Good News on GMO

Saw this in the news this week, no ill effects have ever been shown by GMO, and positive effects for environment because of breeding in resistance versus using chemicals.

Now if anyone believes it.

It'll never get the press that the faulty warnings got.

Theres no proof that they cause any problems. Local farm news WHO has had in the past sevral people who have studied for bad effects and havent found any yet but there are some "shacky labs" yelling wild stuff as usual always some gook finds something nobody else has heard about.

"Expert" opinions these days go to the highest bidder.Pro GMO folks have a whole lot of $$$ to hand out.GMOs are sounding more like Tobacco every day.Back in the 1950's and 60's the
Tobacco companies had their "experts" proclaiming that tobacco was harmless.

Who ya gonna believe,scientists or crazy hippy chicks?

Funny thing is the same folks that swear by how great the science is on GMOs turn around and say how stupid the science is about Global Warming.

How many thousand years have we been eating corn? If it wasn't for genetic modification we wouldn't even have corn. But then facts carry very little weight with the Old hippies and the millennial crowd. If you wish to experience complete lunacy, just check out the remarks following any article about agriculture posted in any source that will be read by the general public. Absolutely incredible!

Yep six month study by Monsanto LOL

Did the report say what glyphosate does to soil? It kills microbes and inhibits a plants ability to take up nutrients, and it persists for a lot longer than originally thought it must be true because now Monsanto is saying we have to put microbes on our soil and coincidentally they sell them! I do use some glyphosate but as little as possible. Who did the story? Some university or organization taking their dirty money would be my guess.

(quoted from post at 08:24:22 05/19/16) How many thousand years have we been eating corn? If it wasn't for genetic modification we wouldn't even have corn. But then facts carry very little weight with the Old hippies and the millennial crowd. If you wish to experience complete lunacy, just check out the remarks following any article about agriculture posted in any source that will be read by the general public. Absolutely incredible!

Click to expand...

Same on bananas and many other foods. Farmers have been selecting strains and mixing pollen from the get go. We have been eating genetically modified foods as long as there have been bees. Same of beef, hogs and chickens...

AND STUDIES SHOW... THAT EVERYONE WHO EATS, DIES!!

Point taken, people who eat GMO have 100% fatality rate.

Another shocker, a study funded by Ford concluded that Ford makes the best trucks(LOL)

You might be referring to hybridization or cross pollination of corn plants which is not the same as GMO corn (RR corn) which has only been available to farmers for 20 years or so.

There you go again, using facts and logic!

The most recent "concern" story I read was by a microbiologist with a background in genetic engineering. The area of concern was residual glyphosate getting into the actual food products and disrupting the microbes and bacteria in your gut.
More of a problem when the actual harvest crop is present during spraying such as when drying down wheat.

I didn't know this previously, but in 2010 Monsanto patented glyphosate as a an antibiotic.

Well, not quite.

GMO is where they can take a gene of DNA from one species and splice it into the DNA of a totally different species. That is something you could never get with selective breeding and hybrids.

Is it bad to eat? Probably not. Corn is still corn. I think the downside is unpredictable response from the environment in the way of forcing target organisms to drastically evolve. Look at the roundup resistant Pigweed we are now battling.

It's a lot like overuse of antibiotics in humans. Look at how hospitals are wrestling with MRSA. When you kill 99% of the bacteria, the 1% that survives is the really tough stuff. Same with weeds.

Anyone the believes that tripe probably also believes the campaign promises of the Presidential candidates. Why is it only studies that are supported entirely or in part by the companies that make money on GMO's find that they are safe?

If you raise GMO's (especially glyphosate resistant grains) the weed control you use is poisoning this generation and the next. So when you see the cancer coffee can at the gas station, please donate generously,because your choice of weed control is what caused the cancer....

Ya I believe that about like saying Hitler was a good guy. Just another one of the thing like many statistics those who do the studies can make a statistic say what they want it to just by taking the parts they like and throwing away the other parts

NO NO, it is totally bad the critics say, it causes cancer! They tell me this then go eat their tv dinner or go to McDonalds and fill up on crap that would make a hog sick, then blame it on GMOs! It can't possibly be that most people eat junk any more, (just look at what is in this food from the stores any more) then sit around on their fat rumps complaining about their health problems. READ THE LABEL OF WHAT YOU ARE EATING, SHEEPLE, then go plant a garden, well at least get off your arse.

