Support NeoGAF

[CornBurrito]

I spelled that out fairly clearly stated that more natural = less technology in between food to table.

Why is more technology bad?

Why is technology unnnatural? Are humans not a product of natural selection? If we are, what makes things we create (ie. a building, or a computer) somehow less natural than something another animal creates (ie. honey, beaver dams, anthills)?

The only way to argue that something generated by humans in unnatural is to argue that humans are somehow supernatural.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Really don't see anything wrong with commercial protectionism when it means protecting your own domestic industries and propping up local farming operations when the alternative means they all need to "go big or go home" with monoculture GMO crops in order to compete with the ultra-cheap (yay taxpayer subsidies) American products that will surely begin being shipped from halfway across the world to flood the market and drive down prices.

Well, again, my point was simply that the EU blocking GM produce from the US had nothing to do with "GM produce isn't safe!" as the person I quoted was alluding to.

I'd also point out that you probably already consume plenty of produce "shipped from hallway around the world", but that's pretty much neither here nor there.

In the end I have always, and will continue to always, advocate for local produce over grocery store produce. You can not beat the taste of freshly picked tomatoes, especially not with the sawdust and sugar ones you find in a grocery store. GM crops change none of that. Time from vine to plate will have more impact on taste (and hopefully thus purchasing decisions!) than almost any other factor.

I spelled that out fairly clearly stated that more natural = less technology in between food to table.

You didn't answer what the half truths in the article are.

And I'd argue that GM crops which are made to last longer would involve "less technology in between food to table" than current produce, which is usually picked before it's ripe and artificially en route to your grocery store.

 

[Mael]

And I'd argue that GM crops which are made to last longer would involve "less technology in between food to table" than current produce

And now I picture the apples I bought from walmart from 5 months ago that are never going bad and taste like shit. Like actual shit.

 

[heliosRAzi]

"You're not morons, you're idiots".
If you don't understand my point at least put it clearly.
Again there's nothing to gain from an end customer PoV and it raises concern that is handwaved in the most patronizing manner by the pro crowd.
Don't assume that the only knowledge people have of genetic is from Metal Gear Solid, genetic is part of the curriculum after all.

I meant ignorant and misinformed in the best way possible. Before last year, I was ignorant on the issue. Ignorance isn't a necessarily bad thing. Willful ignorance is rancid, though.

There's more than health issues that makes GMOs undesirable anyway.

Such as?

 

[Mael]

I meant ignorant and misinformed in the best way possible. Before last year, I was ignorant on the issue. Ignorance isn't a necessarily bad thing. Willful ignorance is rancid, though.

And depending on how you go about the messaging you can put people off.
Seriously GMO are losing that battle in a major way.

Such as?

For example :

Really don't see anything wrong with commercial protectionism when it means protecting your own domestic industries and propping up local farming operations when the alternative means they all need to "go big or go home" with monoculture GMO crops in order to compete with the ultra-cheap (yay taxpayer subsidies) American products that will surely begin being shipped from halfway across the world to flood the market and drive down prices.

Again the fact that there's no gain for the European customer should be enough reason why the European customer doesn't want it.
Going behind their back and telling them to not worry about it is only going to make matters worse.

 

[Stet]

And now I picture the apples I bought from walmart from 5 months ago that are never going bad and taste like shit. Like actual shit.

Apples last a long time because they're covered in wax. It's been that way for decades.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Well, again, my point was simply that the EU blocking GM produce from the US had nothing to do with "GM produce isn't safe!" as the person I quoted was alluding to.

I'd also point out that you probably already consume plenty of produce "shipped from hallway around the world", but that's pretty much neither here nor there.

In the end I have always, and will continue to always, advocate for local produce over grocery store produce. You can not beat the taste of freshly picked tomatoes, especially not with the sawdust and sugar ones you find in a grocery store. GM crops change none of that. Time from vine to plate will have more impact on taste (and hopefully thus purchasing decisions!) than almost any other factor.

