digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at thedailygreen.com

Genetically Modified Seed Program for Farmers

thedailygreen.com — More Food chain worries.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • knobtwiddler, on 12/27/2007, -26/+28"Congress agreed to give farmers a break on federal crop insurance if they planted crops that resist pests and produce higher yields, making them less vulnerable to crop failures,"

    this is extremely dangerous practice. these crops are poisoning the gene pool. they have botulinum and insect venom genes, glyphosphate resistance (monsanto 'roundup ready'), etc. and they are PROVEN to be hazardous to humans.

    buy organic non-gmo if you can afford it.. this is just one facet of the population reduction biowarfare that is being waged against us, especially against the world's poor. and dont forget that these

    agri-companies can actually patent genes, so they contaminate farmers crops, then sue them for patent infringement, or they make the offspring infertile wiht 'terminator genes' which is devastating for the world's starving poor.

    monsanto is pure evil. we have to resist this by any means possible.
    • franklanguage, on 12/27/2007, -10/+11Buying cheaper food that's genetically engineered is false economy; I'm living at the poverty level and I still eat virtually all organic and non-GMO produce (which I guy myself.) I'm a vegan, because I don't believe that "organic" dairy and meat are healthier for you (or cost-effective, for that matter.)
      • amightywind, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4Don't think genetic engineering. Think post evolutionary, accelerated, (and above all,) profitable artificial selection.
        • knobtwiddler, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1you said it ... "above all, profit"
          thats the problem. its not that GMO is an inherently evil technology, its that most of the modifications are to increase shelf life, secrete or resist pesticide/herbicide, increase yield by modifying growth hormone genes, etc.
      • joeyjojo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4'True' organic livestock does produce healthier food. Not to mention happier animals and healthier planet.

        The issue is that the term 'organic' doesn't mean what it used to now that the FDA and the like have watered the term down to the point that it's pretty much meaningless when stamped on foodstuffs at the grocery.
        • wiggles, on 12/27/2007, -6/+2Prove it.

          Prove organic livestock produces healthier food. Prove animals can be 'happy'. Prove the planet can be 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'.

          The term 'organic' doesn't mean 'healthy'. Arsenic is 'organic' and will kill you right along other 'organic' chemicals such as Nightshade, Wisteria, digitalis, or shellfish toxin.
          • lajaw, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Whoa mr. wiggles. The term "organic" is now owned by the National Standards on Organic Agricultural Production and Handling which is an arm of the USDA. To use it in connection with food and fiber products, you must meet certain standards. So in a legal sense, arsenic is not organic!
          • wiggles, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Well, botulinum toxin is certified as 'organic', too. You do realize that you're ingesting that when you eat your organic produce, right?
        • joeyjojo, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2"Prove organic livestock produces healthier food. Prove animals can be 'happy'. Prove the planet can be 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'."

          I don't have to. Other's already have. Do a bit of research before you jump to conclusions.
          • wiggles, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Others have definitely not proven that animals can be 'happy'. Healthier, yes, but one would have to ask a cow if she is happy in order to confirm it, and to my knowledge, there are no talking cows. The planet has been here for billions of years and has been through asteroid strikes, ice ages, mass extinctions, supervolcano eruptions, and it's still here. We're really egocentric to think that anything we're going to do will 'sicken' it. We may make it less habitable for ours and other animal and plant species, but with or without us, the planet will be here long after we're gone.
            It is you, sir, who must think critically before parroting the ***** you've been spoon-fed. Believe nothing until you have proof. Don't be so open minded that your brain leaks out your ear.
    • wiggles, on 12/27/2007, -13/+20Sorry, but I think you're being a little overly dramatic here.

      "this is extremely dangerous practice. these crops are poisoning the gene pool."
      Corn isn't a wild plant anymore, so how is this poisoning any type of gene pool? How is this different than the hybrids that have been produced since Mendel?
      "they have botulinum and Tvenom genes, glyphosphate resistance (monsanto 'roundup ready'), etc. and they are PROVEN to be hazardous to humans."
      I've not seen such proof. Can you provide a reputable journal article that shows they produce chemicals toxic to humans? Even if they do, can you provide evidence that they produce these substances in quantites sufficient to harm people or animals? And if they do produce significant quantities of these substances, can you show evidence they've made it to the food supply? Most corn is produced for animal feed and for industrial use, so what about corn never meant for human consumption?
      Also, you admit as much in your post that the organic and/or non-gmo crops are more expensive than the bio-engineered ones. How is this starving out the world's poor again? By making food cheaper for them to buy?
      I will give you this. The patent encumberance of the GMO crops is *****. But no farmer has been sued, to my knowledge, for cross contamination -- that's just FUD. The only lawsuit I'm aware of was of a guy who planted GMO seed without buying it from Monsanto. He was found to be wantonly violating their IP by planting the seed without paying for it, not for planting seed produced by cross contamination.

