[URBAN LEGEND]

I see a lot of propaganda in this thread.

[carve]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

I already knew somebody was going to say that. That's why I didn't look too hard

If its not obvious that pesticides and herbicides are bad for you then I don't know how to show you that they are. Glyphosate was bad, but this year farmers are starting to use more toxic chemicals because glyphosate isn't working anymore.

http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/" rel="ugc" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://rt.com/usa/to...-corn-900/</a>

So why'd you use those references?

Nobody is saying those things are good for you. Gm crops need less of them, and less harmful ones at that. The weeds are evolving naturally the same resistance engineered into the crop, but then we can stop using those roundup ready seeds and go back to the toxic chemicals we were using before- no loss.

Organic crops STILL USE herbicides and pesticides

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

I already knew somebody was going to say that. That's why I didn't look too hard

If its not obvious that pesticides and herbicides are bad for you then I don't know how to show you that they are. Glyphosate was bad, but this year farmers are starting to use more toxic chemicals because glyphosate isn't working anymore.

http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/

how did this thread get revived?

in terms of toxicity, glyphosate is chemically less harmful than most if not all organic pesticides. i dont support the way gmos are currently used, but at least get your facts straight.

[Z K]

There are so many benefits to GMO crops. Just because some companies are using it to profit (patented formulas, built-in pesticides and non-reusable seeds etc.) doesn't mean all GMOs are bad.

GMOs are more resistent to disease, use less pesticide/herbicides and require less resources to grow. This means better crop yields = more food for starving people.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by i dunno

how did this thread get revived?

in terms of toxicity, glyphosate is chemically less harmful than most if not all organic pesticides. i dont support the way gmos are currently used, but at least get your facts straight.

Well if that is true then we need stricter regulations on what is considered organic.

Where is the evidence that GMO's are safe and that they have increased yield. Everything I've read shows that they have decreased yield. Also pesticide use may have been reduced but herbicide use has increased significantly and soon they will be using more toxic chemicals.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...40224?irpc=932

[carve]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Well if that is true then we need stricter regulations on what is considered organic.

Where is the evidence that GMO's are safe and that they have increased yield. Everything I've read shows that they have decreased yield. Also pesticide use may have been reduced but herbicide use has increased significantly and soon they will be using more toxic chemicals.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...40224?irpc=932" rel="ugc" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://mobile.reuter...4?irpc=932</a>

LOL- "organic" has nothing to do with how safe or non-toxic something is. Rattlesnake venom is organic

GMO crops are examined for their differences from non GMO. Non GMO crops are NEVER tested, and anything is unhealthy in excess- even distilled water.

Then why do farmers pay a premium for or steal them? Their yield is too high? They don't like charging the premium you get by labeling "organic" or "non-GMO"?. Why is organic more expensive if they get higher yields?

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by carve

Why is organic more expensive if they get higher yields?

Because it takes more effort and you don't always get higher yields. There are orher factors that make bigger difference on yield than whether or not it is genetically modified. Weeds have to pulled by hand rather than poisoning the entire field.

I'm not against genetic modification as long as it is proven safe which hasn't happened. Right now the majority of genetic modification is done by chemical companies trying to sell more chemicals and patent our food.

[F1Venom]

I literally live 3 miles from their headquarters here in MO. lol

[Pheonix]

Originally Posted by i dunno

how did this thread get revived?

in terms of toxicity, glyphosate is chemically less harmful than most if not all organic pesticides. i dont support the way gmos are currently used, but at least get your facts straight.

Yeah, how the freak this get revived?
We should stop respond/post to this and maybe the OP will go away.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

Yeah, how the freak this get revived?
We should stop respond/post to this and maybe the OP will go away.

I did stop replying to this because I realized nobody cares, but somebody else brought it back up.

[Kafkaesque328]

OP congratulations, you will live 5 years longer than someone else. Thus, they will die at 85 and you'll be 90, just stoked to be alive. The possibilities are endless when you are 90

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque320

OP congratulations, you will live 5 years longer than someone else. Thus, they will die at 85 and you'll be 90, just stoked to be alive. The possibilities are endless when you are 90

That is provided they actually make it to 85.

[Kafkaesque328]

I would prefer to eat organic, pesticide and GMO free food, but it is difficult to be that vigilant. Show me the hard data that shows that eating GMO, non organic food, pesticide laden apples etc. will shorten my life by a significant amount, cause chronic illness, etc.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque320

I would prefer to eat organic, pesticide and GMO free food, but it is difficult to be that vigilant. Show me the hard data that shows that eating GMO, non organic food, pesticide laden apples etc. will shorten my life by a significant amount, cause chronic illness, etc.

If I link to anything about GMO's then somebody will say this

Originally Posted by NemesisX

That's a terrible reference. There's a blatant conflict of interest.

