GMO rant

I've tried to stay quiet about the GMO situation for as long as possible, hoping that everyone here would move on to another topic (preferably back to more tech based stuff), but seeing as how that doesn't seem to be the case, I assume that a lot of people here would be interested in reading what I have to say about it.

 

Propaganda. That is what the whole anti-GMO movement seems like to me. The blind leading the blind. Nearly everyone that I've talked to who was against "GMOs" seemed to know hardly anything about the actual biology and chemistry involved. This idea that science messing with "nature" will screw everything up seems engrained in the way we think. Anything that we don't immediately understand is scary and needs to be stopped. I am pretty well set into the "scientist" point of view of the world by this point, so allow me to let you guys into the way that scientists tend to view things (this is a generalization and definitely doesn't apply to everyone). The "organics" (or whatever you want to call them), formerly known as the hippies, are afraid of science messing up nature it seems. Meanwhile, scientists are afraid of politicians and the military messing up science (science and politics generally butts heads continuously). More often than not, the scientific community is driven by love of science and curiosity. They want to learn. How their creations are implemented often isn't decided by them. They merely come up with the tools and methods which have the potential to benefits mankind.

 

Genetic modifications is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is often merely accelerated evolution. Great Danes and Chiwawas both came from wolves. Wheat is the product of hybridization. Corn was originally tiny. Then again, people were originally nothing more than apes, and everything traces back to single cell organisms. Life moves forward. It always has and it always will, whether we help it along or we postpone it for as long as possible. It always moves forward. What most anti-GMO people have a problem with is specifically genetic engineering involving splicing genes between organisms. At first glance, it seems completely against nature to do that. I would be willing to bet that that is what a lot of people thought when the first person pinned animals in a fence. Now, however, most everyone is ok with the idea of farms. People don't want to eat food with genes from any other organism in them, but no one fights about the insulin which comes from genetically engineering bacteria or yeast. That insulin that diabetics use? Yeah, it is from bacteria/yeast who have the human insulin production gene spliced into their genome. This is an example of the tool of genetic engineering being used for good. My point here is that genetic modification comes in many different shapes and sizes; and they are all just tools.

 

A hammer can be used to build a house, or it can be used to kill someone. A gun can be used to protect, but it can also be used to hurt. Knives can be used to cut up food, or they can be used for muggings. Cars can get you to and from work, or they can be used to run someone over. Tools are tools. They can be used for good or evil. That is why I can never take anyone seriously if they say something like, "Guns should be outlawed" or "GMOs are bad." No, they aren't anything. People created the ideas of good and bad, and people implement good and bad. While brings us back to GMOs in food.

 

Allow me to give an example. Growth hormone is often given to cows to make them grow faster. That cuts down on the time until they are ready to slaughter, thereby reducing the amount of food and whatnot that needs to be bought for them as well as decreasing turn over time. Sounds great from a business perspective. But what about the growth hormone getting into the people who eat the meat of those cows? Could it affect you? The answer is NO. It can't. First of all, your gut breaks down proteins and since growth hormone is a protein hormone, it will get broken down before being absorbed by your body, meaning that either it gets recycled and reused (which is how digestion works with most things), or it leaves your body as poop. If it does manage to get into your bloodstream anyway (say you like injecting cow blood for some reason), the hormone is species specific, so it will just get filtered out and not do anything to you anyway. My point is, there is a lot of biology to consider here; most of which the majority of the population doesn't know/understand. Now, if you are against stuff like that because of the treatment of the animals, then that is completely up to you. I know they are treated pretty rough, but we are getting away from the GMO topic sooooooo... again back to GMOs in food.

 

Should you be concerned about the genetically modified fruits and vegetables that now have spliced genes? The answer is...... probably not. Coming up with a definitive answer to things is really hard in the scientific community, especially when it comes to effects things have on people. We can't really have giant studies done with people like that. It is unethical/unaccepted. However, there is no evidence that I have heard of which supports the idea that GMOs in food affect humans poorly through consumption. The genes that get spliced into things are generally coding genes, which means they make proteins, and we are back to the whole "your body tears proteins down before absorbing them" thing. We have had GMOs in our food for years, and there doesn't appear to be any real problems yet. (There have been some highly questionable studies done, but peer review is everything to scientists, so they aren't usually accepted).

