Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
spartan max2

your stance on GMO foods

30 posts in this topic

So I was just interest in hearing peoples views on GMO. I know there is a lot of hype about it now and days, Poland just banned all GMO's from their country. I know there was some rat study where they got tumors but people argue that they gave the rats insane doses of it.

I have no stance on it yet, which is why I came here to see peoples views and arguments.

So is this stuff dangerous or safe? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they've been modified to be more nutritious? Why not?

To be more drought resistant? He'll yeah.

To be immune to pesticide? Bog off.

To be copyrighted o a corporation? HA. No.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a permaculture advocate, and haven't seen anyone debunk it yet and I studied the subject. It's basically a way to grow your food-veggies & meat-animals too in the ways of nature, you just reorganize the puzzle and let the plants do most of the work. GMO could be grown that way too if suitable GMO strains were developed, I doubt it'd be hard, but because the GMOs I know are developed to be more resistant to poison and support this much less sustainable mainstream plow-the-field agriculture that destroys much of the natural benefits of the plants which is quite irrational in my opinion when we have this alternative...

That is why I dont and wont support the current GMO.

Why I will not support GMO in the future, is because it will take a lot of time before we can make out what kind of impact it will have on our own genome, to the human race. I will seriously reconsider supporting GMO after there's GMO strains developed for more sensible & rational farming methods and after we're actually seen the long-term effect of eating gene-splice or otherwise genetically altered food long terms to our human race's genome.

And also the companies must stop the monopoly and it must be outlawed world-wide, and the outlawing must be utmost effective and properly, honestly and sincerely supervised.

Edited by Mikko-kun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, it really depends. I'm somewhat neutral on the topic, but leaning more towards disliking them. I can understand it makes the crops better able to survive different climates and all that, but I just think that natural is better.

Just, messing with the genetics and stuff of the things we eat, you just don't know what side effects there could be, and how they could effect us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband and I organically grow our own veggies in the wamer months, and buy organic in the winter.

Organically farming is more expensive and harder on the environment:

http://science.time.com/2012/04/26/whole-food-blues-why-organic-agriculture-may-not-be-so-sustainable/

BUT~

We don't understand the ramifications on our heath by eating things that have been tampered with, not yet anyway. And the dangerous part is that the cross-polination from modified foods may eventually shrink our access to foods that have not been. Studies done on rates fed specific modified food didn't produce promising results, just the oppostie.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes

The bottom line for me is why tamper with nature? If we can't figure out how to grow it in it's natural state, then perhaps we need to exclude it from our diet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with everything there are dangers and benefits. I think in the end the benefits will prevail but we will on the way have an accident or two to give the chronically paranoid something to get hysterical about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have a problem with GMO foods, but what I do have a problem with is the politics. Monsanto is the devil as far as I'm concerned. The science behind GMO's may be conflicting, but the news reports behind Monsanto aren't. The way they bully farmers into using their seeds exclusively (they even tried to patent pork at one point,) is disgusting. No one company should be allowed to control the world's food supply - that's what I find scary.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was just interest in hearing peoples views on GMO. I know there is a lot of hype about it now and days, Poland just banned all GMO's from their country. I know there was some rat study where they got tumors but people argue that they gave the rats insane doses of it. I have no stance on it yet, which is why I came here to see peoples views and arguments.

So is this stuff dangerous or safe? :unsure2:

I dont know if it is safe or not but it is at least nonnatural.

So my stance is a clear NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the science itself, but I loathe what some companies are doing with the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem I have is when I see **** like this

1926933_688361804540020_2055194584_n.jpg

Its makes me think, well if it is dangerous our government is not going to let us know.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know if it is safe or not but it is at least nonnatural.

So my stance is a clear NO.

I think letting people starve to death when they could be eating the rice that they could have grown in their less-than-wet climate is also nonnatural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our foods have been breed and changed over thousands of years by us. It makes me think maybe all our food is GMO

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think letting people starve to death when they could be eating the rice that they could have grown in their less-than-wet climate is also nonnatural.

It seems that you became a classic victim of the classic GMO-pro argumentation catalogue of MONSANTO/BAYER CROPSCIENCE+friends.

The half of the global food production gets wasted so by math, enough food can be produced without GMO.

But food is cheap as it gets produced cheaper and cheaper what may result in hunger in some areas of

earth as the farmers do not get enough money for the products.

The problem you talked about can be solved without GMO technology. But that´s another story.

Edited by toast
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our foods have been breed and changed over thousands of years by us. It makes me think maybe all our food is GMO

That´s partial correct. But the evolution had millions of years time for the developement and "bad crossings"

were sorted out. GMO is a game with the tools of evolution but without the wisdom and the experience of

evolution.

Edited by toast
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That´s partial correct. But the evolution had millions of years time for the developement and "bad crossings"

were sorted out. GMO is a game with the tools of evolution but without the wisdom and the experience of

evolution.

That wisdom and experience of evolution has always been bull****, its aspect of darwin's theory that makes it never provable. The value judgement that things are moving for the better. They just move and this go good for it or not, this some unexpected macro change occurs and what was considered good completely is redefined.

Potatoes were semi poisonous and are not far from the nightshade family. They have been domesticate by people and are now safe. Domestication is Genetic modification.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Domestication isn't gene splicing.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wisdom and experience of evolution has always been bull****, its aspect of darwin's theory that makes it never provable. The value judgement that things are moving for the better. They just move and this go good for it or not, this some unexpected macro change occurs and what was considered good completely is redefined.

