Consolodated GMO discussion thread.

Well then I will add that I live in one of the first counties in the US to ban farming of GMO’s.

Yeah. Why would we allow insect-resistant corn and wheat? Let the rest of the world starve to death.

1 Like

The hysteria over GMOs is mind-boggling. People can be so stoopid sometimes!

1 Like

I’m beginning to believe that I’m opening myself up for a lot of ridicule on this site. I’m sure someone soon will label me something wonderfully original. After 30 years of watching our population get fatter and diabetes and autism percentages rise I ask. What has changed? Could it be that 80 plus% of our corn and soy is GMO or that we’ve added high fructose corn syrup to all our pre packaged well preserved foods? Is there a more likely causation than we are what we eat? Should I just like my meat shot full of antibiotics after weeks and months of standing in heaping piles of corporate management. It is possible to be conservative and see possible points of causation.

Obesity is caused by too much consumption of CALORIES and not enough being burned off. Sugar is the #1 culprit, so adding sugar or corn syrup to products is more likely what causes the urge to eat more. Sugar is an appetite enhancer and is addictive. The hysteria over GMOs is caused by false reports and alarmists trying to make $$$. There are no scientific studies which prove that GMOs are any more harmful than any other food.

1 Like

Dead-bang on target, CT! We’ve become too sedentary and allowed our children to become the same. THAT’S why we are seeing so much diabetes and obesity. GMOs have NOTHING to do with it. We’ve been improving the quality of our foods for a couple of centuries now by simply cross-breeding and selectively choosing seed plants for desirable qualities. That’s not a whole lot different than what GMOs do.

1 Like

Could it be that 80 plus% of our corn and soy is GMO …

Actually 100% would be more accurate. Long before the modern bogeyman of gene-splicing American Indians modified the genetic material of the original grass through centuries of selective breeding, which the Europeans continued. Then some time in the 19th or 20th Centuries the corn genome was further modified by hybridization by crossing corn with other plants with desired characteristics. The same sort of process has been going on with soybeans as well. Gene-splicing (or whatever it is currently called) is simply a more precise method of doing what mankind has been doing to corn and soybeans (and the whole vast array of agricultural plants) for millennia.

4 Likes

Exactly. I suppose a toy poodle, schnoodle, min-pin, American Bull Terrior, and other newer breeds could be considered GMOs… Not to mention hairless cats, and Munchkins…

1 Like

I personally trust the “Profit Motive” over anyone who claims to be selling something for my own good, show me an organic farmer that sells his crop and I will show you an organic farmer with a “profit motive”; or a liar if he says he is not.

Profit is good, I seek to generate as much of it as I can.

3 Likes

I was done … But… Bank robbers have a profit motive and if someone dies along the way who cares - unless they get caught. Profit is good if earned honestly. And mind you I did not say legally. Our biggest crooks are all doing it legally. Organic farmers are earning a profit and improving the soil as they go - for a profit yes but an honest one. Short cuts and unproven technologies that were not tested adequately and use of chemical fertilizers that sterilize the land! C’mon! These are true conservative issues. They are human issues. GMO technology is not similar to what we’ve been doing all along. Do your research. It’s more like crossing your poodle with a lobster. It’s not inter species it’s cross species.

The closest relative in nature Broccoli has is wild cabbage.

Corn is derived from grass.

GMOs are just like cross breeding, only more exact, as you know exactly whats going in. And despite all the fanfare, there hasn’t been a single credible study linking GMOs to any harm.

The only harm coming out of GMOs, is how Monsanto has used their patents of them to hit farmers over the head.

3 Likes

Okay thank you for making my point. Broccoli and cabbage are “cole” crops… Same Species. Corn is a grass… Same Species. GMO are more like the Island of Doctor Moreua. Cross species DNA jumbling. It’s the love child of a human and a goat. Cross - Species. That is a huge difference. Thank you for mentioning the patenting of seeds, that’s wrong too.

So are Mules. So are sheep goats ( cross - genus in fact).

Plant-wise you have Boysenberries: Loganberries and dewberries, Tangelo: Tangerines and Grapefruit

In truth, 14% of plants in the wild are the result of cross-species hybridization.

