My opinion on the topic? I don’t think GM food should be abolished. Many of you may wonder how I could possible believe that they shouldn’t be abolished but as a member of the agriculture industry it is quite simple. Farmers produce the healthiest food possible for consumer to eat. We feed our family and kids the same foods you do. Like most families we want to sure that the food that is ate is health and safe, if it is safe enough for us then I can assure you that it is safe for your kids and families. There have been no proven studies that indicate GM’s affect a person in any way. How many of you know the actual reason behind genetically modified foods? They’re not all about making Monsanto extremely rich (although the company benefits from it) they are for the challenging task of feeding the world. Theses minor changes in the organisms is to make them more drought resistant so that they can survive with less water, Round-up ready saves on having to apply it and makes it easier to control pests from destroying the crops. Without these organisms we would never be able to feed our country let alone the world. You think they are unnatural? What is natural anymore, humans have been making changes to things for years to further themselves and their lives. I could go on and on about this but for now let’s just leave it at GM foods should not be abolished for any reason.
:dubious:
…Nah, too easy…
Just in case this is sincere for a Zombie thread, I agree that there is a lot of unfounded fears regarding GMOs. But, that Round-up ready is one of few items that really makes me think that whoever comes out with ideas at Monsanto is a denier of evolution. It really looks like if they do not care if the result in the long run are more weeds that resist what they are putting in farms.
I am baffled that you imagine Monsanto managers might care about anything other than profits for the relatively short term.
I was slightly surprised to learn from the linked article that
The point here however is that GMO is not really the item here, when dealing with the evolution of resistance we could be talking about regular pesticides, herbicides or even future micro bots to control pests.
The problem has been that organisms eventually adapt and find ways to get around the tools very quickly, specially when one does not use different solutions to prevent the development of resistant pests, this is similar to the reckless abuse of antibiotics (and also in farming). Eventually, resistant bugs are the result.
So you must think that Sir Arthur Fleming is a denier of evolution as well.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know if this has been posted here yet…
600+ peer-reviewed, published safety assessments of GMO products.
For many, including myself, the concern about GM food is not its edibility, but possible ecological dangers.
Did you read any of the 847 papers mentioned in Budget Player Cadet’s cite on the interaction between GE crops and the environment, the 579 on biodiversity, or the 268 on gene flow?
Regards,
Shodan
The argument that genetic modification is bad because it causes pesticide resistance is only partially true (resistance has long been a problem, since way before GM crops came on the market). Insofar as GM crops encourage farmers to believe that they’ve found a silver bullet that controls pests without the usual worries of pest resistance developing, they ultimately have a detrimental effect on the environment (even though recent use of Roundup-Ready crops has had a short-term beneficial effect by discouraging use of more dangerous pesticides).
I am not really happy about the thought of creating crops resistant to those more toxic pesticides (they’re about to enter the market). Farmers need to recognize that without crop rotation and other methods to prevent development of resistance (whatever pesticides and crop varieties they’re using), they’re risking bankruptcy for short-term gains.
These concerns aside, I have been impressed recently by the blatant dishonesty and stupidity of anti-GMOers, who trumpet non-existent health risks in a manner reminiscent of the antivax movement. I used to be neutral on the subject of GMO labeling laws; now I’m against them. With all the food and other advertising already taking advantage of fears about GMOs*, there’s plenty of evidence that businesses will offer GM-free products to whoever wants them. Demanding labeling laws is nothing more than an attempt to cripple GM development through scare tactics (which also can cost lives, as in the unnecessary holdup of golden rice planting, which promises to save millions of children from blindness due to vitamin A deficiency).
*one of my favorites in this regard is vegetable and flower seed companies who proudly declare that they don’t sell any GM seeds. This self-righteousness is compromised by the fact that they are no consumer vegetable or flower varieties in existence that are GM. They might as well runs ads proclaiming that no passenger pigeons were harmed in the production of their seeds.
Seems that you missed my clarification on your drive-by.
Read it again, The issue is not GMOs but the way the end product is being used in this specific case and the resistant weeds we are getting, Incidentally thanks to the abuse of the use of antibiotics there are several bugs that penicillin could take care off before that are becoming resistant to it.
I read it the first time. Your point is still non-existent.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually your point is not made at all then, pointing at Flemming was not very related to GMOs but to resistance, so then my point stands. Monsanto is not going the biologically correct thing. GMOs are not the issue to me but how they are used, to prevent the appearance of resistant strains of weeds in this case a variety of solutions should be used, not the same one all the time.
I certainly agree that it would be true to say that the abuse of antibiotics has greatly hastened the emergence of penicillin-resistant bacteria.
But I don’t agree that what you said is true: that “thanks to the abuse” this resistance has occurred.
ANY use of antibiotics against bacterial infections will permit resistant bacteria to thrive and susceptible bacteria to perish. Abuse of antibiotics causes the process to go much quicker, to be sure, but it’s not the only cause of the process. In fact, as the Lederbergs proved, some penicillin-resistant bacteria existed before they encountered penicillin. In 1970, an experimenter showed penicillin-resistant bacteria in dormant bacterial endospores that had been revived from dried soil on the roots of plants preserved since 1689.
Not the whole picture, I agree that that was present before; but in this case, and once again the GMO is not the issue, the application of it with the pesticides from Monsanto are making the resistance a bigger issue rather than just what was already naturally out there:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/1/l_101_02.html
Incidentally, if we use your example, it does not help if there were already weeds with naturally resistance to the specific pesticides and weedkillers that Monsanto is using with his GMO crop. The end result is that the already resistant bugs or weeds will thrive and have more opportunities to develop varieties with even more resistance and to rapidly become widespread and dominate even the population of other weeds that were the competition before.
I should be noted that one strategy to slow the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is to rotate antibiotics. This constantly changes the selective pressure on an infection, so that no one resistance trait is adaptive for very long. The same principle applies to agriculture and herbicide-resistant weeds and so forth.
It’s odd, to me, to see people who claim to be concerned about herbicide-resistant weeds advocating that we take tools away from those who would seek to develop a wider variety herbicide-resistant crops. More variety means better herbicide and pesticide rotation, and therefore slower proliferation of resistance among weeds.
So…managers for Monsanto put profits over some sort of more benevolent ethical code to a greater degree, say, than the guy starting up a locavore or natural foods business to capitalize on that niche?
It’s that sort of confused broad brush that keeps do-gooders ineffectual.
No, it’s just that Monsanto is enormous and hugely powerful, and hurts lots and lots of people.