 

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT....... There is another aspect to the whole GMO thing which I don't often hear people talk about, at least it doesn't get as much of the spotlight as the mysterious, horrible, evil gene splicing nonsense. That is the companies behind it all. We are back to the politician/businessmen that scientists tend to hate and drumroll please....... Monsanto. Alright, we all know that Monsanto has a copy right on an genome now. What some of you might not know is that the thing which sets apart their copy righted soy beans from other soy beans is that they are "round up ready". That means that the farmers who pay Monsanto for their seeds have the luxury of spraying round up all over their soy beans. This might apply to other fruits/vegetables too, but this is the example that I am familiar with so we are going to go on with the soy beans. That is great for a large scale farm. Makes things a whole lot easier. Just spray the field down with a plane of irrigation, and then you don't have to worry about pests..... except that you do. It doesn't kill 100%, so just like antibiotics, overuse leads to "super-organisms" which are capable of living through it. That is bad for the environment, bad for farming, bad for humanity (in the long run at least). It simply isn't sustainable to farm that way. Eventually, nothing will work, and the only things getting poisoned will be us (and whatever else happens to have the misfortune of being nearby). This is an example of the tool of genetic engineering being used for evil. Not only that, but I have heard reports of companies like Monsanto supporting monocropping. Again, that is bad for the ecosystem. It leeches the soil and we get left with nothing in the long run again. This type of bad business/ecological practices are what people should be upset about. Who wants poisons poured on their food? Who wants leeched soil? Who wants the mistreatment/bullying of workers? Focus on that, not "the evil GMO."

 

Now I would like to touch on something which is brought up pretty regularly. Labeling. I LOVE labeling. Having taken many labs in my time in school, I know how important it is to know what it is that you are getting. Things. Should. Be. Labeled. You should be able to know whether or not your food has something in it that you don't agree with. You still don't like GMOs (maybe it is against you religion because of tampering with god's work or some bullshit), then you should be able to choose to not buy it. The choice should be on the consumer in a capitalistic society. However, knowing all of the fear of the dreaded hypeword, GMO, I don't know if I would like for people to be able to see it. They simply don't understand what it actually is and what it actually means. I would prefer if we had labels which told us about business practices and whatnot which is more important than genetic modification. Besides that, where to draw the line of what is and what isn't GMO is really hard to decide. Are we just talking about splicing? What about hybridization? That is basically the same thing, just done in nature instead of in a lab (more or less) and more limited in its usefulness. What about artificial evolution? We could theoretically get those genes to appear in the organism of choice through very careful artificial evolution, though it would take forever and a day to do. It is all really hazy on the GMO labeling front.

 

Anyway, feel free to weigh in on the topic, though I would really appreciate it if you actually took the time to read the whole post before commenting, as I don't want to have to repeat myself in the comments. That said, I know it is long, and I probably wouldn't bother to read it all myself either, so whatever.

1 Like

+1

I just had to though.

Isn't there already like 3 of these going around?

No reason that we can't have everyone voice their opinions/weigh in on it. Mine just ended up being so long that I figured it would be better suited for a blog post, if that is what you are referring to.

NICE! best one in days bud ... you've been in a slump ... but this makes up for it    lol

The trouble that I have is the greedy bastards not allowing the farmers to let a few acres go to seed and being sued for replanting the second gen seeds ... it's like hiring a thoroughbred stallion for stud service but the stallion's owner saying that any offspring from the service cannot be bred in the future ????

But that is farmacology and just pisses me off ... what really scares the hell out of me is Pharmacology ... mixing in chemicals and hormones and or vaccines for the betterment of mankind ...my muscular but! 

Have these people never seen the Firefly movie  ... it was  the chemical agent G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate, or simply "Pax" (Latin for "peace"). That they put in the the atmospheric terra-forming stations to calm the population  ...(To save the children keep them safe) that killed 90% of the global population of the planet Miranda and made the rest turn into raging  psycho cannibalistic father rapers know as Reavers.

Dammit wake up  ... if humans can think it  ... we can do it  ...

But don't you want to become a super soldier just like Captain America? That fear of good-ol' science will prevent you from ever getting there. You have to believe in it!

Ask Madame Curie how her life and contribution to science panned out for her. And I hardly heard Tesla's name until high school  ...  sure heard a lot about Edison though ... half  the inventor of Tesla IMO.