Here’s some other things for you to chew on: many “organic” plants today are result of bombarding them with x-rays, and cultivating the mutants. That practice began 90 years ago.

Around 80% of the bananas we buy, are clones. They don’t bother to plant new trees, but simply re-grow chutes of existing ones.

… too many short cuts, too much profit motive, and with monoculture growing techniques …

My Dad, his brothers, and several of his BILs were farmers; likewise the fathers of many of the (then) kids with whom I grew up and went to school. They also had that bogeyman “profit motive” … it put roofs over our heads, food on our tables (sometimes including very fresh vegetables and fruit), clothes on our backs, etc…

Trust me, neither they nor corporations are going to “cut corners” that would endanger this year the customers they need to buy their products next year, in five years, in 20 years, etc… Whether “corporate” (how many of those bogeyman corporations are actually extended families that incorporated for tax purposes? I can think of several in the county in which I grew up!) or individual owners, they are in farming for the long haul and have the minimal intelligence to realize that poisoning customers is stupid.

“Monoculture” … I had to check the definition of this fairly new pejorative term to be sure I understood it properly. My breakfast is tasty enough without seasoning it with foot-in-mouth. The practice of growing just one crop on scores or hundreds of acres for multiple years you call “monoculture” is simple good resource management. Land, equipment, and time are all precious and pricey commodities. It’s hard to know where to start in responding to this silly pejorative.

Some crops are intrinsically “monoculture”. A fruit or nut orchard or a vineyard takes 3-5 years from transplanting young trees or vines until the trees or fines start producing fruit or nuts worth harvesting, and then the orchard, properly cared for and absent some disease, fungus, or ground parasite, will last another 10 or 20 (or more?) years. The same is true of asparagus - 3-5 years before the spears can be harvested without damaging the root system, and then 10-20 years of economical production (with proper care, etc.). Alfalfa can be cut after a year or two, and it also will produce economically for 5-10 years. Whether orchard, vineyard, or field of asparagus or alfalfa, it has to be large enough to pay for its care.

Some land is more suitable for some crops, and some is more suitable for others. Hill land can only be irrigated by drip system. Drip systems are expensive and irrigate individual spots. IOW the crop will either have to be a vineyard with drip system or some grain that doesn’t require irrigation. Some crops grow best in sandy soil, some in loam, and some are OK in clayey soils. So a farmer’s range of crops is predetermined by his land, and narrowed further by what he can grow and sell for that eeee-vile profit that feeds, clothes, and shelters him and his family. If the marketplace is flooded with tomatoes, a smart farmer is going to plant something else that will support his family.

Different crops require different care and different equipment. That combine that harvests corn costs $200K and up (I checked the John Deere website). Want to use it to harvest wheat or oats? You have to buy a different “header”, probably costing $50K or more (and changing headers is considerable work!). An Agco crawler or wheeled tractor is probably north of $50K, maybe north of $100K. Disks, plows, harrows, planters, sprayers, irrigation siphons … these all cost $$. Planting multiple crop types in the same field requires complex care, uses land inefficiently (care access routes for tractors equals unused land!), uses very expensive machinery very inefficiently, and the yields are not economically worthwhile. Farming a field is very different from your family vegetable garden!

I didn’t follow my Dad’s footsteps and become a farmer, but I was paying attention when I was growing up.

The next time you feel the urge to spout faddish pop-culture Luddite anti-farmer nonsense, learn a little about farming and farmers before saying something silly. You never know who might be listening and what they lived as a child. Or whose parents and family you might unknowingly be slandering! And for goodness’ sake, don’t spout that nonsense with your mouth, refrigerator, and pantry full of food (and drawers and closets full of cotton clothing!) produced by the men and women you’re denigrating!

6 Likes

I had to look up luddite, great word. I’ll continue to spout thank you. I’ve also been around farming, among farmers and working in related fields all my life so I’m not too impressed with your second hand assumptions. My father was a farmer and a soil scientist with a degree from Oklahoma State. He also worked in that capacity for the Government for thirty years. He had serious issues with petroleum based fertilizers and monocultures. Your unfamiliarity with the term monoculture is telling. It was a concern as far back as the sixties, I was aware of it in grade school. Good stewardship of the land is not faddish pop culture nonsense. There are problems in some instances with monoculture and we should be alerted to those. GMO’s are worthy of our concern and saying so is not anti-farmer.