I'm not a fan of GMO stuff but it's just as much to do with Monsanto holding farmers/producers over a barrel then anything.

I just dislike the company, they clearly have some brilliant people working for them but at a corporate level I think they would sell anything, safe or not, to make a buck.

IMHO...

K

(quoted from post at 14:42:07 05/19/16) Another shocker, a study funded by Ford concluded that Ford makes the best trucks(LOL)

Click to expand...

If GM had done the study and it said Ford was the best you'd never hear about it!

Bet the flat earth society wouldn't believe it.

The funny part of this is that the PRO GMO guys all agree that it's great. The Anti's hate it. All these post on here pro and anti GMO alike are not going to change one person's opinion!


AS far as studies go:

1:Who did it?

2oes that institution or it's associates get any monetary support from the companies selling GMO seed's.

3:Who did the peer review of the study?

4o they get any of that monetary support?

Rick

Just a question for all you anti GMO people,If you plant a GMO tolerant crop but DON"T use any of those Chemicals on that crop.IS The product still bad??

The GMO grain will be more deficient in mineral nutrition than conventional hybrids. In addition, the insecticide produced by the rootworm resistance gene will distort the balance of digestive bacteria. So yes.

Why wouldn't breeding insecticide into every kernel (or corn) NOT have detrimental health effects?

Poison is poison. Even if you cannot farm without it, it is still poison..... Not to worry though, the tobacco growers and poppy growers don't have any problems growing stuff that kills people, as long as they make their money.... Why should corn growers be any different?

An intelligent, informed person considers all of the facts both pro and con and makes an educated decision based on those unbiased facts. An ignorant person assumes all is good because might put more money in their pockets and justifies their position by making a point not to be open minded and ignores any facts contrary to their beliefs for fear they might discover they are wrong. Not everyone that questions Monsanto's motives is a tree hugging nut. Maybe you and RR Lund ought to yank your heads out of the sand and do some research on your own. Keep in mind you started this discussion.

(quoted from post at 06:18:38 05/19/16) Funny thing is the same folks that swear by how great the science is on GMOs turn around and say how stupid the science is about Global Warming.

Click to expand...

in't that the truth.

Warfarin is rat poison. Helps to keep me alive. So your blanket statement does not hold water.

You take rat poison instead of finding out and correcting what is causing your issues...... so my argument is indeed valid.

Brutus,I didn't see any thing intelligent (facts)in your post other then calling people dumb,heads stuck in sand which is dumbness on your part.A question for you,DO you want us to go back using some of the Chems. we were using 20-30-40-50 years ago,which were far worse for your health.DO YOU EVEN FARM??

Isn't the truth or you don't want to believe the truth.

GMO have been around for years and not a single heath issue has been tied to GMO's.

The research was done by the National Acadamy of Sciences.

No seed companies involved.

Gary

(quoted from post at 07:13:00 05/19/16) Who ya gonna believe,scientists or crazy hippy chicks?

Click to expand...

I'll go with the wenches!

Welcome to hotroded fish!

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/05/reader-tips-3492.html#comments

"Jean May 20, 2016 1:16 AM Reply

AquaBounty's genetically modified salmon has been approved for sale as food in Canada.
...
The fish grow twice as fast as conventionally farmed Atlantic salmon because of the addition of genes from a Chinook salmon and an eel known as an ocean pout.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-aquabounty-salmon-genetically-modified-food-1.3589613
"
You want fries with that?

(quoted from post at 18:31:20 05/19/16) Isn't the truth or you don't want to believe the truth.

GMO have been around for years and not a single heath issue has been tied to GMO's.

The research was done by the National Acadamy of Sciences.

No seed companies involved.

Gary

Click to expand...

National Academy of Sciences operates off of and solicits donations. So just how can you prove that no seed companies were involved?

I'm not says they did or didn't but......


If you go a look at scientist over that last 20-30 years they have been willing to crawl into bed with about anyone who's willing to finance their research sense government funding was cut back so much.

Rick

Hate to contradict you, but selection and genetic modification are two completely different things. When you select and allow to interbreed two similar species, that is selection. When you take a bacteria from a crab, and gene splice it to corn, you are messing with something else. Defenders of GMO are almost always benefiting from it.

