View Poll Results: Are you for or agains GMO?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • For

    4 17.39%
  • Against

    17 73.91%
  • I don't care

    1 4.35%
  • I haven't decided yet

    1 4.35%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Gmo

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Gmo

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Would you have preferred coal or oil power plants all those years?
    In a way, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Don't get me started on the whole "not pay farmers to NOT produce" thing. That's it's own long and winding thread. You should do some research before making that comment.
    OK, I'll do that and will get back to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Nations from 1st to 3rd class benefit greatly from more productive food.
    In what way, quantity or quality? These are two different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Personally, I think wind farms leave something to be desired - they take up space that could be used for other purposes. Also, they produce noise and damage wildlife (flying).
    Come on now, how much space does a post take? 100 sq. m., may be. A wind turbine doesn't hurt the wheat or corn underneath. About the noise thing I agree.

  2. #42
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Gmo

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    True to an extent

    GM foods in the past did not have genes from fish transplanted into tomatoes to help prevent frost damage. Nor did GM corn have built in insecticide producing genes. Among two of the more serious types of GM foods


    Imagine if a gene from fish produces an allergic reaction in people is added to a different food, suddenly peoples healths are at risk without their knowledge. Or in the case of Bt Corn, what are the long term effects of injesting insecticides? Ones that can not be washed off the food you are going to eat
    As far as I know, there has never been a single documented case of an allergic reaction* or adverse health effect caused by GMO foods. So this is a more theoretical concern as far as I'm concerned...one which pales in comparison to actual concerns which can be solved by GMO: Healthier foods, more environmentally-friendly foods, foods that can grow in new parts of the world or at new times of the year, etc.

    *EDIT: I stand corrected about there never having been an allergic reaction. Wikipedia says that there was a type of GMO soybean used for animal feed that produced allergies in humans in 2005, but the researchers immediately ceased development when this was discovered. My overall point still stands. Like any other type of new food, there may be certain allergies in certain cases...but this just means that we need to monitor them and recall them if they pose major health risks. It's hardly a sound justification for banning all genetically-modified crops. It isn't right to deprive an impoverished farmer in Ethiopia from a bountiful harvest in a sustainable environment, because we're worried about a few Americans having allergic reactions to a food they chose to eat.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-13-12 at 11:48 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #43
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Gmo

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    They can and do reproduce in the wild

    Roundup Ready wheat, canola are easily bred and reproduced by farmers if they so choose. One of the issues with GM crops is the potential to contaminae "organic" crops. The genes dont have to match up exactly, which is one reason cross breeding has occured so much in the past
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    True to an extent

    GM foods in the past did not have genes from fish transplanted into tomatoes to help prevent frost damage. Nor did GM corn have built in insecticide producing genes. Among two of the more serious types of GM foods


    Imagine if a gene from fish produces an allergic reaction in people is added to a different food, suddenly peoples healths are at risk without their knowledge. Or in the case of Bt Corn, what are the long term effects of injesting insecticides? Ones that can not be washed off the food you are going to eat
    I was unaware that they were doing this on a common basis and I certainly wouldn't want these highly modified foods to get into the wild. Limited use of these types I think is fine. If it's easier/better to grow tomatoes with (for example) the polio vaccine inside them then I'm good with that - again with the stipulation it can't get into the wild.


    Introducing any organism into a new environment is tricky at best because it is often disastrous. (Think zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.) I think it's OK to modify the plants but the idea of them getting loose, especially if their modifications prove to be dominant traits, is a little discerning. If the modifications are recessive then they'll still come out when mixed in the wild but they'll be far less frequent and it'll take decades for them to spread.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gmo

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I was unaware that they were doing this on a common basis and I certainly wouldn't want these highly modified foods to get into the wild. Limited use of these types I think is fine. If it's easier/better to grow tomatoes with (for example) the polio vaccine inside them then I'm good with that - again with the stipulation it can't get into the wild.


    Introducing any organism into a new environment is tricky at best because it is often disastrous. (Think zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.) I think it's OK to modify the plants but the idea of them getting loose, especially if their modifications prove to be dominant traits, is a little discerning. If the modifications are recessive then they'll still come out when mixed in the wild but they'll be far less frequent and it'll take decades for them to spread.
    Another little tidbit concerns the claims that GMOs are stringently tested.

