GMO Myths and Facts: 123 page report cites health risks, increase pesticide use, and more

reply to post by boncho


Actualy I detest Almonds, even have to strip the marzipan of my christmas cake.

GM Grass creates cyanide thread

reply to post by VoidHawk


Natu ral Toxins in Fruits and other things.

The kernels within the pits of some stone fruits contain a natural toxin called cyanogenic glycoside. These fruits include apricots, cherries, peaches, pears, plums and prunes.

I don't really see a difference. I glanced over the GMO story, and if creating cynograss was not intended, they need to be held accountable. But a few cows died and..? Natural toxin production from plants have surely killed far more things over the years.

Not to say GE companies don't need better oversight or regulation. Simply using this as fear matter is pointless.

Unless you are willing to down a glass of "natural" arsenic that I collect out of a river near a hydrocarbon deposit.


Then you will convince me...

reply to post by piett


Haha.. I probably should have used reputable not credible!

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by VoidHawk

Anyone remember the thread about the GMO grass that produced cyanide gas and killed a herd of cows?

 

Is that like bitter almonds that Mother Nature produced?

The wild form of domesticated almond grows in parts of the Levant; almonds must first have been taken into cultivation in this region. The fruit of the wild forms contains the glycoside amygdalin, "which becomes transformed into deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing, chewing, or any other injury to the seed."[

But don't worry, selective breeding (genetic engineering) allowed us to eat the non-toxic almond we love so dearly.

Domesticated almonds appear in the Early Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC) of the Near East, or possibly a little earlier.

Link

edit on 6-7-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

selective breeding and genetic modifications are about as similar as marrying a women you like and having children, or have a fish penis genetically inserted to grow out your ass and then having children with a mole.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

selective breeding and genetic modifications are about as similar as marrying a women you like and having children, or have a fish penis genetically inserted to grow out your ass and then having children with a mole.

When comparing the limitations of elective breeding and the more linear outcomes then yes, they are nothing alike. But Mother Nature does a fine job itself creating things that are harmful to humans.

Originally posted by CrimsonMoon

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by charles1952

 

Yes, it puts me in mind of a certain conspiracy site, where the members are sure they're being lied to and get together to prove it. With enough willingness to see the truth, a lot of sources, and a streak of independent thought, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

Of course, it's just a conspiracy site. No reason to accept their conclusions, because they had already established that part beforehand....

edit on 7/5/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)

Indeed, I admit I know next to nothing about GMO but I have always wondered why selling sterile seeds was such a bad thing? After all if a company is going to start to monkey with a plants genetics the responsible thing to do is engineer it so it cant reproduce.

Simply to avoid an eco disaster.

Because the possibility exists for those seeds to spread to other crops, rendering them unable to reproduce. GMO crops have already been spreading to other crops with no problems whatsoever, so there's no reason to think that their teriminator plants would be any different.

One of the main, main, main problems about "prove it to me" with the negatives of GMOs is that IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN so many times it is frigging hilarious. The amount of independent research is staggering. There are reports in many medical journals, proving to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that GMOs are not good for humans or ecology. And yes, it's partially that these reports are minimized by Monsanto and others, that the evidence and the people who got it are villified to some some extent, but what it REALLY is is that despite what people, even on ATS, say, everyone ALWAYS listens to "the official word." A study, evidence, a repeatable report is NOT real in ANYONE's eyes unless it is able to be fully promulgated in the media and has a lot of people talking about it.

One reason that only "natural" groups etc. put forth this information is because who else is going to? Yes, it does make some of them look like they're biased, but many of the reports they're talking about were done by independent researchers.

I just go and look at all the facts for myself and it seems pretty obvious. The report is right: bad health, bad ecology and NOT the increased yields promised.

And to the person who compared GMOs with breeding - you've got to be kidding. Injecting completely foreign proteins into another plant's proteins does NOT happen in nature quite this way at ALL, certainly not in breeding.

reply to post by charles1952


Yea i feel ya. Have you checked out what their BT cotton did in India? That ish was nas-ty!

