Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act

[Junior]

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias. The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides. Now farmers are resorting to other pesticides and herbicides, which are much more harmful and studies have shown that these new pesticides can get into our crops. A study last year showed that rats exposed to these same pesticides started to develop tumors, but no official study has been done on the human effects (for obvious reasons)Thats what I was trying to get at.

 

Several things. First, plants do not have to be altered with animal or bacterial DNA in order to be called GMO. For example, if I studied drought resistance in plants and was able to identify 3 genes in millet that make it so exceptionally drought tolerant, I could theoretically integrate those genes into the genome of corn and make corn exceptionally drought tolerant. This would be a GMO crop, but almost certainly would be a good thing. So the scare tactics about GMOs are meant to bypass reason, and ignite hysteria.

 

Second, we have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, by selecting the most fit crops or livestock and mating. Creating new, stronger breads of horses, for example, or increasing yields on corn. This is the high tech version. And yes, there are drawbacks at times, round-up resistant weeds are a fine example. However, the issue you listed is with the new herbicides being used, not the GMO crop itself.

 

Third, always, always, always cite the study you are referring to.

 

Fourth, a real world example of a GMO fish, where the only thing done was to alter Atlantic salmon with a gene that helps production of a growth hormone in Chinook Salmon, in order to decrease time to market:

The AquAdvantage fish is an Atlantic salmon that carries two foreign bits of DNA: a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon that is under the control of a genetic “switch” from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish that lives in the chilly deep. Normally, Atlantic salmon produce growth hormone only in the warm summer months, but these genetic adjustments let the fish churn it out year round. As a result, the AquAdvantage salmon typically reach their adult size in a year and a half, rather than three years.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/dont-be-afraid-of-genetic-modification.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[mabrown310]

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias.

Still not quite accurate.

 

The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides.

^^^^This is mostly correct but you mean herbicides. Not pesticides.

 

 

For which allowed farmers to use FAR fewer herbicides. I would think that would be a good thing.

 

BTW...Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticides can be either herbicides or insecticides. In other words....both a weed and a bug can be a pest.

Yes that was the case in past years. RoundupReady has been used so frequently though that weeds are now becoming resistant to it. Producers now have to incorporate other herbicides/pesticides to have the same effect

[T_O_Bull]

Aside from all terminology, wouldnt anyone prefer to know what they're consuming or buying. Not to mention, isnt that a right?

Sometimes its like eating a great hot dog (Coney Island in Sioux City), I don't care what's in it, it just tastes great.

T_O_B

[BigRedBuster]

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias.

Still not quite accurate.

 

The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides.

^^^^This is mostly correct but you mean herbicides. Not pesticides.

 

 

For which allowed farmers to use FAR fewer herbicides. I would think that would be a good thing.

 

BTW...Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticides can be either herbicides or insecticides. In other words....both a weed and a bug can be a pest.

Yes that was the case in past years. RoundupReady has been used so frequently though that weeds are now becoming resistant to it. Producers now have to incorporate other herbicides/pesticides to have the same effect

 

 

And....so, it's a bad thing we have had what??? 10-20 years of reduced chemicals sprayed on farms? OMG.....technology will have to adjust and come up with something else to kill these weeds. Oh...the horror.

[Junior]

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias.

Still not quite accurate.

 

The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides.

^^^^This is mostly correct but you mean herbicides. Not pesticides.

 

 

For which allowed farmers to use FAR fewer herbicides. I would think that would be a good thing.

 

BTW...Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticides can be either herbicides or insecticides. In other words....both a weed and a bug can be a pest.

Yes that was the case in past years. RoundupReady has been used so frequently though that weeds are now becoming resistant to it. Producers now have to incorporate other herbicides/pesticides to have the same effect

 

Again, so your issue is with the safety of herbicides, not ingestion of the modified crop.

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I'm just curious how this affects everything else. Couldnt this be a slippery slope? If we give one company and exemption from full product labeling, where do you draw the line?

 

Or am I looking at too big'a picture?

 

I dont necessarily have an opinion on this matter. i dont know all the details. But I thing rules and reg's should be for everyone. If your product is really fine, product labeling and information shouldnt be an issue. Folks should be allowed to form a fully informed opinion.

 

 

I guess I don't see in the article where Monsanto is uniquely singled out from other companies like them.

[Husker_x]

GMOs are seeds that are genetically modified by being injected with pesticides which are passed onto consumers.

 

No disrespect intended, but you need to learn what genetically modified means. This statement is entirely inaccurate.

