Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful
- Thread starter RaiderDawg78
- Start date
Not worried. But, I still eat a lot of organic stuff because we can afford it. But the positives of GMO are undeniable when it comes to feeding the masses.
The more interesting part of all this is how it will become political. Did the industry influence the study. etc?
The more interesting part of all this is how it will become political. Did the industry influence the study. etc?
I'm not worried so much about eating GMOs as I am worried that they make our entire food chain more susceptible to disease and espionage. Eating organic is not done solely because of GMOs, the larger issue is the pesticides. Also, here is what they had to say about climate change, many conservatives are jumping on this but don't realize that they also believe, and have data to support, that climate change is real;
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/
As someone in the field, I agree with both posts. GMO's show no overall risk. That's not to say a specific modification in a specific organism may not have unintended affects, however collectively, they are not a "risk" some people try to insinuate.
Also, I agree that the data supports the hypothesis that the climate is changing and man contribute's to these changes. In the field, outliers, tend be called spurious data. There is a reason experiments need to be repeated. When I am in the lab, if I got 97 results to affirmative and 3 results to the negative on any experiment, I would say the data strongly supports the hypothesis. Right now 97% of scientific studies present results supporting man's contribution to climate change.
I have had the chance to hear ~15 National Academy members give seminars, truly brillant minds. I have collaborated with
The worst thing that can ever happen to science is for it to become a political issue.
Also, I agree that the data supports the hypothesis that the climate is changing and man contribute's to these changes. In the field, outliers, tend be called spurious data. There is a reason experiments need to be repeated. When I am in the lab, if I got 97 results to affirmative and 3 results to the negative on any experiment, I would say the data strongly supports the hypothesis. Right now 97% of scientific studies present results supporting man's contribution to climate change.
I have had the chance to hear ~15 National Academy members give seminars, truly brillant minds. I have collaborated with
The worst thing that can ever happen to science is for it to become a political issue.
Remember guys, in the mind of politicians, everything is black or white. There is no room for grey.. or gray for that matter.
I'm a microbiologist by title, but I don't actually work in the lab anymore. My degrees are in microbiology, immunology, and biology (B.S. MTSU 2001). My postdoc was basically molecular microbiology.
My old mentor you use to say...."if you don't publish it, you didn't do it."
First, there is no publication supporting D. Huber's identification of this pathogen. He has not identified a virus, bacteria, fungus, prion, or other pathogen that is specific to GMOs.
Second, he has cited some peer reviewed publications that suggest round up effects plant nutrition. There has been some conflicting studies and his controls (he did not control for the effects of other herbicides natural or not on plant nutrition).
So there is no evidence that supports his 1st hypothesis and inconclusive support (at this time) for his 2nd hypothesis. But honestly, it would not be shocking that adding any compound may have some effect to a plant metabolism.
Another issues with GMOs is the fact that you can't reuse the seed that you grow. It is putting our food supplies in the hands of a private corporation that is solely concerned with making money for shareholders.
If I patent a product, I have the right to sell it with certain limitations in the contract. If you do not want my product under the stipulations, then don't buy it. But that is a completely different topic than if GMOs are safe.
GM Crops Now Banned in 38 Countries Worldwide
excerpt:
Official GM crop cultivation bans:
Africa (2)
The picture on GM cultivation bans across Africa is not clear due to the current pressure being put on many African governments by the Biotech industry and the Gates Foundation to lift long-standing bans on the import of unmilled GMO seeds or unmilled GMO food aid, however two countries do still have full legal bans on GM crop cultivation:
Algeria (since 2000)
Madagascar (since 2002)
Asia (4)
Turkey,
Kyrgyzstan
Bhutan
Saudi Arabia
Americas (4)
Belize
Peru
Ecuador
Venezuela
Europe (28)
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Germany
France
The Netherlands
Malta
Cyprus
Greece
Bulgaria
Russia
Serbia
Croatia
Italy
Denmark
Hungary
Moldova
Latvia
Lithuania
Austria
Poland
Slovenia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Luxembourg
Ukraine (although there is massive GM contamination in the country)
Norway
Switzerland
excerpt:
Official GM crop cultivation bans:
Africa (2)
The picture on GM cultivation bans across Africa is not clear due to the current pressure being put on many African governments by the Biotech industry and the Gates Foundation to lift long-standing bans on the import of unmilled GMO seeds or unmilled GMO food aid, however two countries do still have full legal bans on GM crop cultivation:
Algeria (since 2000)
Madagascar (since 2002)
Asia (4)
Turkey,
Kyrgyzstan
Bhutan
Saudi Arabia
Americas (4)
Belize
Peru
Ecuador
Venezuela
Europe (28)
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Germany
France
The Netherlands
Malta
Cyprus
Greece
Bulgaria
Russia
Serbia
Croatia
Italy
Denmark
Hungary
Moldova
Latvia
Lithuania
Austria
Poland
Slovenia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Luxembourg
Ukraine (although there is massive GM contamination in the country)
Norway
Switzerland
Because polticians understand science better than scientists do, right?