      There's a deadlier chemical you need to be concerned about -- dihydrogen monoxide. See all the bad stuff it does here: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

      I say we should ban it.
      • notque, on 12/27/2007, -13/+11It's poisons the gene pool because the crop doesn't stay in one place. Further Monsanto sues you if someone else bought monsanto crop, and it spread to your land.

        If you would have studied the issue as oppose to insulting someone else who had, maybe you'd understand this.
      • NinjaBoy, on 12/27/2007, -7/+6So is cross breading of plants also poisoning the gene pool? What about all the pets that have been selectively bread over the years? Different genes are different genes it doesn't matter how they got that way. All that you have is a new and BETTER plant than before. It would be one thing if it was some super bamboo that grew 20 times faster and was taking over and killing wild life as we knew it. But its just ***** corn.

        edit: meant to reply to Notque
        • lajaw, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Boy I hate to agree with notque, but notque is correct. In GMO products, the gene's had no chance to ever get into the plant/animal without inserting it there in a lab. Crossbreeding is just an acceleration of a natural process. There is no way that Bt could have gotten into corn because it is from a totally different life form .
          • jayemee, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2That's not technically correct. In the first instance cross-breeding is not necessarily just an acceleration of a natural process, it's just people making use of methodologies set up by natural selection. We can see this in cases such as lions and tigers breeding in captivity; this would never occur in nature, but is still arguably a natural process. Conversely, selective breeding of animals can't be seen just to be acceleration natural processes, as it implies that the result was inevitable, which is most assuredly not the case. The majority of modern day (non-GMO) crops and livestocks are wholly unsuited to life without continued human intervention, which would never occur through plain natural selection. Selective breeding is just as unnatural as GE; effectively it IS a rudimentary form of GE.
            Secondly, there are several known mechanisms by which lateral gene transfer can occur (i.e. genes from one organism being transferred into another). This typically occurs between bacterial species, but cross-Kingdom transfers have been recorded (such as from a bacterium to a fungi, if memory serves). Hypothetically Bt toxin genes could make their way into an Agrobacterium or similar, which has the ability to inject its DNA stably into plants (as found in Crown Gall disease). Highly unlikely, but theoretically possible.
      • alexanEmpire, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4I can't vote to ban dihydrogen monoxide.....I'm addicted to it. I've been addicted since conception. My withdrawls from a lack of dihydrogen monoxide can be fatal.
      • joeyjojo, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4"Sorry, but I think you're being a little overly dramatic here."

        No. Not really.

        It 'poisons' the gene pool by producing a monoculture. A monoculture based on patents and nutrient poor product.


        "n you provide a reputable journal article that shows they produce chemicals toxic to humans? Even if they do, can you provide evidence that they produce these substances in quantites sufficient to harm people or animals?"

        Well, for the record, Corn is not a viable food source for ruminant animals. It's really bad for them. they were never designed to eat corn.

        "Also, you admit as much in your post that the organic and/or non-gmo crops are more expensive than the bio-engineered ones. How is this starving out the world's poor again? By making food cheaper for them to buy?"

        This corn is not cheaper. It's the same cost. The difference is that, at least in the US, you are paying for it indirectly...through huge tax subsidies to corporate agriculture...not to mention the long term costs on the health of the population and planet.

        "I will give you this. The patent encumberance of the GMO crops is *****. But no farmer has been sued, to my knowledge, for cross contamination -- that's just FUD."

        A quick google search will return lots of examples for you.

        • wiggles, on 12/27/2007, -3/+1You need to provide evidence from an unbiased source that GMO corn has fewer nutrients than non-GMO corn. I have seen no evidence on this, one way or another, and the burden of proof is on you for this one.

          "This corn is not cheaper. It's the same cost."
          No, it's cheaper because the yield is greater. You have more produce at harvest for the same amount of labor and seed.

          And how does feeding cattle corn instead of forage have anything to do with GMO plants producing toxic chemicals as the GP suggests? I'm all for grass fed beef, but not because it's unhealthy -- it's really not any more or less healthy than grain fed beef of the same fat density. I prefer it because I'm a food snob and fool myself into thinking I can taste the difference.

          "they were never designed to eat corn."
          Cows weren't designed at all to do anything! Just because they've been eating grass for a few thousand years doesn't mean they can't eat corn. If you think otherwise, you must be some sort of intelligent design moron.

          And lawsuits? Like Percy Schmeiser in Saskatchewan, who found the Roundup-Ready canola growing on his property and planted it the next year? Quoth Wikipedia, "The patent infringement finding was based solely on the determination that Schmeiser had recognized the crosscontamination, and knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year. No punitive damages or the costs of the technology use fee were awarded to Monsanto as the Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 in Schmeiser's favor that his profits were exactly the same with or without the presence of the Roundup Ready Canola." In other words, he knew he had GMO canola and purposely replanted it. It was pretty wanton infringement of their patents, since he used Monsanto's plant to further develop his own hybrids. Regardless, the court found that his profits were exactly the same with the GMO grain as they would have been without it, so he had to pay monsanto squat, effectively winning the suit on appeal. So tell me again why this kills the small farmer replanting his own seed?
          • joeyjojo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3"and the burden of proof is on you for this one."