Threads on ATS about it. That's why no one wants GMOs.. it laced. Rather than crossbreeding the natural way, they just want to cheat and make their product invulnerable to Roundup, that's it.

You can spray this plant and it won't die because i made it genetically resistant! Too bad Roundup kills everything else, heh.

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by charles1952

 

Yea i feel ya. Have you checked out what their BT cotton did in India? That ish was nas-ty!

Threads on ATS about it. That's why no one wants GMOs.. it laced. Rather than crossbreeding the natural way, they just want to cheat and make their product invulnerable to Roundup, that's it.

You can spray this plant and it won't die because i made it genetically resistant! Too bad Roundup kills everything else, heh.

I mean honestly, a plant that is resistant to roundup through human intervention, what's not to question!?

Originally posted by charles1952
I wish I knew more about this stuff, but I'm having a tough time finding a source that seems objective to me. Reports that support GMO foods are called influenced by industry. The report cited by the OP was prepared by the co-founder of Earth Open Source, an investigative journalist, and a scientist I didn't bother checking on.

The report said this about Earth Open Source:

Earth Open Source is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. It supports agroecological, farmer-based systems that conserve soil, water, and energy and that produce healthy and nutritious food free from unnecessary toxins. It challenges the use of pesticides, artificial fertilizer and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the grounds of the scientifically proven hazards that they pose to health and the environment and because of the negative social and economic impacts of these technologies. Earth Open Source holds that our crop seeds and food system are common goods that belong in the hands of farmers and citizens, not of the GMO and chemical industry.

See why I'm having trouble finding a source I can rely on? They had their conclusions decided upon before they wrote the report. They might be absolutely correct, I don't know, but they don't inspire confidence.

Why don't they inspire confidence? What's wrong with a not-for-profit org dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system?

Seems to me that SHOULD inspire confidence?!?

You know I'd be happy to trust big Business, big Pharma, and big Agriculture if we removed the possibility of profit for these entities and capped upper management wages at reasonable levels.

Wait for it ... some poor soul is going to quote me and state that profit is the only thing that motivates advancement and development

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

Dear Ex_CT2,

Clever, I like your comment. But I'm having a little more trouble with this one than with some. Maybe because I don't have the science background, I don't know. But what I keep hearing from both sides is "We have the truth, the other side is biased because of, whatever." One side says A, the other side says B, and I don't know how to tell them apart, or judge one as superior.

I'm really not picking sides. I don't know enough. And the reading I've done has been unproductive so far. Maybe I just have to check more sources.

With respect,
Charles1952

Just look for the side that doesn't have money as the prime motive for action and trust that one.
They will be biased too, but at least their bias will likely be based on some human virtue, rather than greed, control and fear

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

you would think that all these "free-thinkers" would have figured out by now that the majority-opinion is usually the WRONG one (re :sheeple).

and yet.....

....all these GMO bashers (a sure-fire way to rack up S&F points) appear to be okay with the majority opinion on this one.


it reminds me of the recent thread claiming that "stupid people are too stupid to realize that they are stupid". (and thus believe themselves to be free-think......err....smart.)

I'd wager that the majority opinion on many things is quite accurate, or at least, I'm happy to agree with most that, for example, a diet of twinkies and coca cola is less than optimum.

Just because the most vocal group is against something, doesn't mean the 'free thinker' should be for it

Also, when it comes to GMO food, I'd say the majority opinion is that it is quite ok, or at least not something to get worked up about, as evidenced by the fact most people seem quite happy eating stuff with GMO ingredients.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by surfin4it

 

GM proponents often use the terminology relating to genetic modification incorrectly to blur the line between genetic modification and conventional breeding.
For example, the claim that conventional plant breeders have been “genetically modifying” crops for centuries by selective breeding and that GM crops are no different is incorrect (see 1.1). The term “genetic modification” is recognised in common usage and in national and international laws to refer to the use of recombinant DNA techniques to transfer genetic material between organisms in a way that would not take place naturally, bringing about alterations in genetic makeup and properties.
The term “genetic modification” is sometimes wrongly used to describe marker-assisted selection

Breeders have been genetically modifying through selective breeding. Otherwise there wouldn't be domesticated species of plants.