Organic = more weeds! insects, and less yield. Also you have to steal some nutrients from other land to apply to your crops, so you are not actually sustainable.

Regular weed and especially insect controls are pretty nasty and harsh and toxic to farmers and environment. Grows more crop on less acres so is actually more 'sustainable' and produces more per acre, using up less of natural habitat than organic operations.

Gmo crops use less harsh weed and especially insect controls, is safer for the farmer, grows more crop per acre using less resources/ land area. Far more efficient.

I've never, ever, understood the upside down world of anti-gmo people. If you want natural and organic that is fine, but the reasons given for wanting no gmo's is just totally upside down, it really shows the head in the sand deal you speak of.

I'm not against organic if that's what you want, but at least understand how much more of nature you are using up to get that product, how wasteful that system is.

Just being against gmo seems odd to me, I can't make any sense out of that position.

Farming is about efficiency, get the best product you can with the least costs, which means the most effciency, lowest use per bushel of everything you do. Its really pretty simple. Roundup and bT and other gmo have been around decades now, and crop production, bushels per acre continues to rise, as we farmers get more efficient. It seems absurd that gmo crops are somehow hard on the soil, in the face of facts so simple to look up. You don't have to rely upon any university or govt study, tho the reviewed ones all say gmos are safe. Just look at crop yield trends, how can you say glyphosate is poisoning the soil when the yield increases are right there on front of you?

I'm glad we live in a society where you have the choice to buy what you want, if you are rich enough you can afford your special wants. Why you would choose to buy the more wasteful products is confusing, but no matter, we have choices in this country.


Paul

(quoted from post at 08:51:10 05/19/16) Saw this in the news this week, no ill effects have ever been shown by GMO, and positive effects for environment because of breeding in resistance versus using chemicals.

Now if anyone believes it.

Click to expand...

ell, in an ideal world it might be "good news", but just because GM, Ford and Chrysler have proven that most of their 20 year old cars were safe, doesn't mean that any vehicle anyone (including the big 5) can throw together in their lab will evermore be exactly as safe. Sometimes, like the Pinto, and like Tata air bags, it's the real world use over a period of time that proves they aren't, and not in all cases for all people, but enough to be a concern. The big difference between cars and crops, is that cars currently don't reproduce themselves, nor do we ingest them every day.

The facts reveal that GMO technology is at best a 30 year fix, as the weeds glyphosate are supposed to kill are developing resistance, requiring more roundup use (not less) and eventually more toxic and persistent compounds to achieve sufficient weed suppression. This is why GMO scientists are working on "stacking" herbicide traits, hoping to effect a longer time frame of weed control. My guess is that 25 years from now we'll not only have glyphosate and 2-4d and Dicamba resistant weeds with several million tons applied world wide every year, but scientists scrambling to come up with another 25 year 'magic bullet' to keep the existing (highly profitable for industry) paradigm in place.

Ditto for BT corn and cotton - after 20 years of the surviving pests breeding, the pests are becoming substantially resistant, requiring a "plan B" which often falls back to more toxic chemicals, which will work for a while, then ultimately fail with a total environmental toxin load that increases substantially faster than degradation is possible. In addition, what each chemical does individually may not be "bad", but what the sum total and synergistic effects of those compounds and adjudevants (sp?) do for susceptible human and microbiome life is a vast unknown that may not be figured out until the negative effects are too far along to deny.

Glyophosate was originally a de-mineralizing agent for boilers. Yes, it still works to bind minerals in the soil reducing mineral availability to plants, and while possibly making crops more abundant by reducing weed pressure, it can also make crops less nutritious. There is suspicion that a part of the obesity problem stems from people eating more because their bodies are telling them they need more nutrition which is in short supply in their diets. (Yes, the hard science is still out on this, but it bears mentioning.) Glyphosate also messes up soil bacteria by interferring with their chicamate pathway (nutrient uptake), the same bacteria which help make plant nutrition available from the soil. It also appears to effect human gut bacteria in the same way. Hmmm. Doctors are now giving "poop transfusions" to repopulate gut bacteria, which are giving relief to a surprising number of "ills". The industry solution is to make replacement soil bacteria to sell to farmers which can tolerate the current industry toxins, which will last until the next new chemical... Nothing quite like creating a problem to make more money from.

