Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

There was a mass protest against Monsanto yesterday. All this despite that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful to health or to the environment.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... ities-wor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://naturalsociety.com/800-scientist ... z2UF1jhDHy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, 800 scientists want an immediate cease in the production of GMO crops. Yeah, that won't do much to food prices all over the world. At least marginalizing evolution in schools won't cause food prices to go way up across America and increase starvation all over the world.

More of a protest against 'big business'...IMO. It's 'fashionable' for the fringe left.

Yeah we should just trust them..kind like you trust the govment!

Does anyone know how if we evolved over thousands of years with our foods, altering the genes of said foods is good for humans? Isn't that change just a bit rapid?

By the way, I don't think it is the food that is affecting humans that is the problem. From what I have "read", it is when the normal flora incorporate the GMO genes into their genome and start producing proteins our gut is not used to dealing with, that is a big problem.

I'm torn on this. GM crops are good in my opinion if they create a greater yield or allow a crop to grow better in an environment that they don't normally grow, i.e. Africa. I don't like Monsanto. I don't like that the President of my University is on the board. Also, there's the Agent Orange thing and me rolling around in an Agent Orange testing area when I was 19.

Figured the right would love this because of the mexican name of the company.

SeattleGriz wrote:Does anyone know how if we evolved over thousands of years with our foods, altering the genes of said foods is good for humans? Isn't that change just a bit rapid?

By the way, I don't think it is the food that is affecting humans that is the problem. From what I have "read", it is when the normal flora incorporate the GMO genes into their genome and start producing proteins our gut is not used to dealing with, that is a big problem.

We've been genetically altering the foods that we eat for thousands of years - farmers and others have constantly tried mixing different types of seeds to see what grows better. The apples we eat today are vastly different than the apples grown 1000 years ago because we've cosntantly tried to improve them for taste and appearance and durability and have only grown (or breed for another word) those strains that best give that profile. It's not vastly different than what we do with thoroughbred horses, it's just that there's no fancy derby to show off the results of our tinkering.

It does come down to, though, a gross ignorance of science on many people's parts when they protest stuff like this. People hear "gene manipulation" and "chemicals" and instantly think the worst. I'm not saying there shouldn't be caution and guidelines and regulations surrounding this - heck, every field of human endeavor probably needs a bit of all of those things. However, the standard that some in the anti-GM food crowd has of demanding that it be proven that there isn't now nor ever will be a negative consequence of using GM foods is an impossible standard. And while they hold to that standard, often in their comfortable living conditions where food is always plentiful, they damn millions of people on this Earth to further hunger and malnourishment. Of course, for the Malthusians in the world, that's a perfectly fine outcome, but it's a pretty morbid one at that.

But regardless, sadly most of the world, and people on both sides of the political aisle, are ignorant when it comes to science.

kalm wrote:Yeah we should just trust them..kind like you trust the govment!

I raise my own queens for my hives and other beekeepers as well. I suppose I genetically modify the queens produced by selecting the best honey producers, best hygienic queens, good brood builders and less aggressive ones. Now, you can come over and protest me here in MN but if you stay more than 3 days then you have to start working....

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:

kalm wrote:Yeah we should just trust them..kind like you trust the govment!

I raise my own queens for my hives and other beekeepers as well. I suppose I genetically modify the queens produced by selecting the best honey producers, best hygienic queens, good brood builders and less aggressive ones. Now, you can come over and protest me here in MN but if you stay more than 3 days then you have to start working....

What kind do well in southern Illinois?

GannonFan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Does anyone know how if we evolved over thousands of years with our foods, altering the genes of said foods is good for humans? Isn't that change just a bit rapid?

By the way, I don't think it is the food that is affecting humans that is the problem. From what I have "read", it is when the normal flora incorporate the GMO genes into their genome and start producing proteins our gut is not used to dealing with, that is a big problem.

We've been genetically altering the foods that we eat for thousands of years - farmers and others have constantly tried mixing different types of seeds to see what grows better. The apples we eat today are vastly different than the apples grown 1000 years ago because we've cosntantly tried to improve them for taste and appearance and durability and have only grown (or breed for another word) those strains that best give that profile. It's not vastly different than what we do with thoroughbred horses, it's just that there's no fancy derby to show off the results of our tinkering.

It does come down to, though, a gross ignorance of science on many people's parts when they protest stuff like this. People hear "gene manipulation" and "chemicals" and instantly think the worst. I'm not saying there shouldn't be caution and guidelines and regulations surrounding this - heck, every field of human endeavor probably needs a bit of all of those things. However, the standard that some in the anti-GM food crowd has of demanding that it be proven that there isn't now nor ever will be a negative consequence of using GM foods is an impossible standard. And while they hold to that standard, often in their comfortable living conditions where food is always plentiful, they damn millions of people on this Earth to further hunger and malnourishment. Of course, for the Malthusians in the world, that's a perfectly fine outcome, but it's a pretty morbid one at that.

But regardless, sadly most of the world, and people on both sides of the political aisle, are ignorant when it comes to science.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the two bolded parts, as to what fuels most of the doubt.

Pwns wrote:There was a mass protest against Monsanto yesterday. All this despite that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful to health or to the environment.

BS!

Take a few minutes to search and you will find MANY published articles (search for Bt and non-target arthropods) addressing the environmental impact.

biobengal wrote:

Pwns wrote:There was a mass protest against Monsanto yesterday. All this despite that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful to health or to the environment.

BS!

Take a few minutes to search and you will find MANY published articles (search for Bt and non-target arthropods) addressing the environmental impact.

Is there anything conclusive and do they actually take into account the decreased land, pesticide, and fertilizer usage by GMOs?

This is not new.

Try doing genetic research into ethnic differences and watch what happens.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Take a few minutes to search and you will find MANY published articles (search for Bt and non-target arthropods) addressing the environmental impact.

I just did a Google search and just looked at the first three "hits" on the list (links below) and, at least as I read the abstracts, I'm not seeing assertions of evidence for adverse impacts on non-target arthropods. That doesn't mean that there aren't other studies that suggested adverse impacts but if that's the case it looks like the results are, at best, mixed.

In any case, we routinely use pest control strategies that impact non target arthropods. Like for instance when I was a kid there was a certain time of year when I'd always see lots of fireflies in my yard and otherwise around my neighborhood. We used to catch them and put them in jars to look at them and such.

But I haven't seen them around the house I grew up in for many years now. The reason? Mosquito spraying. At least that's what I've been told. And a quick Google search tells me that's a recognized issue.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22252123" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://biotechbenefits.croplife.org/pap ... -analysis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://biotechbenefits.croplife.org/pap ... in-brazil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

houndawg wrote:

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:

I raise my own queens for my hives and other beekeepers as well. I suppose I genetically modify the queens produced by selecting the best honey producers, best hygienic queens, good brood builders and less aggressive ones. Now, you can come over and protest me here in MN but if you stay more than 3 days then you have to start working....

What kind do well in southern Illinois?

Any of the European honey bee varieties would do just fine in S Ill. Italian, Carniolan, Buckfast, and Caucasian would all produce honey. Honey production would depend on what is available for a floral source. Illinois is corn and bean country. I went to grad school at Eastern Ill and there were small river valleys that probably had clovers and alfalfa in them. Soybeans will produce honey in humid conditions. Illinois is not a big honey producing state commercially but bees can produce honey from just about any type of flower. The four states of MN-ND-SD-MT produce alittle over 1/2 of all honey in the US.

Didn't you say that you were looking for bees on your land? Did you find a local beekeeper to bring some hives in?