Posted on 09/23/2013 5:34:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
The left is in a frenzy over the American agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto and other agribusinesses that tinker with crop genetics. Is there any truth to their scare stories asserting that we’re being poisoned with “Frankenfood,” breeding new strains of superbugs and superpests?
Genetically modified crops, known as GMOs (genetically modified organisms), have been used by American farmers since the mid-1990s in order to increase crop yields and reduce the use of pesticides. The FDA has approved their use. Today, 70-80 percent of grocery products in the U.S. include genetically engineered ingredients. In contrast, only 5 percent of the food sold in Europe contains GMOs, due to governmental restrictions.
According to opponents of GMOs, “The concern is that genetic modification alters the proteins in foods in ways that researchers do not yet fully understand. Substances that have never existed before in nature are entering our food supply untested.” In addition to ingesting modified food, people are eating livestock that has been fed GMOs. Food sensitivities, allergies and other health problems have been increasing in recent years, and opponents claim it is due to GMOs. Where the science gets murky is whether this correlation is true.
Efforts are being made by the left to pass laws requiring the labeling of GMOs. In Washington state, Initiative 522 would require fruits, vegetables and grain-based products to be labeled, but exempts meat and dairy products from animals fed genetically engineered grains. Monsanto has contributed $4.6 million to defeat I-522, and opponents are outspending proponents by more than three to one. A similar initiative lost in California last year, where opponents including agribusiness and major food manufacturers outspent proponents almost five to one. Initiatives have passed in Connecticut and Maine, and legislation is pending in 20 states.
I-522 opponents cite estimates by the state’s Office of Financial Management computing that the average family’s food bill would rise $490 a year if it passes. The liberal Seattle Times editorialized against the initiative, pointing out that consumers already have the option of buying organic foods, and many companies already choose to self-label. Dan Newhouse, a former director of the Washington Department of Agriculture, says the bill is poorly written, containing confusing and absurd requirements.
The website junkscience.com says labeling genetically modified food would put a stigma on it. “The very act of labeling suggests to consumers there’s something potentially risky about X – if you don’t believe it try giving away bottles of water labeled ‘Contains DiHydrogen Monoxide’ and see what reactions you get.”
There is some scientific approval of GMOs. The American Medical Association has come out against labeling GMOs, declaring, “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.” UCLA professor Bob Goldberg, a molecular biologist and a member of the National Academy of Science, asserts, “Bioengineered crops are the safest crops in the world. We’ve been testing them for 40 years. They’re like the Model T Ford. There is not one credible scientist working on this that would call it unsafe.” One prominent environmentalist activist, Mark Lynas, recently switched his position on GMOs, coming out in support of them.
The problem with GMOs is there hasn’t been scientific testing done on human subjects - and both sides of the debate are using this to their advantage. Rats given massive doses of GMOs had adverse reactions. Female rats lost their babies at a high rate, gave birth to fewer and smaller babies, and the testicles of male rats changed color. A study of buffaloes in India that were fed GMOs produced similar results. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine warned, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation.”
The problem with studies like these is the dosages of food given the animals is forced and unrealistic. There have been reports of humans becoming sick who live in close proximity to GMO-producing farms. Yet these stories are anecdotal evidence and not rigorous scientific studies.
The most controversial aspect of GMOs involves the modification of crops beyond just hybrids. The latest modification added an actual pesticide component to food. A built-in pesticide was added within the cellular structure of corn, a gene copied from the insect-killing bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. It eliminates the need to spray the corn with pesticides. This prompted concerns about humans ingesting food containing a built-in pesticide.
One study found that this pesticide-enhanced corn is causing problems for some crops in Illinois. Michael Gray, a professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois, observed that rootworms are growing more resistant to the genetically modified corn - despite the fact that the corn was modified to resist the rootworms. Previously, farmers rotated corn crops with soybean crops, since rootworms would not infest the soybeans. Since the modified corn was introduced, rootworms are now being found in the soybean fields too, destroying both kinds of crops. Some farmers are reluctant to reject the modified corn, however, because generally it helps reduce pesticide use.
There is a lawsuit in place currently against Monsanto by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), a group of 73 American organic and conventional family farmers, public advocacy groups and seed businesses. They are accusing Monsanto’s genetically-engineered seed of contaminating neighboring non-GMO farms via wind-borne pollen and insects.
Monsanto spends millions lobbying Congress and the Department of Agriculture. A Monsanto attorney, Michael Taylor, has spent the last few decades revolving between Monsanto and government jobs with the FDA and the USDA, where he directed much of those agencies’ policies on GMOs. To the casual observer, this would appear to be a clear conflict of interest. This is typical of the Obama administration, known for its revolving door between the big banks and Obama’s cabinet.
Republicans better not be in the pockets of big agricultural business. While onerous regulations are not the answer to murky science, sweeping everything under the rug isn’t either. Many of those speaking out in defense of GMOs come directly from the GMO industry, lowering their credibility. Unfortunately, most Republicans have little interest in investigating GMOs, since the hysterical left is leading the opposition to them, straining credibility.
Americans are getting sicker than people in other high-income countries. Until there are rigorous scientific studies performed on human subjects, both sides should tread carefully in this area. Since “you are what you eat,” consumers who believe that GMOs present a threat to their health should put their money where their mouth is and buy food from businesses like Whole Foods which label food or provide organic food. And don’t force everyone else to.
Thank you!
This issue is not about GMO’s per se. It’s about CONTROL !
“Control the oil, you control the country. Control the food, you control the people.” - Henry Kissenger
What about the number of Monsanto legal actions against those not under contract to them? Contract disputes are one thing, taking action against one not under contract because of DNA issues of crops is entirely different.
