March Against Monsanto

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by 66BM

I have some questions for the anti-monsanto crowd. Do you drink water from the tap, a bottle or a fountain? All contain bio-chemicals to purify the water that is consumed. Do you wear Gucci, or Polo or any other main stream manufacturer? All produced with textiles treated in massive chemicals prior to production. Do you wear deodorant or shave? All have carcinogenic chemicals of some sort that can/cannot be directly linked to cancer.

My point is, if it is such a worry (GMOs) then purchase from your local farm stands or butchers that you know an trust to be selling "free" foods. Someone said it here, we've been manipulating foods for 1000s of years. It's not about the foods, its about what YOU consume, how much and how often.

Not disparraging anyone, but standing up against GMOs saying you eat healthy, is like PETA protesting and wearing a full leather belt, shoes and driving a vehicle with leather seating.

There are machines that have 6 or 7 stages of filtration where you can get water for like a dollar for 5 gallons, plus there is no flouride or chlorine added. Much cheaper than bottled water and better for the environment.

I'm not gonna go into clothes, because we don't put them in our body although I do agree the chemicals used to grow cotton can be harmful just from contacting your skin.

Also believe it or not they make natural deoderant, soap, shaving cream, etc. everything you need. The deoderant I use is made from tea tree and is chemical free yet just as effective.

The other problem is it's hard to opt out of this science experiment, unless your willing to put alot of effort into watching what you eat. If people offer you some of their food or snacks sometimes it's rude to turn it down. You can't eat out at all. Even in a grocery store that sells organic food you still have to read the ingredients and figure out if its safe to eat. I know all or most of you think I am overreacting, but I didn't sign up to be a lab rat and will not go along with this experiment.

[san~man]

Not to slam you, but how do you even go out of your house with that mentality? The air you're breathing is polluted with contaminants and such....do you wear a scuba mask to prevent exposure to those chemicals too?

Is your house sealed and HEPA filtrated to prevent exposure to the outside air?

What about the wood use to make your house and the chemicals used to treat it?

You said you can't eat out, so what do you do when you go on vacation or travel? You pack all your own meals too?

Etc, etc


Props to you and your effort to live life the way you want to, but you seem to have taken OCD to an entirely new level.

[66BM]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

There are machines that have 6 or 7 stages of filtration where you can get water for like a dollar for 5 gallons, plus there is no flouride or chlorine added. Much cheaper than bottled water and better for the environment.

I'm not gonna go into clothes, because we don't put them in our body although I do agree the chemicals used to grow cotton can be harmful just from contacting your skin.

Also believe it or not they make natural deoderant, soap, shaving cream, etc. everything you need. The deoderant I use is made from tea tree and is chemical free yet just as effective.

The other problem is it's hard to opt out of this science experiment, unless your willing to put alot of effort into watching what you eat. If people offer you some of their food or snacks sometimes it's rude to turn it down. You can't eat out at all. Even in a grocery store that sells organic food you still have to read the ingredients and figure out if its safe to eat. I know all or most of you think I am overreacting, but I didn't sign up to be a lab rat and will not go along with this experiment.

My point was do you live under a rock, to the extent of above where you ingest, wear or use nothing that is manufactured. Because if you don't, eating GMO food is the least of your worries. Not to mention if you walk outside and breath the air in a big city, or stand out in the sun, or swim in the ocean. Again, not disparaging anyone, standing up for what you believe in is what made this country what it is today. But the fight against GMOs is like standing with the occupy wall street crowd, than buying a 50k dollar car, and depositing your paycheck into a multi national bank. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

The real question is DO YOU live your life free from the mainstream manufacturing of day to day items?

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by 66BM

Monopolize markets? Really? So do you bank with Citi, Wells, or Chase? Do you drive a BMW, Porsche or MB? They ALL monopolize the market in one way or another. Just because a company has the money to re-invest in research and development and others do not, does not mean they are monopolizing anything.

