GMO getting head
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
I probably eat GMO foods all the time. I don't know for sure without it being on the label.
The technology for changing the genome of a species has potential that goes way beyond the GMO foods we have today. I know that changing the genetics of our food has risks and might not be 100% beneficial in all cases. It can be used for good or evil. An evil company like Monsanto shouldn't change everyone's opinion about the real potential of genetic modification.
Absolutely GMO can be used for good,but that is not their goal.I'm a bee keeper,and the crap these farmers are using killed my bees.these are evil motherfuckers and I blame these scientists cuase they know exactly what there doing.Albert Einstein said when the bees are gone we are next.
desert fox
Member
I am a believer that gmo led to the decline in bee population.
I went to school for beekeeping,apiary school and no one can tell me wtf going on.spent hundreds of dollars and hours on my apiary and wake up one day to find my bees swarming.why?cuase my asshole neighbor wants to spray his cornfield with new stuff.these agriculture fucks are greedy and don't care about you or the environment at least where I'm from,which is the agricultural capitol of the us.they spray this shit and don't tell you they're doing it.fuck your own plants and animals up in the process. fact.
I don't blame the scientists for anything. I blame the executives at companies like Monsanto for trying to get the most profit they can get through technologies like this without worrying about damaging the environment and hurting people. And abusing our patent system, trying to force money from farmers who never wanted to deal with them in the first place.
Anything that has potential to damage the environment (and kill bees) shouldn't be used. Adding genes that produce pesticides isn't the responsible thing to do. Adding genes for vitamins like in "golden rice" is a good thing.
It's possible to make food healthier and more profitable at the same time. Rice that's designed to produce vitamin a can save millions of lives. An ethical company would want to share that with the world without designing those plants to be sterile and demanding money from farmers every year.
I really didn't want to use this anology and I apologize if I offend,but I don't think its very far off in comparison to scientists from Nazi Germany.who were just "doing there job".which later defected to the US.these people know they're destroying the ecosystem,they are not stupid.and I agree with what you say but these scientists don't care about me or you or they wouldn't be killing us
You had me at...
The change in attitudes of the attendees just tells you how ignorant they are on the subject. Nye is right, 5 years is a pittance of a test for anything.
The change in attitudes of the attendees just tells you how ignorant they are on the subject. Nye is right, 5 years is a pittance of a test for anything.
Rice Project
If you eat anything processed or containing soy, canola, corn, wheat whole or by-products, you're on the GMO train. Pretty much anything that comes in a package in a supermarket. Not a specific comment, just a general observation.
The Internal pH of the Human Body
Is One of the Key Factors in Maintaining Organic Balance
The scale that is used for measuring the pH, or hydrogen ion concentration … is from 0 to 14, with 7 being the neutral point. Thus, an Alkaline Body pH means that the pH of the blood is above 7 with the ideal pH being 7.35. Outside of this range … the body activity is no longer optimal and the metabolism is out of balance.
The pH of the body is influenced by metabolic subproducts and our diet. Thus, pH is directly affected by the various categories of food that we eat and the internal mechanisms involved in their processing. Some foods that are acid in their composition can become alkalinizing following metabolization, e.g. lemons. Accordingly, it is to become more consciously aware of the impact that various food groups and our eating habits have on the internal environment of the body.
Alkaline Body Balance: The Single Most Important Thing You Can Do For YourselfThe pH of the body is influenced by metabolic subproducts and our diet. Thus, pH is directly affected by the various categories of food that we eat and the internal mechanisms involved in their processing. Some foods that are acid in their composition can become alkalinizing following metabolization, e.g. lemons. Accordingly, it is to become more consciously aware of the impact that various food groups and our eating habits have on the internal environment of the body.
An acid body = oxidation which = decay
Excessive acidity causes numerous disturbances such as:
Weakening of the skin, hair, nails, teeth
Deterioration of the digestive tract
Excitability of the nervous system, sciatica
Tendency to depressive illness
Muscular spasms and cramps
Muscular spasms and cramps
Enhances susceptibility to infections
Chronic fatigue
Blockage of certain minerals which become unavailable
Chronic fatigue
Blockage of certain minerals which become unavailable
.....................................
How to maintain a healthy alkaline body balance for optimal health.
What many people don’t know is that many of the foods they regularly consume negatively affect their alkaline body balance. The human body is a naturally alkaline environment. When an individual consumes an overly acidic diet, they throw off their body’s healthy pH balance, which makes them susceptible for illness and disease. In fact, when the body’s pH balance is too acidic, an individual is at an elevated risk of suffering from heart disease, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases.
http://www.acidalkalinediet.com/alk...nt-thing-you-can-do-for-yourself#.VINL5sjTk5s
......................