The reason why

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-scandal

[michaelthepsycho]

Sometimes, I wonder what's sadder? Naivete? Or that a little cynicism is needed to quell the Messiah complex inherent in all of us? You speak like I did when I was 12 (but I was precocious). I would suggest your mental age catch up with your physical age real soon, whether it's regarding the topic of marijuana or GMO or however big guhbment is boning us in the ass. Take one second and a hard, hard, introspective (this is what most people lack) look at how, you, as an individual, can make even the slightest difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm of the camp that this isn't mankind's first run on this beautiful planet. Don't worry brah, we'll limit our own numbers and all that disease from eating GMO foods is just a teeny weeny ounce of population control.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

Sometimes, I wonder what's sadder? Naivete? Or that a little cynicism is needed to quell the Messiah complex inherent in all of us? You speak like I did when I was 12 (but I was precocious). I would suggest your mental age catch up with your physical age real soon, whether it's regarding the topic of marijuana or GMO or however big guhbment is boning us in the ass. Take one second and a hard, hard, introspective (this is what most people lack) look at how, you, as an individual, can make even the slightest difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm of the camp that this isn't mankind's first run on this beautiful planet. Don't worry brah, we'll limit our own numbers and all that disease from eating GMO foods is just a teeny weeny ounce of population control.

I don't need your advice. If you want to eat gmo food go ahead. Like you said it is population control and survival of the fittest still applies.

BTW since you mentioned GMO's and marijuana. Why is it that GMO's are treated as innocent until proven guilty and marijuana is treated as guilty until proven innocent. What I mean is marijuana(cannabis) has been around for thousands or possibly millions of years and has known medicinal uses in traditional medicine, yet it is treated as if it is harmful. GMO's on the other hand have only became popular in the last decade and usually contain high levels of pesticide's yet people don't think twice abut eating them.

[litxus]

OP, in some cases trying to convince people to look at other options will be like hitting a wall over and over. These people will tell you that MSG and high fructose corn syrup is healthy and makes food last longer (true, but how does it affect the body?). Here (US), most people believe the news as it is the holy truth, they never look at different angles and perspectives, and they never ask why something is as it is. That is if you starting asking "why" anywhere, you will start hitting a wall even more and people will be surprised why you are even questioning it (holy truth?). People should have an opinion independently of what is told by mainstream media, but sadly that's not the case, as if people starting asking "why" there will be a huge problem for someone.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by litxus

OP, in some cases trying to convince people to look at other options will be like hitting a wall over and over. These people will tell you that MSG and high fructose corn syrup is healthy and makes food last longer (true, but how does it affect the body?). Here (US), most people believe the news as it is the holy truth, they never look at different angles and perspectives, and they never ask why something is as it is. That is if you starting asking "why" anywhere, you will start hitting a wall even more and people will be surprised why you are even questioning it (holy truth?). People should have an opinion independently of what is told by mainstream media, but sadly that's not the case, as if people starting asking "why" there will be a huge problem for someone.

Yes they are brainwashed.

This is what the world is turning into unfortunately.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

[PINeely]

Every food has been genetically modified. Such is the result of selecting for certain genes in breeding animals and crops. If there were any appreciable risk to gene changes in plants we would have all died long ago.The only trouble with GMO food is that it has been engineered to resist pests, in turn making stronger pests which then run rampant on non-GMO crops. The food itself is perfectly safe to eat.

A huge portion of organic food is grown in China before being frozen and shipped here.
Pesticides are still used in most agriculture, including some Organic foods. These pesticides are more dangerous than those used by non-organic.
GMO crops have been EXTENSIVELY tested for human safety are nutritionally sound (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691511006399)
and safe (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosoci...o_research.pdf)

In fact, GMO crops are under more scrutiny than non-GMO which is often not tested at all.

The only way to get away from this is to raise, harvest and eat your own food. I say just be happy that you live somewhere where you have the luxury of turning down food because it doesn't meet your standards. Not long ago the government of Zambia refused huge amounts of US-grown corn on the premise that it was genetically modified. Do you think the people starving over there care whether their food is hippie-approved?

If you want to burn a torch with the food companies, how about the fact that Monsanto owns patents on the soybean and forces farmers to sell their land to them by using these patents in lawsuits? How about the fact that millions of animals are killed and mangled by combine harvesters every year and left to rot in a field somewhere? There are many more but GMO crops aren't one of them.

We are evolving around GMO crops, just as they are evolving around us.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by PINeely

Every food has been genetically modified. Such is the result of selecting for certain genes in breeding animals and crops. If there were any appreciable risk to gene changes in plants we would have all died long ago.The only trouble with GMO food is that it has been engineered to resist pests, in turn making stronger pests which then run rampant on non-GMO crops. The food itself is perfectly safe to eat.

A huge portion of organic food is grown in China before being frozen and shipped here.
Pesticides are still used in most agriculture, including some Organic foods.