            Again, go read the "Omnivore's Dilemma" plenty of sources are cited in there for you.

            "No, it's cheaper because the yield is greater. You have more produce at harvest for the same amount of labor and seed."

            Again, you are thinking WAY too narrowly. Cheap food isn't useful if it's not good food.

            "I'm all for grass fed beef, but not because it's unhealthy -- it's really not any more or less healthy than grain fed beef of the same fat density"

            That's a silly statement. It's hard to get beef as fat with pasture fed cattle.

            "Just because they've been eating grass for a few thousand years doesn't mean they can't eat corn. If you think otherwise, you must be some sort of intelligent design moron."

            You are clearly lacking some basic understanding of how ruminants work.

            Cattle living on corn is akin to you trying to survive on twinkies. Yes, you can eat twinkies, but you aren't going to be terribly healthy nor live very long. Your body simply wasn't designed to thrive on twinkies.

            "So tell me again why this kills the small farmer replanting his own seed?"

            Well, as stated, most GMO seed produce infertile plants. So it becomes impossible for a farmer to USE his own seed once cross contanimation happens.

            Also, the current system simply creates a race towards 'more and more yield'. The only way for a farmer to stay afloat is to produce more and more corn. The more we produce, the lower the price goes, and the more they need to produce. All this does is produce surplus corn (we have WAY more corn than we can use right now) and profits only the big corporations.

            You are paying for all of this via your taxes. You seem to be OK with that. I'm not sure why.
      • Infowarmachine, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2its literally crossbreed with insect DNA
        some if it literally has insect poison IN it, and is terrible for you, some of them cause liver failure
    • jeffiek, on 12/27/2007, -8/+8"monsanto is pure evil. we have to resist this by any means possible."

      May I suggest voting for a candidate that will stop subsidizing Monsanto?
      • notque, on 12/27/2007, -3/+12If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
      • smackhero, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4what we really need are campaign financing reforms to stop industry lobbies from being able to buy politicians.
        • jeffiek, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2You don't get it do you? There have been financing reforms after financing reforms for my whole life (I'm 55). At best you're fighting last years battle, not next years. When power is for sale the purchaser will always find a way to make the payment. ELIMINATE THE POWER. Problem solved.

          Look what these "finance reforms" have accomplished so far. Stop special interests? NO. Stop individuals? YES. Put a real cramp in the only honest grass roots presidential campaign I have seen in my life? ABSOLUTELY.

          Government writes law, government enforces law, government sells power. Asking them to stop is like asking the thief to turn himself in. Worse, there's no one for the government to turn themselves in to.

    • ariez84, on 12/27/2007, -11/+17Stop spreading lies about GMO products. GMO products have done more good for humanity than anything else in recent decades. There have been NO evidence that suggest GMO crops do harm to humans or the environment. It happens in nature all the time, humanity just speed it up a bit. Its the same with vaccines...unless youre one of those hippies that doesnt believe vaccines are good for the human race either....
      • smackhero, on 12/27/2007, -0/+7evolution is a slow aggregate process that takes millions of years to affect an entire population. the problem with GMO crops is that it's quickly replacing non-GMO crops without due safety trials, and in some places it has completely wiped out organic food production. so while natural evolution inevitably results in some evolutionary dead-ends, this problem is self-correcting due to the relatively slow adoption of new genes. but companies like Monsanto are out there introducing genes that produce new and unstudied proteins into crops used for human or livestock consumption. not only that, but there have alreayd been examples of GMO crops contaminating nearby vegetation through cross-pollination.

        now, i agree that there are potential benefits of GMO if done correctly (safely) and ethically. however, do a little research into Monsanto, the leading producer of GMO seeds, and you'll see that they are not a company known for their business ethics. not only have they introduced terminator genes which force farmers to buy new seeds each season as the seeds produced by all GMO crops with T-GURT are infertile, but they exploit farmers with the extensive number of genetic patents that they hold.

        now they are even patenting genes in livestock such as pigs, and being that there's no way to determine if a pig with the patented gene was produced from a natural line or through Monanto's patented breeding process, pig farmers everywhere will be put out of business unless their patent on pig DNA is revoked. these kinds of patents aren't just unethical because they hurt farmers, but they are detrimental to academia/science as well since the process of testing for these specific genes are protected by the patents as well--making it difficult for pig farmers to find labs that are willing to test their livestock for Monsanto's patented genes.

        do some research into GMO crops and Monsanto before spouting off incredibly misinformed comments like that. christ, there was a fox news reporter who even tried to air a report outlining the controversy around Monsanto and GMO crops who got her report red flagged by Monsanto lawyers and after an 8-month re-editing process was simply fired to from the network.
        • bjornski, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6And another problem is that a lot of these crops do NOT produce fertile seeds.

          You MUST buy seed every single year, basically tethering the farm to the seed/pesticide combination that is given them.