Keep your body functioning at its optimal level. "Our bodies perform optimally when in an alkaline state, yet the majority of food that Americans eat are acidic (meat, dairy, fish, eggs, sugar, soda, coffee, tea, alcohol, nicotine, processed foods, etc)," writes Galanty. "This heavily weighted acidic diet brings our bodies to a state of imbalance and eventually disease."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038437_alkaline_diet_healing_energy_levels.html#ixzz3L90dO9gA
I don’t think GMO wheat was ever released commercially but there was controversy about accidental release from trials.
Regarding the acidic/alkaline thing, the human stomach is very acidic. Not sure how this affects things in regards to the protein in the rest of the digestive track though. Just my 2 cents.
By the way I’m not pro GMO.
Regarding the acidic/alkaline thing, the human stomach is very acidic. Not sure how this affects things in regards to the protein in the rest of the digestive track though. Just my 2 cents.
By the way I’m not pro GMO.
I am curious...has it worked? Is less insecticide used today than 15 yrs ago? Has yield gone up? Has human and/or animal health improved? Is there more or less humus in midwest topsoil than 15 yrs ago?
Surely some of these statistics are available...we are like 15-20 yrs in right
Surely some of these statistics are available...we are like 15-20 yrs in right
I thought someone might post something of that nature, trichryder. Glad to have a contribution to the discussion of Bt.
It also prodded me to search a little deeper.
Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
On two biomarkers of cell death, Cry1Ab exposure led to respiration inhibition and plasma membrane alterations, by contrast to Cry1Ac
This occurred at relatively high concentrations (100ppm) in comparison to the concentrations produced in GM plants (1–20ppm, Székács et al., 2010). The content can differ greatly according to the GM variety and environmental conditions
(Then and Lorch, 2008).
However, the bioaccumulation in tissues, or bioaccumulative or long-term effects, has to be taken into account since Bt residues were recently claimed to be measured in pregnant women’s serum at around 0.2ppb (Aris and Leblanc, 2011, debunked below).
Although in vitro studies suggest degradation in human gastric secretions, digestion is never a complete process and insecticide toxins cannot be fully degraded in vivo (Paul et al., 2010 Q2).
Are Bt crops safe? EPA
So what can we take away from this?
-Bt toxins are not as safe as previously thought, and do have impact on species outside of target zone
-levels found in GM crops do not pose a significant risk
-these toxins are degraded, but not completly, by digestive fluids in the stomach and intestinal track
-lack of research in to the long term and human impact of insecticidal GM crops
-even less research on the effect of traditional Bt products (Dunks, Bits, Aquabac, etc)
-Bt toxin ranks for shit on the kill-o-meter scale when compared to field dessicant chemicals in common use on all field crops, or the conventional pesticides it has replaced.
There is a report flying around food-insecurity scare-tactic style websites, about a study (Aris and Leblanc, 2011) in Quebec detailing levels of Bt-toxin found in pregnant women and fetus.
The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.
Almost makes you think it's accepted fact, right? This is a common tactic on "food security" websites, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but does convince the average dolt that what they are reading is true.
Here is the link. Note the researchers comment below, disqualifying the entire study for using an inept method of testing Bt-toxin.
As a caveat, I do not in any way support the GM industry. I do however, take issue with non-sensical claims pulled verbatim from unreliable sources (FoodWatch, HealthImpactNews and other bullshit websites). There are some admirable GM efforts (Rice Project, noted in previous post), but as a whole, the focus of the GM industry is on novel field crop products, with little research in to the long term impact of their meddling.
It also prodded me to search a little deeper.
Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
On two biomarkers of cell death, Cry1Ab exposure led to respiration inhibition and plasma membrane alterations, by contrast to Cry1Ac
This occurred at relatively high concentrations (100ppm) in comparison to the concentrations produced in GM plants (1–20ppm, Székács et al., 2010). The content can differ greatly according to the GM variety and environmental conditions
(Then and Lorch, 2008).
However, the bioaccumulation in tissues, or bioaccumulative or long-term effects, has to be taken into account since Bt residues were recently claimed to be measured in pregnant women’s serum at around 0.2ppb (Aris and Leblanc, 2011, debunked below).
Although in vitro studies suggest degradation in human gastric secretions, digestion is never a complete process and insecticide toxins cannot be fully degraded in vivo (Paul et al., 2010 Q2).
Are Bt crops safe? EPA
So what can we take away from this?
-Bt toxins are not as safe as previously thought, and do have impact on species outside of target zone
-levels found in GM crops do not pose a significant risk
-these toxins are degraded, but not completly, by digestive fluids in the stomach and intestinal track
-lack of research in to the long term and human impact of insecticidal GM crops
-even less research on the effect of traditional Bt products (Dunks, Bits, Aquabac, etc)
-Bt toxin ranks for shit on the kill-o-meter scale when compared to field dessicant chemicals in common use on all field crops, or the conventional pesticides it has replaced.