    They are, but the testing is to ensure that they do indeed do what they were designed to do. Secondary impacts are only cursorily examined. They test for allergies, because that affects the bottom line. Unintended environmental impacts (GMO corn affects milk thistle, which the monarch butterfly depends on), or potentials for disease (think mad cow) way down the line, aren't as much of a concern in our short term profits economic model.

    I was mortified when I found out GMO crops were fertile. WTF!! Especially considering the big ag companies like Monsanto are pushing a model.where no seed produces a plant that makes seed.

    There have actually been cases where GMO corn contaminated an adjacent field and the owner of the contaminated field was required to pay damages for patent infringement.

    That and the GMO lobby preventing labeling of GMO products. They tried to ban designating products as NOT containing GMOs, like the dairy industry tried to prevent labeling products as BGH and antibiotic free.

    Last I heard, most of Europe requires labeling and GMOs are not selling well.

    And don't get me wrong. I'm all FOR it in principle. Just not in practise, as it stands today. What is the point of rice that produces twice as much but is half as nutritious? So your belly will be full and you wont KNOW you're still starving?
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  5. #45
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Gmo

    Here is actually a quite interesting video on the topic:




    Edit: Here are some interesting articles as well (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28629) (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28434)
    Last edited by Mr. Invisible; 03-13-12 at 12:41 PM.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gmo

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    As far as I know, there has never been a single documented case of an allergic reaction* or adverse health effect caused by GMO foods. So this is a more theoretical concern as far as I'm concerned...one which pales in comparison to actual concerns which can be solved by GMO: Healthier foods, more environmentally-friendly foods, foods that can grow in new parts of the world or at new times of the year, etc.

    *EDIT: I stand corrected about there never having been an allergic reaction. Wikipedia says that there was a type of GMO soybean used for animal feed that produced allergies in humans in 2005, but the researchers immediately ceased development when this was discovered. My overall point still stands. Like any other type of new food, there may be certain allergies in certain cases...but this just means that we need to monitor them and recall them if they pose major health risks. It's hardly a sound justification for banning all genetically-modified crops. It isn't right to deprive an impoverished farmer in Ethiopia from a bountiful harvest in a sustainable environment, because we're worried about a few Americans having allergic reactions to a food they chose to eat.
    Not dismissing your point, but the allergen point is relevant. People with severe food allergies are VERY careful about what they eat. If the peanut allegen (for instance) makes it into tomatoes (for instance) that's a problem. They do test for these things, so it shouldn't be an issue.

    Fertility of GMO crops is a BIG deal. This technology is WAY too new to be releasing these little "monsters" into the wild. Its too soon to just be letting these genies out of their bottles. Unintended consequences could be catastrophic.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gmo

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    I recognize her. She's going to go down in history as a hero.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Gmo

    Yeah!
    Here is another good video on the topic, too:




  9. #49
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,431

    Re: Gmo

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    As far as I know, there has never been a single documented case of an allergic reaction* or adverse health effect caused by GMO foods. So this is a more theoretical concern as far as I'm concerned...one which pales in comparison to actual concerns which can be solved by GMO: Healthier foods, more environmentally-friendly foods, foods that can grow in new parts of the world or at new times of the year, etc.

    *EDIT: I stand corrected about there never having been an allergic reaction. Wikipedia says that there was a type of GMO soybean used for animal feed that produced allergies in humans in 2005, but the researchers immediately ceased development when this was discovered. My overall point still stands. Like any other type of new food, there may be certain allergies in certain cases...but this just means that we need to monitor them and recall them if they pose major health risks. It's hardly a sound justification for banning all genetically-modified crops. It isn't right to deprive an impoverished farmer in Ethiopia from a bountiful harvest in a sustainable environment, because we're worried about a few Americans having allergic reactions to a food they chose to eat.
    I never said they should be banned,

    Heavily tested, and advertised as being GMO foods should be mandatory. Along with restrictions on where and when they can be used to prevent cross contamination with non GMO foods
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •