Link
The Autumn Wind
It'll be a cold day in hell before I put dihydrogen monoxide into my body!
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Newsweek: GMO Scientists Could Save the World From Hunger, If We Let Them
- Thread starter Chichikov
- Start date
- Status
videogamephilosopher
Banned
Just label the foods GMO. Nothing wrong with having options.
Regulate it with a board that has transparent, public and third party research on the effects that has on humans (lab rats) etc on an going basis, instead of short cycles ( a few months).
Everyone should be happy.
Regulate it with a board that has transparent, public and third party research on the effects that has on humans (lab rats) etc on an going basis, instead of short cycles ( a few months).
Everyone should be happy.
It's not so much GMO but the food industry that drives that.
For example, more than 50% of the potato crops in the US is the Russet Burbank, which was engineered the old fashion way in the 19th century, because fast food joints like to make fries out of it.
Bastards putting them Dihydrogen Monoxide and Deoxyribonucleic acid in our food! What's next, Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate in our bread???
I wish it was that easy. You label something people automatically assume it's bad. If the government wants to set up a website or something where you can look up GMO foods that's one thing, but having a label that says "Contains Genetically Modified Organisms" is only going to cause undue panic, and wreak havoc on the progress of the science progress of the field.
And of course there's going to be research on GMO's, there has been and will be in the future. We don't really need a regulatory board as so long as it's been show to be non harmful (as it has been time and time again).
videogamephilosopher
Banned
9 out of 10 doctors recommended cigarettes at one point. Be proactive with your Health whether you think something is good for you or not.
Does the article also mention that most GMO seeds can only be used once before they become infertile? As I'm sure most know, farmers would traditionally save a number of seeds from the previous harvest to plant in the next harvest. This would continue every season so that farmers could remain self-sufficient (and self sustainable). However, GMO seeds are specifically manufactured to break down after the initial harvest so that farmers are forced to reorder seeds every year. Some farmers attempted to reuse the seeds but were hit with a massive lawsuit because apparently this constitutes patent infringement (yes, seeds can be patented).
I also haven't even touched on the fact that most GMOs are missing the nutrients that make non-genetically-modified food as healthy and life-supporting as it is. It's not the fact that they contain chemicals that's the problem - it's the fact that they are almost completely devoid of anything that's beneficial to the human body.
It's because of this that I refuse to support GMOs until companies like Monsanto stop screwing over the farmers with their shady practices and destructive products.
I also haven't even touched on the fact that most GMOs are missing the nutrients that make non-genetically-modified food as healthy and life-supporting as it is. It's not the fact that they contain chemicals that's the problem - it's the fact that they are almost completely devoid of anything that's beneficial to the human body.
It's because of this that I refuse to support GMOs until companies like Monsanto stop screwing over the farmers with their shady practices and destructive products.
Monocle
Member
I heard DNA is also present in bull semen. I knew Obama was depraved, but to try to force the whole nation to consume an ingredient in animal sex juice? Appalling is too mild a word.
This is one step away from bestiality and I for one do not approve.
Tagg9
Quality arguments are not my strong point.
I think you're gonna have to cite some sources on that one.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
I'll gm your o
There was never a scientific consensus that cigarettes are good for you, tobacco companies paid some physicians to endorse their products, that is true, but it's a different thing altogether.
And more broadly, while it's definitely true that the scientific consensus can be wrong from time to time, it happened in the past and it will happen in the future, science based medicine is still the best approach and will provide the best outcomes.
Though of course, being proactive about your health is always a good thing.
Hmm. I've always associated it with stuff like the Food Babe and her campaign against yoga mats in subway sandwiches. If there's more to it than that, I'd be interested to hear about it.
I know right? I hate that DNA in my food.
Monocle
Member
But will it fit?
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
Eh... What? Honestly.... Not sure if you are serious or not....
Opposing GMOs because a company is doing some shady bullshit with it makes as much sense as opposing computers because IBM helped the Nazis.
But to answer your question, yes, the article does mention it, you should give it a read, or at least open it up and ctrl+f "Monsanto"
.Edit - oh and -
This is just flat out wrong.
Like, you can probably genetically engineer a plant to have less nutrients if you want, but why would you?
In fact, you can genetically engineer plants to be healthier, and there is work done in that area already.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
Chipotle doesn't "really" oppose it. It is more a fact that tons of their customers are susceptible to anti-GMO rhetoric and they are jumping out of the danger zone, marketing man...
I miss the Carnitas though....
GMO's need a rebranding. Fear mongers have dragged the term through the mud, into the shitter, rolled it in feces, and set it on fire. Even if we silenced all the people making a profit off of making others irrationally afraid of modified foods, it's gotten to the point that no matter how much actual information and truth is given out, a large portion of the population will recoil the minute the hear GMO and refuse to listen to reason and fact.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Sure. Like nuclear power could save the world, right? I am not against GMO. But I am against an industry which wants to use new risky technology without regulation. This isn't about "scientists who could save the world", this is about capitalists wanting to make a shitload of money right now without being bothered by governments and their regulations. And this headline reads like a paid ad from said industry. There is valid criticism of certain GMO aspects. I expect that we can solve most of these issues, but this takes time and a lot of research.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
I'm over that bullshit about GMO's saving the world from hunger.
The US has had a long history of corporations saying things are safe and then coming back after the fact with apologies and settlements to go around (if lucky.) Personally for me, I would be fine with GMO's existence if these corporations armed to the teeth with lawyers wouldn't fight anything and everything to hide the existence of GMO's in food. If they weren't lobbying for a bill that takes the ability to hold them liable away. It's not just propaganda that gives GMO's a bad name for me, it's the industry and their actions.
- I'm not the one starving; I have to a right to know what has it and what doesn't
- Those who are starving are still starving because GMO's aren't being used to feed those that would die from starvation.
- On one hand they haven't found evidence it causes harm however on the other hand they can't find evidence that it doesn't.
- They're lobbying a bill right now to take our rights away to file suit in the case that they do.
The US has had a long history of corporations saying things are safe and then coming back after the fact with apologies and settlements to go around (if lucky.) Personally for me, I would be fine with GMO's existence if these corporations armed to the teeth with lawyers wouldn't fight anything and everything to hide the existence of GMO's in food. If they weren't lobbying for a bill that takes the ability to hold them liable away. It's not just propaganda that gives GMO's a bad name for me, it's the industry and their actions.
videogamephilosopher
Banned
It is that easy. I don't want to beat my cigarette analogies into the ground but cigarettes are labeled to cause cancer and people still consume them. Foods people consume daily are shown to be bad for them due to high fat sugar or sodium, you don't think the common shopper will buy food that they don't know is good or bad for them. If someone wants something they will consume it.
Furthermore with your logic people that see a GMO-Free should be just as worried with individuals claiming GMO to be better. We always need a regulatory board. If you don't have anything to worry about let the results of your actions be properly documented and open to the public and scrutiny. The research is still in its infancy in regards to GMO and Non GMO consumption. so short trials are not adequate. I don't GMO's being conclusive one way or the other yet.
It is regulated.Gemüsepizza;164780352 said:
I'm sure there's room to improvement in the regulatory process, there always is, but we should focus our energy on improving it rather than fighting scientific progress.
Though in general the FDA is doing an okay job I think, especially when compared to other government regulatory bodies.
I mean sure, corporations has too much influence over the US government, but if that's your reason to not buy GMOs, you might as well not buy, well, pretty much everything.
Monocle
Member
Perfection.
Ad. 1 What?
Ad. 2 WHAT
Ad. 3 "There is no evidence of it, but nobody says there WON'T be any evidence!" ok. There is no evidence that when viewed from fourth dimension Earth actually is a plate held up by elephants on a turtle, so I choose to believe so.
This entire list reads like a parody tbh. Not sure if I'm falling for a troll or not, I seriously hope I do.
zero shift
Banned
GMOs are the American liberal equivalence of climate change. Constant denial despite an overwhelming amount of evidence stating the contrary.
Anyway world hunger is a political problem and not a resource one. The only benefit we would get from doubling the world's supply of food is cheaper food.
Anyway world hunger is a political problem and not a resource one. The only benefit we would get from doubling the world's supply of food is cheaper food.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
I'm more worried about known foodbourne illnesses than a very hypothetical situation in which a GMO is harmful. They firstly test for any allergens.
Yeah, and gm seeds are being made drought resistant and vitamin rich for those populations.
Wiktor
Member
Is there any data that proves it? Or is it just anectodal? Because I somehow doubt vast majority of people cares as long as the food is cheap. Most of humanity does unhealthy shit many times every single day. I don't see most of them suddenly stopping buying cheap GMO food and switching to expensive organic nonsense just because they think it might be bad for them.
This has an indirect negative effect on the further production of GMO's, and therefore, *literally* the lives of starving people around the world. Do you require information regarding the grafting and selective breeding programs that went into your modern banana? Do you require information on the exact pesticides used, on the soil's chemical content in which the food was grown, the ethical stances of the farmers regarding sustainable farming and responsible water usage? Why not?
Why do you think that is?
I can't find evidence Tapatio sauce doesn't cause you long-term harm.
