful effects of glyphosate. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/
I use 20% vinegar to kill weeds in my garden along with a well sharpened hoe. I prefer to grow everything that I possibly can without the assistance of man made chemicals. My little organic garden produces 10 times what my family can consume, so we give it away to members of our synagogue.
I believe in climate change. It gets cold in winter and hot in summer. It has been that way since creation.
Mmmm! Yes, they are! I have the best luck with, ‘Cherokee Purple’ for slicers and for salsas and sauce you can’t beat, ‘Amish Paste.’
"What's all this talk I hear about modified orgasms?
I love “Cherokee Purple”. I’ll have to try “Amish Paste”. We have recently grown tomatoes, corn, squash and various greens. Nothing compares to home-grown.
It is also a big department store and Mail order company in Germany
Norman Borlaug was a great man but he died in 2009.
I have volunteered for the World Food Prize which honors scientific advances in growing more food.
It’s very interesting to hear the scientists themselves talk; unfiltered.
New science including GMO’s is absolutely essential to use.
I don't want to rationalize or make excuses, need to get better informed. Instinctively I don't see how the old way was the same as GMO techniques although both change at the cellular level. I wasn't aware that the old method of cross pollinating allowed genes from different organisms to be introduced. Plus there would be mutation of a plant's own genes. I can see that it could and did happen, just that most cross pollination was from same type of plant material.
I thought maybe our bread flour isn't GMO but I'm not sure any more.
On a slightly different but related topic, farmers who use dicambra should be careful because it is especially prone to drife, and there will likely be lawsuits on account of damage to neighboring crops. I don't think we use it nor do we hire crop dusting planes, but it can drift with the usual spraying.
It is essential why? To feed larger populations with shrinking land in quantity and quality? I can see how it would improve nutrition.
Probably not all GMO is created equal. Having wheat the grows with less water is probably a good thing. But I can’t imagine that Monsanto sterile wheat is a good thing.
First of all, I don’t have “faith’ in any corporation or government. I don’t “believe” in anything they say. Government is force and evil. All Founders knew that. All major corporations are just crony capitalists and have lied and cheated to gain their power and were taken over by Marxists and Nazis by the 50s.
It is unconstitutional for the people not to have a “choice” in what we eat and their unconstitutional “system” where they aren’t forced to list what they put into our food supply especially when we know they are Malthusians and atheists and Marxists.
It is proven to be evil and unconstitutional to add flouride to our drinking water, so that people can’t monitor the poison that goes into their body and attacks their pineal gland and bones and damages their teeth. (I know it happened to my daughter and I studied it). They contaminate our water supply which affects plants and our health, etc. and we have to spend thousands of dollars to counter the effects and prevent damage to our children. Nuremberg Trials stated that it is evil to add contaminates to water like they added flouride to the water in concentration camps to dampen testosterone and create apathy. As the Harvard studies from 2012 prove, fluoride lowers 8 points in IQ of our children, and does harm to major body organs and glands. So, why would government do such an EVIL thing to the children in this country, by forcing all our cities to add fluoride to our drinking water, when Europe took it out decades ago and found NO known benefits from the toxic waste product put into too many American water supplies. No dental advantage AT ALL....proven!
Well, we have to go back to the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government is Evil-—ALWAYS!!!! All the Founders KNEW that—and that is why we have a Constitutional Republic so we have Free Will—Freedom to not be forced to eat poisons or adulterated foods, etc.
That is all I want. No FORCE and secrecy about what is in food. I want TRANSPARENCY with our food supply and vaccines-—all funding of “research” revealed, all RESULTS revealed (which are hidden today and whistleblowers are killed and vilified like Thompson). Research is mainly paid for and conducted by the major corporations to get the FORCED results they want and the destroy evidence which conflicts with their desired results. That is NO science whatsoever. The peer-review magazines have been PROVEN a fraud—as much as the so-called “research”. Global warming research and hockey stick graphs—etc., are all faux “science”.
Look at the 100 year old “lightbulb” conspiracy. Yes, conspiracies are REAL and been occurring since the beginning of time. it is true-—there was and are conspiracies to fool the public for profit which destroy the environment ON PURPOSE. It always was and always will be since power will always corrupt. It is just the nature of man.
So lets have freedom and transparency and NO SECRETS!!!!! and LIES!!!!!! and TRUE science which doesn’t exist in this Postmodernist world where Up is Down, men can be women and Evil is Good.
Read Dr. William Davis book, “Wheat Belly”, it’s an eye opener on GMO foods and grains.
I object, on moral ground, to mixing DNA from radically different organisms. It is especially repugnant that human DNA is being combined with animals for experimental purposes.
Regarding GMOs, I believe it is the right of consumers to know if any food they are purchasing contains GMOs. There should also be a way to find out the specific sources of the genetic modifications, whether through labels or easily accessible website, etc.
No genetic combination should receive patent protection, nor any method for altering DNA.
There is probably some good that can be accomplished by genetic manipulation of plants and animals, whether for food or other innovations. But there are also some obvious lines that ethically and morally should never be crossed. Unfortunately these lines are being crossed, consumers are not being protected with information they should rightfully receive, and some extremely immoral genetic experimentation is taking place.
The objection is spiritual. To confuse species and mix them up is a direct assault on God’s order and perfect understanding. We may think that we are smarter than God. We will learn the hard way that we are not.
I’m too lazy to look it up now but iirc only one tomatoe (flavr savr) was GMO and it didn’t fare well in the market. Most GMO’s are machine planted/sprayed/harvested corn and soybean varieties. There several hundred varieties of things called a ‘tomatoe.’ Many large growers focused on a few varieties which grow so fast (so fast no flavor develops) and are durable enough to endure warehouses and trucks for delivery to stores. That is why many stores have crap tomatoes.
You are 100% correct. We did some grocery shopping the other day because I needed baking supplies for the upcoming Baking Extravaganza that is expected of me each year about this time.
I held up four tomatoes, still attached to the vine, and Beau and I just laughed and laughed because we KNEW...they’d taste like cardboard. ;)
Monsanto has already produced "terminator seeds" that are genetically sterile. Their website promises that Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile" seed technology in food crops." If such a modification were to get into the wild, it could destroy entire species.
The US is one of the only first-world countries that doesn't mandate labeling GMOs--because the FDA has decided consumers are too stupid to understand that GMO foods are "materially the same" as natural organisms.
Genetic engineering, like any science offers benefits and risks. Everyone should be allowed to make informed decisions on what they ingest. The jury is not out on GMOs; frankly it's never convened. I am pro-science and free market, but I am for integrity and trust first. The fact that people are unreasonably frightened of my product doesn't grant license to lie or omit "inconvenient" facts.
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.