GMO and Glyphosate - bad?
 

I watched a rather convincing documentary this morning while getting ready for work. It claims that GMO and Glyphosate are responsible for everything from food allergies, to autism, and everything else, and that there could be more critical future repercussions as well.

Part of me wants to immediately throw away all of my food and start shopping for non-GMO and Glyphosate free foods.

And part of me says that this is just a documentary with an agenda, and the facts may be modified as much as the corn.


What do you Pelicans believe or know?
Is Monsanto to blame for all our woes? Are you (and should I be) avoiding these things? Or is this just propaganda?

I have not looked for or read any of the SCIENTIFIC studies on it. I would guess Monsanto pays for all the tests so far.

I suspect it is much like vaccinations. The vast majority of people are helped and we have wiped out Small Pox. We had Measles eliminated in the USA but now the ill informed are refusing vaccinations and the disease is returning.

I don't now about the phosphate stuff but GMO foods are likely not as healthy as organic foods. Monsanto is in the business of producing products to give the best rate of return on investment possible.

Take for example the weed killers that Monsanto produces to kill weeds in the farmers' fields. Is that healthy for the residue to end up in our cereals and breads? Can you extend the aspect of man's involvement with GMO food products being unhealthy?
Likely yes. Organic foods are more expensive but likely safer but I am sure cancer existed before GMO foods.

That is the problem. How do you prove these kind of foods are unhealthy? It would take some rats' lives many years to establish proof.

Guy

Lots of studies available online on the ill effects of GMO food. They are banned in most countries in the EU. Monsanto has worked hard to stop states from enacting food labelling laws that would require products to disclose they contain GMOs. Why would they want to conceal the ingredients?

Depending on the source you believe, Monsanto spent between 10 and 14 MILLION on advertising/propaganda to defeat GMO labeling in various states during the last election, including my home state of Oregon.

The idea of a GMO doesn't really freak me out. I look at is as sort of accelerating the otherwise slow selective reproduction process. But what does bother me is what they are modifying. They aren't just doing this so that the plant grows faster, yields more, or is hardy in winter. They are modifying them to allow more pesticides to be put on the plant, thus more in the food chain. I think the term is "roundup ready". They sell various pesticides, but Roundup is the one that people tend to recognize by name.

The more you look into the picture, the more uncomfortable you will be. Especially what happens when a Monsanto crop cross-pollinates with another farmer's field.

angela

I have a friend who is involved with developing GMO cotton. They are working on developing cotton that is resistant to certain insects and diseases. The goal is to have a GMO cotton that needs NO insecticide.

One of the truths of the world is "ain't nuthin free".

I'm sorry, but this statement is completely without any evidence to support it.

Organic foods are no healthier than "conventional" foods, to begin with. In fact, in some cases they may be more dangerous. Also, there are no health or safety issues with GMO foods.

This whole anti-GMO thing is fear-mongering by scientifically illiterate people.

This weed killer is Roundup, which is Glyphosate - the stuff I was mentioning was one of the concerns in the documentary.

They said that being "Roundup Ready" is one of the primary genetic modifications for crops, and "Roundup Ready" crops in the U.S. include: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa.

There are also other genetic modifications to make crops resistant to insects and disease.

This opinion is why I posted the thread; to see where people stood and whether the documentary was just 'alarmist'. However some studies have been done.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/bb/Seralini2012.pdf

Monsanto sure tries hard to disguise information about something that is purportedly "safe."

The Monsanto Protection Act, essentially both written by and benefiting Monsanto Corporation, has been signed into law by United States President Barack Obama. The infamous Monsanto Corporation will benefit greatly and directly from the bill, as it essentially gives companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds immunity to the federal courts, among other things.

The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales.

Monsanto Protection Act Signed By Obama, GMO Bill “Written By Monsanto” Signed Into Law | Global Research

The large companies have the deep pockets to influence govt. and protect their turf through legal terminology. The average Joe like myself has to do their own research to make sure I am making the right decision. The fine print in contracts is not only more complex to understand but the print seems extra small. A magnifying class sits on my desk.

