Why GMO Myths Are So Appealing and Powerful

tekkychick said:
And yes, by calling those who are concerned about GMO foods "conspiratards" you have indeed made them more likely to listen to you... really. Ok, maybe not.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is complicated. YES our foods have been genetically modified for thousands of years. YES this has benefited us in many ways - drought resistant crops and whatnot. No one disputes that.

But some of us do get concerned when a company like Monsanto - who sells RoundUP - comes out with a seed for a crop that is more RoundUp resistant, so farmers can use more RoundUp. Seriously? you're selling a nasty weed eradicator and your solution isn't to come up with something less nasty but to have a crop that's more resistant? so now you're selling the seed AND selling more Roundup? And what happens as farmers use more RoundUP? what does that mean for other species and for us who eventually eat the crop? and will it lead to more mono-culturing of crops which has been shown to be bad in so many ways?

And really - do we need fish genes transplanted into a totally different species, whether plant or animal? While somewhat off topic, the most nasty flus come about through passing through birds and pigs before getting to humans - so what will all this genesplicing do?

Yes, we need to study it; but we also need to consider the implications of technology. Something may be "safe" on its own - but it may have implications in terms of farmers, costs of farming, downstream food effects, etc.

Yes, farmers are killing themselves in India. It's a complex mix of reasons, but certainly being forced to change traditional planting habits and ending up deep in debt when the promises of the new seeds don't work out probably has something to do with it. But that is probably more a government issue rather than GMO; it just happens many of those seeds are GMO but Monsanto would have loved a monopoly regardless.

I haven't said much in this thread because it IS a complex issue. I appreciate everyone putting links to useful articles; we can all get more educated about it.
Click to expand...


Well said Tekkygirl.

Darla was absolutely correct about you, and I am very glad I adhered to her wisdom. Thankyou.

As to you, Professor Stringfellow, I am less than impressed by your stand on this matter, which is a brand new occurrence in your case.
Frankly I am surprised.
 
Part of my objection to GMO's is the fact that you cannot hold a portion of your crops for seed, because the seeds will no longer produce, which means every year you have to buy new seeds.
 
tekkychick said:
And yes, by calling those who are concerned about GMO foods "conspiratards" you have indeed made them more likely to listen to you... really. Ok, maybe not.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is complicated. YES our foods have been genetically modified for thousands of years. YES this has benefited us in many ways - drought resistant crops and whatnot. No one disputes that.

But some of us do get concerned when a company like Monsanto - who sells RoundUP - comes out with a seed for a crop that is more RoundUp resistant, so farmers can use more RoundUp. Seriously? you're selling a nasty weed eradicator and your solution isn't to come up with something less nasty but to have a crop that's more resistant? so now you're selling the seed AND selling more Roundup? And what happens as farmers use more RoundUP? what does that mean for other species and for us who eventually eat the crop? and will it lead to more mono-culturing of crops which has been shown to be bad in so many ways?

And really - do we need fish genes transplanted into a totally different species, whether plant or animal? While somewhat off topic, the most nasty flus come about through passing through birds and pigs before getting to humans - so what will all this genesplicing do?

Yes, we need to study it; but we also need to consider the implications of technology. Something may be "safe" on its own - but it may have implications in terms of farmers, costs of farming, downstream food effects, etc.

Yes, farmers are killing themselves in India. It's a complex mix of reasons, but certainly being forced to change traditional planting habits and ending up deep in debt when the promises of the new seeds don't work out probably has something to do with it. But that is probably more a government issue rather than GMO; it just happens many of those seeds are GMO but Monsanto would have loved a monopoly regardless.

I haven't said much in this thread because it IS a complex issue. I appreciate everyone putting links to useful articles; we can all get more educated about it.
Click to expand...

If you insist on wearing the conspiratard label that's your business but I did not apply it to you or anyone else here, nor did I apply it to everyone that has ANY concern about Monsanto's business practices or a specific crop. That is nothing but a strawman. The conspiratards are the ones that argue that there is no value in gm foods and that the many studies showing their relative safety are just the orchestrations of evil business executives

Your argument against the Roundup resistant crops is somewhat conspiratardish. Farmers obviously had some reason to buy the seeds other than so they could use more roundup. The selling points were the use of less herbicides in general, less fuel and lower costs.

Again, there is no indication that farmer suicides are rising any faster than suicides in general or faster than the increase in population.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the questions I posed were specifially intended to show how silly the fears are....ingesting something is not going to cause the dna to patch itself into the human dna.....there is absolutely no evidence that the presence of this dna is human blood causes any negative effect even if it weren't in extraordinarily minute quantities......
Click to expand...
There was no proof that the BT dna would show up in human blood. But there it is. This crap is rushed to market without proper testing.

That's the issue. The gen. population isn't a testing ground.
 
Althea said:
. This crap is rushed to market without proper testing.

That's the issue. The gen. population isn't a testing ground.
Click to expand...

There it is in a nutshell Proffessor Stringfellow. There is neither proof that GMOs are safe. What is the rush.

Wait, don't tell me; profit.

Well the safety of humankind outweighs the need for excess profits by the wealthy you quisling.
 
Rune said:
There it is in a nutshell Proffessor Stringfellow. There is neither proof that GMOs are safe. What is the rush.

Wait, don't tell me; profit.

Well the safety of humankind outweighs the need for excess profits by the wealthy you quisling.
Click to expand...

Quisling, he was from your neck of woods, wasn't he?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Yeah, reality. On the last link... They used a sample size that was too small for the length of the study, a type of rodent that has a high rate of tumors to begin with and low life expectancy.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

The author, Seralini, actually repeated practices that were heavily criticized in a previous study of his, which demonstrates he does not really care about the scientific validity.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127-m.pdf
Click to expand...


True enough, but the study did provide a reality check on the effect of Round-up, which goes hand in hand with GMO crops. And I note you ignored the following from that link and the others:

The GM industry, which keeps its own research secret, has resisted investigation or any change.


"European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) researchers have discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as “Gene VI.” (1) It’s found in most prominent GMO crops, and can disrupt the biological functions within living organisms."


Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA's policy on genetically engineered food as part of his "regulatory relief initiative." As Quayle explained in the 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would reap huge profits "as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations."

Dan Quayle's 1992 policy announcement is premised on the notion that genetically engineered crops are "substantially equivalent" to regular crops and thus do not need to be labeled or safety tested. The policy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly created position of deputy commissioner of policy.

Five years earlier, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report of the meeting, when Monsanto executives worried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, "Call me. We're in the dereg businesses. Maybe we can help."


And lets not forget that once these crops flower and spread, they can mix with other farmers crops, and good old Monsanto will be there to lay claim to their profit because they have a patent on the GMO. Ahhh, the devil is indeed in the details.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top