There is a report flying around food-insecurity scare-tactic style websites, about a study (Aris and Leblanc, 2011) in Quebec detailing levels of Bt-toxin found in pregnant women and fetus.
The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.
Almost makes you think it's accepted fact, right? This is a common tactic on "food security" websites, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but does convince the average dolt that what they are reading is true.
Here is the link. Note the researchers comment below, disqualifying the entire study for using an inept method of testing Bt-toxin.
As a caveat, I do not in any way support the GM industry. I do however, take issue with non-sensical claims pulled verbatim from unreliable sources (FoodWatch, HealthImpactNews and other bullshit websites). There are some admirable GM efforts (Rice Project, noted in previous post), but as a whole, the focus of the GM industry is on novel field crop products, with little research in to the long term impact of their meddling.
I don't think they use less chemicals as bugs are highly adaptable and congress just upped the allowable limit of herbicide that can be present on your food a year or two ago so if anything more chemicals are needed year after year.
Yield is most likely higher. The major selling point to the Monsanto Roundup system is that a farmer really has to have almost no skill, the soil can be dead and when you buy the package they give you everything you will need from the seed to feed to herbicides and pesticides and tell you exactly how to apply it.
Modern industrial agriculture is a very hands off process, fields are checked by satellite and harvesting is done with giaganitic combines.
The major problem with our agricultural system is that most farmers are primarily trained with chemical based growing, organics can take a lot of skill and education to get right. I am an organic gardener of almost a decade now, I've tried many things over the years some work methods work better than others but I can say without a doubt organic growing a can yield equal to or more than any chemical garden this goes for the veggie garden not just the herb garden but skill and understanding is needed.
There is a major paradigm shift taking place right now, over the last few years the organic food market has grown upwards of 50% and Monsanto's stock was just down graded as their profits are dropping.
There is currently no regulatory limit for the amount of glyphosate
in breast milk anywhere in the world.
In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast
milk of American women, Moms Across America and
Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10
samples tested.
The shocking results point to glyphosate levels building
up in women’s bodies over a period of time, which has
until now been refuted by both global regulatory authorities
and the biotech industry.
This case of finding high levels of glyphosate in breast milk
is a re-run of the Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) scandal in
the 1970s, which ended up in the toxic chemical compound’s
production being banned by the U.S. Congress in 1979.
Before the ban Monsanto, the only North American producer, had
marketed PCBs under the trade name Aroclor from 1930 to 1977
and had insisted that it was not toxic.
And on an even more somber note, science as a thing, is greatly
discredited by many members of congress. The general public is
also pushed in that direction as well by their religious institutions.
And public schools are constantly pressured to add religious dogma
to the curriculum as a viable alternative to scientific theory.
sigh.
in breast milk anywhere in the world.
In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast
milk of American women, Moms Across America and
Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10
samples tested.
The shocking results point to glyphosate levels building
up in women’s bodies over a period of time, which has
until now been refuted by both global regulatory authorities
and the biotech industry.
This case of finding high levels of glyphosate in breast milk
is a re-run of the Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) scandal in
the 1970s, which ended up in the toxic chemical compound’s
production being banned by the U.S. Congress in 1979.
Before the ban Monsanto, the only North American producer, had
marketed PCBs under the trade name Aroclor from 1930 to 1977
and had insisted that it was not toxic.
And on an even more somber note, science as a thing, is greatly
discredited by many members of congress. The general public is
also pushed in that direction as well by their religious institutions.
And public schools are constantly pressured to add religious dogma
to the curriculum as a viable alternative to scientific theory.
sigh.
Farmers and gardeners have been cultivating new plant varieties for thousands of years through selective breeding. They did this by cross-pollinating two different, but related plants over 6 to 10 plant generations, eventually creating a new plant variety.
The process required patience, but was rewarding. By selectively cross-pollinating related plants in this way, farmers could create varieties that were healthier and stood up to the farmer’s micro-climate — their soil, their weather patterns, their predatory insects.
Yet in the mid-nineteenth century, Darwin and Mendel discovered a method of controlled crossing that can create these desired traits within just one generation. This method produces what’s known as F1 hybrid seeds.
These hybrid seeds are just as natural as their historic counterparts; they’re still cross-pollinating two different, but related plants.
HYBRID SEEDS: THE CONSEQUENCES
The biggest disadvantage of hybrid seeds is that they don’t “reproduce true” in the second generation. That means that if you save the seeds produced by F1 hybrid plants and plant them, the plant variety that will grow from those seeds (known as the second generation) may or may not share the desired traits you selected for when creating the first generation hybrid seed.
