Are you really against GMO's?

Just thought I'd throw out a head scratcher for y'all...

If you took that super duper evil megacorp Monsanto out of the question, would you still support GMO's? I don't think that engineering drought resistant crops is a bad thing, after all we have tailor made our agriculture and livestock for thousands of years, and the pooches and the lolcats we have come to love were domesticated thousands of years ago and we have essentially molded them into the couch potatoes that they are today.

In ancient times George Clooneys Pot belly Pigs would be a food source but now they are too cute to kill.

Do you oppose GMO's in general, and if so, Why?

I'm not necessarily opposed to cutting a few genetic corners but it's the "round up ready" factor that I'm leary of.

GMO foods have been known to negatively effect our DNA. I'm on my phone and having trouble linking sources but a quick google search will find lots of good information. Theres been lots of studies on rats with interesting results.

The breakages in their RNA is dangerous to our DNA, and the chemicals they spray on them are toxic waste and disturbing, they cause heavy physical and mental damages to the human body, its not that were against a product, its the fact that were against anything that can slowly torture us to death being deemed fit for human consumption.

originally posted by: PeachesNCream
GMO foods have been known to negatively effect our DNA. I'm on my phone and having trouble linking sources but a quick google search will find lots of good information. Theres been lots of studies on rats with interesting results.

Use duckduckgo its much better to study with, and if that site gets messed with, we will find another one! -shrugs-

Gmos causing tumors in rats studied by france before the ISIS inspired shooting.

rt.com...

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
Just thought I'd throw out a head scratcher for y'all...

If you took that super duper evil megacorp Monsanto out of the question, would you still support GMO's? I don't think that engineering drought resistant crops is a bad thing, after all we have tailor made our agriculture and livestock for thousands of years, and the pooches and the lolcats we have come to love were domesticated thousands of years ago and we have essentially molded them into the couch potatoes that they are today.

In ancient times George Clooneys Pot belly Pigs would be a food source but now they are too cute to kill.

Do you oppose GMO's in general, and if so, Why?

Not only drought resistant but insect and disease resistant as well. And as far as lab rats and tumors , anything you give a rat outside of the norm (which includes ANY form of chemical) has a good chance to cause genetic defects and/or tumors in lab rats.The rat is not a very close relative of humans nor a good case study , but is cheap to research on . The rhesus monkey is much closer and better for studies , but of course that has been just about outlawed.

The problem with making plants bug resistant.
Is the bugs evolve around it, and make super bugs. So they need to make a more powerful pesticide. Which the bugs eventually get immune to as well.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

What you are proposing is not the same as a GMO. Selective breeding is completely different...it allows nature to do the work, and it doesn't entail splicing in animal or other plant genetics into a plant's DNA, nor does it entail making crops "pest resistant" which kills off many bugs and insects--bees included.

If you want an honest answer, you have to give an honest comparison.

And don't forget about the massive gov't-to-Monsanto-and-back cycle that goes on with lobbyists and politicians. Monsanto in and of itself is a cancer to both our food and what our free-market system is supposed to be, not to mention the addition to government corruption.

Edit: Forgot to answer this directly:

originally posted by: ThecakeisalieDo you oppose GMO's in general, and if so, Why?

Yes, I am, because I am of the absolute belief that nature already provides everything the human body needs to survive, and with modern shipping and growing ability, there's not reason we should need to adapt nature to fit our ideas of what "should be." And not to be too harsh, but if a people live in an area that is lacking natural resources, that group should learn to adapt to nature, like humanity did for millennia.

I am against GMO'S. All of them.

Reason 1: they cause cancer
Reason 2: Monsanto and other GMO companies are evil
Reason 3: we don't need GMO'S

a reply to: Thecakeisalie
Before Monsanto entered the picture,there were farmers that did indeed BREED animals and plants for certain properties. There is the difference. These were bred using what they had at hand,not through any DNA manipulation.If you take one species of plant and cross breed it with another plant that is in the same species but a different strain,it will either take or it won't. Through trial and error farmers learned what they could and could not do.

The same was done with animals. Right now there are certain breeds of dogs that should not and would not breed naturally in the wild. Let me explain: herding breeds such as Shetland Sheepdogs,Collies,Border Collies etc. carry a gene in them that will make them sometimes come a 'blue' color. While pretty,there are draw backs. If you go the next step and breed 2 'blues' together,you will almost always get a dog that has a multitude of physical problems. They may be deaf,blind,or have other very serious issues. Because of this,reputable breeders have to separate their 'blues' so they don't mate with each other.

