“Four major commodities crops in the US-- corn, cotton, canola, and soybean are now 90% GMO, and alfalfa was recently deregulated, he noted.”
I hear so many in the alternative media talk about gmo seeds and crops and they always seem to think that a ban on gmo seeds or crops is the answer to get rid of gmo contamiation of our food supply.
I think they know the government subsidises gmo corn, but they seem to think that if we just ended that and put the ban on gmo (changed government regulations) that is the best solution to rid our food supply of gmo.
In addition, they always point out, that when the government deregulates a crop, gmo contamination comes in (probably via monsanto).
Oh, yeah right, like we need the government to regulate drugs… Make the competition illegal, you mean.
Get rid of the sugar import tariffs and corn subsidies and patents… Then choose what to eat yourself. Don’t petition the corrupt prison warden who started feeding you the frankencorn in the first place.
You can’t trust the government. Monsanto and Du Pont are owned by the same people who own the United States government. To frame the question along the lines of “do we need the government to do x” implies that it would merely be more efficient to do it some other way. It actually goes beyond inefficiency to ask the fox to guard the henhouse.
First we can slash all the government support to Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland and flatten the legal code. These psycho companies make off with a sizable goodie basket from uncle sam and have thoroughly captured the regulatory bodies. These seem to be the companies that practice GMO’s. Cut them off the teat, and that would be a start.
Secondly, flattening the legal code and having the law recognize your body as your property and your property as protected by the law would help to end harmful GMO’s. Genetic modification need not be harmful to the body. There’s no reason to ban it when you could just make its malpractice detrimental to corporations.
All the food we eat is GMO. Long before we had means of directly modifying DNA, we did so through selective breeding. There are crops that cannot return to the wild, domesticated plants incapable of reproducing without human help. Do you think wheat began with gigantic kernels like we have now?
Remove GMO and the planet cannot feed itself. Literally.
Sadly, there’s some that would applaud the idea of a few billion people starving to death.
limitgov, step back a bit from the buzz words and consider the process for a moment. Both methods involve the manipulation of the genetic code in an attempt to improve the crops for whatever purpose is desired. Can GMO crops have qualities that are negative or dangerous to people? Of course. Are GMO crops inherently dangerous because of the methods used to modify the genes? Absolutely not.
Remove GMO and the planet cannot feed itself. Literally.
Sadly, there’s some that would applaud the idea of a few billion people starving to death.
Anenome, I love that your sig is “Cite reality and we’ll talk”, and I say the same to you. This is like the argument “If we don’t eat meat all the cows will overpopulate.” If you want to actually get into food production and people starving what about all the grain that’s fed to cows instead of people?
Norman Borlaug alone saved over a billion lives from starvation with the wheat crops he developed. Perhaps you’ll say those aren’t GM wheat tho. But it is domesticated wheat, and what is domestication but a slower version of gene selection and insertion. Take away Borlaug’s wheat and billions die.
Crying about GM crops is just the latest obsession of the neo-luddites, and will get no sympathy from me.
“But it is domesticated wheat, and what is domestication but a slower version of gene selection and insertion.”
No its not. GMO crops have insect genes, bacteria genes that have been inserted, along with other genes. They are proven to be very bad for your health, unlike crops that have been cross pollinated. And, some of the gmo crops are specifically designed to handle higher tolerances of pesticides and insecticides. We don’t need gmo crops to feed people. You’re on a free market forum for goodness sake, you should realize that its government getting in the way that starves people, not nature.
GMO -IS- a free market solution to the food crisis. Far as I can see, those opposed to GMO are in the business of attempting to gather enough political power to force others to stop using GMO. So yes, in this case, allowing gov to block GMO would be the gov starving people.
As for me, I’m not worried about insertion of genes from other organisms. We are soon to live in a world where people are GMO, and we will adapt to it as well.
I am very wary of GMO, as we are messing with nature, and often in matters like these the consequences only appear after a long time - especially for humans, who have isolated themselves from the natural forces of evolution and hence have no “market” (so to speak) to tell them how they’re doing.
No its not. GMO crops have insect genes, bacteria genes that have been inserted, along with other genes.
Again, get past the buzzwords. “Insect genes” doesn’t mean that the plant is going to sprout six legs or wings. What is means is that the designers are attempting to make a plant that has Trait X. Trait X requires Genetic Combination Y. This genetic combination can be acheived by one of two methods. One, waiting for a natural mutation, or searching far and wide for a plant with that genetic combination, then selectively breeding it and hoping for the best. Or two, building that genetic combination from scratch, and speeding up the natural selection process.
To do this, they select various chunks of DNA from available sources like insects, fish, etc, and use those sections to basically graft a new code. This doesn’t make the plant “part insect”. It’s still 100% plant, just with a new trait.
It really is literally the same process as natural mutation, except instead of waiting for cosmic radiation or chemical damage to cause the genes to mutate, we do it ourselves.
Natural mutation is tested by ages of evolution for any adverse effects. Artificial mutation isn’t. It very well might be that the new protein interacts negatively with the rest of the organism. Then again, it might not.
“GMO -IS- a free market solution to the food crisis.”
But reality says it is not a free market solution. Government subsidies gmo crops. If the market wanted gmo so badly, then why does government have to subsidize it?