 

I am just having fun bitchen ... I just wish that society was headed where they said back in the Star Trek era. Instead of being governed by Cardassians and  Ferengi

I hear you, man.

I think there's a study where they overloaded mice with PFK1(an enzyme needed in the process of Glycolysis) and the mice was able to run 2 hours instead of 50 minutes. So...Super Mice?

  This is probably illegal for athletes though

Doing that would promote glycolysis which is great for fast energy. The problem with glycolysis is that it is terribly inefficient when compared to aerobic respiration. I am talking about a ~30x difference in efficiency here. That means that you would run through your energy stores MUCH quicker than if things were typical. That said, aerobic exorcise does involve a lot of glycolysis anyway because of how hard it is to get the necessary oxygen to the cells when they are working that hard (which is why you get out of breath after sprinting). Also, side effects are a thing. So yeah, it is a possibility, but you should keep a lot of glucose tablets and candy on hand if you plan on going that route.

I hope to live long enough to see a world in which everything we eat is engineered 100%.  Once we understand biological mechanisms completely, it will seem quaint to eat 'natural' food due to incomplete compatibility with our engineered genomes.  Growing plants will also be looked back at as a massively wasteful endeavour, consuming huge quantities of resources.

Of course, before humanity reaches that stage we'll have to run the gauntlet of at-home genetic engineers (DNA script-kiddies) producing a lethal virus, wiping us out.  I fear that more than strong AI or chemical/nukes.

Something that you might find interesting is that the first "artificial, self replicating genome" (first man-made cell) was produced in 2010 and has been successfully growing colonies. The man behind that is Craig Venter who also says that he has a prototype of a biological 3D printer. He says (though not everyone believes) that it isn't too far into the future until we have the ability to print off cells or molecules, which he says will be very beneficial for colonization of Mars. We could theoretically just print out the medication or whatever else that the colonizers need and they could 3D scan any organisms that they find there (if they find any) which could then be printed out back here on Earth. All very interesting stuff, and I think that you should look into his work if you want to learn some more about that sort of stuff.

" I've tried to stay quiet about the GMO situation for as long as possible, hoping that everyone here would move on to another topic (preferably back to more tech based stuff), but seeing as how that doesn't seem to be the case, I assume that a lot of people here would be interested in reading what I have to say about it. "

For what it's worth as a lurker it seems to me that there is a pretty good balance of discussion in the community. It also seems to be in keeping with the general ethos of the TEK team - who seem to take a rounded view of the world, rather than a self-centred narrow out look. Maybe I picked up the wrong vibe?

" Propaganda. That is what the whole anti-GMO movement seems like to me. "

Wow, so...concerned rational people that recognise the issues relating to GMO's only present propaganda? Humm the big Agribusiness doesn't spend millions lobbying, creating misleading promotional campaigns in the form of propaganda?

Here's the big difference most "anti-GMO hippies" have one over riding concern which is the protection of our environment and the vast majority do not make a penny from the efforts they put in. They don't have multi million budgets or equal representation in the main stream media. They also don't engage in gagging, bullying, corruption, bribery and profiteering etc. Then there are the Doctors and scientists in related fields who are trying to help people get informed. It's not these people that are launching legal challenges or persecuting farmers whos crops have been contaminated by neighbouring GMO crops.

" The blind leading the blind. Nearly everyone that I've talked to who was against "GMOs" seemed to know hardly anything about the actual biology and chemistry involved. "

A relatively well educated child of ten has enough of an understanding of plants and their role in an ecosystem to recognise the flaws in the GMO madness. You don't have to be a scientist to understand how plants interact with each other or the relationships they have within the wider environment and food chain. You would also need to ignore the fact that the research that is conducted is done by the Agribusiness itself without independent oversight or open review. Independent researchers are controlled by the agribusinesses and they are denied access to seeds if they don't submit a test protocol that Monsanto etc. do not approve. If they allow an outside research team to go ahead they have to sign agreements that they will only conduct tests within the agreed schedule. Another factor is funding which has lead to the corruption of science in many areas of research not just within the GMO fields.