Maybe my wording had lead to a misunderstanding here. I did not mean that wisdom and experience of the evolution is a general feature that exclude the bad ones in advance, it results the good ones by selection in the past.

Potatoes were semi poisonous and are not far from the nightshade family. They have been domesticate by people and are now safe. Domestication is Genetic modification.

You are wrong here as you are confounding domestication with active influenced genetic manipulation. Domestication is a process of

crossbred, separation and the use of natural mutants. Genetic modification is a process using chemical cracking of the natural DNA

(first) with the target to implement dissimilar genetic informations.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he problem you talked about can be solved without GMO technology. But that´s another story.

But it not being solved.

So if people in a semi arid region can grow rice if it is genetically modified to grow in less than ideal conditions, I'm for it.

I think that fanatics like to lump everything together.

Drought resistant rice that will save lives? ABSOLUTELY.

I don't know what other things they are doing, but if they aren't going to save lives, then I say why mess with nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't eat it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't eat it

If you are living in the US, you are eating it daily.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it not being solved. So if people in a semi arid region can grow rice if it is genetically modified to grow in less than ideal conditions, I'm for it.

I think that fanatics like to lump everything together. Drought resistant rice that will save lives? ABSOLUTELY.

I don't know what other things they are doing, but if they aren't going to save lives, then I say why mess with nature.

The alleged "feed the poor" advantage is a fairy tale, or better said, a marketing slogan by the one global leader in GMO technology.

This company generated in 2011 a total revenue of 12B USD. Do you thing they did that with "feeding the poors"?

Check here for a better insight in GMO issues: http://www.beyondpes...mofactsheet.php

Edited by toast
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against GMO for 2 reasons:

1) The long-term effects on biodiversity and the enviroment are not possible to be determined via short-term/limited-scale trials.

2) It encourages wealthy nations to continue to be selfish and wasteful. The world produces enough food to comfortably feed the population. Production is not really an issue - distribution is.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

1) The long-term effects on biodiversity and the enviroment are not possible to be determined via short-term/limited-scale trials.

[...]

Beloved argument from anti GMO side...

How long "long-term" is? 5 years? 10? 50? 100? 1000 years? Or maybe 10000 years and more? Pick one. And try to justify picked number.

Edit: formatting... hate this thing...

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people might like to think that there would be this one and only golden way to go about the current GMO situation. I dont think there is, but just a lot of alternatives with their ups and downs.

The pro-GMO alternative which considers the fairness towards consumers, I think this is what most pro-GMO people go for. That the companies couldn't hold farmers by the balls with their seed prices and so on, but the GMO crops would pretty much have no marketing limits due to health and safety concerns.

Ups: more food for everybody than with the plow-farm method without GMO crops. Also major corporations support this so you have the money and thus everything else needed for this to happen.

Downs: more poison on the fields, possible residue ending to your digestive system and harming nature. The harming nature part is not just a cosmetic or sentimental thing but could have very severe consequences, like mass deaths of bees. Potential consequences that should not be ignored.

The GMO-sceptical alternative which would either keep the GMO market as restricted as it is now, or more likely restrict it further, for precautionary health and environmental safety reasons.

Ups: Clean safe food, reliably if you chose the alternate agricultural ways. And enough food too. You could also rest more assured that there's no major harm done to nature, and it would be easier to pinpoint what exactly is doing major harm to nature if there's something, when this big questionmark GMO would be less in that picture.

Downs: hard to make to work in practise because the corporations are against this. You'd have also likely less food if you did the agriculture by plowing & poison like before than with GMO. Alternate agricultural methods can also be hard to implement due to seeming lack of interest. The alternate farming ways would be more efficient in the overall picture when more people lived outside big cities, so to move away from big cities would be a downside too.

My husband and I organically grow our own veggies in the wamer months, and buy organic in the winter.

Organically farming is more expensive and harder on the environment:

http://science.time....so-sustainable/

It seems to be that study is done based on reality, on the way we currently live and run the society. Big cities, you must transport food from countryside because you can't grow all that in cities. If big cities are some holy cow (sorry the impression but are they?) then it's quite right that you can ideas like organic farming and permaculture. Or well, you can still get use of them, lots of things grow in cities too (just look at all the hemp growers ;) ) so city-growing could migitate some of the food-transporting, but city-growing doesn't tend to be too organic and you'd still need to transport all the growing materials, dirt and pots and whatnots, to the places. So yeah, it's pretty much either big cities go or the massive industrial agriculture stays. Or some new innovation that'll save us, something I think we should not count on. Of course there can be mid-roads to anything but that's the basic way how I think it works.

Edited by Mikko-kun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beloved argument from anti GMO side...

How long "long-term" is? 5 years? 10? 50? 100? 1000 years? Or maybe 10000 years and more? Pick one. And try to justify picked number.

Edit: formatting... hate this thing...

Trials should have to consider what other animal species might be affected by the GMO crop, take into consideration the length of generational cycles, and then be put into place in a [controlled] way to determine the long-term effect on the food chain.

As for human health concerns - how long would it take to show a significant effect on something such as rate of heart-disease?

I would suggest most trials should be required to take at least 20 years, and probably longer. However, these trails won't show if the modifications have long-term effects on human health unless done in properly controlled conditions - which I admit would be very difficult to establish. This means that GMO foods are essentially declared safe by promise, not science.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.