That's like saying I make too much money doing what i do, so I should give disadvantaged people / companies money to help them rise to my level. Really?

What? I'm not suggesting Monsanto to give their money away, but that would be nice. How are those companies monopolizing markets? Naming multiple companies in the same industry already implies that competition exists. Car companies also release information about where they're made and the sources of their parts. They jump through the hoops and tend to play by the rules. There's transparency.

My problem isn't that Monsanto makes too much money. One of the issues is that Monsanto has a patent on a gene, which causes a lot of issues in the legal system. Let's say this gene transfers into another farmer's non-GMO soybean crop. Now he's screwed because Monsanto technically owns his soybeans. Farmers are also not allowed to replant Monsanto seeds. They have to keep buying new ones. That's like if BMW didn't allow you to keep your car after a year and contractually forced you to buy a new car from them. US food policy makes it worse because all the corn and soybean subsidies go mostly to big ag. I think it's pretty obvious that we're not ready to implement GMOs in an ethical and responsible manner yet. Although genetic manipulation is a very useful technology, there's still a lot of kinks to work out. There's also no transparency into what foods contain their products, but it's safe to assume that 90% of the stuff US supermarkets contain GMO soybeans or corn.

Even recently they tried to slip the Farmer's Assurance Provision under a bill through Congress, and they continue to fight against labeling. They sued a dairy producer for saying their milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. wtf. Their methods of conducting business intensify the notion that they're trying to hide something. GMOs have real benefits, but Monsanto's hiding is only creating more fear and hysteria.

[carve]

Indoor air quality is far worse than outdoor air quality pretty much anywhere.

I'm fine with people being fine with companies buying political favor. It's more a problem with our system of government than the companies though. The "Monsanto protection act" was an act that allows companies to sell seed even if a court has blocked them. It could be "crony capitialism" (a.k.a. facism) or it could be a foil to prevent companies from having to put everything on hold every time there's a basesless acqusation with the sole intent of keeping things dies up in court indefinitely (guilty until proven innocent).

GMO foods though are simply not inherently bad, just as traditionally modified or organic foods aren't inherently good. Sure...it's possible to develop something that's unhealthy, but they're incentivized not to do that. They've increased yield significantly in the developing world, a few % in the developed world, but while using less inceticide and far less toxic herbicides. The hysteria around this technique is about on par with anti-vaccers and 9-11 truthers and approximates a religious view, except the hytericals are typically far left in this case.

I found the wiki a good read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic..._controversies

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by san~man

Not to slam you, but how do you even go out of your house with that mentality? The air you're breathing is polluted with contaminants and such....do you wear a scuba mask to prevent exposure to those chemicals too?

Is your house sealed and HEPA filtrated to prevent exposure to the outside air?

What about the wood use to make your house and the chemicals used to treat it?

You said you can't eat out, so what do you do when you go on vacation or travel? You pack all your own meals too?

Etc, etc


Props to you and your effort to live life the way you want to, but you seem to have taken OCD to an entirely new level.

Originally Posted by 66BM

My point was do you live under a rock, to the extent of above where you ingest, wear or use nothing that is manufactured. Because if you don't, eating GMO food is the least of your worries. Not to mention if you walk outside and breath the air in a big city, or stand out in the sun, or swim in the ocean. Again, not disparaging anyone, standing up for what you believe in is what made this country what it is today. But the fight against GMOs is like standing with the occupy wall street crowd, than buying a 50k dollar car, and depositing your paycheck into a multi national bank. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

The real question is DO YOU live your life free from the mainstream manufacturing of day to day items?

I actually prefer being outdoors. I'm not all that concerned about the air although it is slowly getting worse. Thats what plants are for, to filter the air. I am mainly concerned about what gets put into the body. We can tolerate toxins to some extent without having any health problems, but the effects from having altered dna put into your body is what I am concerned about. This has not been proven to be safe.