Understanding the elementary propagation of plant life used to be taught in primary schools. Most people understand that crops out in the open are pollinated and cross pollinated by wind and animal life such as birds and bees. The big problem with GMO is that it's a one way street once the genetics are out there in the wild they contaminate none GMO crops like it or not! So potentially entire regions are at risk over time. Then there is the issue of mutation both within the infected species and other life within the ecosystem as a direct result of genetic contamination that couldn't occur in a natural environment. The gene is already out of the bottle due to the negligence/corruption of government bodies and the legal systems. It's morally and ethically wrong and totally against the wishes of the vast majority of the worlds population. The American government, IMF and big agribusiness et al forced nations to introduce GMO through legal challenges based of BS international agreements among other underhanded activities.

" This idea that science messing with "nature" will screw everything up seems engrained in the way we think. Anything that we don't immediately understand is scary and needs to be stopped. I am pretty well set into the "scientist" point of view of the world by this point, so allow me to let you guys into the way that scientists tend to view things (this is a generalization and definitely doesn't apply to everyone). The "organics" (or whatever you want to call them), formerly known as the hippies, are afraid of science messing up nature it seems. Meanwhile, scientists are afraid of politicians and the military messing up science (science and politics generally butts heads continuously). More often than not, the scientific community is driven by love of science and curiosity. They want to learn. How their creations are implemented often isn't decided by them. They merely come up with the tools and methods which have the potential to benefits mankind. "

The reason a negative view is engrained in the way we think is because there is an endless list of examples where the use of little understood technologies have resulted in negative effects. Most of which are doubtless buried out of sight - we only get to find out about the really big stuff after the impact is undeniable. On top of that there has generally been a group of people trying to raise the alarm for years previously, but they tend to be suppressed, ignored by the controlled media and labelled as "hippies", tree huggers and conspiracy nuts" (all of which are ad hominem's by the way (I'm sure people noticed what you did there)). It doesn't seem like they are messing up nature there is evidence that supports the fact that they are screwing up big time! And the implications are staggering beyond belief. Why are scientists "afraid" of political parasites and military criminals? You seem to be offering a mixed message here on one hand you're telling us that scientists are afraid of the people they ultimately work for, while on the other hand they are driven by some passion of curiosity. You then conclude that paragraph informing us that the fruits of the scientists labours are out of their control i.e. the politicians and war mongers have the final say - whether that benefits mankind or not. That right there is the issue in a nut shell! One problem you seem to be ignoring is the influence of the corporations which dictate to the politicians as well as the military. The scientists are in fear of losing their jobs in a field where it's hard to find alternative jobs if you rock the boat. So called scientists are continually guilty of misinterpreting data and conducting test that generate the required results to meet the objective. The vast majority of people don't have an issue with principle of scientific research and new discoveries that may bring benefits. People have an issue with the total failure of ethics within the physics and science fields! That element of doubt is born out of historical fact that demonstrates the systemic corruption that runs throughout the entire system, from the research assistant to the upper levels of corporate and political power. We the people and our environment pay the price for this corruption. The problem with GMO is the fact that it has an impact at a genetic level which can't be removed from the ecosystem once it's contaminated - which it already is.

" Genetic modifications is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is often merely accelerated evolution. Great Danes and Chiwawas both came from wolves. Wheat is the product of hybridization. Corn was originally tiny. Then again, people were originally nothing more than apes, and everything traces back to single cell organisms. Life moves forward. It always has and it always will, whether we help it along or we postpone it for as long as possible. It always moves forward. What most anti-GMO people have a problem with is specifically genetic engineering involving splicing genes between organisms. "

This line of reasoning is totally flawed in relation to the subject of GMO's cross breeding within a genetic subset is extremely predictable and we were doing it long before science existed as a concept. Your example of Danes and Chiwawas is not comparing apples with apples. If you said splicing Chiwawas with the genetic fragment of a chicken that triggers wing to growth to obtain a flying Chiwawa your point might have some credibility. Yes they both came from a specific genetic pool which also contains naturally occurring mutations within that genetic pool. Wolves come in contact with chickens and yet none sprouted wings to my knowledge because that isn't a function of nature! Hybridisation is a process of selection or the grafting of a similar genetic branch with another. That's totally different to what's taking place within the field of GMO, where a gene from the liver of a deep sea fish is artificially fired in to the genetics of a tomato cell, in order to improve shelf-life and cold storage properties. There is no way that that could occur within a natural environment. The results of such experimentation are unknown and the vast majority fail or have unexpected results that have no profitable application. Worse than that once the dna is contaminated it's in the ecosystem once the contaminated crop is released into the wild. Which is when things have the potential to go crazy because that new twist influences the entire ecosystem, especially other plants of the same or similar genetic properties. The results of which are totally unpredictable. There in lies the danger! Much of the current GMO varieties are being created for an unnatural defence against pests and herbicides but I'm sure that issue will be better discussed in response to a latter part of your argument. The thing to keep in mind is that plants have mechanisms capable of warding of threats naturally once the plants dna is corrupted these natural defences are damaged or get bread out. Traditional methods breed in the positive elements and natural selection adapts or weeds out useless traits.

