Organic Food not better for you

[GostHacked]

Then you hop from herbicide resistance-to patents-to terminator seeds as if they are easily related. To cap it all off, Monsanto does not use terminator seeds. No one does - except the conspiracy theorists who don't care about what is true and what is not.

If you don't know the connection between the pesticide/herbicide, GMOs and the terminator seed, there is nothing I can put forth to show you where you are wrong. They are easily related.

Round up is the herbicide used, made by Monsanto.

Every GMO strain Monsanto puts out is patented.

The GMO strains are genetically modified to resist the herbicide made by Monsanto.

The terminator seed is a patented product of Monsanto.

You'd be pressed to NOT find the relation between these items. Unless your thinking is so compartmentalized you can't see the GMO field for the Corn.

[carepov]

Take a look at the video I posted a couple pages back. I found a test crop with 20 new strains of GMO corn and 20 new strains of GMO Soybean. All those products are new this year. At least two of these new corn strains are hybrids of two previous GMO strains of corn.

Primates are 99% genetically the same, but yet different enough to be classified as something else.

I don't know but you and carepov are quite hostile in your approach in batting down organics. Almost like you two have an agenda.

You got me. Last week I purchased shares in Monsanto.

Seriously, my agenda in one word is: truth.

If you want to buy "organics" fine. If you want to spread fear and lies I will try my best to prevent you. I understand and admire that your intentions are good but your fear and lies are counter-productive and if allowed to spread can cost millions of lives plus the opportunity costs of not addressing real problems.

[GostHacked]

You got me. Last week I purchased shares in Monsanto.

Seriously, my agenda in one word is: truth.

If you want to buy "organics" fine. If you want to spread fear and lies I will try my best to prevent you. I understand and admire that your intentions are good but your fear and lies are counter-productive and if allowed to spread can cost millions of lives plus the opportunity costs of not addressing real problems.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577645474129576872.html

Why does China have this resistance to GMOs?

BEIJING—China's national health watchdog suspended one of its researchers after announcing it hadn't approved or participated in a 2008 Sino-U.S. study that examined the effect of genetically modified vitamin-enriched rice on 24 children.

There is no indication that the children have been harmed, but the agency's response is likely to further entrench widely held public skepticism in China over genetically modified grains amid broader food-safety concerns ranging from dairy products to cooking oil.

Unlike the U.S., where genetically modified grain is common, China prohibits its use in human consumption and limits its domestic production, although it allows some imports as animal feed. Such grains are politically unpopular in China, where much of the public believes they can impact human biology.

[segnosaur]

Why does China have this resistance to GMOs?

Ummm... because people are stupid and governments often find it more expedient to ignore actual real scientific evidence in favor of what the unwashed masses want?

[Wayward Son]

I believe you're touching on the key matters here. There is often a twinned (and, frankly, thoughtless) belief that 1.) human behaviour is "unnatural," (but, oddly, didn't used to be); and that 2) because human beings have often accidentally poisoned themselves in one way or another, that this is the dominant paradigm of--in this case--large-scale agriculture.

And honestly, I think also wedded to all this is a distrust of Big Business generally. And personally, I don't think distrust of Big Business is at all irrational...there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of it on numerous grounds, not least that those with lots of influence on our lives need to be watched extraordinarily closely. (In a saner world, this would be an inherently conservative view...but it isn't.)

But it's not a catch-all, and can't be extrapolated to every bit of corporate activity, because that's simply irrational.

I have no doubt that big business has a lot to do with it and on a personal level I feel that fears of big business are more than legitimate. However, at the same time I think that opposition to GMOs, and the need for increased security to stop experiments from being destroyed has pushed the research away from universities, away from governments, and away from small biotech firms. If you create an atmosphere where only the biggest players can play than the only players will be the biggest ones. I hope that some time soon rational understanding will allow those other players to play the larger role they should be playing, and with that the results of GMO research will fall more inline with the needs of society, as right now firms understandibly devote their resources towards the desires of the farmers who support them.

[bleeding heart]

I have no doubt that big business has a lot to do with it and on a personal level I feel that fears of big business are more than legitimate. However, at the same time I think that opposition to GMOs, and the need for increased security to stop experiments from being destroyed has pushed the research away from universities, away from governments, and away from small biotech firms. If you create an atmosphere where only the biggest players can play than the only players will be the biggest ones. I hope that some time soon rational understanding will allow those other players to play the larger role they should be playing, and with that the results of GMO research will fall more inline with the needs of society, as right now firms understandibly devote their resources towards the desires of the farmers who support them.

Nicely said, and I agree.