Sometimes I do, but in the last few years I have made a conscious effort to stop.

I tend to shop locally these days for almost all food, especially meat and produce. If it's not coming in from within 100 miles or so, I typically avoid it. No Chilean tomatoes in the winter months for me.

Obviously, I don't enforce this 100%, especially when eating out, but it's something I generally try to adhere to.

 

[Unbounded]

So after doing some of that reading and following the conversation, I'm not really convinced of any negatives to gmos in terms of health/consumption. Can anyone point me towards anything relating gmos to their long-term effects on the environment? (for better or worse?)

Preferably anything that actually has sources cited and whatnots.

 

[Mael]

Apples last a long time because they're covered in wax. It's been that way for decades.

Well I guess it depends on the process used to make them last.
I know that's the 1rst time encountering something so fucking disgusting.
I never had apples lasting more than 3 weeks before.

 

[heliosRAzi]

And depending on how you go about the messaging you can put people off.

Oh no doubt about it, however, since a lot of places still use GMOs, I don't think they are losing a battle.

For example :


Again the fact that there's no gain for the European customer should be enough reason why the European customer doesn't want it.
Going behind their back and telling them to not worry about it is only going to make matters worse.

That sounds more like a case against globalization and Monsanto instead of just GMOs. A farmer in Europe can still use GMO crops if they choose to.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You see that is a position that doesn't go against science. Saying they are being disallowed because they are inherently unsafe is.

Sure. I've said it many times in this thread, but I think mass approval or disapproval of "GMOs" is idiotic. They're not all the same and shouldn't be treated as such. Ideally, each and every new food product should be thoroughly examined and tested before entering the market.

 

[Drifters]

That article is not relevant to your argument.

You happen to miss this part:

The trend has confirmed some food safety groups' belief that biotechnology won't reduce the use of chemicals in the long run.

"That's being reversed," said Bill Freese, a chemist with the Washington, D.C.-based Center For Food Safety, which promotes organic agriculture. "They're going to dramatically increase use of those chemicals, and that's bad news."

The first weeds in the U.S. that survived Roundup were found about 10 years ago in Delaware.

Agricultural experts said the use of other chemicals is already creeping up. Monsanto and other companies are developing new seeds designed to resist older herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D, a weed killer developed during World War II and an ingredient in Agent Orange, which was used to destroy jungle foliage during the Vietnam War and is blamed for health problems among veterans.

Penn State University weed scientist David Mortensen estimates that in three or four years, farmers' use of dicamba and 2,4-D will increase by 55.1 million pounds a year because of resistance to Roundup. That would push both far up the list of herbicides heavily used by farmers.

My argument on this is that Herbicides used to protect crops are going to increase in use, not decrease due to resistance. It is a constant escalation and before people start saying... "Well by George, we'll just splice some new DNA into Corn for the new herbicides..." the causality is and has forever been the food modified and the ground it has grown in. Hardly irrelevant to my point.

 

[Stet]

Well I guess it depends on the process used to make them last.
I know that's the 1rst time encountering something so fucking disgusting.

It has nothing to do with GMO regardless. There are zero GMO apples available commercially. The first approval happened about a month ago, and they aren't being grown yet.

 

[soleil]

Why is more technology bad?

Why is technology unnnatural? Are humans not a product of natural selection? If we are, what makes things we create (ie. a building, or a computer) somehow less natural than something another animal creates (ie. honey, beaver dams, anthills)?

The only way to argue that something generated by humans in unnatural is to argue that humans are somehow supernatural.

It's obviously a generalization and should be applied intelligently, but it isn't completely 100% absolutely without merit. Most food companies are in it for profit and therefore most manipulation in food is meant to make the food cheaper, not necessarily healthier. Last manipulation, less of that factors into it.

 

[Mael]

Oh no doubt about it, however, since a lot of places still use GMOs, I don't think they are losing a battle.

