GMOs?

They're okay.

The worlds population as it is now has no chance of sustaining itself without the use of GMO's unless we all turn vegetarian, and I'm not giving up meat any time soon.

it's your responsibility to inform yourself before blindly shoving food into your piehole

grow a pair, murica

That's actually a common misconception. Organic farming increases yield.

Yeah, no.

If you really want to know what you're eating; you need to grow/raise everything you eat yourself. Also, fuck GMOS.

and there's no arguing against the benefit on some GMO's.

example: a few years ago a rice that's naturally enriched with vitamin A was developed. for the majority of the worlds population that relies on rice, breakthroughs like these are huge. not only does it solve issues of a lack of essential nutrients, but it cuts down land use by essentially amalgamating crops.

i don't think anybody is arguing that GMOs are 'bad' its just that they want the food labeled.

That just isn't true, but I see what you're getting at. It's more like, we're so far deep into the GMO cycle or lack thereof that it would take idk, 100 years? to get out of it.

The other issue at hand is the "western" culture of people and the fat fucking people all over this country hammering down chips, pop, and shit all day.

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

firstly, link me to some peer reviewed articles saying yield is higher in organic farming then GMO crops of the same variety.

secondly, and more importantly, I'm not talking about just yield. I'm talking about crops that are enriched through genetic modification to, for instance, contain twice as much protein per given amount of dry biomass. this is where the saviour lies. see my example about the recent development of rice enriched with vitamin A

I hear you, but 30 years ago is not today, 10 years ago is not today, and even 5 years ago isn't today. I don't think we fully understand the consequences of GMO's yet, at least in humans. It will be another 30 years until some solid data in humans can be published.

There are hundreds of studies with GMO's and their negative effects on mice. Again, they aren't humans, but you have to take those results into consideration.

oh my lord.


here, have some peer reviewed articles on this:

http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/210/1/NatureBiot23_482-487_2005.pdf

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/506S.long

http://www.plantphysiology.org/content/125/3/1157.full

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1776.full

http://www.goldenrice.orwww.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Philippines_GR_Food_Policy_2004.pdf

No actually, it is pretty much true. Unless you think the ~15% of people who are severely malnourished in the world is just a hoax, then no, we cannot sustain ourselves properly as is.

The answer is GMO's that increase nutrient yield per area and/or are able to grow in more severe conditions allowing more arable land

The amount of resources GMO farming consumes is out of control. The amount of waste and the effects on the environment are equally negative.

The problem lies in the fact that here in the US, we want all vegetables, fruit, whatever ALL year round. It just isn't practical, the more intelligent cultures of the world (Europe) understands this. Organic farming becomes more sustainable for large populations when you introduce seasonable farming and crop rotation. Something that allows efficiency and the environment around the farm to thrive.

The whole food system is such a huge fucking complicated cycle of variables.

Malnourished populations are the way they are due to so many fucked situations in history that whether their food comes from GMO or not is beside the point of GMO discussions.

I don't really give a shit. everything causes cancer. The way things are going I've pretty much accepted that I'm going to die from cancer or being shot in a public place.

And who funds this research. Pull your head out of your ass. Get educated man. Don't be such a blind sheep. Jeebus.

They don't do that at all though. And its very rare to find accurate studies on these things because the only people who do studies on them are the companies themselves. Why don't other people publish studies? Oh idk, maybe because without the companies consent they are not allowed by law to publish their studies.

DING DING DING!!!

I'll add that people shouldn't be growing crops that are not suited to the environment in which they live. The ancient grains were grown under pretty shitty circumstances and are better for you as well as full of more nutrients and protein than the bullshit they sell in a typical store today.

White rice in eastern asia is a bit of an exception, but again, they've been growing that shit for thousands of years. Why? Because their climate and soil suits that crop damn well.

The shady business practices are one thing.

If this quotes the 'ding ding ding' post, I hope you realize that was sarcasm. I'll respond to the rest when i'm on a computer. It seems like no one here actually has any formal education in this topic.

You're proving this to be very true, judging by the blaring ignorance of your posts.

----
Note- GMOs are directly related to my field of study, so my opinion will have a bias behind it. I mean shit, Im in the #1 agricultural n biological engineering program in the nation (#bragging) Monsanto literally has a a conference room in my libraries basement and I almost accepted an internship with them this past summer. I'll do my best to provide sources behind most of my statements
----

People are very very misinformed about genetically modified organisms. The fact of the matter is that ~90% of all processed foods and ~70% of all food in our grocery stores contain GMOs in some form (1). We are at a point of dependency on GMOs- which isnt a bad thing in my opinion. For every 10 acres of land being planted today, 9 of those will consist of genetically engineered corn or soy (2) and there is very good reason behind this.