[carepov]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577645474129576872.html

Why does China have this resistance to GMOs?

In case I haven't made it clear already, opposition and resistance to GMOs is a mystery to me. (No matter what the country.) Why don't you tell me, what exact products are people like you afraid of?

[Wayward Son]

Take a look at the video I posted a couple pages back. I found a test crop with 20 new strains of GMO corn and 20 new strains of GMO Soybean. All those products are new this year. At least two of these new corn strains are hybrids of two previous GMO strains of corn.

Traditional breeding leads to many new strains each year. That is the whole point.

Primates are 99% genetically the same, but yet different enough to be classified as something else.

So what? The percentages I was using were a made up example.

I don't know but you and carepov are quite hostile in your approach in batting down organics. Almost like you two have an agenda.

I think that BH answered your question pretty accurately. I feel that there are some positive techniques often found in organic agriculture. Those techniques that are positive should be picked up and used by other farming methods. The overall problem with organic farming though is that it is anti-scientific and promotes myths and and mythical thinking. For instance sythethic pesticides are forbidden, while "natural" ones are ok (while spreading the myth that they don't use any pesticides at all.). An intelligent environmentally friendly policy would be to select the best ones and use no more than is required. Organic farming bans such sensible environmentally friendly methods because they are more interested in ideology. If think that it is best to accomplish something by handicapping yourself, fine, but my agenda is that things like feeding people are important enough to put reality ahead of superstitious thinking.

[Guest Manny]

Part of the very reason companies are so careful now, and new government legislation for standards is being implemented, is that the public has become very aware and sensitive to the GMO issue. The demand for safety comes out of this concern in the general public. What would be the safety concern without it? Without government oversight these companies would come under pressure from financial investors to rush the products to market, cutting corners to reduce development time and cost. That's precisely why regulations need to be applied.

[Wayward Son]

The terminator seed is a patented product of Monsanto.

To me at least, calling it a product generally implies that it is being marketed or available for purchase.

Monsanto has long promised that they would not use terminator (GURT) technology. They have never even done field trials.

In 2007 Monsanto bought Delta and Pine Land because it was a leader in cotton seed breeding. That company also held a GURT patent that it was developing.

Since that time Monsanto has held true to its commitment to not develop GURT. If anything, their purchase of DPL has meant that Monsanto has stopped GURT from hitting the market.

There should be more than enough reality-based claims about Monsanto's misdeeds to stick to those.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Wayward Son

[carepov]

Part of the very reason companies are so careful now, and new government legislation for standards is being implemented, is that the public has become very aware and sensitive to the GMO issue. The demand for safety comes out of this concern in the general public. What would be the safety concern without it? Without government oversight these companies would come under pressure from financial investors to rush the products to market, cutting corners to reduce development time and cost. That's precisely why regulations need to be applied.

Great, you can feel safe as, according to the WHO, each year Vitamin A deficiency kills 1-2 million people, and 500,000 people, mainly children, go blind. But we should prevent the addition of beta-carotene into rice because this would make you feel unsafe...

[Guest Manny]

Great, you can feel safe as, according to the WHO, each year Vitamin A deficiency kills 1-2 million people, and 500,000 people, mainly children, go blind. But we should prevent the addition of beta-carotene into rice because this would make you feel unsafe...

Since you seem to want to simply everything to the level of an absurd argument, it's important to keep you liberals from turning everything in nature into something else. You want beta carotene? Eat a god damned carrot.

[GostHacked]

Since you seem to want to simply everything to the level of an absurd argument, it's important to keep you liberals from turning everything in nature into something else. You want beta carotene? Eat a god damned carrot.

Part of having a 'balanced' diet. But since our diets these days are anything BUT balanced (obesity, diabetes, other health issues), there is a need to GM other things to hold that nutrient.

So the solution is not to have a GM product with beta carotene, the solution is to eat better.

[GostHacked]

Alright, labels are good because people are allergic to certain things correct?

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

Allergies

Introducing new DNA into the food supply may involve the introduction of new allergens. The issue is of greatest concern with transgenic organisms, in which genes from one organism to another. Soybeans genetically engineered to contain Brazil-nuts is one such example. These soybeans were shown to cause reactions in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts. If consumers are unaware of the fact that a brazil nut gene is present in the soybeans, they cannot avoid consuming the product. Read more about this on the players page (link).

[carepov]

Since you seem to want to simply everything to the level of an absurd argument, it's important to keep you liberals from turning everything in nature into something else. You want beta carotene? Eat a god damned carrot.

Part of having a 'balanced' diet. But since our diets these days are anything BUT balanced (obesity, diabetes, other health issues), there is a need to GM other things to hold that nutrient.

