GMO Food

I probably don't like you said:
I basically agree with all you've said here. Science is definitely not infallible. The good thing about science however, is that if you follow the scientific method, your results are entirely unbiased. If they are biased, it will most certainly turn up in peer review. As far as science being corrupted by money, I cannot deny this, but I do not think ceasing progress is the answer. The problem is what people don't understand, scares them. Thus we get art (i.e. documentaries), religion, etc in an attempt to better understand the world. We know why certain GMO's are causing ecological problems. Its not a mystery to people in the industry and it could be fixed with science. But that would not be financially beneficial, at least not MORE beneficial than what they are currently doing.

Although I disagree with many tenants in naturopathy, including that you can avoid all sickness (much sickness, yes!) with proper diet, I certainly respect your view, and would certainly give any experiment you've done credibility. Thats the great thing about science, is that with the introduction of new evidence, my opinions can change, unlike when people have a "feeling" or a "belief"

Yes. There are however, always unknowns. There will always be something that was missed. However, there is always corrective action that can be taken. Just look at the history of chirality in the pharmaceutical industry. Science caused death because of something that was overlooked. That problem now NEVER arises through that mechanism. But then again, it was financially beneficial to correct THAT problem. Chiral drugs have saved millions and killed a few hundred (in the beginning. They kill 0 today, but are still saving millions). Its an unfortunate learning curve for the greater good.

We're on the same page in this respect
Click to expand...

I used to share your faith in science. Science was always my refuge. But as my philosophies about the world have changed, I now believe there are many things that cannot be explained and tested, because of the 'intention' based nature of how I see reality. But, the scientific method is probably the greatest advancement of humanity and its the best system we have created so far.

In regards to gmo technology, i guess its difficult right now to separate it from politics, sociology, economy and means of population control. But i absolutely agree that we should continue experimenting. How else are we going to learn? Cracking the genetic code is like exploring a whole new world of possibilities. This is just in jest, but imagine being able to grow homes and buildings! The only thing I have an issue with is people eating untested food and the consquences to the environment in regards to biodiversity, and ofcourse the patenting and control. i think its immoral that governments and corporations are using the public as unwitting guinea pigs. These products do need to be tested on humans, humans that have given full consent. It may be 2 or 3 generations and an extensive longtidudinal study before we have any conculsive and uselful results. But that sort of research is time consuming, expensive and doesnt offer any immediate rewards, and potentially, no long term rewards either if the experiment fails. It just doesnt fit in with our current schema and economic paradigms.

Would you ever consider working at an open source science centre that is funded by the government and public donations?
The only problem Ive being able to theorise occuring in such an environment are issues related to security and ignorance, and possibly censorship. I think these problems could be avoided however, with the right system and constitution to protect it.
And just out of absolute curiosity, what would want in terms of compensation for your work? What would be reasonable?

And yes I know Im a total idealist, but I genuinely think that 'open source science' is viable and practical.

And in regards to what you were saying to Lerxst, i think the absolute last thing we need is a violent revolution. That should be avoided. Id prefer to replace the current paradigms with less harmful and more functional and effective ones. Like a parallel system to the current capitalistic model. A system where people care about progress, effectiveness, efficieny and advancement, rather than control and greed. Science can not flourish in our current system. The only thing really holding GMO technology research is greed and issues of control.
 
Asarya said:
The only thing I have an issue with is people eating untested food and the consquences to the environment in regards to biodiversity, and ofcourse the patenting and control. i think its immoral that governments and corporations are using the public as unwitting guinea pigs. These products do need to be tested on humans, humans that have given full consent. It may be 2 or 3 generations and an extensive longtidudinal study before we have any conculsive and uselful results. But that sort of research is time consuming, expensive and doesnt offer any immediate rewards, and potentially, no long term rewards either if the experiment fails. It just doesnt fit in with our current schema and economic paradigms.
Click to expand...

I agree. I support mandatory labeling of GMO's, although people would be quite surprised that something that advertises as GMO free contains GMO's. The term GMO can be a gray area. As far as what should be classified as one. But yes, it should undergo long-term testing, however like you said it does not fit with a for profit society.

Would you ever consider working at an open source science centre that is funded by the government and public donations?
The only problem Ive being able to theorise occuring in such an environment are issues related to security and ignorance, and possibly censorship. I think these problems could be avoided however, with the right system and constitution to protect it.
Click to expand...

Yes. When I retire I am going to stay involved in science. Probably until the day I die. These are the types of organizations I will be looking into, probably having to do with stem cell, developmental, or neuro-degenerative research.