In a liberterian world, shouldn't the govt. stay out of the way & let good science and the market drive the use of GMOs and/or wild-type crops?
Genetically modified pesticide-producing corn, soybean and canola continues to produce pesticide in your gut by colonizing bacteria and genetically altering it to also produce pesticide within your own cells.
Eight Foods You Should Almost Never, Ever Eat
Eight Foods You Should Almost Never, Ever Eat
Last edited:
The problem is that many of these crops are wind pollinated. Other farmers around them by Monsanto seed and infect their crops with Monsanto genes and they are forced to pay or not harvest their fields. Also, regardless of patents, putting our food in the hands of a giant corporation is a bad idea.
Hungarians Just Destroyed All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields
excerpt:
GMO seeds are not considered worrisome and dangerous simply because they are modified, but it is that they are modified to handle massive doses of glyphosate (Roundup), and not die. They are made to take baths in the chemical herbicide that is so dangerous for human consumption, and it is the fear that the buildup of glyphosate within crops is a potential cause for the recent rapid increase in autism, cancers, and other long-term developing illnesses. The company Monsanto has been so aggressive legally to cover up any public ill, believed to be hushing farmers, buying off segments of the government and paying off scientists in the U.S. that it is hard for anyone to know what logistical data has been soured, and what truths to believe. It has become easier for countries like Hungary to plow under the crop than to try to disseminate between what is fact and what is farse with Monsanto's disastrous reputation and communication failures.
There is also the factor that when Monsanto seeds are found to be present on land, they fight for ownership of those seeds, and consider them as patent infringement, theft, or whatever you want to call it. Rather than fight the giant in court every time their seeds blow into a field, it's easier to wipe them off the map.
excerpt:
GMO seeds are not considered worrisome and dangerous simply because they are modified, but it is that they are modified to handle massive doses of glyphosate (Roundup), and not die. They are made to take baths in the chemical herbicide that is so dangerous for human consumption, and it is the fear that the buildup of glyphosate within crops is a potential cause for the recent rapid increase in autism, cancers, and other long-term developing illnesses. The company Monsanto has been so aggressive legally to cover up any public ill, believed to be hushing farmers, buying off segments of the government and paying off scientists in the U.S. that it is hard for anyone to know what logistical data has been soured, and what truths to believe. It has become easier for countries like Hungary to plow under the crop than to try to disseminate between what is fact and what is farse with Monsanto's disastrous reputation and communication failures.
There is also the factor that when Monsanto seeds are found to be present on land, they fight for ownership of those seeds, and consider them as patent infringement, theft, or whatever you want to call it. Rather than fight the giant in court every time their seeds blow into a field, it's easier to wipe them off the map.
You are right, we should ban all genetically modified organisms.
Diabetics don't need a cheap source of insulin. And all the second generation antiobiotics & medicines, who needs them - lets go back to sulfa drugs and blood leeching like the early 1910s.
And those GMO organisms that have been fortified to produce additional vitamins that are being used to battle malnutrition in 3rd countries, screw those people, right?
And hemaphiacs and people that need human growth hormone - screw them as well. Let's limit their options and up the cost on them.
I get it, some companies may misuse the technology. However, to say ALL GMOs are bad because of how some companies may misuse the technology is ignorant.
Diabetics don't need a cheap source of insulin. And all the second generation antiobiotics & medicines, who needs them - lets go back to sulfa drugs and blood leeching like the early 1910s.
And those GMO organisms that have been fortified to produce additional vitamins that are being used to battle malnutrition in 3rd countries, screw those people, right?
And hemaphiacs and people that need human growth hormone - screw them as well. Let's limit their options and up the cost on them.
I get it, some companies may misuse the technology. However, to say ALL GMOs are bad because of how some companies may misuse the technology is ignorant.
