Posted on 06/03/2014 12:38:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Human beings have been using various agricultural techniques to genetically modify (i.e., breed for preferred traits in) their food for thousands of years, and the more recent and more rapidly innovative advent of genetically modified foods via laboratory has helped scientists and farmers to develop hardier, more nutritious, pest-and-weather-resistant crops that have the ability to feed more people while using up less space and fewer resources (which, I might mention, is a pretty great environmental development to boot).
Despite their boundless potential for feeding the hungry and alleviate poverty the world over, genetically modified organisms have inspired a small but vociferous and well-marketed opposition campaign among many of the same types of people who would probably dismiss you as a knuckle-dragging, anti-science flat-earther for questioning the absolute and catastrophic imminence of climate-change disasters. If rising global temperatures are indeed the all-consuming environmental problem that The Party of Science portends, then GMOs are going to be an essential part of any adaptation strategy — but let that not deter the voters of Jackson County, Oregon, who last month joined several other counties spread across California, Hawaii, and Washington to ban the cultivation of genetically modified crops:
Residents in a southwest Oregon county voted emphatically to ban genetically engineered crops following a campaign that attracted a bushel of out-of-state money.
With most of the ballots counted in Tuesday’s all-mail election, Jackson County voters approved the measure by a 2-to-1 margin. ..
Though genetically engineered crops are common and no mainstream science has shown they are unsafe, opponents contend GMOs are still experimental and promote the use of pesticides. They say more testing is needed. …
“Regrettably ideology defeated sound science and common sense in Jackson County,” Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said in a statement. “We respect the voice of the voters, but remain convinced Measure 15-119 is bad public policy. While this election is over, this debate is not. We will continue to fight to protect the rights of all farmers to choose for themselves how they farm.”
The editors of the Washington Post would agree with that sensible assessment, as they outlined in a piece this week criticizing the anti-”Frankenfood” “fundamentalism” of these anti-science and trend-chasing yuppies:
There is no mainstream scientific evidence showing that foods containing GMOs are any more or less harmful for people to consume than anything else in the supermarket, despite decades of development and use. If that doesn’t convince some people, they have the option of simply buying food bearing the “organic” label. There is no need for the government to stigmatize products with a label that suggests the potential for harm. Outright bans, meanwhile, are even worse than gratuitous labeling.
The issue is not just one of agribusiness profits, though some companies certainly stand to make money by creating and selling GMOs. The application of current biotechnological tools to agriculture offers a wide array of benefits , benefits that are only beginning to be seen. There is the potential to create crops that are easier to grow, better for the environment and more nutrient-rich. Smart genetic modification is one important tool available to sustain the world’s growing multitudes. Making good on that promise will require both an openness to the technology and serious investment in GMOs within wealthy countries. The prospect of helping to feed the starving and improve the lives of people across the planet should not be nipped because of the self-indulgent fretting of first-world activists.
Amen to that.
After posting this article, the editorial staff at WaPo went to their favorite organic, non-GMO bistro for lunch.
Defined in Merriam-Webster as: a foolish act or idea. Ex. a serious journalist who refuses to take part in the asininity of reporting celebrity gossip as real news.
I don’t have a problem with GMOs.
I only want to know why ArcherDanielsMidland et al. fight like hades to keep from listing GMO on their packaging. Why wouldn’t they want a consumer to know if it is genetically modified or not?
So even GMO is part of that, and the propaganda against it now is a tactic for chaotic division and conquest.
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
- Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. …
GMO is one topic I am still on the fence over.
Remember the it’s not to fool with Mother Nature ads?
They were selling margarine which I do not use. I am a whole milk, natural butter consumer.
I don’t think it is possible to avoid GMO products anymore. The choices are too cumbersome for me.
I guess I am lazy.
Well, I have lived a long life, not that concerned about extending it indefinitely anyway.
In fact, I am like a child that says “I just want to go home”. I want to go home now. If I stroke out today, great, or tomorrow or the next day, no worries. I’ll get to go home.
GMO is a government plot to take over our minds and bodies and control us.
Each cell of the GMO food has a minicomputer chip implanted in it that is commanded by NSA working with the IRS and HHS to take control of us.
In addition they can see and record whatever we see and hear as they do with our computers and phones.
In fact hear it calling now, trying to fight it ‘AHHH, stop it.......let go...NOOOO ...must sign up for ACA....”
George Soros is a big investor in Monsanto, so how could there be anything wrong?
This is a complex issue, and not one I trust our thoroughly corrupt government to handle properly. The idea of rice genetically modified to provide vitamin A does seem appealing. On the other hand the idea of food crops genetically modified to absorb massive amounts of pesticides or even produce their own pesticides is troubling.
5 years ago no one ever heard of Gluten intolerance or Celiac disease.
Now it’s pretty common place and a lot more people have digestive problems but haven’t linked it to wheat yet. I’m not referring to the fad dieters. I’m talking about people who eat wheat and seriously suffer for it.
I’m pretty sure there is a link between the GMO wheat and the fact that a rising number of people can no longer eat it.
It is not a secret. Most foods are, and have been for years. But simply, ill-informed hysterical customers could be pointlessly scared away, thinking that "GMO" is code for some eevil poison.
There’s a major difference between hybrids and Genetic Modification.
To create hybrid vegetables, breeders select desirable characteristics from two or more unique parent plants (of the same genus, species or variety) and cross-pollinate them in a controlled environment to create a plant with the best features of the parent plants.
GMO is a variety that contains one or more genes from an entirely different species and is genetically altered using molecular genetics such as gene cloning and protein engineering. They often combine dna from plants with those of animals, fish, and insects.
This article is a purposfully written to confuse the reader and associate harmless hybridazation that has occured since the beginning of recorded history, and a Dr. Moreau science that created all kinds of crazy combinations. In short GMO is playing God.
I am going to guess that the threat of starvation (or actual starvation) will reduce the resistance to genetically modified crops, for better or for worse.
When you either starve, or have to eat things that you remove from the trash to eat, whether it is genetically modified or not becomes less important.
For better or for worse.
Because of the extreme prejudice against GMO brought about by the irrational hysteria of the anti-GMO factions. If you want a good example, consider "pink slime," a perfectly good food product whose name alone brought it down.
"Seminis® Performance Series™ sweet corn provides excellent protection against damage by European corn borers, corn earworms, fall army worms and corn rootworm larvae, as well as resistance to Roundup agricultural herbicides for weed control.""Roundup Ready® crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides. Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate."
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gmo-sweet-corn-variety-coming-soon.aspx
The people that control the food can control the people.
It’s always about Control.
Possibly true except for the fact that there is no commercially sold GMO wheat on the market, nor has there ever been.
Celiac run in the females of my family and I think that until the past 10 years or so, it was simply written off as other things.
There is no GM wheat in production. Some research has been done in the area and there have been tests, but no one has commercialized a GM wheat trait.
I'm not picking on you here, but most of the problem in the GMO wars is rooted in misinformation that is spread, often deliberately, by oppenents with a hidden agenda.
As long as it’s labeled - no problem.
For example, tuna packed in water that isn’t actually in water but in a broth made with soy. http://www.bumblebee.com/products/tuna/bumble-bee-solid-white-albacore-in-water/ That’s a problem because it’s a lie.
Same with GMO. Label it. Don’t conceal the fact that the corn was drenched with Roundup.
I don’t really care what it is, just so long as it is what the label says it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.