I want to generate a discussion (not a flame war) about GMO crops. I wanted to know if anyone has any information which is NOT propaganda either pro or against GMO, but is a simplified, easy to understand. I realize identifying something as propaganda is difficult when you see something that supports your beliefs. It's difficult to dissect it as such. Fortunately, if the contrary to your belief evokes a viscerally negative emotional response, it's relatively certain that you've been subjected to propaganda.
Perhaps this is a wild goose chase, because simple facts and rational discussion is very difficult in this space due to polarization of beliefs. Is there any way to learn about the reality without the narrated rhetoric?
Just taking this opportunity to say "THANK YOU FOR FOLLOWING ME"
Without agriculture no value this world.
From what I understand if you can find statistics on countries that started using GMO's in the last 20 years and compare the cancer rates from before GMO's to 10 to 20 years after GMO's the evidence is very evident. Try it and let me know?
For a simple example, there have been crops that were genetically modified by chemists, in a lab, to be able to survive exposure to Round-Up, aka glyphosate pesticides. Many people took a surface look at "Round-Up Ready" crops, and thought that scientists had somehow engineered a plant that would create toxins within the plant like glyphosate. This is of-course absurd, and would never be allowed--or even considered.
At the same time, there have been issues where small farmowners have benefit from unintended cross-pollination of Round-Up Ready crops with their own crops. Although it was (most likely)never intentional, Monsanto(the maker of Round-Up Ready crops) pursued farmers for pay, claiming that the farmer's owed Monsanto for the crops endowed with the Round-Up Ready genetic traits. This, of-course was an attempt at forcing farmers to buy only Monsanto products, instead of re-planting their own seeds, or buying seeds from other sources.
So, TLDR, and I am doing this all from memory, sorry guys, no sauce:
GMO products are actually not harmful to humans, they don't create unhealthy toxins, they are actually great for increasing the productivity of land and reducing the amount of soil amendments needed to maintain said land.
At the same time, Monsanto as a corporation, is very greedy, and wants to satisfy shareholders, so they've gone about using some very dirty methods to force farmers to use their products.
It's a mixed bag.
The GMO is the future of the planet, if done properly, it can save many lifes and end world hunger.
First Genetic Engineering must be distinguished from Genetic Modification ... Nature modifies genes (or you could say "engineered if you're a theist...) People Engineer genes. Now, where I believe the debate is centered and where it falls apart is people are weary of Genetic Engineering and not genetic modification. This is important as proponents of GE use selective breeding as an example of GE, this is not GE, this is GM...
It costs a lot of money to GE an organism. The only institutions who are doing so are doing it with a motive singular to profit. There have been no long-term studies of most GE on humans or the outcomes simply because the technology is too new. So, I ask this:
Would you consume (put inside your body, the only one you have) an organism that has not been rigorously tested on humans when the creators sole intent was to drive a profit?
There are far too many "facts" on either side of the debate. I say forget about the "facts".
What are the motives?
Who benefits?
Is it worth the risk to you or your children?
Why?
What do you have to gain from consuming them?
That is all.
According to Wiki, GMO's are "any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques."
Humans have been responsible for modifying the genes or expression of genes of organisms for millennia through a different method - artificial selection - where certain desirable traits are selected for breeding future generations. This process has given rise to the variety of vegetables and domestic animals we have today.
It has some problems, for instance, some dogs cannot give birth naturally and rely on cesarean births. Others are prone to certain diseases.
It's my view that whether genetic modification is achieved via selection or via insertion of genes, we have a responsibility not to produce abominations.
In terms of food, fruits are seemin to be bred with more and more sugar, less fiber and possibly less nutrition. Not sure if this is consumer driven or if plants breeders have a preconceived idea that fruit should be as sweet as possible.
Lots of GM is focused on increasing tolerance to pests or resistance to herbicides which makes things easier for farmers.