And to the question about what I eat when not at home that kind of proves my point even more. It is hard to make the choice to opt out of this experiment and that is exactly what Monsanto wants. They want us to give up and accept GMO's. They want our seeds to get contaminated so that way farmers don't have a choice but to buy seeds from them. Don't you think it's wrong for a corporation to patent life.

Im not against manufacturing although I'm sure I don't support the same companies many of you do.

And I didn't want to go into religion at all, but I have a point I want to make. By modifying life aren't we essentially telling our creator that he made a mistake. I'm sure we all have different religious views, and some don't believe in religion at all, and I'm not trying to change your way of thinking towards that just using it to make a point.

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by i dunno

What? I'm not suggesting Monsanto to give their money away, but that would be nice. How are those companies monopolizing markets? Naming multiple companies in the same industry already implies that competition exists. Car companies also release information about where they're made and the sources of their parts. They jump through the hoops and tend to play by the rules. There's transparency.

My problem isn't that Monsanto makes too much money. One of the issues is that Monsanto has a patent on a gene, which causes a lot of issues in the legal system. Let's say this gene transfers into another farmer's non-GMO soybean crop. Now he's screwed because Monsanto technically owns his soybeans. Farmers are also not allowed to replant Monsanto seeds. They have to keep buying new ones. That's like if BMW didn't allow you to keep your car after a year and contractually forced you to buy a new car from them. US food policy makes it worse because all the corn and soybean subsidies go mostly to big ag. I think it's pretty obvious that we're not ready to implement GMOs in an ethical and responsible manner yet. Although genetic manipulation is a very useful technology, there's still a lot of kinks to work out. There's also no transparency into what foods contain their products, but it's safe to assume that 90% of the stuff US supermarkets contain GMO soybeans or corn.

Even recently they tried to slip the Farmer's Assurance Provision under a bill through Congress, and they continue to fight against labeling. They sued a dairy producer for saying their milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. wtf. Their methods of conducting business intensify the notion that they're trying to hide something. GMOs have real benefits, but Monsanto's hiding is only creating more fear and hysteria.

Exactly. At the very least we need GMO labeling. Monsanto has spent a significant amount of money fighting GMO labeling.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by carve

Indoor air quality is far worse than outdoor air quality pretty much anywhere.

I'm fine with people being fine with companies buying political favor. It's more a problem with our system of government than the companies though. The "Monsanto protection act" was an act that allows companies to sell seed even if a court has blocked them. It could be "crony capitialism" (a.k.a. facism) or it could be a foil to prevent companies from having to put everything on hold every time there's a basesless acqusation with the sole intent of keeping things dies up in court indefinitely (guilty until proven innocent).

GMO foods though are simply not inherently bad, just as traditionally modified or organic foods aren't inherently good. Sure...it's possible to develop something that's unhealthy, but they're incentivized not to do that. They've increased yield significantly in the developing world, a few % in the developed world, but while using less inceticide and far less toxic herbicides. The hysteria around this technique is about on par with anti-vaccers and 9-11 truthers and approximates a religious view, except the hytericals are typically far left in this case.

I found the wiki a good read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic..._controversies

I believe that the hysteria would die down if big ag owns up and sell GMOs based on their real merits, not through political subversion.

" They've increased yield significantly in the developing world, a few % in the developed world, but while using less inceticide and far less toxic herbicides." - something to put on a label

[san~man]

This should make you happy:

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/b...l?id=228288061

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by carve

Indoor air quality is far worse than outdoor air quality pretty much anywhere.

I'm fine with people being fine with companies buying political favor. It's more a problem with our system of government than the companies though. The "Monsanto protection act" was an act that allows companies to sell seed even if a court has blocked them. It could be "crony capitialism" (a.k.a. facism) or it could be a foil to prevent companies from having to put everything on hold every time there's a basesless acqusation with the sole intent of keeping things dies up in court indefinitely (guilty until proven innocent).