The difference of using bacteria to inject plants with rDNA is only that the effects and outcomes are expedited. The same thing happens over long periods of time in the wild, and sooner because of selective breeding in the past.

Well I was about to say that nature doesn't mix scorpion and spider dna with tomotoes, not even after thousands of generations, but it appears I may be quoting a misrepresentation?!

According to Monsanto blog, there is NO animal dna in GMO food at all!
monsantoblog.com...

So, again, there is NO animal DNA in GMO vegetables, fruits or grains. Zero, none, zilch!

Yeah, it's Monsanto, so I don't trust this as a statement of fact, more like a PR release.
Would anyone like to confirm or deny?

As a side issue, it occurs to me that in order to support GMO one would have to believe that nature is devoid of an organising intelligence (that has a primary function of promoting and preserving life), or at least that man is smarter than god

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

selective breeding and genetic modifications are about as similar as marrying a women you like and having children, or have a fish penis genetically inserted to grow out your ass and then having children with a mole.

 

When comparing the limitations of elective breeding and the more linear outcomes then yes, they are nothing alike. But Mother Nature does a fine job itself creating things that are harmful to humans.

she does, over the course of millions of years, not over the course of 20 years. huge difference and possibly with ecologically disastrous implications.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Natu ral Toxins in Fruits and other things.

The kernels within the pits of some stone fruits contain a natural toxin called cyanogenic glycoside. These fruits include apricots, cherries, peaches, pears, plums and prunes.

I don't really see a difference. I glanced over the GMO story, and if creating cynograss was not intended, they need to be held accountable. But a few cows died and..? Natural toxin production from plants have surely killed far more things over the years.

Not to say GE companies don't need better oversight or regulation. Simply using this as fear matter is pointless.

Unless you are willing to down a glass of "natural" arsenic that I collect out of a river near a hydrocarbon deposit.


Then you will convince me...

Sorry for the string of posts, just making my way through the thread which appears to be pretty quiet.

Apricot kernels are an excellent medicine for cancer (Amagdylin) so I'd be happy to take your challenge (the one about eating fruit pits without fear of poisoning, not the one about drinking a cup of arsenic you pull out of a river)

I really have a problem with people suggesting that injecting genetic material is the same as cross breeding.

I'm not a genetic engineer, so I am open to correction, but common sense seems to suggest that cross breeding is more akin to setting up your mate on a blind date and hoping he gets lucky, whereas genetic engineering in terms of GMO food is more like cutting your mate's member off and inserting it into the lady in question.

Sorry for the graphic, somewhat chauvanistic image but it kind of reflects my feelings on corporate tinkering with food for profit.

Originally posted by thebtheb
One of the main, main, main problems about "prove it to me" with the negatives of GMOs is that IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN so many times it is frigging hilarious. The amount of independent research is staggering. There are reports in many medical journals, proving to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that GMOs are not good for humans or ecology. And yes, it's partially that these reports are minimized by Monsanto and others, that the evidence and the people who got it are villified to some some extent, but what it REALLY is is that despite what people, even on ATS, say, everyone ALWAYS listens to "the official word." A study, evidence, a repeatable report is NOT real in ANYONE's eyes unless it is able to be fully promulgated in the media and has a lot of people talking about it.

One reason that only "natural" groups etc. put forth this information is because who else is going to? Yes, it does make some of them look like they're biased, but many of the reports they're talking about were done by independent researchers.

I just go and look at all the facts for myself and it seems pretty obvious. The report is right: bad health, bad ecology and NOT the increased yields promised.

