What is Digg?115 Comments
- 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. - 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.
- CombatSteve, on 12/27/2007, -0/+9In 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 ... - notque, on 12/27/2007, -3/+12If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
- 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.
- 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. - ariez84, on 12/27/2007, -5/+13Thanks for the DIVERSE UNBIASED links. I bet your thesis paper had some amazing sources.
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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? - 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....
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - SavageBlackCat, on 12/27/2007, -4/+9I grow my own.
:) - 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. - 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? - 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.
- NinjaBoy, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6*****! thats scary stuff.
- neopolaris, on 12/27/2007, -7/+11It's all about controlling the worlds food supply. These people are out of their damn minds, IMO.
- smackhero, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4what we really need are campaign financing reforms to stop industry lobbies from being able to buy politicians.
- 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. - inactive, 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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, -1/+3How so?
- inactive, 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.
- inactive, 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!
- iupetre, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4Should read "USDA makes a deal with SATAN!"
- inactive, 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!
- inactive, 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 .
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- Morol, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2How would a sterile plant spread its genes?
- 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. - 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.
- 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? - 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. - 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is