GMO foods though are simply not inherently bad, just as traditionally modified or organic foods aren't inherently good. Sure...it's possible to develop something that's unhealthy, but they're incentivized not to do that. They've increased yield significantly in the developing world, a few % in the developed world, but while using less inceticide and far less toxic herbicides. The hysteria around this technique is about on par with anti-vaccers and 9-11 truthers and approximates a religious view, except the hytericals are typically far left in this case.

I found the wiki a good read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic..._controversies

How are they using less pesticides or herbicides when they are modifying food crops to be pesticide and herbicide resistant. The FDA recently doubled the limit on how much glyphosate can be found in your food from 20ppm to 40ppm. The reason for that is pests are becoming resistant to glyphosate from overuse. As a result we have to use even larger amounts. Organic food is grown without the use of pesticides or herbicides.

[carve]

Originally Posted by i dunno

My problem isn't that Monsanto makes too much money. One of the issues is that Monsanto has a patent on a gene, which causes a lot of issues in the legal system. Let's say this gene transfers into another farmer's non-GMO soybean crop. Now he's screwed because Monsanto technically owns his soybeans.

Hasn't happened, although many groups have preemptively tried to sue Monsanto claiming it will. You can't sue before there are damages though.

Farmers are also not allowed to replant Monsanto seeds. They have to keep buying new ones. That's like if BMW didn't allow you to keep your car after a year and contractually forced you to buy a new car from them.

Farmers traditionally generally buy new seed every year. If they want to grow their own, then start with seed-stock with a company that allows you to save some seeds for next year. No problem. Nobody is forced to buy from Monsanto, but when you do you sign a contract to not re-use them. They only sue when this contract is violated.

US food policy makes it worse because all the corn and soybean subsidies go mostly to big ag. I think it's pretty obvious that we're not ready to implement GMOs in an ethical and responsible manner yet. Although genetic manipulation is a very useful technology, there's still a lot of kinks to work out. There's also no transparency into what foods contain their products, but it's safe to assume that 90% of the stuff US supermarkets contain GMO soybeans or corn.

Don't get me started on subsidies. They're awful. Facism, and they also help with the Iowa caucus. We're not talking new tech here though. It's mature. What kinks?

Even recently they tried to slip the Farmer's Assurance Provision under a bill through Congress, and they continue to fight against labeling. They sued a dairy producer for saying their milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. wtf. Their methods of conducting business intensify the notion that they're trying to hide something. GMOs have real benefits, but Monsanto's hiding is only creating more fear and hysteria.

I agree with the approach of non-GMO foods just labeling their stuff "non-GMO". Problem solved without forcing anybody to do anything. They resis labeling their stuff GMO because of public ignorance. Just being forced to label it makes it sound like a warning...like it's toxic, and it isn't. That said...trying to use legal force to prevent the non-GMO products from labeling is just as bad if not worse than forcing GMO products from labeling. May even be a 1st amendment violation.

[66BM]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

I actually prefer being outdoors. I'm not all that concerned about the air although it is slowly getting worse. Thats what plants are for, to filter the air. I am mainly concerned about what gets put into the body. We can tolerate toxins to some extent without having any health problems, but the effects from having altered dna put into your body is what I am concerned about. This has not been proven to be safe.

And to the question about what I eat when not at home that kind of proves my point even more. It is hard to make the choice to opt out of this experiment and that is exactly what Monsanto wants. They want us to give up and accept GMO's. They want our seeds to get contaminated so that way farmers don't have a choice but to buy seeds from them. Don't you think it's wrong for a corporation to patent life.

Im not against manufacturing although I'm sure I don't support the same companies many of you do.

And I didn't want to go into religion at all, but I have a point I want to make. By modifying life aren't we essentially telling our creator that he made a mistake. I'm sure we all have different religious views, and some don't believe in religion at all, and I'm not trying to change your way of thinking towards that just using it to make a point.