And just out of absolute curiosity, what would want in terms of compensation for your work? What would be reasonable?
Click to expand...

Its unfortunate that this question is SO relevant. Some people like building, some people like working on cars, some people like science. Some people like living in cities, some people like living in rural areas. I wish money was a concept that didn't even exist. If people did what they liked in an effort to contribute to society so that everybody could have what they needed. But unfortunately that is not the case. I need to worry about surviving. I don't have kids at this time, but I want some, hopefully before I am 40, and I would like to be able to give them every opportunity to pursue whatever they want to do in life. That being said, there is just no way I could switch to a career like that and come close to the security I have now. When I reach the point where I do not have to worry about my future or my children's future financially, I will retire. As long as things continue as they are, this is not the too distant future. At that time, I will do full-time research for no compensation.

And yes I know Im a total idealist, but I genuinely think that 'open source science' is viable and practical.
Click to expand...

I agree and I like this idea very much. I donate a substantial amount of money (for me anyway) to 2 nonprofit research organizations. Unfortunately, they simply do not have the resources big business has. There is a piece of equipment at my work that cost more than $15 million. They have several of them throughout the country. Private donations, and government funding usually cannot touch the amount of money that is needed to make huge progress. Not that it couldn't, but we would rather spend 600Billion to bail out banks than fund something with real world applications.

And in regards to what you were saying to Lerxst, i think the absolute last thing we need is a violent revolution. That should be avoided. Id prefer to replace the current paradigms with less harmful and more functional and effective ones. Like a parallel system to the current capitalistic model. A system where people care about progress, effectiveness, efficieny and advancement, rather than control and greed. Science can not flourish in our current system. The only thing really holding GMO technology research is greed and issues of control.
Click to expand...

I just want to clarify, I don't WANT a violent revolution. But I truly, truly believe that is the only thing that can change our system now. Imperialism has taken over entirely.
 
I probably don't like you said:
Yes. When I retire I am going to stay involved in science. Probably until the day I die. These are the types of organizations I will be looking into, probably having to do with stem cell, developmental, or neuro-degenerative research.
Its unfortunate that this question is SO relevant. Some people like building, some people like working on cars, some people like science. Some people like living in cities, some people like living in rural areas. I wish money was a concept that didn't even exist. If people did what they liked in an effort to contribute to society so that everybody could have what they needed. But unfortunately that is not the case. I need to worry about surviving. I don't have kids at this time, but I want some, hopefully before I am 40, and I would like to be able to give them every opportunity to pursue whatever they want to do in life. That being said, there is just no way I could switch to a career like that and come close to the security I have now. When I reach the point where I do not have to worry about my future or my children's future financially, I will retire. As long as things continue as they are, this is not the too distant future. At that time, I will do full-time research for no compensation.
Click to expand...

Thats awesome. Good on you. Weirdly enough Ive spoken to two other scientists randomly last week that said something very similar. I hope for yours and societys sake you get to retire soon, and you enjoy your retirement.

I dont think it will always be that hard. There are definately some options that I and other people have been thinking about and brainstorming on.

I just find it annoying and ironic that just about every issue in the world stems from the anti-human greed based ineffecient ideologies. People will not always be so ignorant though. With the power of the internet, science and technology, all that can change.


I agree and I like this idea very much. I donate a substantial amount of money (for me anyway) to 2 nonprofit research organizations. Unfortunately, they simply do not have the resources big business has. There is a piece of equipment at my work that cost more than $15 million. They have several of them throughout the country. Private donations, and government funding usually cannot touch the amount of money that is needed to make huge progress. Not that it couldn't, but we would rather spend 600Billion to bail out banks than fund something with real world applications.
Click to expand...
So true. the money is there, it just being flushed down some rich guys toilet and thrown into landfil, or sitting idly, rather than being invested into something of value. But a place with no money at all would be so much easier.

I just want to clarify, I don't WANT a violent revolution. But I truly, truly believe that is the only thing that can change our system now. Imperialism has taken over entirely.
Click to expand...
I think there is always hope because all culture is generational. I feel that any violence from the public would result in a great deal of fear, in strict and extreme sanctions, greater governmental privelages and powers and harsh new laws in censorship and security. People would then be divided against eachother and inevitably the freaked out majority of the public would choose a 'safe and secure' cage rather than volatile and unpredictable freedom and open sky. It would just give the big boys table too much fodder and incentive to come down hard and divide the world up further as their private monopoly board.