Based on various studies, no ill effects have been reported from consumption of GM foods but it remains one of those things that makes people feel icky.
Humans are a powerful influence on the Earth and it's biomes. Most of the domestic plants and animals we come into contact with have been shaped over centuries or millennia by the hand of humanity and we can be grateful for that as we don't have to eat carrots that resemble a piece of wood or tomatoes that are poisonous. GM is the next phase of humanities influence over the way domestic plants and animals are and I trust that most of the time, advancements made in this regard will be useful/benign.
Let's keep it simple! Without entering into long discussion on terminology. Humans are modifying organisms from millennia (yes also genetically). One thing is to breed wolves with more human-tolerant behavior to create the ancestor of dogs, or wild cows (urook-like) to create and select a new species showing higher milk production, but inserting a bacterial gene involved in pesticide resistance into a plant or a jellyfish gene in a tomato is something different. At least different in technology used (try to convince a tomato to have sex with a jellyfish), not in principle that is basically the same: creating something new that in natural condition would have had very little chances to originate and colonize some niches in this planet. So the problem is that technology is allowing us to break any reasonable limit in terms of possibilities but also time. And time can be critical, because we are not able to understand a technology that in some cases became obsolete before it is even understood by large parte of the the people, or better by non-experts. Lately, CRISP technology is emerging as a new method of genetic manipulation that is revolutionizing the way in which we changed DNA so far. Without entering in details, this innovation could also be relatively cheap, but it will not change the fact that the organisms genetically modified with this technology will be patented anyway. However, we should not look at Biotech company monsters, we can ask farmers for confirmation, but probably they pay a lot of money for buying normal seeds (I do not think they are free). So, probably the economic issue is not highly relevant here. Two other factors are the main sources of concerns: safety and biodiversity threat.
In some cases, the genetically modified organisms comes with a sterile-obliged option. Probably it will not work( see Jurassic Park where the dinosaurs were supposed to be all females). Third, the fact that GM plants can be rendered more resistant towards pesticide will allow also for a more indiscriminate use of such substances with deleterious effect on insects and possibly other animals. FInally, the human health issue... very tough topic! I would like to make just a consideration. We have used for decades some toxic or cancerogenic compound before realizing it (see DDT, ethernit, teflon, CFC, and the list can be very long). So if somebody is telling me GM organisms are safe for human consumption, it just make me laugh a lot. But I could accept that they could be safe or it could be important to test them properly. And it is also important to avoid generalization a tomato with a gene for long-lasting life could be safe, this is not telling me anything about the safety of a banana were it was inserted a gene from a spider...Inserting a new organism in an environment where it was not originally present or where it went extinct, can have catastrophic consequences (too many examples), but in some cases also positive effect (take a look at this:
Inserting a new organism in an environment where it was not originally present or where it went extinct, can have catastrophic consequences (too many examples), but in some cases also positive effect (take a look at this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q). In some cases, the genetically modified organisms comes with a sterile-obliged option. Probably it will not work( see Jurassic Park where the dinosaurs were supposed to be all females). Third, the fact that GM plants can be rendered more resistant towards pesticide will allow also for a more indiscriminate use of such substances with deleterious effect on insects and possibly other animals. FInally, the human health issue... very tough topic! I would like to make just a consideration. We have used for decades some toxic or cancerogenic compound before realizing it (see DDT, ethernit, teflon, CFC, and the list can be very long). So if somebody is telling me GM organisms are safe for human consumption, it just make me laugh a lot. But I could accept that they could be safe or it could be important to test them properly. And it is also important to avoid generalization a tomato with a gene for long-lasting life could be safe, this is not telling me anything about the safety of a banana were it was inserted a gene from a spider...
I have just noticed that it was cut...
not that nobody cares))))
solo a caso potevo prendere un voto...miii
meglio che niente va!
Congratulations @agsurrection! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPUpvoted and followed
Nature has been genetically modifying plants and animals since there were plants and animals that can by interaction modify each other. The big difference between nature and man doing it is that nature knows when to stop, humans do not.