Do you believe in evolution?

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by 66BM

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes I do but I also believe that something or someone had to get it all started. That person knew what he was doing.

[66BM]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Yes I do but I also believe that something or someone had to get it all started.

You cannot believe in evolution and make a statement like "By modifying life aren't we essentially telling our creator that he made a mistake." Its conflicting ideology. Plants, animals, insects and micro-organisms all evolve. Proven fact. Humans are evolving every day, against disease and environmental factors. IMHO, GMO worries are hype, just like every other "here and now, burning issue".

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by 66BM

You cannot believe in evolution and make a statement like "By modifying life aren't we essentially telling our creator that he made a mistake." Its conflicting ideology. Plants, animals, insects and micro-organisms all evolve. Proven fact. Humans are evolving every day, against disease and environmental factors. IMHO, GMO worries are hype, just like every other "here and now, burning issue".

How can I not believe in "God" and believe in evolution at the same time. Life was designed to function properly on its own. Think about the days before humans.

[carve]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

We can tolerate toxins to some extent without having any health problems, but the effects from having altered dna put into your body is what I am concerned about. This has not been proven to be safe.

Woah there. DNA only does something when it's coding for proteins in a living cell. When you eat it it's just biomass that gets dissolved. The sequence is irrelevent to the nutritional value of the DNA itself.

And I didn't want to go into religion at all, but I have a point I want to make. By modifying life aren't we essentially telling our creator that he made a mistake. I'm sure we all have different religious views, and some don't believe in religion at all, and I'm not trying to change your way of thinking towards that just using it to make a point.

We've been modifying our foods since the dawn of agriculture. Most agricultural plants and animals are not found in the wild, except farmed seafood (which is a very new practice). Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, and savoy were all bred out of the same ancestral weed, for example. That ship sailed thousands of years ago regardless of your religious views.

But, by "religious view", I mean the anti-GMO people have their claims and opinions and stick by them regardless of the evidence.

[carve]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

How are they using less pesticides or herbicides when they are modifying food crops to be pesticide and herbicide resistant. The FDA recently doubled the limit on how much glyphosate can be found in your food from 20ppm to 40ppm. The reason for that is pests are becoming resistant to glyphosate from overuse. As a result we have to use even larger amounts. Organic food is grown without the use of pesticides or herbicides.

We established this with the video I'm sure you never watched. The development of glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) plants has changed the herbicide use profile away from the use of more environmentally persistant herbicides with higher toxicity, such as atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor, and has reduced the dangers of herbicide runoff into drinking water. They do use more roundup now because they're using so much less of that other nasty stuff. Round up isn't exactly healthy, but it's a damn site less harmful to the environmnent than what they were using before.

Pests? glyphosphate is an herbicide- not a pesticide. Yes- after a long enough time of use, weeds will naturally develop the same resistance that we've engineered into some crops, so it's not a forever solution. Hopefully we'll develop something even better and even less harmful in the future.

Organic food DOES use pesticide and herbicide, often in greater quantities than the synthetics used on non-organic crops. We established this when I mentioned your boogie-man "BT" is the most commonly used organic-certified pesticide. This is a good example of why I say you have a "religious view". You stick to your dogma even if you awknowledged the point is false just a page ago.

[bmw325i]

Ok well rather than taking the innocent until proven guilty or the guilty until proven innocent approach on GMO's, why hasn't anyone done any actual testing on the safety of them? Namely the FDA and Monsanto.

How are we supposed to know what health problems are caused by GMO's if 99% of people are eating them. Who is the control group in this experiment we are forced to be part of?

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

And I didn't want to go into religion at all, but I have a point I want to make. By modifying life aren't we essentially telling our creator that he made a mistake. I'm sure we all have different religious views, and some don't believe in religion at all, and I'm not trying to change your way of thinking towards that just using it to make a point.

As someone pointed out earlier, regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, we've already been doing this for ages.