The most popular and known reasons for genetic modification are as follows-

-Improved shelf life of harvest
-Improved nutrition of crop
-Stress resistances
-Herbicide/Pesticide/Pathogen resistance
-Bio-fuel use


Let me touch on a few of those,
Improved shelf life is an obvious plus, no need to expand on that. Raising the nutrient levels in certain crops, or adding new nutrients all together is very beneficial when growing food to provide for those who do not have access to a variety of markets (think vitamin deficiencies in Africa).

One of the biggest GMO progressions is the stress resistances. This allows us to grow in conditions that would be otherwise unforgiving. You know how Illinois/Iowa produces a stupid amount of feed corn on a yearly basis because of its ideal growing season for corn/soy? Well why grow cattle feed in Illinois when it can be grown in texas where they actually have cattle ranches? Better yet, it gives our farmers the security of being able to have a good harvest when something goes wrong. Many people dont realize that farmers can be absolutely FUCKED by a single late or early frost.

This is where the subject gets a bit tricky and political, herbicide resistance. This is that whole "round up" thing you may have heard about. It simply means the crop itself is resistant to a herbicide used for killing weeds. This does not make the plant poisonous, cancerous or dangerous. All the issues stemming from this, including the whole "super bug" thing are ridiculous. GMOs are not at fault for this, it is the herbicide itself. If you spray your food with poison before eating it what the fuck do you expect? We need to stop with the whole BAN GMOs thing and start looking for a way to get around using herbicides.

At this point I have yet to mention the yield per plant increases or the bushels per acre increase.
Just the other day my crop sciences professor was displaying 4 jars to use that all contained seeds, 2 had corn, 2 had alfalfa. One of each had been from the 1980s and one of each from 2012, both gathered from the same area of land . The newer jars contained at least 45% more each. Like I said before, this is one of the most reputable sources I can note, my uni is one of the most respected sources of research in this field


Here are some more yield stats(3) -

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.


Nice lil visual for ya (4)-


A lot of people talk about how some GMO seeds are made so they can never reproduce and freak out about how unnatural that is. And then they go and complain that GMO plants are going to mix in with a native plant population and breed wild hybrids.
Its like... are you fucking kidding me? Thats the whole reason behind the non-germinating GMO thing, so they cant do that and yet you still bitch about it? wtf



Do I agree with the legal measures that a lot of these companies take to protect their seeds?No. But you need to also look at it from their perspectives, billions of dollars in research so someone can use your product for free? No thank you.

Do I think labels should go on all GMO food? Honestly, I dont give a fuck. I'll eat it regardless.

Do I think companies should be able to do whatever they want to a plants genetics and sell the seeds to farmers? Hell no. Imagine if a company placed the invasiveness and resistances of a weed in to corn or something, that would be obnoxious as fuck.


(1) http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html
(2) http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.Ujd04WSDQ0g
(3)http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx
(4)-http://www.biofortified.org/wp-content/uploads//2011/02/Trend-Key.jpg



Not going to read through all that i just wrote so if anything makes no sense or is straight up wrong just say something

naw man, thats conditional. With bio tech we have breeding and GM, both of which help increase levels of germplasm, this boosts growth. In addition to that smart seed coats are one of the coolest things ever and allow seeds to germinate at the perfect time while providing additional nutrients for the sprout.


Saying organic yields higher is like saying a bigger seed will grow larger

Those pesticide producing plants need more pesticides than regular plants though. Also the real problem i see with this is, Monsanto is the company that makes round up and who invented and manufactured the herbicide Agent Orange. Which had absolutely devastating unintended affects on humans, and still affects those who were exposed, today. Now, is this really the corporation you want having a monopoly on corn and soy? I sure don't.

phil6x, you just saved me half an hour of writing replies. Thank you.

The main difference is that you can splice in a gene from a different organism that you never could have gotten through selective breeding. For example, potatoes with a jellyfish gene that makes it glow when it is ready to be harvested

I want a burger

Honestly we're already eating ground up deep fried chicken byproducts and food with ingredients that no one on earth can pronounce... I really couldn't care less about a little genetic modification.

Phil6x

So what would you say in response to the corn and soy monopoly of the food system and how it is helping create the clusterfuck of obesity in the US?

What would you say to the negative effects of these pesticides/herbicides on the environment?

I'm not arguing against the yields and the "crop toughness", that's proven accepted and great. But how is this system of food production sustainable? How is the business model these monopoly type companies operate on morally correct for their farmers and just in general? Maybe you don't care like most people, idk. Just seems fucked up, especially when most of us care so much about a sport that is based upon enjoying the outdoors.

Also these companies who manufactured Agent Orange in the 60s and 70s, Dow Chemical and Monsanto Corporation, are the exact companies that are pouring millions of dollars into campaigns against GMO labeling. Seems pretty sneaky huh? These corporations are responsible for an estimated 400,000 deaths and maimings and an estimated 500,000 children born with birth defects during and following the vietnam war, and now 50 years later they want to remain unlabeled for the poison they are slinging. These corporations have always and will always be up to no good.