`
Pete,

Your post 31 was very interesting, I read it carefully and learned some
very interesting stuff I had never even heard mentioned before. (I have
raised a garden in the summer time often enough, but never had any
experience farming.)

I note that we never seem to run short of any farm products, so in light of
all the time the farmers have to invest (as you noted) in their fields and
trees and vines, that tells me that they are really on top of things out there
in American Farm World.

That’s fascinating information up there.

I think the entire world is packed and saturated with eg. wine.
There is always a surplus of wine, it appears to me anyway
from glancing at the wine departments in every food store
I enter. Somebody out there knows what they’re doing, it
appears to me, with regard to planning vineyards with all
the time involved in that, plus allowing for disease, etc.

:diamonds:

The whole “GMOs are evil” stuff comes from the same, far-left morons who gave us “global warming”, “DDT kills eagles,” “spray cans cause a hole in the ozone layer,” “coal-fired businesses cause acid rain” and “eating meat equals cruelty to animals” BS.

2 Likes

Actually 100% would be more accurate. Long before the modern bogeyman of gene-splicing American Indians modified the genetic material of the original grass through centuries of selective breeding, which the Europeans continued. Then some time in the 19th or 20th Centuries the corn genome was further modified by hybridization by crossing corn with other plants with desired characteristics. The same sort of process has been going on with soybeans as well. Gene-splicing (or whatever it is currently called) is simply a more precise method of doing what mankind has been doing to corn and soybeans (and the whole vast array of agricultural plants) for millennia.

There is a slight distinction, in that the newer crop (pardon the pun) of GMOs are produced via transgenics rather than selective breeding. Fortunately, that distinction doesn’t necessarily mean all that much when transgenics are practiced responsibly. In fact, even the Grey Lady herself takes the side of those who accept GMOs:

The whole “GMOs are evil” stuff comes from the same, far-left morons who gave us “global warming”, “DDT kills eagles,” “spray cans cause a hole in the ozone layer,” “coal-fired businesses cause acid rain” and “eating meat equals cruelty to animals” BS.

DDT didn’t kill eagles, but it did soften their egg shells, causing deaths of infant eagles. Not debatable.
Particulates released from coal-fired power plants can cause acid rain. Not debatable.
Chlorofluorocarbons do cause a reduction in the amount of ozone in the atmosphere. Not debatable (but not really an issue anymore).
Emissions of carbon do cause an effect that could technically raise the earth’s temperature. Not debatable (though the extent to which it is happening is)
Eating meat is not animal cruelty. That is malarkey.

Sorry to stir the pot, but I couldn’t resist! :grin:

1 Like

[quote=“cynicaloptimist, post:18, topic:45907”]
There is a slight distinction, in that the newer crop (pardon the pun) of GMOs are produced via transgenics rather than selective breeding. Fortunately, that distinction doesn’t necessarily mean all that much when transgenics are practiced responsibly. In fact, even the Grey Lady herself takes the side of those who accept GMOs:

DDT didn’t kill eagles, but it did soften their egg shells, causing deaths of infant eagles. Not debatable.
[/quote] Nonsense. Researchers at UNC force-fed DDT to chickens and pheasants and proved that it had NO EFFECT on eggshell thickness. What the controlling factor was/is calcium intake. “Not debatable?” No–DISPROVEN.

Particulates released from coal-fired power plants can cause acid rain. Not debatable.

Wrong again. The area with the most acidic lakes and streams is the deep SOUTH…not the NE as was claimed…and the “acid” is TANNIC acid, caused by rainfall run-off through dead vegetation on forest floors, including pine needles, because by putting out forest fires and failing to control burn deadfall, we deprive nature of the natural acid neutralization of ashes. “Not debatable?” No, DISPROVEN.