          It's destroying the farming economy in India. They used to be able to save seeds. Now they have to buy every year, killing their profit margins.

          Monsanto and GMO in themselves aren't evil. But marketing things like "terminator seeds" is.
          • smackhero, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5i agree that GMO, if done properly isn't necessarily bad, but i think Monsanto is definitely one of the most unethical corporations in the world--Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, T-GURT, etc.
      • joeyjojo, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2"There have been NO evidence that suggest GMO crops do harm to humans or the environment."

        Go read 'the Omnivore's Dilemma'. I do believe it will change your mind.

        True, it's probably hard to show DIRECT harm. But the indirect harm is so obvious and well documented that the point stands.
      • Infowarmachine, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2are you being sarcastic? theres quite alot of evidence/tests showing how bad alot of GMO food is for you
        further more theres mountains of evidence showing how bad for people vaccines can be..
        i dont even have the time or room to scratch the surface of the vaccine issues

        get a ***** clue, if your not being sarcastic you are a retard
    • NeonBlack, on 12/27/2007, -6/+13I have to agree that this is overly dramatic. Biotech pays my bills and I can assure you that every single thing that knobtwiddler stated is straight up quackery. There is no botulinum toxin or "insect venom" in any gmo plant on the market period. The insect resistance in crops is drawn from various protiens from bacillus species, usually bacillus thuringiensis. These protiens are 100% non toxic to humans, as mammals don't even have the receptors that the protiens act upon. I would also like to add that b.t. is an approved "organic" pesticide that is used to produce all of that lovely organic food that you seem to love so much. So, you're already consuming the exact same thing when you eat your organic vegetables anyway. As far as the herbicide resistance goes, that too is provided by a single protien drawn from a soil borne bacteria, and like the b.t. protien, is completely non-toxic and completely digested almost immediately upon ingestion. It is really frustrating to those of us who do this for a living to read comments like this from people who obviously have no basic scientific knowledge of the subject.
      • ariez84, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3Exactly. See my other comments in this thread. People thats not even educated about the subject spreads so much lies about it.
      • elleanee, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3Omigod, you are so ignorant. Tell me you still think the same way after seeing this documentary called "The Future of Food" www.thefutureoffood.com

        There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America -- a revolution that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat.

        THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.

        From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.

        Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
      • knobtwiddler, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1monsanto, is that you???
        google a company called "prodigene" that grows corn that produces HIV protein. they grow it in OPEN AIR.

        HIV + corn GROWN IN OPEN AIR!!!!

        not only that, the company was fined for contaminating HUMAN FEED supplies with HIV + corn

        now.. i may be wrong about the BT not botulinum toxin (sorry, thats just what people inject in their faces-botox), some other bacteria toxin, but regardless its still a bacteria toxin. if it kills or repels insects, i don't want my food to be full of it.

        i'm fully aware that the philosophy of organic food production has been subverted and twisted (by your bosses, big agribusiness) so that companies can use pesticieds like pyrethrins that are still very toxic. at least we know the meat isnt full of hormones and antibiotics, and at least it doesnt use chemical fertilizers... although if you google a company called NYOFCO (New York or ganic fertilizer company) you will see what they sell as 'organic' fertilizer is far from it- a dried pelletized residential sewage sludge- clearly full of non-organic toxins.

        i grow my own vegetables thank you very much. and the only pesticide i use is a soap, water, oil and pepper solution. it works fine on my cabbage and thats the only thing that gets attacked by bugs. all the non-organic farmers here are just complaining about reduced profits people.. do not be fooled. i dont use herbicide or toxic pesticides and my garden has good yields.

        LIES.




    • mike17032, on 12/27/2007, -7/+6Its incorrect thinking like this is that is leading to the rise in food prices.

      Sorry hippies, but "organic" crops give a much lower yield than the GE ones most use now. On top of that organic crops end up being far worse for the planet for several reasons. First one being that you need more crop land to get the same amount of food. Thats more work for the farmers, and more emmissions from farming it. Organic fertalizer (cow *****) also has a much bigger problem with runoff than the "chemical" (even though they are putting the same damn thing in the soil) kind.

      Having the pesticide inside the crops also means that you dont need to spay the stuff on (or lose even more of your crops to pests), further reducing runoff.

      They are getting reduced insurance rates for a reason, because the crops are just plain more resiliant and give much larger yields. Sounds like common sense to me. This idiot drive toward "organic" gets more farmers to farm this way, producing less food. So the cost of food goes up, nice work.

      It amazes me to no end that people who think they are so smart are the biggest ***** suckers for the latest marketing craze.
      • joeyjojo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4"Sorry hippies, but "organic" crops give a much lower yield than the GE ones most use now."

        The issue is we measure quality of food based on yield...NOT the actual quality of the food product (ie, nutirional value, effect on the planet, etc.)

        "First one being that you need more crop land to get the same amount of food."