 

I know diddly about GMOs but when he said that specific sentence every skeptical neuron in my brain fired red. What I do know is every time I even glance at non far-left sources about the state of modern farming, it's difficult to figure out a way to feed seven billion people without some kind of pesticides or mechanism to increase yields. Add onto that the fact that our lifespans have practically doubled in the last century (DDT and all), am I missing something here?

 

Edit: Meant century, not decade. Century!

[mabrown310]

Where are the studies that show this is a terrible idea?

 

Here is one study on repeated exposure to GMO corn in lab rats http://www.scribd.com/doc/106438581/Long-Term-Toxicity-of-Roundup-Herbicide

And again, I am NOT against the production of GMO crops. But shouldn't consumers be able to know what they are eating?

[ZRod]

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias. The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides. Now farmers are resorting to other pesticides and herbicides, which are much more harmful and studies have shown that these new pesticides can get into our crops. A study last year showed that rats exposed to these same pesticides started to develop tumors, but no official study has been done on the human effects (for obvious reasons)Thats what I was trying to get at.

 

Several things. First, plants do not have to be altered with animal or bacterial DNA in order to be called GMO. For example, if I studied drought resistance in plants and was able to identify 3 genes in millet that make it so exceptionally drought tolerant, I could theoretically integrate those genes into the genome of corn and make corn exceptionally drought tolerant. This would be a GMO crop, but almost certainly would be a good thing. So the scare tactics about GMOs are meant to bypass reason, and ignite hysteria.

 

Second, we have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, by selecting the most fit crops or livestock and mating. Creating new, stronger breads of horses, for example, or increasing yields on corn. This is the high tech version. And yes, there are drawbacks at times, round-up resistant weeds are a fine example. However, the issue you listed is with the new herbicides being used, not the GMO crop itself.

 

Third, always, always, always cite the study you are referring to.

 

Fourth, a real world example of a GMO fish, where the only thing done was to alter Atlantic salmon with a gene that helps production of a growth hormone in Chinook Salmon, in order to decrease time to market:

The AquAdvantage fish is an Atlantic salmon that carries two foreign bits of DNA: a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon that is under the control of a genetic “switch” from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish that lives in the chilly deep. Normally, Atlantic salmon produce growth hormone only in the warm summer months, but these genetic adjustments let the fish churn it out year round. As a result, the AquAdvantage salmon typically reach their adult size in a year and a half, rather than three years.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Those are all good points to keep in mind Junior, but as mabrown pointed out genetically modified can also mean splicing genes from other plants and animals. That's were the biggest concern is with GMOs. There just isn't enough research out there right now to make any kind of conclusion about the safety risk of eating those types of foods. However there are some personal accounts from people having reactions to food they have no business being allergic to only to find out it was some kind of GMO.

[carlfense]

For which allowed farmers to use FAR fewer herbicides. I would think that would be a good thing.

I'm not saying that RR is a bad thing. Far from it. I certainly don't miss walking beans.

 

That said, if you aren't already dealing with RoundUp resistant weeds . . . you will be soon.

 

BTW...Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticides can be either herbicides or insecticides. In other words....both a weed and a bug can be a pest.

This is true but we (my family farm and the local COOP) generally don't use them interchangeably.

 

Specificity also matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: The real fun will begin when we mix and match and throw BT corn into the mix . . . a GMO plant that produces toxins to kill insects. Then the sparks will really fly.

[mabrown310]

GMOs are seeds that are genetically modified by being injected with pesticides which are passed onto consumers.

 

No disrespect intended, but you need to learn what genetically modified means. This statement is entirely inaccurate.

 

I know diddly about GMOs but when he said that specific sentence every skeptical neuron in my brain fired red. What I do know is every time I even glance at non far-left sources about the state of modern farming, it's difficult to figure out a way to feed seven billion people without some kind of pesticides or mechanism to increase yields. Add onto that the fact that our lifespans have practically doubled in the last decade (DDT and all), am I missing something here?

 

Ill say it again. I am NOT against GMO crops. But the fact is there have been studies that have said "we don't know the health consequences of this yet" . So should consumers be denied the right to make informed decisions about what they buy at stores?

[Junior]

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias. The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides. Now farmers are resorting to other pesticides and herbicides, which are much more harmful and studies have shown that these new pesticides can get into our crops. A study last year showed that rats exposed to these same pesticides started to develop tumors, but no official study has been done on the human effects (for obvious reasons)Thats what I was trying to get at.

 

Several things. First, plants do not have to be altered with animal or bacterial DNA in order to be called GMO. For example, if I studied drought resistance in plants and was able to identify 3 genes in millet that make it so exceptionally drought tolerant, I could theoretically integrate those genes into the genome of corn and make corn exceptionally drought tolerant. This would be a GMO crop, but almost certainly would be a good thing. So the scare tactics about GMOs are meant to bypass reason, and ignite hysteria.

