Monsanto and GMO's

[Imoutgoodbye]

The topic of Monsanto came up earlier in chat and I wanted to expand on this a little and provide an article from Forbes (fairly unbiased, maybe?). Genetically m modified foods are supposed to be for one purpose: Increasing crop yields through genetic modification of the food. Now, this seems reasonable. Until you realize that it's not just the elements they're working against. Rather, they're looking to create something genetically modified to withstand the CHEMICALS (insecticides and herbicides) they spray on the foods.

It is well documented what the affect of the U.S. love relationship with chemicals has gotten us, first widely documented by Rachel Carson in her book, "Silent Spring". Most of Europe has banned GMO's. America has not only continued to support the use of GMO's through government funding, but government law, with the courts at state level being legislated into being unable to use state's rights to make mandatory the labeling of any product using GMO's. I'm sorry, but if you're standing in a full suit that looks like something out of a nuclear holocaust movie and spraying something on food, I don't want to feed it to my family.

The first step is to force the labeling of products that have been linked to diseases and infertility. Wake up, America. Stop eating poison.

October 12th is the World Wide March Against Monsanto. I urge anyone who can use Facebook to at least attend one of these marches and learn what you can. We all know Monsanto's side of the story. What about these groups that have been silenced by media black outs?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/06/05/monsantos-genetically-engineered-wheat-scandal-is-no-surprise/

[inscribed]

You are confusing two issues here. One, there is the perceived issue of safety regarding genetically modified crops. Two, there is the corrupt practices of Monsanto and the corporatism/crony capitalism inherent in our government. Monsanto does not have a monopoly on GMOs. Not every GMO has anything to do with Monsanto. It's like boycotting Microsoft and claiming all PCs are evil.

There is nothing wrong with genetically modified crops. It's just a science. I keep seeing all this fear mongering that certain groups like to spread, but that's all it is... anti-science lunacy. There has not been a single death or illness related to GMOs. That study done with rats in France keeps getting passed around as 'proof' even though the legitimacy of the study has already been torn to shreds. Farmers have been genetically modifying their crops for over a hundred years, and there hasn't been any mass plagues or what have you. Hell, even strawberries were created in a lab, and I don't see anyone claiming a strawberry gave them brain cancer.

As far as Monsanto goes, you're right, they have unethical business practices and should be fought. But, there are a lot of unethical companies. They just play by the rules set by the government that a majority of American citizens wanted. Corporatism is inherent in our government, and it's never going away. Be angry at the government, be angry with patent law, be angry with the fact that your fellow citizens have more control over your life than you do. All you can do is spend your money elsewhere. Don't think mandatory labeling will fix anything, either. Remember, this is the same government that allowed and even encouraged this from the beginning, and now you're advocating them to implement an honest and unbiased solution? Please. Forcing of labeling will cause more harm than good, will increase costs out of your pocket, and is ultimately unethical. If you are that worried about avoiding GMOs, then assume anything NOT labeled is a GMO. If/when distributors realize that labeling a product as GMO-free can increase sales, then more will voluntarily do it. Just look at Chipotle.

[inscribed]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

That's where fear mongering gets you.

[Pali]

There is nothing wrong with genetically modified crops. It's just a science. I keep seeing all this fear mongering that certain groups like to spread' date=' but that's all it is... anti-science lunacy.[/quote']

It's the appeal to nature fallacy, the idea that because something is natural, it is somehow inherently right or a good thing, and that if something is unnatural, it is somehow inherently wrong. You see it a lot in people who hate pharmaceuticals and prefer herbal or other more "natural" remedies as well, or in people who have an aversion to things labeled as "chemical" - the latter of which I've always found profoundly amusing, considering that everything is chemical and one could phrase watering their house plants as "spraying a chemical on them" and be perfectly accurate.

I'd also argue that we've been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years - we just used to do it through the slower, less efficient method of artificial selection. Not a single long-used crop or domesticated animal has avoided this. Gene-splicing is simply a more effective way to achieve the same results without having to go through generation after generation to do it.

[inscribed]

What is going on Pali, you are supposed to disagree with me on everything, and now this is two threads in a row where we aren't on complete opposite sides.

[Pali]

I considered making a joke about that myself, but since I was the one to do it last time we agreed, I figured I'd allow you the honors. I'm glad you accepted.

P.S. If it makes you feel any better, I'm more against regulation mandating GMO labels because I don't want regulation catering to the whims of the paranoid segments of society than because it might cost a bit more. Though, I must admit, I can't argue against your point either.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Nature fallacy and fear mongering won't dissuade the issue.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring did prove the links between man made chemicals and its negative affects on humans and the environment. If someone has to wear a full-on suit complete with industrial grade ventilators, that says it's not "water" (H2O, a chemical, labeled such by man as a way of reproduction/understanding for scientific purposes).