Congratulations @agsurrection! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPWoW we could not do withouut
How do you mean?
Thank you for the follow! I greatly appreciate it. Cheers.
pertanian merupakan salah satu dampak kehidupan, terima kasih telah mengikuti steemit saya, salam kenal @agsurrection
In my view gmos does not give optimum results on farm without use of fertilizers and pesticides. These gmos gives good results in labs but when they are grown on farm the climatic conditions are not the same. Cost of production goes high. Seeds, fertilizers and pesticides and labour all these costs goes up every year. BT cotton in india is biggest failure. Farmers have been commiting suicide on BT cotton belts.
One of the biggest problem with gmos is they require fertilizers and pesticides for good results. Now with increasing usage of pesticides every year on gmo crops these chemical residues enter our body which leads to cancer.
It is in our best interest to grow food naturally. Preserve native seeds and develop them by natural selection method. In India 5mn lac farmers practice natural farming. And many million are practising organic farming.
In natural farming they dont use gmos and hybrid only native seeds.
I have not read the comments here, so I'll just jump in with a few thoughts. GMO is an important topic for all of us to educate ourselves on because it seems to be all profit oriented (engineered). As I recall, it was originally touted as Genetically Engineered (created by the soon to be infamous GE company---soon to be dropped from DOW stock listing after 109 years). Originally the concept of Genetic Engineering was sold to the public as necessary for the purpose of feeding the masses - without which, there surely would be world wide famine, due to pests and insects that were multiplying, regardless of all the chemical spraying in fields of mass producers. Perhaps the use of MODIFIED was ultimately decided by the manufacturers to be more user friendly. (Do any of you remember these origins as I do?) Initially, I just accepted that these foods were decidedly created with care and concern for public health. Duh!
Since then I've read that GMO's were developed into seeds
to poison insects from destroying certain crops; however, poisonous residues from seeds of these crops are now showing up in the vegetables that humans consume...tiny fragments like Round Up and other popular, "friendly" poisons.
GMO's are not well accepted in EU or China because the people of EU are well educated about food and how food produces healthy and happier humans. Most in EU value their food sources, unlike U.S. citizens.
If GMO's were so good for mankind why did Monsanto manipulate/ negotiate a sale of their company to BAYER...a universally known and trusted manufacturer of HEALTH PRODUCTS?
Come on, people stop trusting Conglomerates. They only care about their profis - not our health and well being.
Tis true that selective breeding has been around for millenia. However, GMO or GE is clearly not the same. See? This is how CORPORATIONS get us to believe their lies and deceit--mix some ancient history into the "conspiracy". Now, most of the public has turned deaf ears to this entire topic....believing that it's been happening for success over hundreds of years. Selective breeding is how wolves became friendly, loyal pets. Not how sugar beet seeds incorporate poison to discourage worms that dig into the young, maturing beet.
My Grandma lived to 107 years and never ate processed or fast food. She left this planet 11/2015. How long will those of you who eat GMO foods live?
My anecdotal evidence has been more from the production side. I saw how "roundup-ready" soybeans flooded the market, pushing regular seed developers out in the late 1990s. Oddly enough, these "superior" beans actually produced 15-20% less yield, and cost three times as much to plant and maintain.
I believe, deep down that their supposed "can't feed civilization without it" benefits is at best marketing, and at worst, part of a plot to monopolize food. Either way, I have seen the "yield increase" (without which we would all die of starvation) that Monsanto hangs their hat on to not only be exaggerated, but a complete out and out lie.
Perhaps the following provides us with the definitive answer as to whether or not GMO crops are best for humanity...on YouTube.
Wow that's really long. I'll check it out and post the "cliff notes" version when I get the time.
Yes, but it explains everything...complexity requires complete understanding. Please post the short version - it will help, no doubt. And then there is the 2nd episode...lol