I think we can great results from organic and sustainable change. That way people dont shit themselves and run around like headless chooks. Theres so much more I could say but it would be completely irelevant to the topic.
Or perhaps its impossible to discuss anything without delving into the deeper societal matrix of the issue. Anyway back to the point

So, what are your thoughts regarding gmo food safety? Are there any positive studies that you are aware of?
What do you think are the best applications for gmo technology?

With what you know now and extrapolate in the near future, is it possible for me to grow my own house in my lifetime?

Although i support strictly controlled GMO research, I dont think there is any relavance or necessity for GMO food other than as another saleble product. I dont think its going to feed the hungry or save the environment. I think it just distracts us from the real problems that we dont want to fix, like putting an overpriced festy bandaid on a festering wound (sorry for the stupid analogy, I am so tired!)

And I really appreciate you discussing this with me. This is something I really want to learn more about. Thank you
 
[video=youtube;hkionqWPc-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkionqWPc-Q&feature=player_embedded#![/video]
 
It is my personal opinion that genetically modified foods are terrible forms of
sustenance with which to fuel yourself. You deserve to give yourself wholesome
and natural foods. Animals have been living off natural foods since we came
into being. We are a destructive species. We do not think far enough ahead.
We thought farming animals was a good idea and we were terribly wrong.
Everything seems okay in the moment but it's the future that we should worry
about. Genetically modified foods are really quite frightening and my country's
support of them honestly worries me very greatly.
 
It is a worrying development but it is all part of the same corporate web that are behind the banking scandals, the war mongering (to profit from war) and the surveillance society, so if we can tackle the cabal at the core of it all we can tackle all the associated problems

Here's a documentary about the future of food:

[video=youtube;QfD6Qw6iD_w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfD6Qw6iD_w&feature=player_embedded#![/video]
 
The bottom line is that with the volume of the population we have on Earth we can't feed everyone if we are to grow and harvest only cultures free from genetic modifications. And people are still dying from hunger.
 
Lol i wonder what they have got on him. Maybe they have some compromising photos of him or they have threatened his family or maybe its something more mundane such as they have bought him off!

The argument is not one of whether or technology is bad, the argument is whether or not new technologies should be unleashed on the population without rigorous long term testing

Rats who were fed a purely GMO diet in France developed cancer. Of course that study was done independently and i doubt it was published in the journals Mark holds so dear (because ***whispers into Apone's ear**** the publishing houses are owned by bankers like the Rockefellers...yup its true and many of the universities for example The Rockeffeller University and The London School of economics-look into who funded the creation of this!)

The first thing he said there that aroused my suspicions was when he says at around 3 mins that he says the only opinions that matter are the ones published in the most distinguished scholarly journals but he has only looked into this thing so far

There are many dimensions to this

So at first when he was anti-GMO's he was looking at one dismension: he describes this perception as a sort of superstitious state devoid of scientific understanding where he saw GM as a kind of biological pollution that was going to spread through the biosphere driven by 'demonic' forces

Ok so then he destroys that perception by beginning to read mainstream scientific opinion. He develops a new mantra 'the importance of peer reviewed data' and 'that only the opinions published in scholarly works matter'

Unfortunately that also is just a perception. That is because the people who own the publishing houses ie those who choose what gets published in those journals are the corporate elite who are pushing the GMO's. Not only that but the people who get the research funds from the corporations are the ones who will present a pro-corporate view. The 'peers' whose opinions will get published are people who got jobs in the banker owned universitys or who depend on corporate funding for their research or are people who will only get their opinions published because they support what the corporations want said

His anaology about being against GMO because it is marketed by big corporations is like being against the wheel because it is marketed by big automobile companies also doesn't stand up because the wheel was in common use before the automobile companies and had been tested over many millenia and found to have no long term effects on humans, but GMO's haven't; its a logical fallacy

He says certain GMO's were pirated into countries because the farmers wanted to use them. How does he know that? What makes him so sure that the corporations didn't pirate that technology in the same way a heroin dealer gives the first batch for free to get the person addicted? Certainly diseases got passed into the west because of corporate experimentation with vaccines why not GMO's?

The main perception that he has not yet evolved to is not whether or not man should meddle with genetics its whether or not the corporate forces are to be trusted with that responsibility

He says we are going to have to feed 9 billion people by such and such date with the same land resources and using chemicals. I disagree with that....that's such a capitalist way to view things!

He hasn't mentioned permaculture. he hasn't mentioned the fact that the corporate elite have enough money to end world poverty and that when poverty is lessened families tend to get smaller with family planning. Concerning land use in my country (the UK) we have so much land given over to golf courses! Massive amounts of land and resources go into upholding what is often an elitist sport. Why couldn't that land be given over to permaculure to provide regular people with healthy organically grown foods?