So the solution is not to have a GM product with beta carotene, the solution is to eat better.

So the 124,000,000 people suffering from Vitamin A defficiency should just "eat better"? Let's send them a text message!

[Guest Manny]

Part of having a 'balanced' diet. But since our diets these days are anything BUT balanced (obesity, diabetes, other health issues), there is a need to GM other things to hold that nutrient.

So the solution is not to have a GM product with beta carotene, the solution is to eat better.

If the fast-food culture needs its GM to survive, no problem. You folks go ahead and knock yerselves out

[Guest Manny]

So the 124,000,000 people suffering from Vitamin A defficiency should just "eat better"? Let's send them a text message!

I see no problem with that principle. Nature already proivides qwhat we need, there's no need to re-engineer anything.

What you think after humans living in nature for millions of years, suddenly you and joe bob the lab rat suddenly have a better idea?

Pshaa

[segnosaur]

Alright, labels are good because people are allergic to certain things correct?

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

Yes, there is the risk that genetically modified food can introduce proteins that cause allergic reactions.

But so what? There's a simple solution... test the products and don't release them commercially until proven safe. In fact, that's what happens now. Do you really think there are lab technicians running around and releasing products willy-nilly?

In fact, there has been substantial work done to identify which genes/proteins can cause problems, and avoid them.

Part of having a 'balanced' diet. But since our diets these days are anything BUT balanced (obesity, diabetes, other health issues), there is a need to GM other things to hold that nutrient.

So the solution is not to have a GM product with beta carotene, the solution is to eat better.

That's only pragmatic in the developed (western) world. We cannot go and tell people in the developing world to "eat better/eat a carrot" because many people do not have access to alternate food sources. They didn't create golden rice with "vitamin A" genes to help the teenage couch-potato kids in North America. They created it to help people in sub-Saharan Africa and Indian slums who may have problems affording the other foods needed for a "balanced diet".

Oh and by the way, you know Monsanto, the "evil corporation" that's trying to poison us all with Frankenfood? Well, they were one of the first companies involved in the creation of Golden Rice to allow distribution royalty-free.

[carepov]

I see no problem with that principle. Nature already proivides qwhat we need, there's no need to re-engineer anything.

What you think after humans living in nature for millions of years, suddenly you and joe bob the lab rat suddenly have a better idea?

Pshaa

You are making a fool of yourself. I suggest that you learn about Vitamin A deficiency (who, what, where, and why).

[Wayward Son]

Alright, labels are good because people are allergic to certain things correct?

This is simply a case of throwing out any argument you can find to see what sticks. I have had this kind of conversation several times before (sometimes about allergies, sometimes about butterfly populations, and sometimes about the other various untruths that are spread about the technology).

Why do you oppose GMOs?

Allergies.

So if it was shown that GMO technology can reduce allergic reactions then you would support it?

No.

So you don't actually give a damn about allergies, and can't come up with legitimate reasons to support your position.

(There have been millions of allergic reactions to foods. Number from GMOs? none)

Edited September 26, 2012 by Wayward Son

[GostHacked]

So the 124,000,000 people suffering from Vitamin A defficiency should just "eat better"? Let's send them a text message!

Eat a carrot.

Ask your doctor what they recommend. Chances are they will say take Vit A pills, or eat a better healthier balanced diet. The solution is available right now! What kind of message are you trying to send to them? Forget the carrots and wait for the GMO rice to be available? Seems like an expensive and lengthy science process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A

If you don't like carrots, you can simply eat one of these other item that contain Vitamin A.

liver (beef, pork, chicken, turkey, fish) (6500 μg 722%), including cod liver oil

dandelion greens (5588 IU 112%)[13]

carrot (835 μg 93%)

broccoli leaf (800 μg 89%) – According to USDA database broccoli florets have much less.[14]

sweet potato (709 μg 79%)

butter (684 μg 76%)

kale (681 μg 76%)

spinach (469 μg 52%)

pumpkin (400 μg 41%)

collard greens (333 μg 37%)

Cheddar cheese (265 μg 29%)

cantaloupe melon (169 μg 19%)

egg (140 μg 16%)

apricot (96 μg 11%)

papaya (55 μg 6%)

mango (38 μg 4%)

pea (38 μg 4%)

broccoli (31 μg 3%)

milk (28 μg 3%)

Edited September 26, 2012 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Traditional breeding leads to many new strains each year. That is the whole point.

This is beyond traditional breading, this is genetic manipulation of a plant.

So what? The percentages I was using were a made up example.

Hopefully the rest of your argument is not as made up.

