Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act

[mabrown310]

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.

 

Agreed. There is no definitive evidence either way. Most studies conclude by saying they don't know the effects yet. Hell, there might not be any! My problem is with the food labeling. We have a right to know what we are purchasing and consuming

[Junior]

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

 

My undergraduate degree is in Agronomy as well. It seems to me that your biggest concerns are with herbicides, not GMOs. There is no reason to be inherently afraid of crops modified with animal or bacterial DNA. I have no problem with labeling of foods, but the irrational fear of GMOs pushed by a group that clearly doesn't understand what they are will probably damage any useful GMO to the point of extinction.

 

(As an aside, bacterium is singular, bacteria is plural)

[mabrown310]

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.

 

Oh man thats a whole new can of worms haha. BT attacks specific sites on insects that aren't present in humans though, correct? I don't know a whole lot about BT. You seem knowledgable on the matter though

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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.co...undup-Herbicide

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

 

Well, I'll stop you right here. Rats do not equal humans. I understand why studies like this can not be done on humans--it's completely unethical. I'm a psychology major, and my fairly extensive knowledge of methodology and ethics leads me to come to this conclusion: We can't run this study on the human population because it is unethical. We can run this study on rats because it is ethical. But the sticky point about this comes back to (population) external validity--will the results of this study translate to just about the same results in a different population? It did in rats doesn't mean it will in humans. Unless some biology major (tschu I'm looking at you) can come in here and point me to a study demonstrating the resemblance of rats to humans, this study can't be used as causal proof.

 

Genetically modified does not mean bad. Yes, food can be genetically modified to be bad, but why on Earth would any legal entity want to do that? As soon as the effects of their GE food come to the forefront, people are going to stop buying their product. I can't think of one company that would go into this with the sole intention of making a little profit, harming people, and then going out of business. More so than not, GE foods are going to result in better, not worse things.

 

What I don't like in this is (and perhaps I'm misreading the Act), how the GMO organizations are absolved of any liability. It won't facilitate them to being reckless, but if something bad results from their GE products, shouldn't they be held responsible? I mean, that seems like common sense.

 

We do have a right to know what we're putting into our mouths, however, how many of us read the ingredients label of what we eat and drink everyday? We know the general gist of what is in each product, and more often than not, that is good enough for us to make our decisions. So we'll know that this food is a genetically modified (x) with DNA from (y). If we don't like the sounds of that, we won't eat it and find something else.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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?

 

Ah yes, "informed decisions". What constitutes an informed decision? I already have an answer in mind, but I want to hear your thoughts.

[mabrown310]

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

 

My undergraduate degree is in Agronomy as well. It seems to me that your biggest concerns are with herbicides, not GMOs. There is no reason to be inherently afraid of crops modified with animal or bacterial DNA. I have no problem with labeling of foods, but the irrational fear of GMOs pushed by a group that clearly doesn't understand what they are will probably damage any useful GMO to the point of extinction.

 

(As an aside, bacterium is singular, bacteria is plural)

Right, a lot of GMOs have been very beneficial and safe. But several countries have banned CERTAIN GMOs until more is known about them. Shouldn't consumers have a choice in whether they want to purchase these products?

[Junior]

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

 

My undergraduate degree is in Agronomy as well. It seems to me that your biggest concerns are with herbicides, not GMOs. There is no reason to be inherently afraid of crops modified with animal or bacterial DNA. I have no problem with labeling of foods, but the irrational fear of GMOs pushed by a group that clearly doesn't understand what they are will probably damage any useful GMO to the point of extinction.

 

(As an aside, bacterium is singular, bacteria is plural)

Right, a lot of GMOs have been very beneficial and safe. But several countries have banned CERTAIN GMOs until more is known about them. Shouldn't consumers have a choice in whether they want to purchase these products?

 

I've said I'm fine with labeling requirements, but the European bans on GMOs are short-sighted, at best, and entirely politically motivated.

 

My biggest problem with the thread was that you came in here half-cocked and spreading patently false information in your attempt to A) "dumb down" the science and B) indict the potentially hazardous nature of some herbicides.

[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.co...undup-Herbicide

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

 

Well, I'll stop you right here. Rats do not equal humans. I understand why studies like this can not be done on humans--it's completely unethical. I'm a psychology major, and my fairly extensive knowledge of methodology and ethics leads me to come to this conclusion: We can't run this study on the human population because it is unethical. We can run this study on rats because it is ethical. But the sticky point about this comes back to (population) external validity--will the results of this study translate to just about the same results in a different population? It did in rats doesn't mean it will in humans. Unless some biology major (tschu I'm looking at you) can come in here and point me to a study demonstrating the resemblance of rats to humans, this study can't be used as causal proof.

 

Genetically modified does not mean bad. Yes, food can be genetically modified to be bad, but why on Earth would any legal entity want to do that? As soon as the effects of their GE food come to the forefront, people are going to stop buying their product. I can't think of one company that would go into this with the sole intention of making a little profit, harming people, and then going out of business. More so than not, GE foods are going to result in better, not worse things.