" At first glance, it seems completely against nature to do that. I would be willing to bet that that is what a lot of people thought when the first person pinned animals in a fence. Now, however, most everyone is ok with the idea of farms. "

I would like to take that bet! I would imagine that they thought wow that's a cool idea I won't have to run around the hills everyday to find the buggers, and those pesky Chiwawa shagging wolves won't be dinning on them every night. Are you for real how is domestication of an animal or plant in anyway comparable to genetics or the concept of such a thing? The only unnatural aspect is the geographic location and possibly crowding. Naturally grazing herds don't tend to spend time grazing over land that they have defecated on so there is a health risk, but not an unnatural one per se. Most people are OK with traditional farms...factory farming is a totally different issue which also ties into GMO with respect to feed and animal welfare.

" People don't want to eat food with genes from any other organism in them, but no one fights about the insulin which comes from genetically engineering bacteria or yeast. That insulin that diabetics use? Yeah, it is from bacteria/yeast who have the human insulin production gene spliced into their genome. "

What you're ignoring with this particular digression is the fact that Bovine insulin and it's properties were discovered long before genetic mutilation was practised as it is today. Research Frederick Sanger as he made the connection in the early 50's. There are a number of other species that share a close genetic profile to human insulin. The fact that alternative and more cost effective methods of production using more modern discoveries negates evolution of previous solutions, how exactly? It's far more profitable to synthesise a drug and sell that product for huge profits. Then we should consider the fact that the very same companies are creating the GMO corn, that is used in the production of high fructose corn syrups, which are associated with obesity and pancreatic failure. Which is reaching epidemic proportions where it's consumed in large quantities. Win win for the corporate vultures.

" This is an example of the tool of genetic engineering being used for good. My point here is that genetic modification comes in many different shapes and sizes; and they are all just tools. "

The point is most people do not object because they are rational and accept certain risks, costs and benefits when they can be observed to be on the whole safe, non destructive and limited in scope. Most rational people also understand that insulin isn't a cure it's a life time prescription to a manufactured product. Rational people would rather see research into the cause and reduction in the number of people reliant on the prescription. Dietary changes can actually remove the dependency on insulin the problem is the food is being screwed up because of GMO's which drive the rise in diabetics. Oh and there's also the fact that doctors do not engage in dietary solutions, they peddle drugs for hard cash and other incentives. The system isn't interested in finding cures it's there to generate cash. What major illness or diseases have been "cured" in the last sixty years?

" A hammer can be used to build a house, or it can be used to kill someone. A gun can be used to protect, but it can also be used to hurt. Knives can be used to cut up food, or they can be used for muggings. Cars can get you to and from work, or they can be used to run someone over. Tools are tools. They can be used for good or evil. That is why I can never take anyone seriously if they say something like, "Guns should be outlawed" or "GMOs are bad." No, they aren't anything. People created the ideas of good and bad, and people implement good and bad. While brings us back to GMOs in food. "

Your bizarre tirade of illogical and fallacious analogies is becoming tiresome! A hammer, gun and knife etc. add infinitum bears no relevance to the impact of GMO's on the environment or negative impacts within the food chain! The correct analogy would be comparing it to eating a suicide pill...the problem with that analogy is we would have to assume you could avoid eating the pill involuntarily. In your argument a wilful act is required to use the tools for a purpose for which it may not have been intended. I guess it could be likened to misuse of a gun if we consider the people that are allowing GMO's to enter the environment and food chain, in the full knowledge that they are harmful, are guilty of crimes against humanity and every other life form effected. These are the same people that produced DDT and agent orange etc. but that's a whole new can of worms! One things for sure these people lack morals and principles and have a total disregard for anything that doesn't return a short term profit!

