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.
The article is pure propaganda. The best analogy is getting your water tested and the results come back as “water” ignoring all the other factors.
Pure glyphosate is not used on crops. Rather, formulations with other compounds to prompt its uptake into the plants are utilized.
Any analysis of GM & glyphosate which does not address formulations - since GM in this case makes plants tolerant of application of the herbicide formulations - is deliberate misdirection, aka straw man to the toxicity debate.
Thus arguing a debate from a position intentionally-ignoring key data is no different than what climate alarmists do to defend their position.
This is a very complicated subject made worse by the fact that the underlying premise of GM - the central dogma, i.e. predictability in GM/GE - was destroyed when they mapped the human genome. This is evidenced by pest tolerance to the effects of not only glyphosate, but Bt as well.
Worst of all, the willingness of the public to submit to higher & higher tolerances of compounds the human body was never exposed to individually or combined (synergy) is an abomination of the conservative principle, particularly given that this crap is being promoted as safe by our government and intentionally-ignoring formulation & synergistic factors.
Arguing that resistance to the status quo will result in use of more toxic compounds is criminal in the face of alltime-high use of pesticides in the face of herbicide tolerance and Bt resistance.
Argue to my face that I and/or my family should ingest higher & higher levels of chemicals because they are “simple salts” or that “the human body adapts” will earn a knuckle sandwich or worse.
Fair warning: I have 100 hours researching this topic for my book and entered the morass with an open mind: The GMO debate is as chock full of obfuscation, lies & hyperbole as “collusion” & “uranium one,” to state nothing of the “climate-change” debate. I take no pleasure in calling out ignorance, but there is a heap of it at FR.
Here’s the meat: Argue for the safety of GM based on the low toxicity of glyphosate used in agriculture and I have a challenge:
Go apply glyphosate formulations at a local farm for a season without PPE and get back to me.
Refusal is utter hypocrisy.
ALL of the honest studies on the topic of GMO state “more study is needed,” not “more chemicals are safe” just because of biased recommendations and EPA exemptions on “inert” ingredients in formulations. A normally-intelligent person - typically Conservative - would be quite offended at the notion, not submissively-compliant to physical assault.
Bread flour doesn’t need to be GMO to be contaminated with glyphosate formulations: They spray it wholesale on wheat crops as a dessicant to kill the wheat and speed harvesting & yields.
No joke.
I thought I was informed before researching my chapter on GMO; I felt like an idiot once I realized how ignorant I really was in ignoring all the anti-GMO crap as just ‘conspiracy-theory.’ Yes, there’s a lot of hyperbole on both sides, but it’s the hyperbole coming from the pro side which endangers us & our children.
Exactamundo.
See my #41.
You’re spot-on re fluoride. I learned so much researching its background and the true causes of the DC Lead in Water crisis and the Flint Water crisis that it spawned a separate book.
Believing that government is benevolent when it comes to food and not when it comes to investigating Shrillary et al is a fool’s errand; many have some hard lessons coming...
+1
Diana, can you marry me? Please? haha
All I ask (demand) is labeling. Let the market decide.
Require it be visible and then free citizens can darn well decide if they want to pay more for organic/natural or not. I only got irate when some companies tried to RESTRICT the ability of others to declare their foods GMO free, etc...
Urine works fairly well as a weed killer too.
You’re THIRD in line, behind my actual Fiance (Beau) and then Laz, of course. ;)
I’ll let you know if & when you move up in the rankings. ;)
My Army days are OVER, so, so are my days of peeing in Nature - unless I’m camping or hunting.
Wait. I guess I still DO use The Great Outdoors more than I though, LOL!
It just is common sense and the study of history. The power of the chemical companies is obscene now and so they are absolutely corrupt. Government is always evil—that is a fact known by our Founders. Now with crony capitalism we have the most vile system of government in our history. Truth is always hidden—ALWAYS. Government only lies and throws out misinformation.
So put those two together and it is pure satanism being forced onto us as in all our publik skools since all research is controlled by the crony capitalists who fund and control it all with textbooks, who kill or persecute those few who dare reveal the truth.