What we know as a "banana" is man made. We did that, not god. It wasn't made via GE but it was made by us, none the less.

This is what was trying to be explained to you, using the typewriter vs computer analogy. We modify our food, our animals, pets, etc. We do all of this without GE and we've been doing it for AGES.

GE is simply a targeted more efficient way of doing this. From the other thread regarding Marijuana, I know that you have a lot of trouble dealing with the naturalistic fallacy and you can see it taking shape in this thread as well.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

How can I not believe in "God" and believe in evolution at the same time. Life was designed to function properly on its own. Think about the days before humans.

The same way that I do. God isn't a requirement for evolution.

[carve]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Ok well rather than taking the innocent until proven guilty or the guilty until proven innocent approach on GMO's, why hasn't anyone done any actual testing on the safety of them? Namely the FDA and Monsanto.

How are we supposed to know what health problems are caused by GMO's if 99% of people are eating them. Who is the control group in this experiment we are forced to be part of?

Even if you were right, how is that different from what we've done with any other crop for all of human history? New genes are introduced to those all the time, often genes that are completely novel, vs. GMO genes which are generally borrowed from somewhere else. GMO crops are tested though. They start with the assumption that the ancestral crop was safe enough, and then measure what's different about it. If the difference, even if it's making BT proteins, is considered to be within acceptable toxicity tolerences, it's considered safe.

This typically is not done with crops developed from selective breeding, either traditionally or accelerated with mutagens and radiation.

There can be health benefits, too. For example, corn damaged by insects often contains high levels of fumonisins, carcinogenic toxins made by fungi that are carried on the backs of insects and that grow in the wounds of the damaged corn. Studies show that most Bt corn has lower levels of fumonisins than conventional corn damaged by insects.

Not that there's such a thing as a "natural" crop, but people are totally snowed that "natural" = "healthy". Arsenic and snake venom are natural and pretty much as toxic as anything devised in a lab. It's just a knee-jerk fear of change and the unknown.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by carve

Hasn't happened, although many groups have preemptively tried to sue Monsanto claiming it will. You can't sue before there are damages though.



Farmers traditionally generally buy new seed every year. If they want to grow their own, then start with seed-stock with a company that allows you to save some seeds for next year. No problem. Nobody is forced to buy from Monsanto, but when you do you sign a contract to not re-use them. They only sue when this contract is violated.



Don't get me started on subsidies. They're awful. Facism, and they also help with the Iowa caucus. We're not talking new tech here though. It's mature. What kinks?



I agree with the approach of non-GMO foods just labeling their stuff "non-GMO". Problem solved without forcing anybody to do anything. They resis labeling their stuff GMO because of public ignorance. Just being forced to label it makes it sound like a warning...like it's toxic, and it isn't. That said...trying to use legal force to prevent the non-GMO products from labeling is just as bad if not worse than forcing GMO products from labeling. May even be a 1st amendment violation.

In the case Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, it was ruled that Monsanto does have the rights to seed use in the event of accidental cross pollination.

"[92] Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."

The kinks I'm talking about aren't about the technology. I think the technology is great. The problems are the current food production, political, and legal systems.

Refusing to label doesn't fix public ignorance, and only continues to generate public mistrust. It falls right into the anti-GMO campaign - that the industry has something to hide about GMOs and doesn't want people to know. Labeling doesn't have to automatically mean it's toxic. There's lots of great science backed information about GMOs you could put on the label, and I think it will help quell the current fear and hysteria. I'm totally ok with farmers using Monsanto seeds because its cheaper and more productive, but I do believe that consumers have the right to know what's in their food, not just producers. They should be told that GMOs are in the food supply but they're safe and sustainable from what we know. Then it's up to the free market to decide if it wants GMOs in its food supply. GMOs are useful. We shouldn't hide them. We need transparency.

Mark Lynas does a good job of saying what should be done.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/10/why...to-label-gmos/