Guy

Just like so much else in life, chemical exposure is something best moderated. Take Phthalates. Pretty darn benign. The MSDS could almost say 'drink me'...but the stuff is everywhere cause its used as a plasticizer in just about everything. So even though its literally 'non-toxic' you are exposed to SO much of it, you actually get exposure levels that are toxic.

I see the same behaviour with the round up chemicals. We use so much of it, exposure is something to be concerned about. So take the extra effort and wash your produce. Almost all AG applications are aqueous solvent based for application. So wash your fruits. A tiny bit of surfactant (dish detergent) gets you to like five nines clean. Regular dish detergent is ok diluted way down, but there are 'produce washes' that are just SDS (sodium dodecylsulfate... whats in most shampoos) thatleaves out the perfumes and dyes so you dont have to use ten gallons of water to get the soap off.

As for GMO, its just amino acids. There are 21 of them. Your body has all the enzymes it needs to tear the stuff apart and recycle them. So using the enzyme from the alantic flounder to give cold weather hardiness to a tomato isnt going to harm you from the transplanted enzyme itself...and thats what the Monsanto gene does. Allows the plant to chew up the glycophosphate weed killer.

Nobody has any product that incorporates artifical amino acids. That will be interesting when it arrives...Or the addition of genes specifically for expression of a chemical... like adding a gene to have a bananna make insulin.

My big issue with GMO is the lockdown on the IP. IMHO, you should NOT be allowed to patent a gene sequence you found in nature and use elsewhere. Now if you go and figure out the folding to make an active pocket, string together (read build) an enzyme from that pile of 21 amino acids that makes chemical X, and then code a gene so that the ribosome can make that enzyme... that you do get to patent!

I was initially incensed that this law was signed, especially in light of the statement, "...even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales."
First, how can the legislative branch limit the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of government?
That asside, the Monsanto Protection Act expired at the end of 2013. After that the federal courts regain their power. I am disgusted that it was ever proposed, and I wonder why they would spend any time or money on a law that expires in six months. There must be more to this story than meets they eye.

more cheap food = more fat people = people that are easier to govern

Limiting seed diversity and forcing farmers to buy proprietary hybrids is a key component of food control.

”If you control the food supply, you control the people” – Henry Kissinger

As for the poll, I think it wise to avoid GMOs and Glyphosate but more unbiased, peer-reviewed study is needed.

Boooo!!!
Sincerely, your shadow. :D

Really? You're saying that being concerned with food supply safety equates to being afraid of my own shadow? Ok.

Monsanto and 15 other companies said that DDT was safe.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1421360771.jpg

Hopefully science will prove GMOs in food are harmless but the way big agribusiness is lining up against the opposition makes me think the jury is most definitely still out. Reminds me of the tobacco lobby lined up in congressional hearings denying links to cancer and other health issues.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1421362694.jpg

+1

Stay away! Watch this, then do a little research.

http://youtu.be/rixyrCNVVGA

confirmation bias

As someone who loves food, I almost never eat anything processed. My fridge is full and cupboards are 75% empty.

That philosophy spills over to GMOs, mostly because GMO food is made to maximize profit which is typically at the expense of flavor.

Who wants less flavor? I imagine people who buy a lot of boxed/processed/manufactured food with tons of salt, corn syrup and fat.

Shaun:
Can you give some more detail about the lack of flavor with GMO? You cant taste an enzyme. I am totally at a loss with that coment. GMO is about utilizing genes that code for specific enzymes to provide for a specifc trait. Be it cold resistance or to a specific pesticide or incect.

GMO really is just an extension of crop breeding. Instead of crossing two plant with pollen, you are using another vector...be it gene tagged iron particles shot into the original culture plant, or via a plasmid. All of our issues with our food crops stems from hundreds of years of self selection by us... we keep the sweetest, biggest corn to plant next year...so year after year the selection for size, color, taste weeds out the reistance to pests...and we end up where we are... in deep need of pesticides.

Like I mentioned before, nobody is designing there own enzymes (and gene sequences) to make artifical expressive traits. When we get there, THEN we will need to move very carefully. Until then, all we can do is push around genes that already exist. So short of some company getting wheat to express the ricin toxin, there isnt any real consumption issue.