I think that BH answered your question pretty accurately. I feel that there are some positive techniques often found in organic agriculture. Those techniques that are positive should be picked up and used by other farming methods. The overall problem with organic farming though is that it is anti-scientific and promotes myths and and mythical thinking.

What is so anti-science about not wanting to ingest pesticides? Since it is healthier in the sense you are not eating all sorts of pesticides, what kind of myths do you think organic farmers are putting forth?

For instance sythethic pesticides are forbidden, while "natural" ones are ok (while spreading the myth that they don't use any pesticides at all.).

Some of the pesticides that Monsanto offers can be traced to Agent Orange... we can also see the downfall of the use of DDT before it became clear it was causing major health problems.

And yes pesticides are used, but there are natural solutions that will work. Part of the problem with the GMO crops and spraying them with Round Up is creating pesticide resistant weeds that demand either a different herbicide, or simply more of the herbicide. And since the GMO crop is resistant to it, simply spray more to kill the weeds. But that still gets absorbed into the plant which we then consume.

You and I are not genetically modified to resist the pesticides/herbicides. You can wash your produce thinking you have gotten rid of all the pesticides, but you do know that the fruit/vegetable has absorbed some of the chemicals.

An intelligent environmentally friendly policy would be to select the best ones and use no more than is required.

This is a good point, I agree with this single notion. But with companies like Monsanto lobbying government to get their way and the ease of politicians that can bend the rules with some palm greaser, tells me that you and I are both going to have a hard time convincing them that this must be the case.

Organic farming bans such sensible environmentally friendly methods because they are more interested in ideology.

Ok, maybe you can tell me how organic farming harms the environment?

If think that it is best to accomplish something by handicapping yourself, fine, but my agenda is that things like feeding people are important enough to put reality ahead of superstitious thinking.

You sure are trying to pull out all the stops with your anti-organic stance. I have at least presented some material to back up my thoughts.

[GostHacked]

This is simply a case of throwing out any argument you can find to see what sticks. I have had this kind of conversation several times before (sometimes about allergies, sometimes about butterfly populations, and sometimes about the other various untruths that are spread about the technology).

If a person is allergic to let's say peanuts, and you splice part of the peanut gene into another food you eat and you get an allergic reaction, (some seem to be deathly allergic to peanuts too) would you still be opposed to having the GMO label on the food?

If GMO is just as good as the real thing, then companies won't have a problem with putting the label on the box. Why would you object to leaving out what types of ingredients are in your foods?

Why do you oppose GMOs?

Allergies.

That is but one reason. Are allergies a concern to you?>

So if it was shown that GMO technology can reduce allergic reactions then you would support it?

No.

Well I guess you can take the thread away now since you know what my answers would be for your questions.

If long term independent testing showed that (and testing that is not susceptible to bias and lobby money) then I would have to agree. But many of these tests are about 3 months. And if you want to talk about long term effects, I suspect you are not going to find anything within 3 months.

There have been millions of allergic reactions to foods. Number from GMOs? none

http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-foods-unsafe-evidence-that-links-gm-foods-to-allergic-responses-mounts/

Soy allergies jumped 50% in the U.K. just after GM soy was introduced.2 If GM soy was the cause, it may be due to several things. The GM protein that makes Roundup Ready Soy resistant to the herbicide does not have a history of safe use in humans and may be an allergen. In fact, sections of its amino acid sequence are identical to known allergens.3

Edited September 26, 2012 by GostHacked

[Guest Manny]

You are making a fool of yourself. I suggest that you learn about Vitamin A deficiency (who, what, where, and why).

Ad hominems are always your specialty.

[Wayward Son]

Eat a carrot. Ask your doctor what they recommend...If you don't like carrots, you can simply eat one of these other item that contain Vitamin A.

This is a thoroughly ignorant response along the lines of "Let them eat Cake." But at least Marie Antoinette likely never said the lines that are attributed to her. I can't imagine anyone alive today not knowing that there are a whole lot of extremely poor people living in places like Southeast Asia who don't have access to doctors who might tell how to eat, although seeing as they survive on less than a dollar a day and on a single staple - mainly rice, telling them to eat more varied diet is kind of an extremely stupid thing to say and only the most ignorant people in the First World could manage to be that clueless. These people are not deficient in vitamin A because they love rice so much that they refuse to eat anything else. They are vitamin A deficient because rice is that only thing they have to eat. Maybe you should take the time to look out why golden rice was developed and where it is meant to deployed before you say that these people should take a hop to the store to buy some beef liver with collard greens and cheddar cheese. It is not these people who are ignorant, it is you.