GMO crops are no big deal to me, the overbearing brutality of how Monsanto works is where I have my problem with them. The federal government has far too much control over our food production, whether it be with subsidies or siding with companies such as Monsanto and that federal control needs to be reined in.
I primarily plant heirloom crops, but do enjoy several specific hybrids which I regularly plant. But I also like playing with the seeds of those hybrids by saving some for another planting and seeing what I come up with. It's a fun, and harmless little hobby, but one that some frown upon, which is why Monsanto (among others) seek to patent their seeds and then come after those who have crops that show some of "their" DNA.
It doesn’t matter if you call it hybridization, grafting, or cross breeding. They are all natural trait selection processes.
LARGE International companies don’t die. They may fade away and change names but the money behind them is still buying government approvals, legislative votes and licenses to control sectors of the world economy.
How'd skipping all those science classes work out for you?
It does by the traditional measures of calories burned—e.g., x calories burned per mile of swimming, x calories to consume per pound of weight gain or loss. That’s what I was getting at.
CCD is nothing new.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/357439/bj-rn-lomborg-there-no-bee-crisis-greg-pollowitz
Honeybee deaths are also nothing new. The Breakthrough Institute reports that, in 1853, Lorenzo Langstroth, the 19th-century bee-keeper who invented the modern hive, described colonies that were “found, on being examined one morning, to be utterly deserted.
The comb was empty, and the only symptom of life was the poor queen herself.” In 1891 and 1896, large clusters of bees vanished in a case known as May Disease.
In the 1960s, bees vanished mysteriously in Texas, Louisiana and California. In 1975, a similar epidemic cropped up in Australia, Mexico and 27 U.S. states. There were heavy losses in France from 1998 to 2000 and also in California in 2005, just two years before CCD was first diagnosed.
You might have to walk more to burn the same calories, the calories still balance.
3 guys eats 2000 calories a day. One burns 1900, he gains weight. One burns 2000, he remains the same. The third burns 2100, he loses weight.
It doesn't matter if the different amounts burned are because they exercise differently, their metabolism is different or their hormones are different.
Eat more than you burn, you'll gain weight.
Maybe you could list them here. Every judgment I've seen clearly shows that the defendant violated the agreement/law. Any grower who purchases Monsanto patented seeds has to sign a Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement.
Even though the left, and some FReepers, argue that Monsanto is evil personified, farmers choose Monsanto's products of their own free will year after year. There has to be a reason for this, and maybe it's because Monsanto delivers the products that makes farmers more productive, and their farms more profitable. Monsanto does not place a gun to their customer's heads and force them to buy their seeds.
Monsanto aggressively protects their intellectual property. So what? So does Apple. You never hear the left calling Apple the spawn of Satan because they protect their property. Go figure.
I'm not inclined to agree with you here about grafting. The only grafting for trait selection processes I have ever been aware of need assistance. Hybridization and cross breeding most usually occur because of natural pollination, although both are more commonly done now under controlled circumstances by humans.
All I asked was how many more years you have until you get your gold watch. To that you ask about me supposedly skipping science classes? How many logic and reading comprehension classes did you have to drop to keep from screwing your GPA?
>>“This sounds awfully like the anti-fracking nonsense.”
Bingo. When the left gets this upset about something, you can be sure there is another agenda below the surface that they don’t want to talk about. With fracking, they really want to stop us from finding new sources of fuel, because they don’t want a strong, energy independent America.
With the anti-GMO hysteria, the left is trying to minimize our food production, to both weaken us, and to reduce the world food supply as a backdoor to population control.<<
BULLSHIT!
Maybe he’s already retired from Monsanto, and taken up his post at the FDA. ;-)
What are you talking about? It seems like you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or maybe I misunderstand your use of words like grafting and hybridization.
Let me provide an explanation and clarification. Genetic modification is the use of virus to inject foreign DNA into plants. This is done in a lab. Virus already do this in nature but God, or nature, or our balanced system of life, decides on how this works. Do you want a company with a history of corruption and a total lack of ethics wielding this power?
Grafting is taking parts of a plant and getting it to grow on another. Many plants are gender specific, like cherry tree’s. You take a female cherry tree and graft male parts on to it so it can self pollinate. Now you dont need multiple tree’s for production. In grafting, there is no exchange of genetic information.
Many of the new designer hot peppers are created through hybridization, selective breeding and cross breeding. There is no lab, there is no injection of animal DNA or god knows what. You take pollen from one plant and pollinate another through natural methods. Even feminizing plants uses natural methods.
Norman Borlaug and his “Green Revolution” used cross breeding and natural methods. He wasn’t splicing genes in a lab.
Kindly reread what I wrote - I said nothing about customers who bought Monsanto seeds - I spoke of those that Monsanto claimed had Monsanto DNA show in their crops. I no longer have the cases at the ready, and there weren't many - but there have been some, and Monsanto prevailed.
I don't care how sterile Monsanto claims their seeds to be, DNA can still be transferred - that is basic science.
You are a bluffer and liar. Grafting is done for fruit trees and grapes like the ones I have. No one grafts wheat or vegetables. I have read about a few people grafting tomatoes and eggplants but that is it!!! Wheat, beans and vegetables and others are bred via careful pollination and selection of winner specimens and using their seeds. Idiot!
Not wanting to be too crude here, but there is also the factor of how much is kept in the system to be burned or stored—and how much is passed on through. Both the option to burn or store and to pass through or use are probably affected by more factors than we’ve yet come to fully understand.
Be crude, it’s still calories in - calories out.
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.