        Corporate corn and meat production is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse for the environment than any traditional organic method. The largest 'true' organic farms can be completely self contained, sustaining, and pretty much zero footprint on the environment. The smallest of corporate hog farms are a natural disaster waiting to happen.

        "Having the pesticide inside the crops also means that you dont need to spay the stuff on (or lose even more of your crops to pests), further reducing runoff."

        'true' organic farming doesn't use chemicals, period.

        "They are getting reduced insurance rates for a reason, because the crops are just plain more resiliant and give much larger yields. Sounds like common sense to me."

        REALLY look into America's farm subsidy logic. You'll quickly see that 'common sense' has absolutely nothing to do with our current system in the U.S.

        "So the cost of food goes up, nice work."

        Again, LOOK INTO FARM SUBSIDIES. There is no such thing as 'cheaper' food in this country. It's a choice between paying for it directly to the farmer vs. routing money through corporate ag entities via higher taxes due to farm subsidies.

        "It amazes me to no end that people who think they are so smart are the biggest ***** suckers for the latest marketing craze."

        Yep. You're a sucker too. I don't blame you at all, of course, as most of us Americans have been suckered into the current system. Once you start studying it, talking to farmers about it, looking at the TOTAL costs of it all, one quickly sees how absurd an devastating our current agriculture policies are.
    • Elranzer, on 12/27/2007, -5/+4You all realize that "organic" foods have more carcinogens than GMO and pesticide-protected foods, right?
    • Ramble, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1What a load of FUD. There is no evidence to show that GM crops are any worse or better for you than non-GM. The only issue you have here is with Monsanto and patent law, don't blame it on the technology and don't make the science the scapegoat, it's the government you have a problem with.
  • rabidmonkey1, on 12/27/2007, -13/+18If you don't know anything about Monsanto, look up Lactaid... here is a video from the movie "The Corporation."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

    GMO's are scary things. I'm not a green nut or environmentalist or anything, but I and my family went organic several months ago and have noticed a significant change in our personal health. We noticed we were getting fat and everything, and some folk we knew had tried it with great success. Not only did we all lose weight, but now things literally taste and smell better. You can tell good food from bad food (things with lots of fat and salt) because of the change... People say it's more expensive, but the way I figure it is I'd rather pay now and be healthy than pay later while I'm undergoing a quadruple bypass, ya know?
    • BrapAllgood, on 12/27/2007, -4/+9Future of Food
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNezTsrCY0Q

      DVD available from NetFlix, too. Everyone who, um, EATS should probably watch this.
    • FuXe, on 12/27/2007, -5/+6I have also been completely Raw, Vegan, and Organic for over a year now. I lost 70 pounds and have greatly improved my health. I'm much more clear headed and have continued to make life changing decisions, which have lead me to live a much more purposeful life, that in turn is rewarding emotionally and financially. So I can't say the same for anyone else but spending a little more on organic food has lead me to make more money, let alone avoiding the costly diseases.
      I concur with all the changes in taste that you mention.
    • LemonHerb, on 12/27/2007, -5/+13So when you decided to pay close attention to everything you ate and monitored your diet you lost weight? Do you think that it is possible that if you did the same but didn't so much worry about organic but just paid close attention to your diet you would have achieved the same change.
    • Otto, on 12/27/2007, -7/+6>>>"I and my family went organic several months ago and have noticed a significant change in our personal health"

      So, suddenly you paid attention to what you're eating, and now you're feeling better, right? I wouldn't put that on the food being organic, but rather on the fact that you're buying good food now and paying attention to your food intake.

      You can buy good GM food too. You just haven't done that.
    • Infowarmachine, on 12/27/2007, -3/+1buried for being too logical (this is digg!)
  • CraigMac, on 12/27/2007, -16/+11If you're new to the whole 'Why GMOs are Bad' concept, these links will give you a good start:

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/03/02/pay-monsanto-or- ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/04/20/the-health-dange ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/01/the-food-revolut ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/08/the-food-revolut ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/23/the-food-revolut ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/04/19/who-benefits-fro ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/04/14/the-future-of-fo ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/04/02/pesticides-and-y ...

    http://www.celsias.com/2007/03/21/which-came-first ...

    • ariez84, on 12/27/2007, -5/+13Thanks for the DIVERSE UNBIASED links. I bet your thesis paper had some amazing sources.
    • smackhero, on 12/27/2007, -3/+5this informative documentary is another good source: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3932164/Monsanto_-_Pat ...

      and don't mind ariez, he'd just rather stick his head in the sand rather than confront reality, and he hasn't provided any sources of his own.
  • neopolaris, on 12/27/2007, -7/+11It's all about controlling the worlds food supply. These people are out of their damn minds, IMO.
  • SavageBlackCat, on 12/27/2007, -4/+9I grow my own.