The fact that everytime GMOs are mentionned it's pretty much a boogeyman that you have to hide in order for people to even consider buying your stuffs is pretty telling.
If you can afford it most of the time people will absolutely avoid GMOs.

That sounds more like a case against globalization and Monsanto instead of just GMOs. A farmer in Europe can still use GMO crops if they choose to.

For better or for worse, Monsanto is the face of GMOs.

It has nothing to do with GMO regardless. There are zero GMO apples available commercially. The first approval happened about a month ago, and they aren't being grown yet.

I guess I made a wrong assumption,
I guess my eternal apples are just fucking disgusting apples more than GMO apples...
Also the assumption from Europe is that every single food item is GMO shit from Monsanto and the likes if it's not organic (and even then...)
What I'm saying is that American food have really bad reputation here.

 

[Necromanti]

You happen to miss this part:


My argument on this is that Herbicides used to protect crops are going to increase in use, not decrease due to resistance. It is a constant escalation and before people start saying... "Well by George, we'll just splice some new DNA into Corn for the new herbicides..." the causality is and has forever been the food modified and the ground it has grown in. Hardly irrelevant to my point.

But you posted that article to back up this following assertion, no?

As to the poison (aka Round Up) leaking into the food, there are numerous studies that show Round Up lasting up to a week in the soil and causing longer term issues with plants whether for local ingestion or simply for exterior curb appeal.

If anything, what you posted seemed to indicate that Roundup is safer than any alternative, but that resistance to it in weeds will cause farmers to have to go back to older and more harmful herbicides. Maybe I misunderstood your original argument.

It's obviously a generalization and should be applied intelligently, but it isn't completely 100% absolutely without merit. Most food companies are in it for profit and therefore most manipulation in food is meant to make the food cheaper, not necessarily healthier. Last manipulation, less of that factors into it.

Which is not to say that "organic", "GMO-free" foods are not being produced for the exact same profit-driven reasons. (If anything, they know they have a market for it and can sell it at a higher price despite there not being a tangible benefit for the consumer.)

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It's obviously a generalization and should be applied intelligently, but it isn't completely 100% absolutely without merit. Most food companies are in it for profit and therefore most manipulation in food is meant to make the food cheaper, not necessarily healthier. Last manipulation, less of that factors into it.

I think this is definitely the line of thinking when it comes to most people's concerns. Inherent distrust of human intent, especially when it comes to profit-driven corporations.

Such concerns are demonstrably unfounded in many cases, but I can't blame people for being cautious about what they eat.

 

[soleil]

I think this is definitely the line of thinking when it comes to most people's concerns. Inherent distrust of human intent, especially when it comes to profit-driven corporations.

Such concerns are demonstrably unfounded in many cases, but I can't blame people for being cautious about what they eat.

In many cases, yeah, but unless you have the spare time to research each case, I don't blame people for playing it safe.

 

[Drifters]

But you posted that article to back up this following assertion, no? If anything, what you posted seemed to indicate that Roundup is safer than any alternative, but that resistance to it in weeds will cause farmers to have to go back to older and more harmful herbicides. Maybe I misunderstood your original argument.

Yes to both. The fact that the theme trending in this thread is about "concentration" of said chemical, in this case, more chemical in said ground means that either alternatives will be used (regardless as Farmer has to make money from crops) and two, the things that suffer are the ground for planting and the food that is planted in it.

And then this:

Which is not to say that "organic", "GMO-free" foods are not being produced for the exact same profit-driven reasons.

Isn't that a false equivalency? Aren't all foods created by large farm companies there to drive profit while the benefit is to sustain life?*

Spoiler

*completely tongue in cheek... I get what you're saying and I do agree that "Organic" doesn't mean the same thing everywhere and GMO-Free also doesn't mean the same thing everywhere.

 

[AbsolutBro]

And now I picture the apples I bought from walmart from 5 months ago that are never going bad and taste like shit. Like actual shit.

Haha. Apples are a bit of a funny case. The apples you see in stores are all pretty well maintained hybrids. Most stores wouldn't sell these. They're not shiny, oddly shaped and generally as pretty as you're used to. Hell, the taste test winner looks almost like a potato!