Chlorofluorocarbons do cause a reduction in the amount of ozone in the atmosphere. Not debatable (but not really an issue anymore). L
Nonsense again. NO ONE has ever proven or shown a CFC molecule “destroying” a single ozone molecule under lab conditions. Not once. The THINNING of the ozone layer STILL happens annually at the poles because of the lack of SUNLIGHT which is the actual generator of ozone in the upper atmosphere. Because of the axial tilt of the Earth with respect to the plane of the ecliptic, there are periods when the south pole in particular receives very little solar radiation. Since Ozone naturally decays into it’s constituent parts (oxygen atoms) at a rate slightly slower than its generation, there’s always a surplus of ozone–except when deprived of its generator–solar radiation. “Not debatable?” No - DISPROVEN.

Emissions of carbon do cause an effect that could technically raise the earth’s temperature. Not debatable (though the extent to which it is happening is)
Vulcanism and breathing generates more carbon than all the cars, etc. on the planet and atmospheric carbon dioxide comprises only about 1.7% of all the “greenhouse gasses” in the atmosphere (98% is WATER VAPOR). When this was pointed out to the “global warming” crowd and they realized that nobody was buying their “malarkey”, they switched their meme to “particulate carbon”–which is NOT a “greenhouse gas”–so they switched again to “climate change,” which is also nonsense. “Not debatable?” No. DISPROVEN.

Eating meat is not animal cruelty. That is malarkey.

Sorry to stir the pot, but I couldn’t resist! :grin:

1 Like

Nonsense. Researchers at UNC force-fed DDT to chickens and pheasants and proved that it had NO EFFECT on eggshell thickness. What the controlling factor was/is calcium intake. “Not debatable?” No–DISPROVEN.

Look into the research of David Peakall. DDT and DDE (a related molecule) affect calcium intake in birds like falcons and eagles. You would have to pay for the second journal article, because it was in Nature, the most annoying scientific journal, and not on JSTOR. Here are the links:

http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.456/peakall.1970.pdf
Effect of DDT on Calcium Uptake and Vitamin D Metabolism in Birds

Wrong again. The area with the most acidic lakes and streams is the deep SOUTH…not the NE as was claimed…and the “acid” is TANNIC acid, caused by rainfall run-off through dead vegetation on forest floors, including pine needles, because by putting out forest fires and failing to control burn deadfall, we deprive nature of the natural acid neutralization of ashes. “Not debatable?” No, DISPROVEN.

Here are a couple more peer-reviewed articles discussing the acid rain phenomenon. You might have to sign in through your library or school to view the whole article, but even the first page has plenty of information.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The most dissenting article I could find does not dispute the phenomenon, only its extent. Even then, it still discusses the facts of acid precipitation (including a map which shows that indeed, acid precipitation occurs mostly in the north east).

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Perhaps I wasn’t entirely wrong when I said this issue wasn’t debatable. Like so many of these issues, the phenomenon is not debatable, but the extent of that phenomenon is.

Nonsense again. NO ONE has ever proven or shown a CFC molecule “destroying” a single ozone molecule under lab conditions. Not once. The THINNING of the ozone layer STILL happens annually at the poles because of the lack of SUNLIGHT which is the actual generator of ozone in the upper atmosphere. Because of the axial tilt of the Earth with respect to the plane of the ecliptic, there are periods when the south pole in particular receives very little solar radiation. Since Ozone naturally decays into it’s constituent parts (oxygen atoms) at a rate slightly slower than its generation, there’s always a surplus of ozone–except when deprived of its generator–solar radiation. “Not debatable?” No - DISPROVEN.

Here is an easy-to-read article about the research that went into connecting CFCs with ozone depletion:

The science checklist applied: CFCs and the destruction of the ozone layer

Some more:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Vulcanism and breathing generates more carbon than all the cars, etc. on the planet and atmospheric carbon dioxide comprises only about 1.7% of all the “greenhouse gasses” in the atmosphere (98% is WATER VAPOR). When this was pointed out to the “global warming” crowd and they realized that nobody was buying their “malarkey”, they switched their meme to “particulate carbon”–which is NOT a “greenhouse gas”–so they switched again to “climate change,” which is also nonsense. “Not debatable?” No. DISPROVEN.

You are arguing about the extent of the phenomenon, which is perfectly debatable (as I said in my comments above). The phenomenon is not in itself debatable.