And to the person who compared GMOs with breeding - you've got to be kidding. Injecting completely foreign proteins into another plant's proteins does NOT happen in nature quite this way at ALL, certainly not in breeding.

Can you post a few links. Seems some of the peeps in this thread are struggling to source the same quality of material you have managed to find. Thanks.

Originally posted by RogerT3

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Natu ral Toxins in Fruits and other things.

The kernels within the pits of some stone fruits contain a natural toxin called cyanogenic glycoside. These fruits include apricots, cherries, peaches, pears, plums and prunes.

I don't really see a difference. I glanced over the GMO story, and if creating cynograss was not intended, they need to be held accountable. But a few cows died and..? Natural toxin production from plants have surely killed far more things over the years.

Not to say GE companies don't need better oversight or regulation. Simply using this as fear matter is pointless.

Unless you are willing to down a glass of "natural" arsenic that I collect out of a river near a hydrocarbon deposit.


Then you will convince me...

Sorry for the string of posts, just making my way through the thread which appears to be pretty quiet.

Apricot kernels are an excellent medicine for cancer (Amagdylin) so I'd be happy to take your challenge (the one about eating fruit pits without fear of poisoning, not the one about drinking a cup of arsenic you pull out of a river)

I really have a problem with people suggesting that injecting genetic material is the same as cross breeding.

I'm not a genetic engineer, so I am open to correction, but common sense seems to suggest that cross breeding is more akin to setting up your mate on a blind date and hoping he gets lucky, whereas genetic engineering in terms of GMO food is more like cutting your mate's member off and inserting it into the lady in question.

Sorry for the graphic, somewhat chauvanistic image but it kind of reflects my feelings on corporate tinkering with food for profit.

no it's not, it's like cutting your mates member off and replacing it with the sex organ of a fungus and inserting it into the lady in question.

reply to post by RogerT3


Why don't you provide an example of animal DNA in plants first instead of asking people to prove something you believe.

Something that is approved and mass marketed as well. Laboratory work isn't consumed normally...

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by RogerT3

 

Why don't you provide an example of animal DNA in plants first instead of asking people to prove something you believe.

Something that is approved and mass marketed as well. Laboratory work isn't consumed normally...

edit on 7-7-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Sounds like you already have the list ... why not share it?
Anyway, if it's done in the lab now, most likely it'll be in the supermarket eventually, unless there is some other reason to GM crops?

This was an interesting read but no specifics:
www.aces.uiuc.edu...

A transgenic organism carries in all its cells a foreign gene that was inserted by laboratory techniques. Each transgenic organism is produced by introducing cloned genes, composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from microbes, animals, or plants, into plant and animal cells. Transgenic technology affords methods that allow the transfer of genes between different species.

....

All traits discussed here are associated with expression of single genes. But many important agronomic traits such as yield and lodging are not well understood and are controlled by many genes. Manipulating such polygenic traits by genetic engineering will require further research and the development of techniques for isolating, reconstructing, and transferring complex blocks of genes. Extensive and promising research is being conducted about additive disease resistance and stress tolerance, important polygenic traits. Plant genetic engineering is thus moving slowly but steadily from the laboratory bench into the field.

Matthew B. Wheeler, assistant professor of animal sciences; Stephen K. Farrand, professor of plant pathology and microbiology; and Jack M. Widholm, professor of plant physiology, Department of Agronomy

reply to post by RogerT3

Anyway, if it's done in the lab now, most likely it'll be in the supermarket eventually, unless there is some other reason to GM crops?

Deadly diseases and toxins are produced in a lab but not sold for human consumption. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

If something makes it out of a lab, it should go through extensive testing and pass all regulations ensuring safety. I think that's the point.

I think the issue here is people either need to be specific about the types of regulations they would like to see. Or what additional measures they would like in GE oversight.

Simply saying "burn the books" is archaic.