Sometimes I do, but in the last few years I have made a conscious effort to stop.

I tend to shop locally these days for almost all food, especially meat and produce. If it's not coming in from within 100 miles or so, I typically avoid it. No Chilean tomatoes in the winter months for me.

Obviously, I don't enforce this 100%, especially when eating out, but it's something I generally try to adhere to.

It is something I really wish more people would do; buying locally. It's probably more expensive, and definitely a bit more work but the rewards are, in my opinion, well worth it. Your food just tastes immeasurably better, and you can usually find out exactly what went into growing your food (e.g. asking about pesticides or herbicides used).

After that it's just a short step to growing your own! Even a reasonably sized porch or balcony with good sunlight can be a spot for some kinds of tomatoes! I'm spoiled and have plenty of space to grow my own veggies, so I fully admit my bias! And yet as much as I advocate for GMOs, the majority of what I grow is heirlooms. Kind of funny.

 

[heliosRAzi]

You happen to miss this part:


My argument on this is that Herbicides used to protect crops are going to increase in use, not decrease due to resistance. It is a constant escalation and before people start saying... "Well by George, we'll just splice some new DNA into Corn for the new herbicides..." the causality is and has forever been the food modified and the ground it has grown in. Hardly irrelevant to my point.

This was your argument, though

As to the poison (aka Round Up) leaking into the food, there are numerous studies that show Round Up lasting up to a week in the soil and causing longer term issues with plants whether for local ingestion or simply for exterior curb appeal.

Link:http://www.gardenguides.com/130007-soil-toxicity-roundup.html

-----------------------------

The fact that everytime GMOs are mentionned it's pretty much a boogeyman that you have to hide in order for people to even consider buying your stuffs is pretty telling.

Not really. If it were, we'd be seeing a bigger push from everyone.

 

[Nocebo]

I don't get what is supposedly unnatural about GMOs? Sounds completely like nature to me.

 

[Kinitari]

You happen to miss this part:


My argument on this is that Herbicides used to protect crops are going to increase in use, not decrease due to resistance. It is a constant escalation and before people start saying... "Well by George, we'll just splice some new DNA into Corn for the new herbicides..." the causality is and has forever been the food modified and the ground it has grown in. Hardly irrelevant to my point.

So I think you misunderstand something.

1. All herb/insecticides gain resistance
2. Basically all farms use these
3. Glyphosate is significantly safer than it replaced.

 

[soleil]

Which is not to say that "organic", "GMO-free" foods are not being produced for the exact same profit-driven reasons. (If anything, they know they have a market for it and can sell it at a higher price despite there not being a tangible benefit for the consumer.)

100% right. The organic label is not as meaningful as what most people think, and is also geared toward profit. But still, the mentality of the type of eater who wants less processing is a loosely logical thought process.

 

[Mael]

Not really. If it were, we'd be seeing a bigger push from everyone.

I'm going to assume you don't live in Europe.

 

[heliosRAzi]

I'm going to assume you don't live in Europe.

Nope

 

[Freshmaker]

Man, I wonder what people think of the human genome when they find out a large chunks of our DNA is viral in origin. Making our DNA... GENETICALLY MODIFIED!

They usually just say; "Something something something natural!"

 

[Wilsongt]

They usually just say; "Something something something natural!"

And I posted an article yesterday about natural gmos.

As well as an article about why people are afraid of gmos.

Looking at how this topic is going, people will never be convinced, which is par for the course.

 

[heliosRAzi]

And I posted an article yesterday about natural gmos.

As well as an article about why people are afraid of gmos.

Looking at how this topic is going, people will never be convinced, which is par for the course.

Well, you see, climate change deniers, fracking, and nuclear energy

 

[Wilsongt]

Well, you see, climate change deniers, fracking, and nuclear energy

Gasp! People are so misinformed on the internet!!