    :)
  • Layne, on 12/27/2007, -8/+19Having these genes in plants means that the farmers won't foolishly spray another couple thousand pounds of insecticides on their fields. Those chemicals are far more damaging than the modified corn. It's the lesser of two evils. Can't argue with Monsanto being evil though.
    • DangerCollie, on 12/27/2007, -10/+6"Having these genes in plants means that the farmers won't foolishly spray another couple thousand pounds of insecticides on their fields."
      Maybe not this year, or next year. But it's always a bad idea to bet against the Kingdom Insecta. They've been around a lot longer than we have and earned a right to survive. Make tougher corn plants and you'll be selecting vast populations of insects for the ones most tolerant of your modified corn. One of them will find a way around your genetic engineering and with all that extra food will breed like there's no tomorrow. Pretty soon you'll need the genetically modified corn AND a couple thousand pounds of insecticides.
      • Layne, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3Or, you create a balanced management strategy that incorporates moderate amounts of plant resistance, insecticides, cultural practices, and natural enemies.
    • recipher, on 12/27/2007, -2/+8They STILL spray the herbicides, don't fool yourself.

      "The corn seeds are manipulated so they produce pesticides that ward off insects, or resist herbicides so farmers can kill nearby weeds."

      So, we are still ingesting pesticides, now they are just part of the DNA of the plant. Guess who sells the herbicides?
      • Layne, on 12/27/2007, -4/+2I'll ingest BT. It is benign compared to most other chemical insecticides. It does nothing to humans. All US citizens have ingested pounds of it already. The herbicide is the farmers fault. They don't need to spray it.
        • jayemee, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2Layne is right. Bt toxins are some of the most specific toxins available. There are toxins that will only effect a few species, let alone something beyond one of the three orders of insects they do effect. Plus these toxins can be found in soil samples from every continent on the planet (except Antartica).

          And they don't need to spray it. It can be engineered to be expressed inside the crop. But I guess if you're anti-GMO then that's not really going to sooth your worries :)
      • Ramble, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1You know that organic crops are sprayed with pesticides too right? Some of those things are just as nasty as artificial pesticides too. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're eating from a 'clean' source.
    • res8qr6m, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Actually, Monsanto's GMO seeds are specifically engineered to be "Roundup Ready."
  • Stonekeeper, on 12/27/2007, -6/+9I, for one, do not welcome our new food overlords.
  • openpaledot, on 12/27/2007, -6/+9It is destroying family farms because companies, particularly Monsanto, have patented seed. They also have the ability to have this patent respected internationally by the TRIPS agreement of the WTO. Farmers who don't even use Monsanto seed have to right Monsanto breathing down their necks at any chance of filing a suit against them for patent infringement.

    I recommend a doc called Patent for a Pig that talks a lot about Monsanto.
    • Otto, on 12/27/2007, -7/+3Good grief, you're stupid. Go actually talk to a farmer. They love the GM seed, because it produces higher yields and makes them more money. 3/4th of all corn grown today is GM corn.

      Also, they have to buy seed every year anyway. The GM seed is not significantly more expensive or anything.
      • openpaledot, on 12/27/2007, -1/+8Absolute rubbish. Monsanto has complete control over seed in the US and will sue any and all farmers not using their patent. The issue isn't whether modified seed works, its the fact that one company has an artificial monopoly on the seed industry.
      • joeyjojo, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2"Good grief, you're stupid. Go actually talk to a farmer. They love the GM seed, because it produces higher yields and makes them more money."

        Yep. Sure does. Selling crack is a great way to make money too, but ultimately, a big price is to be paid.

        Engineered corn is the biggest drug in america. It's our legal crack. It's a bad, bad product but makes some very big corporations very rich at the expense of you...the taxpayer. Farmers are just a pawn in the game.
      • mrzack, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3these seeds can spread and contaminate non GM fields, and if those fields are contaminated, then the organic farmers have to pay Insaneto or risk being sued.
    • smackhero, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6yea, i just posted a link to that documentary above, but i'll post it again here: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3932164/Monsanto_-_Pat ...
      very disturbing stuff.
  • DangerCollie, on 12/27/2007, -5/+14"plants can hybridize, introducing human-injected genes ("genetic drift") into natural ecosystems with unknown consequences."
    Oh, I can tell you some of the consequences. If Monsanto finds gene markers from their genetically modified corn plants in a neighboring field, they sue that farmer for patent infringement. That is a stone cold fact. And, in fit of judicial stupidity, the courts in the US and Canada have actually gone along with that farce. Even if the distribution was accidental, which there's no way to prove one way or the other.
    Yes, indeed. In the good 'ol US of A we have the best government corporate money can buy.
  • ps2pers0n, on 12/27/2007, -5/+1We can only hope that the crops don't turn on their creators. Time will tell.
  • michael43, on 12/27/2007, -7/+10I read somewhere that a staggering amount of our crops were already genetically altered. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's scary. I just hope they do their research will.
    • goflyers, on 12/27/2007, -5/+8I think George Washington Carver was one of the pioneers and I don't think its scary, I think its progress.
  • goldendragon2, on 12/27/2007, -10/+5a simple rule to stay healthy - if it hasnt been around for at least 100 years - DONT EAT IT!!
    • Otto, on 12/27/2007, -4/+3Then you don't eat much of anything at all, do you.