I like how Rebsie of Daughter of the Soil describes it:
When two dissimilar varieties are crossed, the result is a hybrid which will often be bigger, brighter, faster-growing or higher-yielding than either of its parents, which makes for a great selling point. But it’s a one-hit wonder. Subsequent generations don’t have the same vigour or uniformity, and the idea is that you don’t save seed from it, you just throw it away and buy some more. This is bad for the plants, bad for the garden and bad for you, but the seed companies make a packet out of it and gain increasing control of what we buy and grow.
(source)
While there may not be anything inherently wrong with this process, it does keep you dependent on seed companies year after year since you can’t save your seeds and expect the next generation of plants you grow to be identical to the first.
While this is a small nuisance to a home gardener, it can be devastating to subsistence farmers around the world.
In fact, this is precisely what happened. Dawn from Small Footprint Family writes:
When the peasant farmers grew these new hybrids, they were indeed more productive, even though they required more fertilizer and water. But when they collected and saved the seed for replanting the next season—as they had done for generations and generations—none of it grew true to the parent crop, little food grew, and these poor farmers, having none of their open-pollenated traditional varieties left viable, had no choice but to go back to the big companies to purchase the hybrid seeds again for planting year after year.
U.S. companies like Cargill intentionally disrupted the traditional cycle of open-pollinated seed saving and self-sufficiency to essentially force entire nations to purchase their seeds, and the agricultural chemicals required to grow them.
Most of these poor subsistence farmers never had to pay for seed before, and could not afford the new hybrid seeds, or the new petrochemical fertilizers they required, and were forced to sell their farms and migrate to the cities for work. This is how the massive, infamous slums of India, Latin America, and other developing countries were created.
By the 1990s an estimated 95% of all farmers in the First World and 40% of all farmers in the Third World were using Green Revolution hybrid seeds, with the greatest use found in Asia, followed by Mexico and Latin America.
The world lost an estimated 75 percent of its food biodiversity, and control over seeds shifted from farming communities to a handful of multinational corporations.
The process required patience, but was rewarding. By selectively cross-pollinating related plants in this way, farmers could create varieties that were healthier and stood up to the farmer’s micro-climate — their soil, their weather patterns, their predatory insects.
Yet in the mid-nineteenth century, Darwin and Mendel discovered a method of controlled crossing that can create these desired traits within just one generation. This method produces what’s known as F1 hybrid seeds.
These hybrid seeds are just as natural as their historic counterparts; they’re still cross-pollinating two different, but related plants.
HYBRID SEEDS: THE CONSEQUENCES
The biggest disadvantage of hybrid seeds is that they don’t “reproduce true” in the second generation. That means that if you save the seeds produced by F1 hybrid plants and plant them, the plant variety that will grow from those seeds (known as the second generation) may or may not share the desired traits you selected for when creating the first generation hybrid seed.
I like how Rebsie of Daughter of the Soil describes it:
When two dissimilar varieties are crossed, the result is a hybrid which will often be bigger, brighter, faster-growing or higher-yielding than either of its parents, which makes for a great selling point. But it’s a one-hit wonder. Subsequent generations don’t have the same vigour or uniformity, and the idea is that you don’t save seed from it, you just throw it away and buy some more. This is bad for the plants, bad for the garden and bad for you, but the seed companies make a packet out of it and gain increasing control of what we buy and grow.
(source)
While there may not be anything inherently wrong with this process, it does keep you dependent on seed companies year after year since you can’t save your seeds and expect the next generation of plants you grow to be identical to the first.
While this is a small nuisance to a home gardener, it can be devastating to subsistence farmers around the world.
In fact, this is precisely what happened. Dawn from Small Footprint Family writes:
When the peasant farmers grew these new hybrids, they were indeed more productive, even though they required more fertilizer and water. But when they collected and saved the seed for replanting the next season—as they had done for generations and generations—none of it grew true to the parent crop, little food grew, and these poor farmers, having none of their open-pollenated traditional varieties left viable, had no choice but to go back to the big companies to purchase the hybrid seeds again for planting year after year.
U.S. companies like Cargill intentionally disrupted the traditional cycle of open-pollinated seed saving and self-sufficiency to essentially force entire nations to purchase their seeds, and the agricultural chemicals required to grow them.
Most of these poor subsistence farmers never had to pay for seed before, and could not afford the new hybrid seeds, or the new petrochemical fertilizers they required, and were forced to sell their farms and migrate to the cities for work. This is how the massive, infamous slums of India, Latin America, and other developing countries were created.
By the 1990s an estimated 95% of all farmers in the First World and 40% of all farmers in the Third World were using Green Revolution hybrid seeds, with the greatest use found in Asia, followed by Mexico and Latin America.
The world lost an estimated 75 percent of its food biodiversity, and control over seeds shifted from farming communities to a handful of multinational corporations.