>Those pesticide producing plants need more pesticides than regular plants though. Also the real problem i see with this is, Monsanto is the company that makes round up

I already said that we need to find a way to decrease or eliminate use of pest/herbicides, so trying to use that against me is irrelevant



>As for more yield, thats simply not true

I responded to your cute little video already as well, using actual science to back my response. My main post also touched on yield increases w/ sources.
I am willing to bet good money that the 160% increase was done in an anti-gmo greenhouse, where the organic plant was grown normally and the GMO plant was blasted with roundup for no reason at all.


>Im not trying to bash your University at all, but if monsanto has an office in it, it might not be the most un-bias place to get information from.

I was completely open about this and prefaced by saying I will have a bias, but to say that they instill a bias agenda in to our program is ludicrous. The only person who effects a bias in the courses is the professor and I have never been in a course where they specifically are trying to support a company. Nearly all my research in the subject has been done for my own research projects and studies. We are taught how and why the things work, not to support blindly.

Also, the reason monsanto is so "closely tied" with our school is because we are THE agricultural school. John Deer, Monsanto, Del Monte, Cargill etc all support our school because we are the place they go for recruiting. They support us because they get the best and brightest talent pool to hand out internships to, pretty much an investment.

Hahaha pretty legit sources... You cited Monsanto's website and the USDA which is incredibly corrupt. Yup, seems legit and unbias.

Well I personally think the obesity problem is our fault, not a corporation or monopolies. Its simple economics, supply and demand, theyre just making a killing on it because people choose shit diets. Yea its more expensive to eat healthy, but there are ways to eat cheap and healthy.
You mention corn and soy monopoly, i'd like to point out that the corn monopoly is not sweet corn or anything but rather feed, so that just translates to more meat products on the markets. Which can be better or worse depending how you look at it. FYI corn is the money maker, soy is simply a support crop that works very well for cycling.


I think the negative effects of pest/herbicides is terrible. There is no getting around the fact that we are creating dead zones (chemical run off anywhere in midwest -> Mississippi River ->Gulf of Mex -> Dead zones) Anyone who chooses to ignore this is an idiot. I've said it a few times now and i'll say it again. I am 100% for the decrease or elimination of using pesticides or herbicides in a way that will not effect crop returns.

Regarding the whole monopoly thing, idk. Monsanto has gotten a really shit name and reputation, and I think that really makes people blindly hate them without realizing how many GIANT multinational corporations are out there controlling sector majorities

You can know what you're eating if you look on the label, but most Americans are too ignorant to do it.

hahah dude... your only source was a fucking youtube video..

Heres some actual research I uploaded just for you.

Well he's the same person who passed off half a dozen peer reviewed articles out of hundreds on the same topic as all wrong because they're paid to say what they did.

Just happened to see this on the front page of youtube, seemed fitting.

I only know enough about HFCS to argue about it. Do not say that there is no evidence to support it being harmful. That is grossly inaccurate. It is not the same as sucrose. The only people telling you that it is are the corn growers association. When you convert corn starch into HFCS an enzymatic process takes place that breaks the bond between the fructose and glucose. This break means that digestion is not required to be absorbed into the blood stream. This spikes blood sugar much more quickly than table sugar or any natural sugar found in fruit (mostly due to fruit containing fiber). This impacts insulin causing insulin resistance and can lead to diabetes. Also because fructose is converted faster, the body can only metabolize HFCS through the liver. It is chemically processed the exact same as all grain alcohols. It raises HDLV LDL and spikes triglicerides. We also cannot burn through the sugar as quickly as the rate of uptake we have injested it as so all remaining unused sugar is stored as fat.

I really gotta stay off NS when I'm on adderall, I could post in this thread all day long

I heard a story about a friend of a friend who took adderall to study for an exam the next morning and ended up masturbating/watching porn for 3 or 4 hours straight instead of doing any work.

And you say no side effects of GMOs..

Basically every other fucking night for me... beat off at least 7 times yesterday.. half the time I didnt even want to

I sure do!

What makes a GMO different than the selective 'breeding' that farmers have been doing for several millennia?

I find people who religiously preach and eat 'organic' and 'clean' comical at their best, most often however they are misinformed, sheltered, and obnoxious.

I agree, but simply breeding plants with good qualities is much different than inserting genetic information from another organism in order to modify its DNA sequence

I know next to nothing about this topic but this seems like the most reasonable post in this thread. Any idea why big food companies are fighting labelling laws though? I mean if they had nothing to hide why would it be such a big deal?

Because its like 50 percent of people in polls say they wouldnt eat genetically modified foods, when they dont even realize 70%+ of the food they buy already is. It would almost be a negative move for both parties