The real issue, as others have mentioned, is that the legal mess along with patenting genes has left us very exposed to nature with monocolonial crops. Nature is quite clever and some bug will learn to use our cleverness to its advantage...and boom soybean blight. Or whatever. Hybrid vigor is a good thing along with diversity. But given the horror stories of Monsanto 'protecting' their IP and the farmers going with the plants that make profit, our food supply is getting to a dangerous point...

As a last note...had a great uncle that landed at normandy a few days after the invasion. Told me that they were being eaten alive by sand fleas. Said it was miserable. Then one day the quartermaster comes along handing out cans. Said to shake it all over to kill the fleas. He said they put the stuff everywhere and within two days, no more fleas. Said it was a god send. Turns out it was DDT. Which BTW is an absolutelly outstanding pesticide...t just also so happens to be really hard on birds...so its usage was restricted (and IMHO for the good). HOWEVER, there are outbreaks of malaria where the more enviromentally friendly pesticides dont cut it. We should dig out the DDT in those cases, just use it smartly and sparingly. I figure its a another case of a few asshats not allowing the majority to have nice things..that human trait of greed.

Tadd, exactly, it's all about gene expression. Genes that maximize profit are turned on at the expense, IME, of genes that maximize flavor. Tomatoes are the best example, heirloom vs. modern cultivated, strawberries too, but it cuts across all vegetables. One looks terrible rots fast and taste great. The other looks picture perfect, can sit for an eternity but tastes like cardboard.

They are looking to balance flavor and profit, heavily biased to profit. That is why I grow my own vegetables. Had this old Italian lady give me a few tomatoes that her family has been growing for generations. Ugly as sin, tasted fantastic. I kept some seeds, we'll see how it plays out.

Like hell you can't taste an enzyme.

I will trade you clothing for grandchildren for seeds!

Let's assume for a moment that Tadd is correct - that there is no health risk associated with gene manipulation.

Let me ask about one of the reasons for the gene manipulation: glyphosate resistance

Do any of you think there is a legitimate health concern over eating soybeans, corn, or other crops that have been subjected to repeated doses of glyphosate? What about eating meat from animals that have been fed a diet of grains that have been receiving repeated exposure to glyphosate?

I remember that Alar was safe on apples from 1963 to 1989.

When has mans attempts to control the natural order of things not lead to unforeseen consequences.

We use Glyphosate to kill weeds.

Weeds start to become resistant, natural order of things.

We engineer our foods to be glyphosate resistant so we can use more on the weeds.

Weeds become more resistant, natural order of things.

We are asking our bodies to metabolize things that our digestive tracts just can't handle. I'm not sure if it's the result of pesticide exposure and GMOs but anecdotal evidence is pretty compelling.

When I was a kid I never heard of anyone in school with a food allergy. Food allergies are up over 200% in 30 years. In the U.S. where GMOs are legal and pesticide use is rampant, 1 out of 2 women and 1 out of 3 men will get some form of cancer. The U.S. leads the world in cancer incidence per capita. I don't believe in coincidence. Like Shawn I have tasted the difference between big agribusiness produce and homegrown.

The more you look into the negatives of anything the more uncomfortable you will be. The more I look into starvation the more I like GMO's and glyphosates.

I think the food supply is more at risk from the insanity of planting houses instead of crops on arable and fertile farmland. I remember driving for miles and miles through the Saginaw Valley and seeing a few farmhouses every cupola hunnert acres or so way back in the mid/late 1900's. Now, you can't hardly see the dirt with so many McMansions all over the place.

Just my opinion which is probably wrong.

On this point, we are in 100% agreement. It really baffles me to watch a fertile productive field be torn up to plant a subdivision. We live in a valley and historically, the valley floor was largely cultivated. Seemed like every flat piece of land with good drainage was a fruit orchard (primarily pears). One by one, they are being replaced with subdivisions. It's cheaper to build a subdivision on a flat piece of ground than to use the surrounding hills which require far more building expenses. So...down goes another orchard or planted field, and up goes another subdivision. We are not utilizing other land for cultivation, we are cultivating less land - at least here in our valley.

There is some good news. The vineyards have become quite popular are taking off nicely in the lower hills. We may be short of food in the future, but by golly we are going to have wine. ;)

angela