 

[heliosRAzi]

Gasp! People are so misinformed on the internet!!

You have to look at the facts. I read this blog from a computer scientist that says that CHEMICALS are in our food.

 

[Nose Master]

Do anti GMO people eat bananas or corn? Both of those were changed insanely to become what we have now, no?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You guys, he's right. Science is wrong. Might as well teaching creationism and stop taking vaccines. Earth goes around the sun. Blah blah blah.

I don't want to eat atoms.

Or it could be the new TOXINS

OMG, the chemicals!

Apples have formaldehyde in them, too

BRB, rubbing glass on my dick

Tell me more about these awesome PLANT chemicals

My food needs to be sun-free. No more photosynthesis.

Can't trust nuclear energy. The sun is exploding everyday. We can't have that.

You have to look at the facts. I read this blog from a computer scientist that says that CHEMICALS are in our food.

You really like the whole sarcastic disparaging approach, don't you?

 

[heliosRAzi]

You really like the whole sarcastic disparaging approach, don't you?

I do. Glyphosate caused it in vitro.

 

[Mael]

Nope

That explains so much.
For example, in France no ONE except fringe green party guys have any problem with nuclear energy at all.
Even better if other countries are feeling like they want to cripple their competitivity, more power to them.

Well, you see, climate change deniers, fracking, and nuclear energy

You have to look at the facts. I read this blog from a computer scientist that says that CHEMICALS are in our food.

And this is the kind of attitude that really discredit any inroad you could make with any argument.

 

[heliosRAzi]

That explains so much.
For example, in France no ONE except fringe green party guys have any problem with nuclear energy at all.
Even better if other countries are feeling like they want to cripple their competitivity, more power to them.

So a country growing GMO crops is going to cripple their competitiveness?

And this is the kind of attitude that really discredit any inroad you could make with any argument.

My assholish has no bearing on the facts. You are free to go look up everything about GMOs

 

[Mael]

So a country growing GMO crops is going to cripple their competitiveness?

.





Your head.

My assholish has no bearing on the facts. You are free to go look up everything about GMOs

And here again you totally miss the point of the debate of GMO and why European are not willing to use them.

 

[Izuna]

And here again you totally miss the point of the debate of GMO and why European are not willing to use them.

In a way I think you've missed the point.

You have one point that there are reasons based on perception etc. as to why countries don't openly approve GMOs, but you must have noticed by now that this wasn't exactly the topic the user you are quoting was arguing.

A lot of the making fun and discussion from one side has been about "this is why GMOs aren't bad for you." That there is a perception problem is already implied in this thread. EU/Japan etc. don't approve things the US does according to the idea of a free-market, so it is regulated a bit more.

I want to ask if you live in the EU.

I never hear people talk about GMOs on UK Television or otherwise. The only time I have ever seen it mentioned outside of school, debates or forums is on Jimmy Kimmel Live (YouTube) haha.

But UK != Europe anyway.

--

There really isn't much reason to be anti-GMO across the board. Take Bangladesh for example. They try to make compelling reasons to reject Bt brinjal based on basically asking for "more research please!" -- it had already been approved but its use has been drastically hurt by activists who don't look at the research already available. At the very least, that's how I feel.

The way I see it, if GMOs get a good reputation in the west then it would be easier for USAid to send the message to South Asia that this crop works, whether or not they have done the extensive research. So yeah it is important, I think, that MEDCs adopt the use of GMOs where necessary.

A relatively hungry country being able to get high yields of Aubergine but activists trying to stop it just seems like a mess-up of ethics.

Mansur Sarker is the only Bt brinjal grower in Gazipur who has had a high yield. But he has to face the ire of people who are against the GM crop. Photograph: Saad Hammadi

--

At the very least, the activists asked for "more research" as opposed to completely misunderstand the research already available, thinking that GMOs is cyanide to nature just because it's technology. That is what I don't get about anti-GMO in this thread.

 

[heliosRAzi]

.





Your head.