 

Second, we have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, by selecting the most fit crops or livestock and mating. Creating new, stronger breads of horses, for example, or increasing yields on corn. This is the high tech version. And yes, there are drawbacks at times, round-up resistant weeds are a fine example. However, the issue you listed is with the new herbicides being used, not the GMO crop itself.

 

Third, always, always, always cite the study you are referring to.

 

Fourth, a real world example of a GMO fish, where the only thing done was to alter Atlantic salmon with a gene that helps production of a growth hormone in Chinook Salmon, in order to decrease time to market:

The AquAdvantage fish is an Atlantic salmon that carries two foreign bits of DNA: a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon that is under the control of a genetic “switch” from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish that lives in the chilly deep. Normally, Atlantic salmon produce growth hormone only in the warm summer months, but these genetic adjustments let the fish churn it out year round. As a result, the AquAdvantage salmon typically reach their adult size in a year and a half, rather than three years.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Those are all good points to keep in mind Junior, but as mabrown pointed out genetically modified can also mean splicing genes from other plants and animals. That's were the biggest concern is with GMOs. There just isn't enough research out there right now to make any kind of conclusion about the safety risk of eating those types of foods. However there are some personal accounts from people having reactions to food they have no business being allergic to only to find out it was some kind of GMO.

 

Yes, it can mean splicing genes from other plants and animals, however, that also isn't indicative of something evil. Anecdotal stories are not good evidence. Certainly the safety of any food should be under considerable review. GMO or otherwise.

[carlfense]

Where are the studies that show this is a terrible idea?

As far as I know there isn't much in the way of definitive answers.

[mabrown310]

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias. The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides. Now farmers are resorting to other pesticides and herbicides, which are much more harmful and studies have shown that these new pesticides can get into our crops. A study last year showed that rats exposed to these same pesticides started to develop tumors, but no official study has been done on the human effects (for obvious reasons)Thats what I was trying to get at.

 

Several things. First, plants do not have to be altered with animal or bacterial DNA in order to be called GMO. For example, if I studied drought resistance in plants and was able to identify 3 genes in millet that make it so exceptionally drought tolerant, I could theoretically integrate those genes into the genome of corn and make corn exceptionally drought tolerant. This would be a GMO crop, but almost certainly would be a good thing. So the scare tactics about GMOs are meant to bypass reason, and ignite hysteria.

 

Second, we have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, by selecting the most fit crops or livestock and mating. Creating new, stronger breads of horses, for example, or increasing yields on corn. This is the high tech version. And yes, there are drawbacks at times, round-up resistant weeds are a fine example. However, the issue you listed is with the new herbicides being used, not the GMO crop itself.

 

Third, always, always, always cite the study you are referring to.

 

Fourth, a real world example of a GMO fish, where the only thing done was to alter Atlantic salmon with a gene that helps production of a growth hormone in Chinook Salmon, in order to decrease time to market:

The AquAdvantage fish is an Atlantic salmon that carries two foreign bits of DNA: a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon that is under the control of a genetic “switch” from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish that lives in the chilly deep. Normally, Atlantic salmon produce growth hormone only in the warm summer months, but these genetic adjustments let the fish churn it out year round. As a result, the AquAdvantage salmon typically reach their adult size in a year and a half, rather than three years.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Those are all good points to keep in mind Junior, but as mabrown pointed out genetically modified can also mean splicing genes from other plants and animals. That's were the biggest concern is with GMOs. There just isn't enough research out there right now to make any kind of conclusion about the safety risk of eating those types of foods. However there are some personal accounts from people having reactions to food they have no business being allergic to only to find out it was some kind of GMO.

Sorry meant to get to that last post. I am an agronomy major, so yes I realize that different species of plant DNA is also used in creating GMOs. Those arent concerning though. Crossing different breeds is pretty natural. Adding animal DNA and bacterias are not as natural, and there are people who would want to know those things next time there at the grocery store. But Monsanto will not allow their GMO info to be on food labels. I personally don't believe that they should be able to do that

[ZRod]

Yes, it can mean splicing genes from other plants and animals, however, that also isn't indicative of something evil. Anecdotal stories are not good evidence. Certainly the safety of any food should be under considerable review. GMO or otherwise.

No one's saying it's evil, a lot of really cool advancements have been made because of splicing. But when it comes to consumer health and safety don't you think they have a right to know if something could be potential harmful to them? I agree that anecdotal stories shouldn't be used as a basis for claims of health risks, but when you have so few studies about the issue where else can you draw your evidence from?