You sound very educated on the topic and I believe YOU since it is more logical than what the government always dishes out. Good luck with your book since the powers in charge will try to destroy you and your book, like they do with every truth-sayer. They have billions; you just have the Truth and a deprogrammed mind-—but God bless you for your courage!!! Keep plugging on-—the truth has made a little headway in this last decade.
Interesting observation.
Wonder why Russia is going totally organic since they went through the actual government sponsored starvation of tens of millions back in the good old Lenin/Stalin’s days of Top Down total control of food supply and elimination of all private property rights, much like America’s corporate control of everything today-—esp. our food supply with all their genetic unconstitutional patents? Crony capitalism???? Absolutely evil.
Trust anything that comes out of any mouth and research center controlled with billions of dollars by satanic psychopaths who want a NWO of just dumb serfs and slaves only? No thank you.
Interesting.
But I can see the upside of modern methods, too. So they spray green or ripening wheat with glysophate to cause the stalks to start dying (fast) which causes the plant to detect that it needs to optimize and send all remaining energy to the kernels?
The other thing is patenting and controlling plant material. I can certainly understand patenting seeds developed by the company but how far the patent net extends I don't know.
We can still freely buy and save flower and vegetable seeds although I suppose some vegetables are gm and possibly sterile. I don't know that a seedless watermelon would necessarily be poison though.
Which reminds me my partner was telling me about a seedless red raspberry growing along the road at his place. I get all excited about stuff like that and used to go hunting for the unusual. I was regretting that I missed the opportunity to propagate seedless red raspberries and grow at home. But maybe they are already available. I just thought it was extremely unusual plus being older, would rather not ingest too many of the seeds like I did with abandon when I was younger.
There's so much talk about gluten intolerance. I thought it was some fad except some time ago when I learned that a very few Catholics couldn't receive communion because of celiac disease (gluten intolerance). But if it is as you say, maybe eating wheat that could be contaminated with glysophate and other sprayed chemicals wouldn't be so good.
Then I thought of the biblical injunction about taking no thought about what you shall eat or what you shall drink, presumably within reason. And bread which I think was made with white flour or even whole wheat was the "staff of life" and the most symbolic of all the plants. Every culture seems to use white flour for millenia.
Would you have some kind of reading list, maybe top 5 books or other important references you learned from?
When will your book be published? I don't buy many books any more but would definitely be interested in yours.
Well...where are Beau and Laz, and what are their itineraries this weekend?
All joking aside, wish you all the best!
LOL! Thanks. :)
You again.
My goodness, where to start?
The significance of inserting a single gene from one organism into another is... nothing. Lateral gene transfers occur frequently in nature. In fact, every time you get a viral infection, those viruses insert their entire genome into your cells. Usually, they force your cells to become virus factories. But not always. Sometimes, they integrate into your chromosomes and become a permanent part of your genome. Sometimes, they integrate into the chromosomes in germ cells, where they can become a permanent part of the human genome. Our genome, in fact, contains anywhere from 5-8% of viral DNA. One protein that is essential for the formation of the placenta is coded by a virus that became part of the mammalian genome millions of years ago.
Of course, every time you consume food, you consume significant quantities of DNA from other organisms--including organisms of completely different kingdoms. (Quick biology lesson: the five kingdoms are bacteria, archaea, fungus, plant, and animal.) Have you had adverse effects from that? I doubt it, unless the DNA was inside of a pathogen.
I'm not surprised you don't know this, actually. You didn't even know that CO2 is the basic building block of *all* biological molecules (no exceptions).
If someone were trying to engineer botulinum toxin into lettuce or something like that, I'd be worried. But engineering plants to be resistant to rust or insects or whatever--it's no big deal. We've been engineering other organisms for millennia. Our tools have gotten much better, that's all.
Have you ever considered maybe taking some basic science classes before you try to match wits against an experienced scientist again?
Genes from different organisms can result through various mechanisms, for example, from virus activity. Although plants can cross-pollinate if the pollen is from a close enough species.
It is not unusual for genes to transfer laterally between species. Plants are especially easy to genetically modify because (unlike animals) they can tolerate a lot of mutations and modifications without adversely affecting viability. Some plants are so heavily modified genetically (using old school techniques, even) that they cannot survive without human intervention. Naval oranges and the common Cavendish banana are two examples; these fruits must be propagated through cuttings.
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.