Do We Need Government Regulation to Get Rid of GMO Foods?

Miscellaneous General
21

LogisticEarth, I’m starting to get what you’re saying. Interesting. But, there are so many studies that have come out showing how harmful gmo crops are to people.

Lets just take gmo corn. It is genetically modified to handle higher levels of insectisides and pesticides. Surely, having more poisons on your crops is a negative result in your eyes?

And I’ve seen articles where smaller farmers are saying they get better crop yields with organic methods. If that is true, and I’m not saying that particular fact is true, that is a double negative.

22

It doesn’t. It just does (hope that make sense). Just because it subsidize it says nothing about “market intentions” so to speak. Maybe in free market there would be much more GMO products.

23

“Maybe in free market there would be much more GMO products.”

Yeah, there’s so so many gmo crops in the free market, that the government has to subsidize it. And boy, the gmo corn crops have been a total success.

24

Where on earth is free market? Maybe black market could be closer to it.

25

“Where on earth is free market? Maybe black market could be closer to it.”

Perhaps there would be gmo crops in teh free market, but probably not. People are avoiding them like the plague. Even going so far as to avoid products that contain traces of them. And right now, most gmo crops exist only because government pays for them.

26

And the most obvious reason people avoid it is because of mass hysteria and propaganda. It’s similar to saying that mobile phones cause cancer.

27

“It’s similar to saying that mobile phones cause cancer.”

are you saying gmo corn which takes in higher pesticides and insecticides is actually healthier than non gmo corn, or organic corn?

28
  • LogisticEarth, I’m starting to get what you’re saying. Interesting. But, there are so many studies that have come out showing how harmful gmo crops are to people.

The studies I’ve read so far, or more accurately, the reports on the studies, (as what you find in the news isn’t the actual study) usually tend to be somewhat sensationalized or inconclusive. Still, a study that conclusively showed that certain GMO crops WERE harmful still doesn’t mean the entire process/method is at fault. Merely that they’re producing a faulty product, in the same way that medical chemistry screwed up when they produced and sold thalidomide for morning sickness.

Wheylous brings up a fair point that natural selection weeds out (no pun intended) faulty or harmful code, which is true, but only to an extent. Natural selection often yields negative traits, and excessive in-breeding can lead to chronic defects. For example, in nature, almonds more frequently than not are posionous. It’s all about humans identifying the negative aspects and removing them through breeding, or more recently, genetic modification.

  • Lets just take gmo corn. It is genetically modified to handle higher levels of insectisides and pesticides. Surely, having more poisons on your crops is a negative result in your eyes?

This is, quite clearly, a problem with farming practices. As we all know farming practices in the US have been heavily distorted by state intervention, and pushed towards more centralized/industrialized practices. The fact that farmers want/need to use more and more pesticides and herbicides on thier crops is not a result of GMO. Instead, GMO produces are responding to a market demand, which has been heavily skewed by US agricultural policy. Look for the root of the problem there.

  • And I’ve seen articles where smaller farmers are saying they get better crop yields with organic methods. If that is true, and I’m not saying that particular fact is true, that is a double negative.

Maybe, maybe not. I grew up in an agricultural area and worked on some smaller farms. The fact is that organic will work better in some areas, and chemical agriculture will work better in others. An organic farmer in Lancaster County, PA (which has extremely rich soils and good climate) will probably out perform a non-organic farmer in the Great Plains.

I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) a lot of libertarians are highly skeptical of GMO foods because thier prime manufacturers right now are mega-agribuisness like Monsanto. And of course, Monsanto is pushing for all sorts of shady/anti-libertarian legislation, like the patenting of genes, sueing farmers for crops that have been cross-polinated with thier “propriatary formula”, and seeking special privlages via the FDA and USDA. These are all huge problems. But at the heart of it, it’s not GMO that’s the issue, it’s our old enemies: Corporatism, Intellectual Property, Regulatory Capture, etc. A classic case of statism taking a useful invention and turning against society at large. This is the mistake leftists make all the time, I hope you guys don’t make the same one with GMO.