Example: I can grow tomatoes here in Gratiot County. Am I likely to eat them? No way. Why? Pollutants. Just 10 miles north of me is the old Velsicol chemical plant, which caused massive damage on a state wide level with chemicals such as DDT and PBB. The end result of these chemicals is how long they exist and lasted. The DDT in St. Louis, Michigan still affects their soil. Robins with eight times the lethal dosage required to kill them are still found in people's yards, dead, because of worms they ate.

Science is a meta narrative. It can't be denied that science has been the most helpful of anything with theories and works in multiple instances. Yet, it can also be shown to create as many problems as it has solved. Longer life span? Overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to the need to create more food. This could go on, but the general idea is there are better methods available, especially in light of the soil erosion that is taking place through companies like Monsanto.

Personally, I'd just recommend people read these two books:

Rachel Carson - Silent Spring (I know it's old, but it's still accurate and a good introductory read).

David Montgomery - Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations (it's a DRY read haha)

I've read enough journal articles, books, and essays on this topic that my mind isn't about to be changed.

[Pali]

Maybe your mind can't be changed, but you're also not really putting forward much of an argument aimed at convincing others. Recommending books is all well and good, but do you really expect anyone here to pick them up?

I don't at all deny the negative effects of overuse of pesticides, antibiotics, and the like. I also fully recognize the problem of overpopulation, and the negative effects of the activities of companies like Monsanto. I am not ignorant of the negative effects of human activities on the world - well, I am in many details, but not so much in the overall picture. But I am left confused about exactly what you are arguing here - is it that GMOs are bad? Is it that the specific way Monsanto is attempting to modify organisms is bad? Is it that attempting to modify organisms to be able to deal with heavy-duty pesticides is bad? What evidence do you have to support this, beyond referencing a book that we probably won't buy just to double-check your claims?

In the broader sense of desiring environmental awareness and wanting to clean up our act, I'm totally on your side, Valek. I just honestly don't understand where you're trying to go here. Phrases like "H2O, a chemical, labeled such by man as a way of reproduction/understanding for scientific purposes" don't make any sense to me, because I know you're intending for there to be some meaning to it beyond the literal, but I have no clue what it is.

In short: MAKE MORE SENSE, REV!

[mya]

There is nothing wrong with genetically modified crops. It's just a science. .... Farmers have been genetically modifying their crops for over a hundred years' date=' and there hasn't been any mass plagues or what have you. Hell, even strawberries were created in a lab, and I don't see anyone claiming a strawberry gave them brain cancer.[/quote']

Monsanto is definitively an evil corporation, few can argue against it.

But GMO are not evil, they just are unknown. No one knows about their safety.

This mostly derives from almost no decent testing. For example the UE receives approval request for GMO based on 90 days feeding trials done by the same company that produces the GMO.

90 days are nothing to the human life cycle. Studies like this should take YEARS, and include reproduction and descendents testing. And be done by an unbiased laboratory/faction.

None of that happens. So when faced with a unknown danger that can have very hard consequences on the human population, caution dictates we should take the safe side. As the benefits do no outgrow the risks.

I will be right back on the dangers. But first, about the "Farmers have been genetically modifying their crops for over a hundred years".

Farmers have been cross breeding for many years. Even nature does that. It has a small risk.

But then again what nature does not do is get animal or bacterial genes and place them in plants. "Transgenic plants have genes inserted into them that are derived from another species. The inserted genes can come from species within the same kingdom (plant to plant) or between kingdoms (for example, bacteria to plant). In many cases the inserted DNA has to be modified slightly in order to correctly and efficiently express in the host organism."

The risk for this kind of actions is a lot higher, as one of the species is not part of our eating habits. So the chance that something might go wrong is greater.

Back on the the risks. We do not fear a plague like disease. What we fear is the risk of potential increased rate of cancer from eating GMO.

What we fear is bioacumulation of things we have not been exposed to in the past.

What we really fear is that some this things might have reproductive effect on humans, like reduced fertility or sterility from continued consumption.

Imagine that down the line one of the heavily used GMO is the US is found to cause sterility in consumption during 10 years. What you think will happen?

[Imoutgoodbye]

Basically, I despise Monsanto for using the government to allow them to use unethical practices. One of those unethical practices is the non-existent testing on what GMO's do to people. There's no research beyond animal research.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes

Those, quite simply, are notes using lab animals as test subjects. However, by scientific standards, I believe most of these tests are, at best, hypothesis. There is a great deal to be learned from what these tests on animals reveal, including most animals when given a choice between a GMO and a "natural" seed (The word natural is used loosely because genetic engineering may, in some cases, be a speeding up of the natural process) will go with the natural seed.