It's hard to argue with Darwin's observations - the adaptable weeds and pests (often via multiple generations per year), adapt to their "new (formerly toxic to most of them) environment". Humans, should we toxify ourselves in the process, have a much longer generational adaptation span, which potentially means lots of losses for a lot of generations before "the most adaptable" survive. Is this an acceptable consequence? Part of the problem is that it's impossible to come up with a "LD50" for GMO's, just as it was for tobacco. You don't eat a GMO corn tortilla and die. You don't smoke just one pack of cigs and die. You don't eat a tortilla every day and smoke a pack a day for 10 years and die. See? Scientific observation says they're safe! Yet much like tobacco, which the pro-GMO efforts look suspiciously related to (including revolving door industry insiders in places like the FDA and USDA), the science seems to be relying heavily on industry scientific research (asking a limited set of questions "does this cause cancer", the hell with any other disease) for findings basis. Yes, I've read reports from both sides, the science is really complicated, still evolving, and we are still learning about how the genome works. However, there are a lot of suspicious and currently unexplained correlations, such as the dramatic rise in autoimmune diseases, a suspected connection with "leaky gut", and the fact that the BT toxin works by perforating the gut wall of pests. Proven in humans? Not yet. And yes, there are kooks in both camps willing to ignore certain "data" to prove their own point. I willingly admit I don't know it all. Because of that, I prefer to err on the side of caution. The science of non-gmo (and non-chemical "organic") crops has been proving out since before Homo-erectus took his or her first step. How organic is currently practiced can be a long way from what it was and had to be ages ago, and yes, there can be a lot of bad "organic" practices and practitioners. It's far too easy to generalize on either side of the debate.

To summarize and simplify, plant breeding is NOT in any way similar to gene splicing by amending cauliflower mosaic virus (for it's gene breaking and insertion capability) to specific chemical tolerant genes, with antibiotic marker genes attached to confirm gene insertion, and microbe (BT) genes put into plant genes. If plant breeding was no different than making GMO crops, that would be akin to burying your steer 'oysters' in the corn patch, and having the corn stalks grow horns. "It just 'taint natural". Selective plant (and animal) breeding, has been done for tens of thousands of years, and is limited to the genomic variation inherent in the plant or animal itself; it is not soil bacteria genes built into crops, not cabbage virus genes in corn, nor salmon genes in tomatoes (remember the "flavor savor" tomato?). On the other hand, there isn't a weed that has evolved over 100,000 years to be immune to a hoe, and we need more jobs in America. (Just kidding. Sorta.)

MAYBE the current "final word" is that the current batch of GMO's are as "safe" as we can currently determine them to be, but that still doesn't give every successive instance carte blanc to enter the food supply without rigorous long term testing by thoroughly independent labs before being planted outside the lab. Genetic tinkering is a very large and powerful hammer, and because it is self replicating and subject to unforeseen mutation (genetic instability), it's use can potentially cause vastly unforeseen consequences. Life on this planet is immensely complicated and intricately interwoven, and we as a species are still just beginning to unravel our place within the global biome as it and we have co-evolved over the millennia. We are just beginning to perceive how much we need to protect even the nooks and crannies of this biome for our own long term survival. Messing with the building blocks of life, especially when there is massive corporate profit involved, does not seem to me to be a foolproof idea soley rooted in altruism. There is far more to our survival, to say nothing of our health and the overall health of every other species on the planet, than making food and fiber "cheap and abundant at any cost". While I respect everyone elses' right to disagree, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". Your right to plant whatever makes you profitable, ends not just at my plate, but at my property line. Unfortunately, living things respect no such boundaries, and to quote Shakespear, "therein lies the rub".

Paul, not to single you out, but the generalizations you assume don't bear scrutiny. Thirty years of study by the Rodale Institute have proven that non-gmo and organic open pollinated corn can meet or exceed bpa of gmo corn, especially in a 'less than optimal weather' year. Some weeds in corn, like purselane, have shown synergistic benefits.

The issues of how we measure the net benefits and net problems of crop (and livestock) production are neither fully black, nor fully white, and determining which shade of gray is acceptable to not only keep how each of us chose to farm viably for another year, but keep life on the planet viable long term, can be exceedingly difficult.

