GMO seeds are owned by Monsanto and they sue small farmers and put them out of business when their seeds contaminate the small farmer's natural seeds, how is that not bad?
GMOs need more pesticide and herbicide and chemical fertilizers, how is that not bad?
Once GMO seeds are either used or your land/garden/farm has become contaminated with them, then you are not allowed to save seed but must buy new seeds every year from Monsanto, this is what you call a monopoly in the grandest terms, really enslavement, how is that not bad?
Everyone ought to become fully educated on this topic...
ok so i wanted to make sure that i had all of my facts straight, and i think i do, im trying to be as objective as possible here, and it does look like GMO crops use less pesticide, are better for the environment alot of the times, and are not harmful to the body. I actually watched seeds of death prior to learning all this, and apparently seeds of death has ALOT of misinformation.
now when it comes to the commercial aspects of GMO COMPANIES, that this a different thing all together, i don't believe in ownership and think that money is holding our global success back massive amounts, so i don't encourage anything corporate unless its necessary for the time being :(, also im sure there could be better ways to grow food such as what Pete was talking about, but those arn't commercially done right now i think, btw Pete i would love to know how you plan to do your food forest! (thats sort of my goal, i want to help grow food to liberate the poor, and im thinking about going with Pom on his journey :) )
here is another link with a lot of other links in it if you want to read some:
Genetically modified anything is crap. They will die without pesticides. They use more pesticides. But it sounds like you've watched some documentary full of BS about GMO's and you've got your mind made up. So, go ahead and eat your genetically modified food and in a few years check back in with us and let us know how it turned out for you? Good luck!
Here's a little tid bit of info. In the whole state of Iowa, trillions of bushels of GMO corn are grown each year. Not a single bit of it is edible. It's been genetically modified to produce high fructose corn syrup and it tastes like you are eating chalk. I mean it, chalk. None of it is edible at your dinner table. The whole state now produces Monsanto corn you can't even eat. GMO anything is poison bro!
This is how Monsanto treats farmers who don't wish to kowtow to their practices:
wow you guys seem very defensive, im looking for an open minded discussion where we can share resources, not a fight, do you have anything that you can link to me to prove what you have said or disprove what my links say? (If you even read them)
oh and i meant less pesticide than traditional farming, thanks for pointing that out :)
This is a quick vid from CultofDusty that covers his opinion of GMOs. It seems the products currently on market are not neccessarily bad. They haven't been shown to be bad, and they may in fact help a great deal with other problems our world is facing.
However, to say "GMOs are not bad" seems like a meaningless statement to me. If you take two organisms that are considered food and cross-breed them the outcome will likely be food. However if you take an element from an organism that is not food and insert it into something that is food in the hopes of instilling some feature or other, I think the outcome would neccessarily be unpredictible and so its possible that any one given product may in fact be harmful.
I also have questions about the reality of creating a super organism and its effect on biodiversity, which seems important for the future health of the entire ecosystem.
Anyway, here's the video, maybw ir will stoke the fires of this discussion a bit.
The idea that splicing DNA (idk if thats what you would call it so don't quote me on that one!) often alarms people but there aren't any studies that confirm peoples superstitions.
Also why would 1 gene make a difference if 2 organisms already share a high percentage of DNA?
I watched that video but cultofdusty the night before you posted it and it was pretty hilarious, he reminds me of the hodge twins with his yelling lol xD
One gene could make a difference, but we aren't neccessarily even talking about one gene, more like one trait, and that could be a handfull of genes. The difference though has to do with embryology, as discribed in Dawkins' book. Our genes give us the potential as we grow, but don't dictate exact results. If you have a piece of corn and insert some new genetic component into the seed, as it grows it may not be corn as we know it to be. Even if it looks like corn superficially. That's why it should be tested to make sure the pesticide you engineered it to produce naturally isn't overproduced to the point that it becomes something toxic to people.
The fact is though, it looks like certain products have been tested, and are conclusively safe, and people still create controversy over it.
For me there is a better ethical conversation to be had in this realm when we engineer goats that spin spider-silk. Or glow-in-the-dark-cats, that's just mean.
There's also vaccination-by-banana. HAHA people around here are going to flip-out.
GMO crops are also generally grown as monocrops and that literally KILLS the soil and after a couple of years you get a DESERT where you had the plantations. The soil gets depleted and can take many YEARS to recover and be fertile again.
GMOs are terrible for the environment. I'd never touch them or support them.
The title probably should've been clearer, when i say they are not bad, i mean better than traditional methods, not organic, also how the farmers rotate their crops doesn't determine whether the plants are healthy or not, but i see your point.