 

What I don't like in this is (and perhaps I'm misreading the Act), how the GMO organizations are absolved of any liability. It won't facilitate them to being reckless, but if something bad results from their GE products, shouldn't they be held responsible? I mean, that seems like common sense.

 

We do have a right to know what we're putting into our mouths, however, how many of us read the ingredients label of what we eat and drink everyday? We know the general gist of what is in each product, and more often than not, that is good enough for us to make our decisions. So we'll know that this food is a genetically modified (x) with DNA from (y). If we don't like the sounds of that, we won't eat it and find something else.

Thanks for pointing that out. I am a psych minor also. Love psychology. I meant to put that this study cannot be translated to humans. It can't be completely refuted though, and like you said we can't run tests on humans. And I completely agree about the liability part. You interpreted correctly. Monsanto cannot be sued or be told to stop producing a GMO if it was found to be harmful. Monsanto would never try to abuse this power intentionally. But why does Monsanto get protection and the public none if something did happen?

[mabrown310]

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

 

My undergraduate degree is in Agronomy as well. It seems to me that your biggest concerns are with herbicides, not GMOs. There is no reason to be inherently afraid of crops modified with animal or bacterial DNA. I have no problem with labeling of foods, but the irrational fear of GMOs pushed by a group that clearly doesn't understand what they are will probably damage any useful GMO to the point of extinction.

 

(As an aside, bacterium is singular, bacteria is plural)

Right, a lot of GMOs have been very beneficial and safe. But several countries have banned CERTAIN GMOs until more is known about them. Shouldn't consumers have a choice in whether they want to purchase these products?

 

I've said I'm fine with labeling requirements, but the European bans on GMOs are short-sighted, at best, and entirely politically motivated.

 

My biggest problem with the thread was that you came in here half-cocked and spreading patently false information in your attempt to A) "dumb down" the science and B) indict the potentially hazardous nature of some herbicides.

Uhh my bad? I didnt know everyone here knew the physiology of GMOs so I tried to summarize what I was trying to get to. And where did I ever say all herbicides are bad? Of course they aren't, otherwise we would all be dead. SOME studies have been done on certain herbicides and there were differing opinions. I should posed my original post as more hypothetical, which was my intent. There is no proof that Monsanto's GMOs are gonna kill people...but what if something happened? Should Monsanto be totally protected? Don't consumers have a right to know what they are eating ( I know you already answered this. Just trying to clear up my original message)

[carlfense]

I don't know a whole lot about BT. You seem knowledgable on the matter though

It's purely accidental if I sound knowledgeable about it. My BT knowledge is basically limited to the percentage of acres that are a refuge.

[knapplc]

My problem is with the food labeling. We have a right to know what we are purchasing and consuming

 

I agree with this. The more I know about what goes into my food the better. accountability talked about the slippery slope, and I'm on board with that, too.

I think far too much of this situation is clouded by hysteria, but the fact is, I think I should know what I'm eating, and how it could affect me. I don't support food producers having the ability to hide from simple common transparency.

[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?

 

Ah yes, "informed decisions". What constitutes an informed decision? I already have an answer in mind, but I want to hear your thoughts.

I believe food companies should be as transparent as possible. People today eat very differently than in the past. Some people have allergies to the new proteins in GMOs. And then there are vegans, gluten free dieters, organic, etc. People are more interested than ever in what they are consuming. While not everyone looks at food labels, a large amount of people do. We are in the information age now. Almost every poll shows 80-90% of Americans want GMOs to be labeled as such.

[strigori]

Monsanto is not a company anyone should be trusting, let along giving unlimited power. I mean, no rules, what could possibly go wrong?

 

Not all GMOs are bad, but that doesnt make them all good either. And if there is one given that has been repeatedly proven, its that companies will do stop at nothing to make more money, regardless of the consequences. Letting entities like this have unlimited, unchecked power of what we eat should not be allowed to happen.

[BigRedBuster]

Like I said before, I am all for labeling so we know what we are eating. Problem is, there are very informative labels on most foods and one heck of a lot of Americans still don't give a crap and eat pathetically horrible crap.

 

That said, I think before GMOs are on labels (which I am not against) a very specific definition of GMO needs to be determined. Scientists might have an idea of what that is but the general public is all over the board.

 

For instance, the corn plant we have now (before GMO) is no where close to the corn plant given to white people from the Indians. All those changes were done by humans with varying levels of technology. So, is all corn now GMO?

 

What if the GMO corn is taken to an plant where some minor specific ingredient is taken out (let's say corn syrup) and used in a food. Now does that food need to be labeled GMO?

 

Do grain elevators now need to have completely different storage facilities for GMO with different transportation so that when ADM gets a load of corn, they know that? Then, does ADM need to have completely different production facilities for GMO so that it's not mixed with non GMO? If two bushels of GMO get into an entire grain bin, does that entire grain bin then have to be labeled GMO?

 

Is there a simple test that can be performed by someone like ADM when they get a load to tell if it is GMO?

 

Labeling is good and I'm all for it. But, with something like this, the practicality of it may be difficult.

[strigori]

Monsanto has ways of IDing their corn. They 'check' on farmers crops to make sure that anyone growing their corn, bought it for that specific season. It can be done.