" Allow me to give an example. Growth hormone is often given to cows to make them grow faster. That cuts down on the time until they are ready to slaughter, thereby reducing the amount of food and whatnot that needs to be bought for them as well as decreasing turn over time. Sounds great from a business perspective. But what about the growth hormone getting into the people who eat the meat of those cows? Could it affect you? The answer is NO. It can't. "

This would be better suited to a discussion in it's own right, but here goes...would you consider a drop in sperm count in human males a negative medical condition that effects people? I think some people might consider that detrimental. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article 5543.cfm

The feed lot process of industrial farming is a disgusting agricultural system not least on a moral footing. Treating living animals in such away is totally unacceptable. Obviously the American government understands that people would be appalled at the idea - so much so that the government have introduced legislation preventing it being filmed and made public. This is one of the few documentaries that I'm aware of that exposes the issue of feed lots in the USA Food Inc. Force rearing beef or any other animal for meat yields low quality product because the animals do not exercise or mature at a natural rate. The living conditions cause illness which requires the use of medication etc. Animals kept in stressful environments metabolise at different rates and they also have elevated levels of other hormones that wouldn't generally be present in a conventional scenario.

" First of all, your gut breaks down proteins and since growth hormone is a protein hormone, it will get broken down before being absorbed by your body, meaning that either it gets recycled and reused (which is how digestion works with most things), or it leaves your body as poop. If it does manage to get into your bloodstream anyway (say you like injecting cow blood for some reason), the hormone is species specific, so it will just get filtered out and not do anything to you anyway. My point is, there is a lot of biology to consider here; most of which the majority of the population doesn't know/understand. "

Humm I hope you're including yourself in the majority of the population because your level of understanding seems pretty poor from where I'm sitting and I'm far from being an expert. I do however posses the ability to use a search engine and read multiple source with some degree of discernment. I think people would be well advised to to their own due diligence rather that accept anything you have blurted out in your "rant". I haven't seen much in the way of cited sources to support your flawed arguments so far? If you care to offer up the information I would be more than happy to take a look at it and research the validity and root out counter claims. You never know I may get lucky and have a few responses stored in wait.

" Now, if you are against stuff like that because of the treatment of the animals, then that is completely up to you. I know they are treated pretty rough, but we are getting away from the GMO topic sooooooo... again back to GMOs in food. "

The vast majority of people have a conscience and do not like the unnecessary mistreatment of animals. The reality is most people have no idea how these animals are treated especially in the USA where massive feed lots are far from the gaze of your average consumer. It's also not something that is given air time on MSM outlets so people are deliberately kept in ignorance. Huge amounts of land are being taken out of production globally while excuses are made in defence of obscene factory farming methods. Methods which do not benefit us as consumers or the animals that are mistreated in the process. In Wales (UK) there has been an ongoing battle to prevent a massive zero graze unit being established. Because people do not find the practice acceptable! Last time I checked the case was going to appeal.

Oh and just in case you're busy conjuring up a stereotype of me as some sort of veg munching hippy maybe I should mention that I have probably killed and butchered more animals than you have had bottles of formula. I don't have any issues with agriculture or the rearing of animals for meat. I have issues with the way animals are treated and the direction traditional agriculture is being driven unnecessarily.

" Should you be concerned about the genetically modified fruits and vegetables that now have spliced genes? The answer is...... probably not. "

"Probably not" isn't an acceptable answer given the impact and wider implications that GMO's are already shown to be having everywhere where they have managed to force them on the farming communities.

" Coming up with a definitive answer to things is really hard in the scientific community, especially when it comes to effects things have on people. We can't really have giant studies done with people like that. It is unethical/unaccepted. However, there is no evidence that I have heard of which supports the idea that GMOs in food affect humans poorly through consumption. "

Well allow me to share a some videos that will provide you with some evidence as you don't seem to be looking very hard.

