Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What's the deal with GMOs? Follow

#52 Sep 19 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Disclaimer: I didn't read this all, but wanted to clarify my earlier thoughts on GMO stuff. There could be health effects in humans from consuming food grown from GMO stock, or even occupational type effects from handlers, but i think that if or when an adverse effect shows itself it will more likely be an ecology type thing, disruption of the food chain type, rather than human health.

That's all.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#53 Sep 19 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But we've been breeding pesticide resistant crops for as long as we've had pesticides
Yeah, not really.
Um... yes, really. Each generation of a given plant that is exposed to a given pesticide will be more resistant to it.

Honestly, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Sep 19 2013 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But we've been breeding pesticide resistant crops for as long as we've had pesticides
Yeah, not really.
Um... yes, really. Each generation of a given plant that is exposed to a given pesticide will be more resistant to it.

Honestly, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.


Why? Are you claiming that this isn't true? I'm not saying that we've been going out of our way to do this. But we have been breeding pesticide resistant crops, whether we want to or not, for as long as we've been using pesticides in close proximity to crops. Again, you can't *not* do this if you use pesticides. It's a fundamental function of natural selection that the organisms which are best suited to thrive in a given environment will be the most likely to pass on their genes, and those genes will contain whatever features allowed them to thrive. And each successive generation of that organism will exhibit more of the feature that allowed them to thrive in the first place. And this factor is exaggerated when we're talking about crop strains because the farmers intentionally pick seed from the plants that produce the most yield (or whatever other positive feature they're looking for) out of each generation.

I'm assuming you have no problem with the idea that the pests adapt and develop resistance to the pesticides, so why balk at the idea that the plants do to? You're exposing both to the same substance.


Edited, Sep 19th 2013 6:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Sep 19 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Now maybe I have a reading problem, or maybe you have a writing problem

It's that first one, trust me on this.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#56 Sep 19 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Why? Are you claiming that this isn't true? I'm not saying that we've been going out of our way to do this. But we have been breeding pesticide resistant crops, whether we want to or not, for as long as we've been using pesticides in close proximity to crops. Again, you can't *not* do this if you use pesticides. It's a fundamental function of natural selection that the organisms which are best suited to thrive in a given environment will be the most likely to pass on their genes, and those genes will contain whatever features allowed them to thrive. And each successive generation of that organism will exhibit more of the feature that allowed them to thrive in the first place. And this factor is exaggerated when we're talking about crop strains because the farmers intentionally pick seed from the plants that produce the most yield (or whatever other positive feature they're looking for) out of each generation.


Well there's the minor issue that most farmers aren't going to spray crops with pesticides that kill most of the crops and then harvest the few that survive from their barren wasteland of a field. If by "crops" you mean "weeds", then yes, definitely.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#57 Sep 19 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Well there's the minor issue that most farmers aren't going to spray crops with pesticides that kill most of the crops and then harvest the few that survive from their barren wasteland of a field. If by "crops" you mean "weeds", then yes, definitely.

Thank God it's not just me.

Gbaji, honestly I have no idea why you're so intent on arguing something you obviously know so little about. Is it just because Monsanto is a big company and the "GMOs are evil!" group are usally from the left? You needed to just ideologically align yourself without actually worrying about knowing anything? No one here is even overtly saying that Monsanto and GMOs are going to destroy the world. It's okay... you can stand down and not feel like you lost a fight for "your side".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Sep 19 2013 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Gbaji, honestly I have no idea why you're so intent on arguing something you obviously know so little about.

Or as Gbaji calls it: "posting"

Tip your waitress.

Edited, Sep 19th 2013 10:48pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#59 Sep 19 2013 at 9:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
You can appeal to me if you'd like Gbaji, I can speak in the voice of a few different research agronomists who have done research into pesticide use on crops. The fundamental problem with your logic is that farmers don't spray crops with stuff that kills them, and then harvest the few that survive.

We certainly cause resistance in the bugs that we spray, although we're not selecting for that, or planting new bugs. An interesting fact about insect resistant GMO crops, they have exactly the same problem, so if you plant whole fields of a GMO crop, the insects will rather quickly ignore the modification. What they do is two fold, they mix a percentage of regular plants into the mix so that bugs will thrive on them, and offset the few that survive to extend the lifetime of the particular strain, and of course continually look for new modifications that the bugs haven't been affected by yet.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#60 Sep 20 2013 at 7:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Missed this before:
gbaji wrote:
That clearly was not an accident. Also, you used two slightly different phrases. Growing crops is one thing. Propagating them is another.