And here again you totally miss the point of the debate of GMO and why European are not willing to use them.

What is the point, then?

 

[Resident_UA]

I know this was like 5 pages ago, but I want to address it only because I spend most of my free time lately working on my vegetable garden. I also used to LOATHE tomatoes; they were always mushy, flavorless, bland wastes of space. The first year I grew my garden my mind was completely blown.

Thanks! Too bad I'm too lazy spending time trying to figure out where to get good tomatoes. I know that grocery stores are not it and few times I tried local markets I wasn't huge fan either (NJ). Maybe at some point I will get to growing them on my own. Would need to buy a house for that though

I wish people were more picky about what they eat. Some of the fruits/vegetables sold in the store are just a joke...

 

[Trokil]

Just an addition because there were some interesting articles published:

So after years of studies from WWF, Greenpeace and other organisations, which of course were all thrown away as nonsense from “serious” scientists, even the corporate shill WHO has to admit that Glyphosate may cause cancer after all. At least there are indications, which is already a lot for an organisation like the WHO and as you may read in the articles is already attacked by Monsanto.

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-

http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181


Of course the GMO industry and the usual suspects are telling everybody again, that this is all complete hogwash and there is nothing wrong with Glyphosate.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/glyphosate-causes-cancer-apples/

And again after it was found in blood, urine and even breast milk a lot of scientists, who strangely enough will not publish who is funding their research are still insisting, that there is not real prove, that Glyphosate may cause cancer or that it is even a bad thing, that is found in your body.

So why is Glyphosate so important.

Quote from the nature article:

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely produced herbicide, by volume. It is used extensively in agriculture and is also found in garden products in many countries. The chemical is an ingredient in Monsanto's weedkiller product Roundup, and glyphosate has become more popular with the increasing market share of crops that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide.

For example in Switzerland the two biggest retailers are taking all Glyphosate products out of their stores. Not because it is proven, that Roundup may cause cancer, but because there is a chance and safety first when it comes to cancer. Of course in US it is still perfectly safe, as it always was and maybe still be for a very long time. There is a lot of money involved in Glyphosate especially in the GMO business, because a lot of weed is growing resistant to Roundup and Roundup ready crop is one of the most important product billions of dollars are at stake. So until there is no absolute proof from a government agency that it is causing cancer, nothing will happen. And even after such a result it still may take years until some legislation is made.

All of this is very interesting, because the whole discussion is also about science and who GMO and Glyphosate are safe and everybody with a different opinion is getting compared to climate change deniers or vaccination lunatics. Which of course is all very strange. Because we use Glyphosate like crazy (as all studies have shown since GMO crop is used in the US Glyphosate use has skyrocket), but still are not sure what the results may be, everybody even remotely critical is getting shouted down. Even comparisons to DDT or asbestos which also where safe before they were outlawed, are completely thrown overboard. It is almost like a religion GMO, Glyphosate and everything in this system is safe. All of this is very strange, that there is so little concern about the things you eat and that even though a lot of research is still done, technology seems to be infallible and may save us all. Which brings us back to the almost religious aspect of the whole conversation.

 

[jamesinclair]

I, for one, am shocked that a product designed to kill things can in fact have negative health consequences. Shocked.

Next youll tell me that rat poison is a bad snack!

 

[Stet]

Just an addition because there were some interesting articles published:

So after years of studies from WWF, Greenpeace and other organisations, which of course were all thrown away as nonsense from “serious” scientists, even the corporate shill WHO has to admit that Glyphosate may cause cancer after all. At least there are indications, which is already a lot for an organisation like the WHO and as you may read in the articles is already attacked by Monsanto.

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-

http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181


Of course the GMO industry and the usual suspects are telling everybody again, that this is all complete hogwash and there is nothing wrong with Glyphosate.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/glyphosate-causes-cancer-apples/

And again after it was found in blood, urine and even breast milk a lot of scientists, who strangely enough will not publish who is funding their research are still insisting, that there is not real prove, that Glyphosate may cause cancer or that it is even a bad thing, that is found in your body.