Some things nature does not intend to happen. Man through 'selective' pollination and breeding,has been able to produce both drought resistant and pest resistant species of fruits and vegetables. Go look up a seed company that deals with heritage crops. They will not only describe the plant,they will tell you what it was bred for.

The issue isn't making our food supply better.Man has always worked for that,but the problem becomes when you are introducing genes into plants that are from other sources.Sources that would never get there through nature. It is not intended and there are reasons for that. We don't know everything there is to know about genes and the consequences of messing with them yet.I doubt we ever will.

originally posted by: Annunak1
I am against GMO'S. All of them.

Reason 1: they cause cancer
Reason 2: Monsanto and other GMO companies are evil
Reason 3: we don't need GMO'S

Then you'd love the vegetables that you eat-they are sprayed with pesticides so strong that by law you need to wear a mask just to spray them. Then there are the weed killers that also require a mask by law.

Some GMO's are tame by comparison.

Other than liking my food unmolested and not drenched with cancer causing chemicals?

Why do you have such a bs minimizing position on Monsanto?

Quote- " super duper evil megacorp Monsanto"

Playing it off like they are not field-infesting, lawyer scamming, hostile takeover artists.

You need to read up on their business practices.

Here are 10 reasons GMOs suck...
link
From LINK:
10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety.
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a "large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge." Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability.

Why do you have such a bs minimizing position on Monsanto?

a reply to: Mandroid7

Don't get me wrong- I don't endorse Monsanto or their practices whatsoever.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: Annunak1
I am against GMO'S. All of them.

Reason 1: they cause cancer
Reason 2: Monsanto and other GMO companies are evil
Reason 3: we don't need GMO'S

Then you'd love the vegetables that you eat-they are sprayed with pesticides so strong that by law you need to wear a mask just to spray them. Then there are the weed killers that also require a mask by law.

Some GMO's are tame by comparison.

We dont need to use pesticides/chemicals at all. Permaculture practices give us solutions to all those problems.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie
Maybe if they were labeled the decision would be easier. Why hide the fact if they are so great?

a reply to: ugmold

Are you talking about the pesticides or the GMO's?

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: Annunak1
I am against GMO'S. All of them.

Reason 1: they cause cancer
Reason 2: Monsanto and other GMO companies are evil
Reason 3: we don't need GMO'S

Then you'd love the vegetables that you eat-they are sprayed with pesticides so strong that by law you need to wear a mask just to spray them. Then there are the weed killers that also require a mask by law.

Some GMO's are tame by comparison.

Most gmo's are designed so that they can withstand MORE evil chemicals, not less!!!
GMO's have more evil chemicals sprayed on them, and many contain the poisons within themselves, therefore it cant be washed of.
To suggest that gmo's = less chemicals is pure nonsense.

We dont need gmo's, the only reason monsatan say we do is beause they own them, and therefore will become extremely rich, and have control over who can grow food.

WE DONT NEED THEM.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

What I object to is the insertion of genetic material that nature has not had the time to adapt to. Who knows the long term consequences. Oh and one or two generations of "look no harm done" is no way long enough. One thing we know for sure is that plants swap genetic material quite readily so christ knows what plants adopt the genetic changes. We also know that bacteria and viruses hijack DNA so who the hell can say what happens there. Now before any pro GMO person jumps up and down states see nature already does it there's a caveat, so please read the next paragraph.

What I do know is that up to now nature has been in balance there is no rampaging genetic mutation killing things off and the reason for this is that everything is in balance and/or adapted to living with everything else. Throw in genetic manipulation and this balance is altered. It may be totally benign but if anybody was state this categorically then they are lying, it is an unknown.

I do not object to manipulation of existing traits ie an accelerated selective breeding program. This does not introduce new DNA to an existing genome.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Most gmo's are designed so that they can withstand MORE evil chemicals, not less!!! GMO's have more evil chemicals sprayed on them, and many contain the poisons within themselves, therefore it cant be washed of.

Not in my experience it wasn't, and don't use the M word, i'm trying to raise attention to the good things GMO's can do.

Cool. I am not into either.

The hostile pollen takeover scam is insane to me. They have their pollen blowing into untainted crops in surrounding fields, then claim theft against the farmers who don't do business with their seeds. Absolute insanity.

The crazy thing about plants and GMOs, in my opinion is the fact that selective breeding can give you all the traits you need.

I think they had good intentions from the start, but greed got in the way.

Farmers are also a huge part of the problem. They can cut corners with less labor and mechanical weed removal needed and just dose an entire field with roundup, including the crops themselves.

They get to increase their profits with lower overhead costs.

Unfortunately we are literally eating the results of cut corners.