Not in the context I was using them. You grow crops (usually) to get the fruit/seeds. When you buy patented seed, you have permission to produce new seed provided you sell or consume it. If you have unlicensed patented seed, you do not have permission to produce new seed with it no matter if you were going to sell it, eat it, replant it or whip it at cars. I'm not speaking specifically about the one court case, I'm saying that you do not have permission to produce new seed containing those patented genes, period. It doesn't wait to become propagation until you plant the next generation of new seeds; the mere act of creating new viable seed counts as propagation and you wouldn't be growing the crops if not to produce seed. In this case, growing = propagation.

This isn't a topic where you're going to "win" by (mistakenly) assuming you found some semantic point. You need to just accept that you know less about this than other people here. It's no big deal. No one expects an IT guy from San Diego to know jack about agriculture. Ash used to work for Monsanto; if he came in and started correcting me I'd just accept that he knows more than me.

Edited, Sep 20th 2013 8:08am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Sep 20 2013 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I honestly have no problems with genetically modified foods. I think it's fair that you could criticize the GM companies for their practices, but I'm not willing to blame them for the labeling issues. Because, to be completely honest, they have a good point. No one has linked GM food stuffs to negative health benefits, and they shouldn't be required to put labels on their products if there's no evidence it's harmful. As for them lobbying to stop non-GMO labels, is that in any way shocking? It's a marketing campaign established purely to discredit GMO foods.

If this was actually about keeping the consumer informed about the product, I'd feel differently. But it isn't, it's about "EW, GMO, THROW IT OUT!"

I'd liken it to being required to put information about trans fats on your labeling. Trans fats are actually linked to health issues, so I think it's perfectly find to require a company to cite them. And, likewise, it's fine for a product to go out of its way to announce they don't have them (though that's not saying the current system is okay, where a company can double the sugar and unsaturated fat content and still claim they're healthy without trans fats).

The diversity aspect is interesting, but it's not something that's specific to GMO. We use the same pesticides and hormone treatments on all of our foods, already.

The other part of GMO is that it enables diversification in a way our current system doesn't. We can edit out problematic junk genes. We can add in genes that counterbalance the weakness in products relative to human needs.

The chances that a single string of code would be so problematic for humans as to cause any kind of serious health issue would be edited into a product AND that it would be so widely-sought to be mass produced across the board of products AND that it would have serious enough implications immediately that we couldn't remedy the world supply issue is really next to nothing.

Obviously you take the token steps to test the product before you start selling it.

But at the end of the day, you're probably at MUCH higher risk from molds and other food-born pathogens that are naturally occurring and rapidly mutating (because that's what fast-splitting single-cell organisms do) than you are from genetically modified foods.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#62 Sep 20 2013 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
As for them lobbying to stop non-GMO labels, is that in any way shocking? It's a marketing campaign established purely to discredit GMO foods.

I think it's less that and more the food manufacturers wanting to capture part of the market. Provided the labeling is accurate, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to say "GMO FREE" (or BGH free or whatever). Hell, if we allow them to label a bag of sugar-fried lard with "Guaranteed gluten free", saying something is GMO free shouldn't be any great shakes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Sep 20 2013 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I didn't say I was in favor of legislating so they couldn't, I'm just not interested in trying to cast it as a negative aspect of GMO corporations that they would want it done.

I'm pretty sure there's not a single corporation on the planet who wouldn't stop marketing campaigns that reflected badly on them if they had the chance. I just think GMO companies happen to be more in the right here than you typically see in this sort of scenario.

That said, I don't really care as long as the company isn't lying.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#64 Sep 20 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji, honestly I have no idea why you're so intent on arguing something you obviously know so little about.
Only way anyone ever pays any attention to him. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 Sep 20 2013 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
idiggory wrote:
I honestly have no problems with genetically modified foods. I think it's fair that you could criticize the GM companies for their practices, but I'm not willing to blame them for the labeling issues. Because, to be completely honest, they have a good point. No one has linked GM food stuffs to negative health benefits, and they shouldn't be required to put labels on their products if there's no evidence it's harmful. As for them lobbying to stop non-GMO labels, is that in any way shocking? It's a marketing campaign established purely to discredit GMO foods.