My issues with GMO's are somewhat similar to mya's. That being said, even without the usage of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides, I'm leery that the biological evolution of humans will make it difficult to process advanced GMO foods. Again, reiterating that there is no research on the affects to humans, this is just a theory that the human body is not ready for the scientific evolution of these foods, much the way Pikachu wouldn't let Ash use the Thunder Stone to evolve him into Rychu. (<---see that, a Pokemon joke!)

Everything else aside, as it is now, I would like to see more ethical practices from companies like Monsanto (not the buying of a group like Blackwater...thanks for the heads up on that information, Mali). It seems logical that if the rest of the world knows something and the U.S. is, as usual, experiencing main stream media black outs on this subject, it requires further investigation.

What little I know, I've given. Rather than spend hours trying to allocate all of my knowledge on the subject, I would hope that if anyone was passionate about their food source they would examine what the hoopla was all about.

As for my phrase, about H20, chemicals, man...I must first reference back to calling science a meta narrative.

Everyone probably knows a narrative is a spoken or written story, someone's account of something. With any account of events, there tends to be bias, either on the part of the speaker/writer, or, in the case of history, the editors of the history choose what parts see the light of day. This is why history is slowly being rewritten.

Now a meta narrative (properly referred to as a grande narrative in reference to Jean-Francois Lyotard's book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979) ) is a narrative about narratives. It's the explanation and critical thinking of how we know what we know. Sounds a lot like epistemology, right? Well, here's the thing. Postmodernism takes these meta narratives and dumps them. They're BS. They are the social constructions by which man makes order from disorder. Disorder is what happens when man isn't around trying to create order in the world. Man is the only animal that bothers to create large scale everything and anything to fit the world in his image. The conclusion to this is social constructs. Man being the opposition of nature and so, rather than nature being something untouched by man, the word "wilderness" begins to crop up in history...but I'm getting off track here.

So, I called science a meta narrative. Man's way of understanding his world and trying to create order from it. Science is the ultimate meta narrative. It stands the test more than any religion, any philosophy, any...whatever grande narrative you can think of that reaches on a global scale. Postmodernism realizes that global scale will not work, it will fail, similar to Fredric Jameson's foreshadowing of the late decline of capitalism. We can see capitalism declining, it's no longer a question of if, but when.

Science, on the other hand, may not fail until it's too late. Science has had multiple successes and multiple failures. H2O. Water. The understanding that combining two hydrogen molecules with an oxygen molecule gets you water. Yet, lately, water is so terrible, we can't even call it H2O anymore. In fact, most water is usually H3O these days, slightly on the acidic side. We have all these names for water, culturally. The scientific community breaking water down into elements is another name for it, but it's universal within the scientific community. That is still not a petite (small) narrative. Now, you're asking, what the hell is your problem, Valek?! This makes no sense!

Here we go: Science, as a meta narrative, is the process of attempting to understand and harness the world through theory and mathematics. It's story is one filled with triumph and failures, atrocities and miracles. Yet, who's telling this story? Who's saying this is what is best and shoving it down people's throats?

As far as meta narratives go, I love science. It's absolutely f***ing wonderful in my mind. What I want, more than anything, is for people to wake up to the realization that they are individuals. In small communities and each day that the world around them collapses is another day that that small community will need to rely on itself and understand that meta narratives are a lie, that it is the petite narrative that gives them their best chance of self efficiency. This constant growing of the meta narratives, globalism itself, doesn't make up for what nature can give us. The world is pushing itself into a corner of unsustainability built on false promise, at least, at the moment.

Now, am I a crazy mofo or what?

[Demiterracotta]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

This is a link on the 'study' (and I used that term very lightly) in France on GMO corn. That analyzed it very well in my opinion.

I'm of the view that we just don't have enough information about GMO food products at this point in time to make any clear judgments on whether or not they will affect certain aspects of human life. And a comprehensive study just won't be available in our lifetimes, because studying these affects properly should be done over generations in my opinion.

Just in case I wasn't clear, I'd rather eat than starve to death wondering if a product were going to give me cancer.

[mya]

The thing is, there isn't a lack of food on the planet.

If anything, it's just some places being overpopulated for the development of the area. For example African war zones.

The west is very well feed. Russia is also well feed.

China and India are not passing hunger, but with more problematic areas.

It's just Africa that has a problem. A problem related to .... WAR.

Not a lack of potential agricultural output. Many places in Africa are excellent for agriculture.

[Pali]

Valek, you're crazy.

[inscribed]

[Pali]

...oh, thank you for that, inscribed. I hadn't seen that one before.