Are they, now?
RIP
Femmeworth
Banned
The "Your Kid Could Be a Psychopath" headline is amusing in this context. Above such appeals they are not.
This is amazing.
Muppet of a Man
Member
While the short term goal might be commendable, in the long term another green revolution will only create additional explosive population growth, furthering the problem of an unsustainable system where the carrying capacity of the land has been far exceeded and the arable land declines at an even faster rate.
You can't grow your way out of this one. Time will run out sooner or later, whether it be 50 or 100 + years from now. Everyone knows it but few want to admit it. Perhaps, quality over quantity can one day win out. Most of that GMO grain is perpetuating a growing industrial livestock system that is mostly feeding rich 1st world people (destroying their health in the process and increasing the costs associated with healthcare) and simultaneously accelerating climate change to boot. The way they are using the technology now is only exacerbating market driven problems....not solving them.
GMO me some high-density-nutrition fruits and vegetables that require less water and can grow in relatively poor soil. Let meat get more expensive by pasture raising animals at a rate that is sustainable, mitigating greenhouse gas production in the process. Livestock production will be relegated to a less "efficient" system (i.e., more expensive for humans) that will more effectively restores the health of the environment.
You can't grow your way out of this one. Time will run out sooner or later, whether it be 50 or 100 + years from now. Everyone knows it but few want to admit it. Perhaps, quality over quantity can one day win out. Most of that GMO grain is perpetuating a growing industrial livestock system that is mostly feeding rich 1st world people (destroying their health in the process and increasing the costs associated with healthcare) and simultaneously accelerating climate change to boot. The way they are using the technology now is only exacerbating market driven problems....not solving them.
GMO me some high-density-nutrition fruits and vegetables that require less water and can grow in relatively poor soil. Let meat get more expensive by pasture raising animals at a rate that is sustainable, mitigating greenhouse gas production in the process. Livestock production will be relegated to a less "efficient" system (i.e., more expensive for humans) that will more effectively restores the health of the environment.
Since it's hidden in a blind link I'm going to re-link because it's important -
If you are unaware of it, go read about the Green Revolution.
And listen, I love me some locally grown free range whatever, and I used to have chickens in my house, I grew vegetable and I even did some guerrilla gardening.
But these are all privileges of a middle class person in the developed world.
What saved hundreds of millions of people in the developing world from dying from starvation was those OMG evil pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and the industrialization of the agriculture.
Are you advocating population control through famine?
I mean yeah, population growth is a big problem that should be addressed, but having people starving is not the solution.
No, there aren't any GMO seeds on the market that become infertile after being used once. Most GMO seeds are hybrid seeds, and hybrid seeds lose significant vigor in subsequent generations - farmers haven't been saving seeds for quite a while now. Well some still do, but most don't - GMO or otherwise.
There are seed saving contracts signed between seed sellers and farmers, but farmers trying to circumvent them are pretty rare, not just because it's expensive and difficult to reuse seeds, but like I mentioned before, they are wasting their time and effort for seeds that have less vigor.
I'm not usually one to say this but [citation needed]. This is one of those things you don't want to say out loud until you double and triple check. Just take a second and think about it. GMO corn vs non GMO corn - the GMO corn has a very minute modification in it's genome to include resistance to a particular chemical (I'm thinking about BT corn by the way) - every other part of the corn genome is exactly the same. How would all the 'nutrients' suddenly vanish? I mean... does corn no longer provide caloric energy?
Monsanto isn't screwing over farmers with their shady practices and they don't have destructive products.
Gemüsepizza;164780352 said:
Nuclear power is probably the safest, cleanest energy we have available to us in any serious quantity right now. It's one of the reason my province could so quickly switch off fossil fuel plants, as we are now 50% powered by nuclear. This technology isn't new and risky - it's an old technology, further the fundamental result of genetic modification is the same regardless of the method used - that you get a modified version of a previous plant. Which means that wanting something like lab-GMOs regulated but not traditionally cross bred plants would be... confusing.
How is the research still in it's infancy? It's been researched for decades, and has more scientific consensus on it's safety than human assisted climate change does on it's existence, for example.
I reject the article's seeming assertion that GMO is the only way to feed the world.
The UN itself has issued reports that small scale sustainable farming is the way to go.
Issues of seed and food sovereignty are pretty big issues that can't be solved technically.
The UN itself has issued reports that small scale sustainable farming is the way to go.
Issues of seed and food sovereignty are pretty big issues that can't be solved technically.
Muppet of a Man
Member
And simultaneously created the problems we now face which is exponential population growth...what saved us in the short term will kill us in the long term.
- Status