I'll tell you why....becuase then the corporations wouldn't profit on the carcinogenic chemicals they sell to the farmers and corporate businessmen would have to hold their informal meetings somewhere other than the golf course

He says that infant mortality is the reason for the increasing population....ok but that doesn't mean that one child policies can't reduce populations as if a couple have two children they are only reproducing themselves. If they have one child they are halving the next generation

If as Mark says GMO food helped sustain people but those peoples social situation is not improved then think logically what will happen? What will happen is that they will make more people!


But that is not really what the GMO’s will do. What the GMO’s will do (and what Mark won’t tell you) is they will poison people and lessen their ability to grow old and reproduce successfully


They are not there to boost the population, they are there to cut it (see how concerned Mark is about population growth....you think he wants to help feed humanity and make more people? Wake up)


I’m part way through the video i’ll watch the rest now
 
Last edited:
Some of the comments after the piece by readers:

Dear Iman Izol,
You obviously don’t have a clue of what GMO is…if you’re comparing it to how a grapefruit is made. A grapefruit is made by hybridizing two members of the citrus family. Hybridization can occur naturally…in nature.

GMO combines genes of completely unrelated species, say a tomato with a fish. It also can interject artifical material in the gene splicing in the form of pesticides, herbicides, etc. This is completely unnatural and the long-term effects of these foods within the diet, as well as the possible impacts these gmo seeds may have upon the environment have not been studied to a sufficient degree. One such example would be the sharp rise in respiratory disease in the Indian farmers who handle gmo seeds by hand in the sowing process.

New comment:

Let’s face it, Monsanto threatened the guy’s life and his balls are in their hands.. he did what any man would do when faced with losing his balls.. he succumbed. But go ahead and believe him, America!!! Go ahead and eat all the processed GMO crop you want and live on like the lab rats.. oh wait!! You may live, but your grandchildren may not be able to reproduce or they might grow hair in their mouths.. At least, that’s what happened to the lab animals who consumed primarily GMO diets.. But don’t worry about it, America! By consuming this kind of crap, you’re aiding in the economy! Not only are you supporting the wealthy corporate farmers and big Ag industry, you’re supporting the medical system, because after half a life-time of consuming these kinds of foods, you’ll end up like most: fat, diabetic, and cancerous. GREAT! You’ll need a million dollars worth of treatment for that cancer, pills for your high cholesterol and blood pressure, not to mention insulin, blood glucose monitors, needles to inject the insulin, needles to check your blood sugar, and a monitor to tell you how badly your body isn’t doing what it should be able to do naturally. And finally, thanks for paying my student loans (I’m an RN) and can’t WAIT to be out of the field and making a REAL difference in people’s lives and a health adviser..

New comment:

this guys understanding of the science involved is both childlike and purposefully inaccurate. e.g.”GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.” talk about spin of the highest order. That “..mucking about..” is how nature produces essential diversity within species which in turn allows for adaptation to a changing environment. This is a good thing regardless of your on view on GM and to suggest otherwise is misleading. And as for his “just moving a few genes around” and “gene flow” arguments; well this is just plain wrong. His writing reminds me of that of a articulate creationist. Perfectly prepared to mis-quote science he doesn’t understand to debunk a piece of science he won’t believe, while simultaneously failing to either provide peer reviewed references for his unsubstantiated claims or providing a balanced review of the ALL of the science readily at hand. IMO propaganda of the highest order. Looks like someone well schooled in the art of environmental rhetoric has been hired as a spokesman for monsanto etc
[FONT=&amp]
Gavin Venn[/FONT][FONT=&amp] says: [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]8 January 2013 at 1:19 am [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Thank you for your reply. And the common place examples of animal or plant DNA being horizontally transferred to humans? [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]I think it’s useful if we try to stand in other peoples shoes: see the pros and cons of this technology and it’s applications from different perspectives. I’m not a geneticist working with transgenics, or any other type of scientist, but as i understand it, the main draw is the precision of the technology at the laboratory level. It’s understandable that geneticists working in this area are very excited about such a technology, and i’ve no doubt some of these people have positive motivations and wish to use the technology to benefit others. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Part of the reason why there will always be debate about transgenics is that people see the world differently. No one has the authorative or definitive view of the world (not even Mr Lynas). So the person concerned about nature, myself for example, will be asking questions about the extended phenotypes: the wider and longer term effects of the transgenic engineering. The geneticist working in transgenics can answer my questions only based on how they see the subject. This is why there needs to be dialogue between many different people.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The link here leads to a study showing how engineered DNA has been found in river organisms: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23215020[/FONT]
 
Yeah, that's what I thought you would say.
 