GMO has not been the standard practice throughout our agricultural history - it's relatively new technology. It's totally reasonable for the consumer to ask for it to be labeled.

In fact, a savy consumer is going to simply come to a point (specially if the EU has any influence) where they'll simply not buy a product until or unless that know if it's been genetically altered or not.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#66 Sep 20 2013 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
I didn't say I was in favor of legislating so they couldn't, I'm just not interested in trying to cast it as a negative aspect of GMO corporations that they would want it done.

I consider it a negative in general. If I want to advertise that my food contains no HFCS, I should be able to do so without being sued by the corn lobby. If I want to advertise that it contains no gravel, I shouldn't get sued by the local quarry. If some regulatory body wants to insist that my packaging be relevant to the product that's one thing but Company B's threat of lawsuits shouldn't be that body.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Sep 20 2013 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If I want to advertise that it contains no gravel, I shouldn't get sued by the local quarry.
They've got to make money somehow now that the Power Rangers have stopped having their fights there.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Sep 20 2013 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Elinda wrote:
idiggory wrote:
I honestly have no problems with genetically modified foods. I think it's fair that you could criticize the GM companies for their practices, but I'm not willing to blame them for the labeling issues. Because, to be completely honest, they have a good point. No one has linked GM food stuffs to negative health benefits, and they shouldn't be required to put labels on their products if there's no evidence it's harmful. As for them lobbying to stop non-GMO labels, is that in any way shocking? It's a marketing campaign established purely to discredit GMO foods.

GMO has not been the standard practice throughout our agricultural history - it's relatively new technology. It's totally reasonable for the consumer to ask for it to be labeled.

In fact, a savy consumer is going to simply come to a point (specially if the EU has any influence) where they'll simply not buy a product until or unless that know if it's been genetically altered or not.


I don't demand that every product has a list of the technology used in it's creation, and I'm positive that I use products made with technologies that contain far more destructive potential than GMO does, proven and unproven.

We don't even require companies to disclose what pesticides were used in their creation, and you want to require a label on GMO? We don't even require companies to disclose the pesticides and herbicides they use on their products; why the hell would we require a food to be labeled GMO? I'm far more interested in boycotting products that are actively causing widescale damage to the ecosystem than I am GMO, and there are no firm FDA regulations there. You can put pesticide free on pretty much any product that is not a pesticide and you're clear.

And those labels mostly only refer to synthetic pesticides in the first place.

But even if our labeling was up to par to represent the technologies with proven dangerous effects for the environment or the consumer, I'm still not on board with GMO labeling. Because there's no proof that GMO is dangerous.

This is exactly like treating e-cigarettes like regular cigarettes. It's fear-based and unfounded legislation.

Jophiel wrote:
idiggory wrote:
I didn't say I was in favor of legislating so they couldn't, I'm just not interested in trying to cast it as a negative aspect of GMO corporations that they would want it done.

I consider it a negative in general. If I want to advertise that my food contains no HFCS, I should be able to do so without being sued by the corn lobby. If I want to advertise that it contains no gravel, I shouldn't get sued by the local quarry. If some regulatory body wants to insist that my packaging be relevant to the product that's one thing but Company B's threat of lawsuits shouldn't be that body.


Yeah, but it's going both ways. I'm not going to pick one and call them the bully. If they both want to continue wasting a ton of money on legal fees for something that's never going to happen, I'm just going to call both sides idiotic and move on.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#69 Sep 20 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
How is it going both ways? Bob's Organic Plums & Eggs isn't suing Monsanto.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Sep 20 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
It's just not true that most organics and food companies are small businesses. Sure, those people exist, but for the most part small farmers are the least interested in taking the hit to their revenue that organic farming presents.

There's a LOT of money in organics. And there's a whole lot more ******** to go with it. So much so that most of the Organics sector is currently spending about as much time ripping each other apart as they are GMO-based industries: big businesses who wanted to cash in on the craze vs. smaller farmers who did it for moral reasons and can't keep up.