This is part one or a presentation on GMO's in this video the basic principles and science are explained in terms most people can easily digest.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpqTzwkl6ew

Part 2 is from the first had experience of a farmer trying to raise awareness of GMO's with respect to mammals and their health.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxblafn9BYU

(warning contains some images that maybe distressing)

Further reading: http://fracturedparadigm.com/2014/07/26/glyphosate-detected-in-deformed-piglets/

 

" The genes that get spliced into things are generally coding genes, which means they make proteins, and we are back to the whole "your body tears proteins down before absorbing them" thing. We have had GMOs in our food for years, and there doesn't appear to be any real problems yet. (There have been some highly questionable studies done, but peer review is everything to scientists, so they aren't usually accepted). "

The part people should consider there is your use of the word "yet"! It's coming! So lets talk about research shall we? You do realise that the test that are used in the reports that state GMO's are safe for consumption are conducted on mice and rats feed around 30% GMO for a period of 90 days? That's the industry standard test! AFAIK. The issue is that the effects don't generally appear until 18 months into the test. If you're actually interested in the issue you need to research the life time studies in rats and mice. You will soon discover that GMO's are far from safe for human consumption! The first video above gives some information which discusses the testing. The fact is that the science is producing the results required to get approval! Plausible deniablity? Modern scientists seems to be having the ability to cover their arse while producing the required results for their paymasters.

Are you going to provide supporting sources that we can investigate for ourselves?

" BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT....... There is another aspect to the whole GMO thing which I don't often hear people talk about, at least it doesn't get as much of the spotlight as the mysterious, horrible, evil gene splicing nonsense. That is the companies behind it all. We are back to the politician/businessmen that scientists tend to hate and drumroll please...Monsanto. Alright, we all know that Monsanto has a copy right on an genome now. What some of you might not know is that the thing which sets apart their copy righted soy beans from other soy beans is that they are "round up ready". That means that the farmers who pay Monsanto for their seeds have the luxury of spraying round up all over their soy beans. "

Are you for real the luxury of spraying glysophates i.e. Roundup? That's a burden for most farmers of the world so much so there are thousands of Indian cotton farmers that have committed suicide drinking the Roundup because they have been ruined. The average debt in 2009 was around $400. These are farmers with small acreages - by small we are talking 2 to 5 acres. The Indian government has effectively withdrawn access to heirloom seed stocks so they can no longer return to traditional varieties. Varieties that used to be suited to the regional climate which could grow with the application of manure which they get for FREE! The yields from GMO do not meet the claims. The chemical requirements are weather dependent in the absence of irrigation (which most have no access to) and on top of that the GMO crops and glysophates require more water and degrade the soil. It's devastating to the farmers, local communities and their environment! Here is a documentary on the subject...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebnOX3RbuCE

afaik it's only available with subtitles. This is the associated website http://www.itvs.org/films/bitter-seeds .

" This might apply to other fruits/vegetables too, but this is the example that I am familiar with so we are going to go on with the soy beans. That is great for a large scale farm. Makes things a whole lot easier. Just spray the field down with a plane of irrigation, and then you don't have to worry about pests...except that you do. It doesn't kill 100%, "

Humm do you know why Roundup doesn't kill pests? It's a glyphospate herbicide it kills weeds. Pesticides kill errr pests. It actually doesn't kill the weed per se it damages the plants natural immunity so it can't defend itself. Obviously bugs get damaged as a by product of the process along with the rest of us.

" so just like antibiotics, overuse leads to "super-organisms" which are capable of living through it. That is bad for the environment, bad for farming, bad for humanity (in the long run at least). It simply isn't sustainable to farm that way."

Holy cow you finally said something that makes sense. You're 100% right I'm referring to the last two fragments of the above. Well done you!

" Eventually, nothing will work, and the only things getting poisoned will be us (and whatever else happens to have the misfortune of being nearby). This is an example of the tool of genetic engineering being used for evil. Not only that, but I have heard reports of companies like Monsanto supporting monocropping. Again, that is bad for the ecosystem. It leeches the soil and we get left with nothing in the long run again. This type of bad business/ecological practices are what people should be upset about. Who wants poisons poured on their food? Who wants leeched soil? Who wants the mistreatment/bullying of workers? Focus on that, not "the evil GMO. "

Part one of the video linked above goes into this issue in some detail if I remember correctly. You can't ignore the GMO aspect the two issues are interrelated glyphosphates are the other edge of the GMO sward. The GMO crops are resistant to the effects of the glyphosphates they still absorb them. Pesticides are also genetically applied to seed stocks in many forms - for example some plants may give off the scent of ladybirds which is supposed to attract ladybird to the crop in order to feed on aphids. It doesn't work as expected especially in vast areas of mono crop. The ladybirds tend to lose out on the deal - no surprise there then.