[h=2]http://www.rodale.com/gmo-study
GMOs Cause Tumors and Early Death in Rat Study[/h] [h=3]Need another reason to avoid GMOs? Chew on the unappetizing results of this GMO study.[/h] By Leah Zerbe

Part of the problem with genetically engineered food, or GMOs, in the food system is that there aren't a whole lot of GMO studies investigating their safety. That reason alone has sparked dozens of health experts to call for a GMO ban or, at the very least, labeling of foods containing the questionable ingredients.
But a new study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology deals a major blow to biotech and chemical company giants. In a first-of-its-kind animal study, French researchers discovered that rats fed genetically engineered corn or exposed to the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup over a long period died early and suffered mammary tumors and kidney and liver damage. The GMO corn used in the study was Monsanto's NK603 seed, a variety created to live through heaving dousings of Roundup.
Roundup is a systemic pesticide, meaning it is taken up inside of the plant. It winds up in nonorganic food, particularly processed foods, at levels that many toxicologists say could cause harm to humans.
Read More: 9 Farmer's Market Favorites Under Attack
Critics were quick to dismiss the study, but others say the new research could sway voters to support the Proposition 37 Right to Know initiative in California. In just a few weeks, voters there will vote for the initiative that would require all foods containing GMOs in the state to be labeled. Prop 37 seems to have worried the GMO industry, though. Monsanto's donated $7 million to strike down the initiative, the most of any biotech company.
In the study, researchers fed rats GMO corn or gave them water laced with Roundup at levels allowed in the United States. Compared to the control group, exposed rats developed significantly more mammary tumors and suffered organ damage; 20 percent of the males and 50 percent of females died early. Previous studies linked GMOs—which have been infiltrating the U.S. food system since the 1990s—to allergies and digestive disease.
Read More: How You Can Stand Up to GMOs
Previous surveys have found that labeling GMOs earns broad bipartisan support among voters. Regardless of political party or gender, about 90 percent of the population believes GMOs should be labeled. Currently, the only ways to know if your food is GMO and pesticide free is to buy organic food.
For more surprising news regarding why it's important to choose organic, read The Truth about Organic.
 
The guy even mentions that one of the studies he's basing his argument on was from the Rockefeller University:

''In reality there is no reason at all why avoiding chemicals should be better for the environment – quite the opposite in fact. Recent research by Jesse Ausubel and colleagues at Rockefeller University looked at how much extra farmland Indian farmers would have had to cultivate today using the technologies of 1961 to get today’s overall yield. The answer is 65 million hectares, an area the size of France.''
 
Why do you keep posting stuff from 'healthy living' sites?
You don't think that these sites have an active financial interest in keeping people panicked about these kinds of things?
 
Apone said:
Why do you keep posting stuff from 'healthy living' sites?
You don't think that these sites have an active financial interest in keeping people panicked about these kinds of things?
Click to expand...

I just wanted to find an article on the french experiment with rats and GMO foods so i put it in a search engine

If you want to pore through the study itself i would think its online somewhere, but articles are a more digestible way of getting the gist
 
GMO wheat may silence genes:

[video=youtube;FI7n_caiTvE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7n_caiTvE&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
Without going into a great amount of detail about it right now, I believe it is killing us. More kids are being born with food allergies, skin issues than ever before. Its a 50% increase since the 1990's. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/02/food-skin-allergies-increasing-in-children/ This is just one example of cause and effect I think.

Did you know they started introducing GMO into the food supply without telling people?
 
This spurious notion that the truth is in the academy only has to go, I think. No progress can happen until 'experts say' won't do for most people.
Science in the sense discussed above is good and fine though, I believe, only one way of looking at reality that is correct.
It's also not my preferred way of looking at things but it has its uses obviously. This GMO business is unnecessary given the wealth inequity.
There is only so much that you can convince yourself has even a slither of altruism but this just appears to be malicious. There is no excuse.

It's because it is, really. But no-one can fully MAKE you eat it.
But yeah, the big money doesn't like you and sort of wants you mentally and spiritually dead.

It is all about supporting the alternatives and preparing for their forcible removal.
I see the world situation as moving in and out of check.

But if we go back to the original point about different perspectives being true it gives us another way which takes us out of perpetual check.
We have to stop thinking in terms of chess completely. Play a different game.

The problem humanity has is that it doesn't know which games it is good at...because it is getting whooped at chess.

What would a serious chess-player be really bad at and hate playing?


th
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top