And organizations like the Organic Consumers Association have definitely filed lawsuits against the GMO sector. I'm seeing recent lawsuits against Frito-Lay and General Mills for using the word "natural" when they include genetically modified components, against the Naked Juice Company, against Monsato, etc.

Realistically speaking, the organics sector is the one who started this legal **** match. Just because GMO has the more powerful allies now (as big businesses want to cash in on the organics tags WHILE using GMO) doesn't mean they're suddenly the victims of the evil GMO lobby. The lobby is using literally the exact same tactics that the OCA and other organizations were using against them two decades ago.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#71 Sep 20 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
idiggory wrote:
[quote=Elinda][quote=idiggory]
This is exactly like treating e-cigarettes like regular cigarettes. It's fear-based and unfounded legislation.
No it's not at all like that. We're discussing labeling. Not restricting or disallowing in any way.

Furthermore it's consumers that are demanding the labeling. They're buying the product - if they want it labeled, more power to them.

Lastly, our track record for safe and equitable market implementation of new technologies is pretty weak. E-cigs and GMO food stuffs are very different things. E-cigs are simply a new product built on well known technologies. GMO - not.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#72 Sep 20 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
And organizations like the Organic Consumers Association have definitely filed lawsuits against the GMO sector. I'm seeing recent lawsuits against Frito-Lay and General Mills for using the word "natural" when they include genetically modified components, against the Naked Juice Company, against Monsato, etc.

Fair enough. I'm not an advocate for either side and can see your point although my opinion remains that businesses should be able to label as they see fit within the constraints of actual government regulation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Sep 20 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Elinda wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Elinda wrote:
[quote=idiggory]
This is exactly like treating e-cigarettes like regular cigarettes. It's fear-based and unfounded legislation.
No it's not at all like that. We're discussing labeling. Not restricting or disallowing in any way.

Furthermore it's consumers that are demanding the labeling. They're buying the product - if they want it labeled, more power to them.

Lastly, our track record for safe and equitable market implementation of new technologies is pretty weak. E-cigs and GMO food stuffs are very different things. E-cigs are simply a new product built on well known technologies. GMO - not.



GMO is build on an extremely well-understood technology. It is exactly like e-cigarettes - what's something of an unknown is the effect of the end product. Except that it's fairly well known what the end result of both is - nothing too bad.

Furthermore, consumers are the ones with power in this relationship. I'm 100% on-board with establishing legal definitions for buzz words and requiring companies to abide by those definitions. I'm not on board with requiring them to provide information that may or may not be relevant because one sector has run a convincing marketing campaign.

If you care THAT MUCH about only buying non-gmo products, there are plenty of options for you to choose from. If you don't know, don't buy it.

If this was something consumers actually cared about, the boycott of those products would have been more than sufficient to force the industry's hand. But it's not. This is something a small group of really loud consumers want. Many people will say they care, sure. But how many of the people who say they care ever even CHECK packaging to see if it doesn't contain GMO ingredients? I'm guessing it's a single digit percentage, if it's even over a fraction.

It's like the outcry over vaccines. You have a lot of people really alarmed at completely unfounded theories who are screaming really loudly, another set of people who are sort of listening, and the bulk of people who really couldn't care less.

[EDIT]
[quote]Fair enough. I'm not an advocate for either side and can see your point although my opinion remains that businesses should be able to label as they see fit within the constraints of actual government regulation.


That's my position as well. I agree with the need for actual definitions (because otherwise, the act of labeling becomes nearly useless for anything but marketing in the first place), but I'm not interested in legal mandates for labeling unless something presents a clear danger (that would otherwise be undetectable in the ingredients list or nutrition info).

Edited, Sep 20th 2013 11:40am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#74 Sep 20 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That's my position as well. I agree with the need for actual definitions (because otherwise, the act of labeling becomes nearly useless for anything but marketing

Wait, what do you think it's for now? Do you think labeling bags of sugar as "fat and gluten free!" is helping someone??
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#75 Sep 20 2013 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Now 99.95% hornet free!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Sep 20 2013 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Do you think labeling bags of sugar as "fat and gluten free!" is helping someone??
Probably the same people that check the fat content of bottled water.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 138 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (138)