" Now I would like to touch on something which is brought up pretty regularly. Labeling. I LOVE labeling. Having taken many labs in my time in school, I know how important it is to know what it is that you are getting. Things. Should. Be. Labeled. You should be able to know whether or not your food has something in it that you don't agree with. You still don't like GMOs (maybe it is against you religion because of tampering with god's work or some bullshit), then you should be able to choose to not buy it. The choice should be on the consumer in a capitalistic society. "

I guess that depends on how you define capitalistic - it seems more like a psychopathic plutocracy from this side of the screen. Here is a short video on the GMO labelling issue in the USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoAQMKXbwXI .

" However, knowing all of the fear of the dreaded hypeword, GMO, I don't know if I would like for people to be able to see it. They simply don't understand what it actually is and what it actually means. I would prefer if we had labels which told us about business practices and whatnot which is more important than genetic modification. Besides that, where to draw the line of what is and what isn't GMO is really hard to decide. Are we just talking about splicing? What about hybridization? That is basically the same thing, just done in nature instead of in a lab (more or less) and more limited in its usefulness. What about artificial evolution? We could theoretically get those genes to appear in the organism of choice through very careful artificial evolution, though it would take forever and a day to do. It is all really hazy on the GMO labelling front. "

Glass houses spring to mind.

I'm not sure what gives you the ability to judge what people should and shouldn't be able to see? This rant of you're has offered nothing of substance and demonstrates that you're not exactly informed on the issues. People are more than capable of making decisions. The issue is the quality of unbiased information that they have access to! The fact of the matter is that all the checks and balances that should be in place have been compromised. Governments, Courts and research is corrupt and the media is brought and paid for so people are feed lies, half truths and obfuscated data. You opened your "rant" complaining about people in the community talking about the GMO issue too much. It's this type of discussion that the State wants to clamp down on they don't want people using the web to become informed. They are used to controlling the information you have access to...which has allowed them to undermine our communities and destroy our countries from within. Our governments are committing treasonous acts against us daily as they position themselves to deal with the escalating decent that's building. Wendell, Logan and Quan et al do a great job in keeping a balance between the tech stuff and issues that we should all be concerned about. If the ISP and the State get their way you will see a total transformation in the information that's available to you right now. The problem is not enough people are aware of what is going on around them (by design). The good news is that more people are starting to take notice and that can only be a good thing.

" Anyway, feel free to weigh in on the topic, though I would really appreciate it if you actually took the time to read the whole post before commenting, as I don't want to have to repeat myself in the comments. That said, I know it is long, and I probably wouldn't bother to read it all myself either, so whatever. "

It's not too long if people are serious about understanding the subject especially one as important as this. My advice would be for people to take the time to research for themselves as it's clear that your understanding is somewhat limited, and I'm certainly not an expert on the matter. There is loads of information on the web from a huge range of sources, but you have to put in the time and follow citations to verify claims. Obviously there are people with agendas on both sides of the argument. Only a fool would think otherwise. You would have to be a bigger fool not to be objective and read what people on all sides are saying while forming your own opinion.

Here are a some more links for those interested in the subject:

GMO - Seeds of Destruction - Lecture by F. William Engdahl > www.youtube.com/watch?v=69bLgOgbZVk

The World According to Monsanto (full length) > www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

Seeds of death (full length) > www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

This may also be of interest https://www.tragedyandhope.com/barack-obama-and-the-monsanto-betrayal/

One final thought more people could afford organic food if supermarkets weren't so wasteful due to aesthetics, which results in approximately a third wastage due to size, shape and blemishes. Natural food has faults and once upon a time people understood that.

 One more thing I meant to mention re. zero graze v grass feed live stock and vitamin K2 and Calcium.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-qqQCD4xM

Source: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/KateRheaume-BleueVitaminK2

^ This, much more eloquent than I could ever put it

I am going to just be straightforward here. That post is a perfect example of why I haven't said anything up until this point. There is so much ignorance in there that I can't begin to start addressing it all. I just don't have the time nor the patience to bother. It is that misunderstanding of things that makes me shy away from any scientific things  that are in the public light. Everyone has an opinion, but not many people actually know what they are talking about.

i like how op shuts down after someone else post an opposing TL;DR

I am not about to start writing books about this topic. It simply isn't that important to me. Neither is educating people on basic biology an ecology. I would suggest that they do that themselves. I have neither the drive nor the time for it.