Also be aware that people who OPPOSE GMO or something else will often do so blindly and out of ignorance. The BT insect killer is natural--do people who oppose BMO BT avoid any food where natural BT chemicals are present? Probably not.

Monsanto does not own soybeans, only a strain of GMO/Roundup/Glyphosate plant heirloom soybeans and use mechanical weed control means. I grew up in the 60's, working row crop (corn/milo/soybeans) with a cultivator until it was too tall to go through. Once a crop was tall enough to completely shade the ground, it normally stayed reasonably weed free. Not always.

Bacteria share DNA back and forth on a continual basis. They also have been seed to share DNA with plants, although I cannot quote a peer reviewed study for either of these claims.

Plants have evolved chemical means to kill insects that feed on them, and insects have evolved means to neutralize, evade, and even sequester those "insecticide" chemicals.

Pat

Your study has an agenda too, so we are back to the many shades of grey, who is trying to prove what.

When spring comes around, I could potentially grow 500 bu corn on my farm. That is about what the top yield producers can do, under perfect
conditions.

Of course weather isn't always perfect, and so my yields are less.

And weeds can come along and steal some yield.

And insects can come along and steal more yield.

Gmo herbicide use offers me more options to control weeds.

Gmo insect control offers me more options to control insects.

By removing those options, I have reduced chances to control any possible pests.

It is only logical that with less options, I will, over a 10 year period, have poorer yields because some weeds and some insects stole some yield
away from me.

Yes, there are symbiotic relationships, but a weed at the wrong time in corn is a yield zapper, and you need to keep those controlled with gmo
herbicides, regular herbicides, a cultivator, a hoe. If you don't, you have reduced yields.

Take away an option, and there are going to be more weeds, less corn.

Farmers know this, they have observed this, they are using 90+% gmo crops not because they want to make some corporation wealthy but
because it works best for them.

Paul

I don't worry one way or the other about GMO. I'm not a fan of Monsanto or Bayer crop science but they have some very smart people. A few things I do know: The world population is growing. Before GMO the yields were 1/2 or less on corn, rice, soybeans and other crops. Unless some other development comes along GMO is the only option if we are to provide enough food for a growing population.
In addition to all of that, the average age of farmers is nearing 60 years old. To me that is a lot bigger concern than any GMO crop. In 30 years who will be growing the crops and raising the livestock? I personally only know only 4 or 5 young people under 40years old that are actively participating in the business end of farming and this is a huge farming area.

(quoted from post at 10:08:49 05/20/16)
Also be aware that people who OPPOSE GMO or something else will often do so blindly and out of ignorance. The BT insect killer is natural--do people who oppose GMO BT avoid any food where natural BT chemicals (I think you mean "bacteria") are present? Probably not.

Click to expand...

Yes, BT is a naturally occurring soil bacteria whose ingestion by humans in that form has no discernible effects. When that bacteria becomes an integral part of plant proteins, it becomes a whole new animal - something neither our bodies nor the bacteria that inhabit our bodies in greater numbers than our human cells have ever encountered before in that form. Can it cause problems? It's increasingly looking like it might, especially in susceptible people, call them the canaries in the coal mine. Will everyone be affected? Probably not. If you or I are content to take that risk, that's our choice. Everyone else should have equal choice.

Pair-o-dice, well put on the age of farmers being potentially a bigger issue than GMO's in the long run. I'm 60, getting tired and worn out. My better half is a bit older, and slowing down too. Our kids are smart enough to know that putting in long hours 7 days a week, 300 or more days a year doesn't pay enough to cover student loans plus basic living expenses, to say nothing of making a decent living. We're still working on getting to the point that we net "minimum wage" for our time (not counting "overtime"), but often we don't. We do this because we have to - it's in our blood.

It might be noted that the very efficiency that makes commodities "cheap", may have killed the desire and ability of younger folk to start farming. Hundredweight per cow or bushels per acre per man hour may not be the best measure of "success", or of being able to feed even a portion of the world 10 or 20 years from now if there aren't sufficient farmers to fill our boots when we step out of them.

To get the right answers, we have to start with the right questions. Obviously, the prevailing paradigm isn't working. GMO's are only a portion of the problem, or answer, depending on your POV.