29

"But at the heart of it, it’s not GMO that’s the issue, it’s our old enemies: Corporatism, Intellectual Property, Regulatory Capture, etc. "

I agree and well said. You’re right, sometimes I get caught up on the gmo side of it. But, mainly because all I’ve read about it is negative. It seems to be unhealthy. And government keeps pushing for it.

Let me ask you this, do you know of ANY gmo crop that is healthier than the non-gmo crop equivalent?

30

To op.

It is true that only government could ban GMO crops, but it is very unlikely that the government would ever ban GMO crops. The market would not be able to ban GMO crops but the consumer would still have the power to not eat GMO crops where possible. But in the USA the farming industry seems corrupted with government benefits and regulations. So there is no knowing if without government interference in the farming industry, if it would be viable to use GMO on such a large scale.

Banning GMO might be the best solution but it is not going to happen so the best approach would be to boycott GMO foods and spread the message about the hazards of it. There is also a lot of people that think that GMO are unsustainable and they only appear to be sustainable. GMO might create more efficiency in certain factors but there are detrimental effects to GMO, like increased water and pesticide use and other factors. They also think that eventually GMO has the potential to destroy certain natural species and we would become dependent on a corporation rather than have the ability to buy and keep natural seeds.

Deregulation of a crop, whatever that means, is completely unrelated to gmo contamination.

The government in this case only makes the problem of GMO worse by regulating it and this sends a sense of approval to the population, “hey this GMO sandwich is approved by the FDA, i trust the FDA!”. If it was left to the market and there was competition amongst natural and gmo and the people wanted gmo then that would be their choice. But a well educated population on this topic would hopefully chose organic farming. This would prevent the GMO farms from suceeding and they would be forced to go organic, they would have to find new soil though, non infected.

31

It would still exist without market subsidies. They are not essential to the existence of GMO crops.

32

My advice: take your health into YOUR own hands. Learn primitive skills and gather your food. Wild food is the answer.

33

Come on. Waste of time. Of all the things to worry about, this is hardly worth your time. It would take WWIII and a nuclear war at that, to reverse our economic development. And if that happened you’d have worse things to worry about :\

Wild food? Wild food sucks. You’re gonna end up like the Into the Wild guy, mistaking this plant for that plant and dying a stupid and painful death by accidentally eating a poisonous plant. Bon apetit.

34

Come on. Waste of time. Of all the things to worry about, this is hardly worth your time. It would take WWIII and a nuclear war at that, to reverse our economic development. And if that happened you’d have worse things to worry about :\

Wild food? Wild food sucks. You’re gonna end up like the Into the Wild guy, mistaking this plant for that plant and dying a stupid and painful death by accidentally eating a poisonous plant. Bon apetit.

You say that now, but what’s going to happen a few years down the road after you become sterile or develop cancer b/c of GMO? It’s much better to learn to fend for yourself whether you want to rewild or not. Besides you can learn which plants are poisonous and which aren’t.

35

So apparently we didn’t have cancer or sterility before GMO, right? Let’s see, Francis and Crick, 1957 I believe. No cancer prior to their discovery of DNA. Yep. That’s exactly right.

You are like a man who spends his whole life climbing a ladder, only to reach the top and discover he’s climbed the wrong ladder.

36

So apparently we didn’t have cancer or sterility before GMO, right? Let’s see, Francis and Crick, 1957 I believe. No cancer prior to their discovery of DNA. Yep. That’s exactly right.

You are like a man who spends his whole life climbing a ladder, only to reach the top and discover he’s climbed the wrong ladder.

That doesn’t mean GMO doesn’t cause cancer or sterility. Look this shit up. Hunter-gatherers didn’t get cancer or autism b/c they didn’t have the chemicals everywhere. Do your research on H/Gs.

37

Hunter gatherers didn’t live long enough to get cancer, lol, when you average age at death is in your 30’s. We’re probably going to discover eventually that some plastics are cancer causing. But the benefits of civilized living still outweight becoming a H/G.

38

Hunter gatherers didn’t live long enough to get cancer, lol, when you average age at death is in your 30’s. We’re probably going to discover eventually that some plastics are cancer causing. But the benefits of civilized living still outweight becoming a H/G.

100% wrong.

H/Gs were generally healthier, happier and lived LONGER then civilized man. Do research.

39

Compare:

http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html