      95% of the foods available today were not around 100 years ago. Farmers have been breeding plants or animals into hybrid species since the beginning of time. And yes, you can see changes in only a few short generations.
    • michael43, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1I hope that doesn't apply to your sex life...j/k
  • ariez84, on 12/27/2007, -11/+20People are so ignorant about GM crops, it really amazes me. But its no surprise, anything that new in science and boarders "magic" always scares people that are not educated about the subject. Its the same with vaccines, same with flying, or any other science in the history of humanity. GM crops have helped more nations faced with famine than any crop in history. Its estimated that GM crops have saved billions of lives, and will save a ton more in the upcoming decades.
    • aplusbi, on 12/27/2007, -13/+8That's such a farce. We don't need GM crops to end famine, we need to fix the distribution model. Right now in the US there are grain silos filled with food that's rotting because of farm subsidies.

      If everyone in the US stopped eating beef and we used all the farm land currently used for animal feed to grow crops for people we could feed 150% of the worlds population.

      GM crops aren't about ending famine - they are about controlling the food supply.
      • ariez84, on 12/27/2007, -5/+12"we dont need GM products to fix famine"

        Yes we do, having a gene in corn that express 4x the nutrients than "organic" corn IS fighting famine. Otherwise you will need to grow 4 other plants to make up the ones you need.

        As for having a patent on GM crops, I have no argument for that. Its wrong and shouldnt be done.
      • mike17032, on 12/27/2007, -6/+4***** off hippie, you can go eat all the ***** tasting tofu burgers you want, but I am sticking to Beef.
      • alexanEmpire, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3"we dont need GM products to fix famine" Tell that to the farmers (although few) in Somalia, Sudan, and other countries with most of their people living in extreme poverty and harsh environments. The soil there is too dry and the environment is too harsh for things like non-GM crops to crow.
    • ChiefShaman, on 12/27/2007, -11/+7I guess you haven't researched much have you. Did you hear about Monsanto in India - how switching to their GE seeds devastated their crops. Also look into the research that compares GE food to organic food. When you look at the difference in the microscope it is apparent that the cells are mutated and deformed. Just as you will be in a few years of eating your GE food.
      • mike17032, on 12/27/2007, -6/+5You do understand that without GE crops and modern farming techniques millions of people in India would have already starved to death right?

        Check out the Wikipedia entry for Norman Borlaug, and see why your stupid ***** statement is simply full of *****:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

        Humans have been GEing crops for thousands of ***** years, get over it. I know new things are scary to those who dont understand them, but think how it was the first time people saw humans fly?
        • jibii, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3"Humans have been GEing crops for thousands of ***** years, get over it."
          There's a difference between breeding a plant or animal for results (speeding up nature) and going in on the genetic level and adding or removing genes (engineering).
        • CombatSteve, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0Amen, There is a key difference between how Gregor Mendel realized pea can be breed for a desired trait in their offspring, (punnett squares) and how we now go in and directly change the genetic structure of the plant.
      • Ramble, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Get off the pointless Monsanto scaremongering. We all know they're evil, and that needs to change, but don't stop a vital needed technology from being utilised.
  • notque, on 12/27/2007, -2/+14Monsanto is evil. Suing people for their "patented" seed getting on your land. You lose your land and home, because their seed came on your property.

    They are ***** super evil.
  • ChiefShaman, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4If the terrorists don't get us, Monsanto will!
  • jorisb, on 12/27/2007, -6/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_corn

    BT corn has been in use for years now. Crops require less spraying, and don't suffer from corn borer.
    The side effects are that it may kill some other insects as well. I think it's been a great success overall.

    now they're coming out with GM corn that can kill other plants (weeds) as well. Where do you draw the line? I don't know.
  • recipher, on 12/27/2007, -2/+5For all intents and purposes, THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IS MONSANTO. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell someone. Buy organic.
  • amightywind, on 12/27/2007, -4/+6What a terrible idea. Market based crop insurance protection for farmers and much higher crop yields for the world's starving. Well, according the the illogic of the liberal mind, this is an outrage! I love Frankenfood!
    • recipher, on 12/27/2007, -1/+7Yeah, when everyone has to pay licensing to GROW A PLANT IN THEIR BACKYARD come spew your ignorance. GM foods to save lives is one thing. Complete control of a food supply by patents in an entirely different game. Wake up.
    • mrzack, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2You love Frankenfood!! ROFL!!!
  • MattGieni, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3from the soil to the table they want control of all food and dont kid yourself "they" have no regard for "your" health and safety but "they" do control our government, I mean the department of Agriculture just lays down for them and lets Monsanto run like a bull in a china shop through our lives and it affects us all but we are too ***** complacent to do anything. Anyways I got a new PS3 for christmas I am going to geek out and forget about my problems, ahh ignorance is bliss
  • mleick, on 12/27/2007, -7/+5the person who talked about their family losing weight and smelling better because they switched to organic.. give me a break. what the fact content in organic apples is lower than in GM apples? go GM apples induce transcription of IGF-II .. no.