The only way to get away from this is to raise, harvest and eat your own food. I say just be happy that you live somewhere where you have the luxury of turning down food because it doesn't meet your standards. Not long ago the government of Zambia refused huge amounts of US-grown corn on the premise that it was genetically modified. Do you think the people starving over there care whether their food is hippie-approved?

If you want to burn a torch with the food companies, how about the fact that Monsanto owns patents on the soybean and forces farmers to sell their land to them by using these patents in lawsuits? How about the fact that millions of animals are killed and mangled by combine harvesters every year and left to rot in a field somewhere? There are many more but GMO crops aren't one of them.

We are evolving around GMO crops, just as they are evolving around us.

You contradict yourself quite a bit. Russia and china are also rejecting our genetically modified food so at this point it is hurting the U.S economy. There is a difference between natural breeding and inserting genes from a different species. Almost all genetic modification is done for pesticide or herbicide resistance and in the case of bt corn the plant itself produces the pesticide. The reason Monsanto owns the patent on soybeans is because they are genetically modified. So your saying that your body is going to acclimate to be able to handle high levels of glyphosate (roundup) and 2,4-d (agent orange).

[PINeely]

I made edits to my first post including links to studies and such.

Originally Posted by bmw325i

You contradict yourself quite a bit. Russia and china are also rejecting our genetically modified food so at this point it is hurting the U.S economy.

Why is this a contradiction? First of all, they are rejecting other foods besides GMO. Second, their rejection doesn't mean that people in Zambia aren't starving right now because someone convinced Mwanawasa that they would be better off without our corn. As you already stated, their refusal of our corn is politically motivated. Zambia's refusal was on the basis that the crop was GMO and could harm the people who ate it (it can't).

There is a difference between natural breeding and inserting genes from a different species.

There really isn't actually. Both are a means to the same end: a crop which has been modified through gene selection to better benefit society. The difference is that one takes days and the other takes centuries, which is a time frame that our growing population can't accommodate. Neither is going to make you grow a new set of feet as shown by the previously linked studies.

Almost all genetic modification is done for pesticide or herbicide resistance and in the case of bt corn the plant itself produces the pesticide.

It's a double-edged sword. GMO crops also produce much more food per square acre, grow more quickly, are more resistant to poor conditions and can be grown in a wider variety of places. So yes, we have pesticide-resistant insects but we also have more food. If you grew everything naturally you could feed maybe 2/3 of the world's population at absolute best and people in harsh climates would be hung out to dry. So even though downsides exist, they are outweighed by the benefits of everyone not starving to death.

The reason Monsanto owns the patent on soybeans is because they are genetically modified.

I know. Is the GMO soybean the one running farmers out of business and suing them for using heirloom seeds? This is an issue with Monsanto as a company, not the GMO crop itself.

So your saying that your body is going to acclimate to be able to handle high levels of glyphosate (roundup) and 2,4-d (agent orange).

Absolutely not (although we will build up negligible tolerances, sure). I'm saying that we are genetically modifying our food to suit our needs as a national and world population, and that by the same token we are adjusting our population to GMO. In other words, the shit is here to stay and it's for the better.

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by PINeely

I made edits to my first post including links to studies and such.

Why is this a contradiction? First of all, they are rejecting other foods besides GMO. Second, their rejection doesn't mean that people in Zambia aren't starving right now because someone convinced Mwanawasa that they would be better off without our corn. As you already stated, their refusal of our corn is politically motivated. Zambia's refusal was on the basis that the crop was GMO and could harm the people who ate it (it can't).

There really isn't actually. Both are a means to the same end: a crop which has been modified through gene selection to better benefit society. The difference is that one takes days and the other takes centuries, which is a time frame that our growing population can't accommodate. Neither is going to make you grow a new set of feet as shown by the previously linked studies.


It's a double-edged sword. GMO crops also produce much more food per square acre, grow more quickly, are more resistant to poor conditions and can be grown in a wider variety of places. So yes, we have pesticide-resistant insects but we also have more food. If you grew everything naturally you could feed maybe 2/3 of the world's population at absolute best and people in harsh climates would be hung out to dry. So even though downsides exist, they are outweighed by the benefits of everyone not starving to death.


I know. Is the GMO soybean the one running farmers out of business and suing them for using heirloom seeds? This is an issue with Monsanto as a company, not the GMO crop itself.

Absolutely not (although we will build up negligible tolerances, sure). I'm saying that we are genetically modifying our food to suit our needs as a national and world population, and that by the same token we are adjusting our population to GMO. In other words, the shit is here to stay and it's for the better.

Its not worth your time. The OP has his blinders on and will not budge. It's like an atheist debating with the Jesus freak on the corner yelling about religion. No one really cares, no one is going to change their diet based of what the OP is saying or the anti-GMO links he keeps posting. It's wasted breath.