So why is Glyphosate so important.

Quote from the nature article:



For example in Switzerland the two biggest retailers are taking all Glyphosate products out of their stores. Not because it is proven, that Roundup may cause cancer, but because there is a chance and safety first when it comes to cancer. Of course in US it is still perfectly safe, as it always was and maybe still be for a very long time. There is a lot of money involved in Glyphosate especially in the GMO business, because a lot of weed is growing resistant to Roundup and Roundup ready crop is one of the most important product billions of dollars are at stake. So until there is no absolute proof from a government agency that it is causing cancer, nothing will happen. And even after such a result it still may take years until some legislation is made.

All of this is very interesting, because the whole discussion is also about science and who GMO and Glyphosate are safe and everybody with a different opinion is getting compared to climate change deniers or vaccination lunatics. Which of course is all very strange. Because we use Glyphosate like crazy (as all studies have shown since GMO crop is used in the US Glyphosate use has skyrocket), but still are not sure what the results may be, everybody even remotely critical is getting shouted down. Even comparisons to DDT or asbestos which also where safe before they were outlawed, are completely thrown overboard. It is almost like a religion GMO, Glyphosate and everything in this system is safe. All of this is very strange, that there is so little concern about the things you eat and that even though a lot of research is still done, technology seems to be infallible and may save us all. Which brings us back to the almost religious aspect of the whole conversation.

Do you think the G in GMO stands for Glyphosate?

 

[CornBurrito]

Trokill, what does an herbicide have to do with GMO crops?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Let's set aside, for a moment, the question of whether or not Glyphosate is safe. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Maybe it's a question of dosage. Whatever. It's certainly safer than the herbicides it replaced.

GMO does not == Glyphosate. There's a ton of benefits genetically modified crops bring to the table. Chipotle (and of course various governments) are taking them off the table for patently stupid reasons. That's the core issue here.

I, for one, am shocked that a product designed to kill things can in fact have negative health consequences. Shocked.

Next youll tell me that rat poison is a bad snack!

Dosage is everything, dude. Salt kills slugs pretty good, and enough of it will kill you too, but that doesn't mean you have to be terrified of it.

 

[jamesinclair]

Trokill, what does an herbicide have to do with GMO crops?

GMOs are engineered to resist larger quantities of poison. That means farmers can spray larger quantities of poison. These larger quantities of poison are absorbed by the plans, and then eaten by you. Further, these large quantities of poison enter the watershed and are absorbed by fish, eaten also by you.

What do you think "Roundup Ready" means?

 

[Stet]

GMOs are engineered to resist larger quantities of poison. That means farmers can spray larger quantities of poison. These larger quantities of poison are absorbed by the plans, and then eaten by you. Further, these large quantities of poison enter the watershed and are absorbed by fish, eaten also by you.

What do you think "Roundup Ready" means?

Roundup Ready crops aren't engineered to resist "larger quantities" of glyphosate. They're engineered to withstand any of it. The modification turned glyphosate from a pre-season field burn-down into an herbicide that could be sprayed after planting, which theoretically means that it only has to be sprayed in the event of volunteer plants instead of every season across the entire field.

 

[spootime]

Trokil, you should read the skepticalraptor article that you linked. You blindly dismissed it, and I'm assuming you never read it in the first place.

For you to associate it with the GMO industry is especially hilarious because the author specifically speaks about pro GMO bloggers dismissing scientific evidence, and acting like corporate shills.

 

[SURGEdude]

GMOs are engineered to resist larger quantities of poison. That means farmers can spray larger quantities of poison. These larger quantities of poison are absorbed by the plans, and then eaten by you. Further, these large quantities of poison enter the watershed and are absorbed by fish, eaten also by you.

What do you think "Roundup Ready" means?

Why would farmers spray more pesticide and spend more money on it for a crop that is more resistant to pests than non GMO crops?

 

[Reeks]

but will still make you shit your brains out