    Capitalism means you as a farmer cant sit in your ass for a hundred years doing the same thing youve been doing and expect to return the same profits, imagine intel still trying to sell their Pentium 1 chip at the same price when it came out. Thousands of biochemists are trying to develop ways to increase crop yields and solve world hunger. Dont ***** on them because youre scared of progress. Maybe the patent law is imperfect at this time, but thats no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater
  • vanodorf, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4We messed up with the structure of things at the chemical level turning out new chemical structures and releasing them into the environment without a good understanding of how the fit into the natural cycle.
    Now, long time later and after they accumulated into the environment, their effects on health and environment are turning up.
    Working at the genetic level a deeper, in a sense, life level can potentially have even more disastrous effects.
    It's difficult enough cleaning up the chemical mess.
    If things start to go wrong how do you clean up something that reproduces?
    • JohnFlux, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1We've been messing with food for a long time.

      'Natural' potatoes contain poison - it is only because of people playing with the crops that we have made it edible.
      Likewise, natural bananas are brown and have big seeds in them. Natural cows were the size of sheep, and so on.
  • wefarrell, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4My biggest problem with GM foods is the idea that a company can own entire genetic lines. as DangerCollie pointed out they can sue farmers who use their genetics, which allows them to exact tribute from virtually any farmer in the Americas since traces of GM corn have wound up all across both Americas. Also Corn that is modified is designed to be harder to replant and reproduce than conventional corn. The more we plant and eat GM corn, the more we give control of our food supply to companies like Monsanto.
  • alexanEmpire, on 12/27/2007, -7/+4It's pretty easy to protest food when you're not starving.

    I'm sure no one in 3rd world countires (such as Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Indian, China, Mexico....the list goes on) wants to hear what some ***** who lives confortably (and has access to food anytime they want) has to say about crops that could feed their children.

    As far as I'm concerned, these anti-GMO activist are elitist, shallow, and ignorant......perhaps there are a few racist ***** in there too.
  • iupetre, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4Should read "USDA makes a deal with SATAN!"
  • CombatSteve, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8In case many of you don't know what a Terminator gene is, it is a gene that can be put into modified crops so the farmers have to buy the seeds again from the company that sells them. A Terminator gene basically makes the seeds work once and produce one yield but the seeds from the next generation of the planted seeds are either sterile or they make toxins that kill the seed so it won't grow.
    Now my big problem is that if you have these corn seeds, or soy bean seeds, that have terminator genes in them and they cross pollinate with other plants, you have natural vegetation that grows once and then dies off. Leaving nothing behind, a once green valley could become barren over a short period of time.
    For more info on how Terminator genes work, go here http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminato ...
    For more info on how plants can cross pollinate with the surrounding environment go here, http://www.umaine.edu/mainesci/Archives/MolecularB ...
  • mleick, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2OMG corn is gonna have sex with our children and infect them with the terminator! Give me a break, how about an article from a scientific journal rather than a few paragraph stub written 10 years ago.
    • CombatSteve, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0Ok, here you go, http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes my apologies for earlier, I didn't have time to find a more recent source until now, Secondly, GM are a great thing, on paper, but when you genetically modify crops and that same genetic code is in all the crops that help feed the U.S. you lose Biodiversity. If there is a rapid change in climate, or the environment, and you don't have biodiversity, there is a slim chance any of the crops will survive. If you have biodiversity you will lose some crops but there will be others that are genetically different enough to survive. (natural selection) Hence Biodiversity is important.
  • smokinDND, on 12/27/2007, -3/+2united state's agriculture needs to becareful with these GM crops,its fine to be used in some cases but Monsanto is looking to take over the whole agriculture market with the government backing them up, and i find that very dangerous, I'm gonna look into the US's agriculture exports, but any other developed country has their GM crops under a tight noose and do not encourage it for human consumption and just for industrial use.
  • mrzack, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Digg users are very well informed on the dangers of GM foods. I am deciding to get an online degree in health and nutrition.
  • Infowarmachine, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1this is monsanto subsidization with only 1 obvious level of indirection..
  • leerayIG88, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1aahh, killer tomatoes!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rek4c-pU6ZQ
  • LeeSoong, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2The Terminator Gene - which makes plant seed sterile, forces farmers to go back to the corporation to buy new plants. Nothing planted will survive past 1 generation...

    Oh, boy - that could end up a real problem if it spreads to other nearby plants, animals and people!
    • Morol, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2How would a sterile plant spread its genes?
  • nandop, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2This is the end of trust in USDA. And I just bought a coffee "USDA organic certified". Yeah, right.
  • Ramble, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Do you all have a problem with GM crops or modern agriculture? GM crops are much needed and are harmless, modern agriculture is relatively evil and does need to be reformed.
  • fixedcoma, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1face it , food will never be the same again, ever!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.