Literally, the way the negativity to GMOs as presented in this thread makes it look like you and Lynn are against all GMOs. No where was it written, some may be ok, but in this case they are bad. I posted the NAS aid GMOs are safe and all that was posted was negativity towards them, no acknowledgement of there positives.
I just asked a few friends if i misread this thread and both said it looks like I'm talking to 2 anti-GMO, anti-science folks. Sorry if I misread from the post, it sure seems like I was reading 100% anti-GMO people from post content.
I can agree with that. Look at the science, not politics or the money behind politics that may drive policy.
I am skeptical about GMO products. Some of it from pure ignorance on my part, some of it because their business practices make me not trust them. It is sad that politics and money have made the truth so hard to.find.
RD78 has there ever been a study on GMOS and any links to obesity? Always been curious if there was a link between the two.
RD78 has there ever been a study on GMOS and any links to obesity? Always been curious if there was a link between the two.
I did a quick pubmed search and didn't find a specific study, however it is very possible that some modification could result in increased obesity, simply by increasing caloric intake per gram of food or by producing some by product that could induce obesity.
I guess my biggest issue is the broad brush painted against GMOs. My questions would be - what was modified? How did it the genetic changes affect downstream chemical composition? Just because something was modified, does not necessarily mean something is bad or good.
I would applaud regulations that require toxicity testing with any GMO food prior to production for human consumption or banning some toxic by products. I just believe the technique in and of itself is safe. Not all uses of it may be safe, but they should be judged on a case by case basis.
You do realize from your statement that you are saying you have no actual problem with genetically-modified organisms, right?
You said remove these issues.....
The 2 issues in the article have nothing to with GMOs per se.
Issue 1 - Monsanto soaks the seeds in potentially unsafe amounts of essentially Round Up. So it is not the seed that is bad, its the business practice of Monsanto soaking the seed.
Issue 2 - Monsanto suing like crazy. Again, it's not the GMO seeds, it's Monsanto's business practice.
So, you said remove these 2 issues and GMOs would be wonderful.
The 2 issues are business practices.
Remove business practices and you are left with the actual genetically-modified seed.
So by your own statement the GMO seed itself is wonderful.
Yes, GMO seed is wonderful except that it cross pollinates with non GMO crops giving an aggressively litigious Monsanto an excuse to sue the owners of the infected crops. Also the poison (glyphosate) that is used on the seed so it will grow is highly toxic to humans. Other than that GMO's are lovely.
It's sorta like saying Kool-Aid is fun and tasty. Kool-Aid served by Jim Jones not so much.
It's sorta like saying Kool-Aid is fun and tasty. Kool-Aid served by Jim Jones not so much.
Glyphosate is not used so the seed will grow. GMO seeds are made resistant to that when they are treated with glyphosate, competition will die and these seeds will not.
And not all GMOs have the genes for glyphosate resistance cloned into them.
And the other point. Monsanto does not equal GMOs. There are more companies and GMOs than those produced by Monsanto. It drives me crazy that you cannot seem to separate what Monsanto does with its seeds from GMO food products made by other companies.
Seriously, equating Monsanto's practices to all GMOs is the same as saying all police are terrible, racists because of the recent shootings by some cops.
And not all GMOs have the genes for glyphosate resistance cloned into them.
And the other point. Monsanto does not equal GMOs. There are more companies and GMOs than those produced by Monsanto. It drives me crazy that you cannot seem to separate what Monsanto does with its seeds from GMO food products made by other companies.
Seriously, equating Monsanto's practices to all GMOs is the same as saying all police are terrible, racists because of the recent shootings by some cops.
Regardless, Monsanto is extremely litigious. Read up on what they've done to the spice industry in India.
Monsanto is the biggest player and the biggest problem. You wanna talk GMO problems you talk about Monsanto.
That's literally like saying, you want to talk about about pizza, you talk about about Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut makes pizza, but Pizza Hut is not pizza. Monsanto may make GMOs, but Monsanto is not a GMO. The whole point about the NAS is that GMOs are safe from a science standpoint. They said nothing about Monsanto's (or any company's) business practices.
If you cannot seperate 2 different topics: the science behind GMOs versus Monsanto's practices, then we are at an impasse. Science and Business Practices are 2 different things.
Pizza hut isn't much different than dominos or papa johns or any other pizza chain and nobody is banning them from any markets. Countries around the world, however, are banning Monsanto products because of the litany of problems associated with Monsanto.
