Science!
One of the things on the internet is how many otherwise smart people seem to break out into hysterics over GMOs. But GMOs have fed the poor.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 18th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
GMO’s have fed the poor, but unfortunately are showing crop reductions in everything from corn to soy, at the same time Brazilian scientists are outpacing the production using super crop breeding methods in an all natural manner without the reduction of nutritional values found in GMO’s.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/04/argentina-soy-idUSL1N0EG1DE20130604
There is also concern with the lack of studies of their foods which they declared safe, yet their 90 day “self” trials before release do nothing to check the long term effects of these crops, and millions they spend in avoiding the GMO labels for consumers to decide for themselves in and of itself is reason to question the validity of these products.
(From Monsanto’s own site, 90 day rat studies for most products) http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Biotech-Food-GMO-Safety.aspx
While the propaganda sold by multi national corporations protected by government via lobby dollars, the concern is that many diseases, allergies, and loss of nutritional values might be related to GMO’s have kept them outlawed in many nations across the globe, as well as products seen as staples in the U.S.; rejected by more nations than allowed, is but another sign to research for yourself.
The article goes on to speak of using GMO’s for over 20 years “without much trouble” , other than new food allergies, an explosion of diabetes, and an unexplained increase in digestive track diseases such as diverticulitis, it is no wonder that companies such as Monsanto want to keep the label off of their products. I do not mind feeding the poor with these products, but as a consumer it makes me wonder why the intense pressure and lobbying to keep the GMO labels under wraps leads one to a conclusion that they certainly have something to hide.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611
While it is for each of us to decide, I for one; having 14 inches of colon removed before the age of 40, has chosen to eat natural foods, and while the initial results shown in the study show digestive inflammation, they also agree more research is needed for longer term effects, the short term is clear and conclusive, but to all their own.
September 19th, 2013 at 3:01 am
On point 1: much food development to date, from GM to processing, is focused on lowering cost, by increasing yield and shelf life, with relatively little concern for nutrition. Mutations are mutations, whether done on purpose with GM or by rolling the dice with the old breeding methods. This has everything to do with the goals and nothing to do with the means.
If a flood leaves a pile of dirt on my driveway, it’s “all-natural”; if I pile it there myself, it’s “artificial”. The physical difference: zippity.
On point 2: pursuant to point 1, reality doesn’t care about whether a process was man-made or not, it’s just the physics. A deliberate mutation doesn’t act any different than the same mutation from a random cosmic ray. GMO foods don’t require any more testing than a new breed.
On point 3: the “precautionary principle” is bullshit. It was our ancestors who rejected that sort of primitive fear who got us out of the caves… which too many envirocultists have been trying to reverse ever since.
On point 4: the issues with food allergies and diabetes are indeed being driven by diet, as many paleo types will tell you – and so would my wife, who got a foot of colon snipped last year. The breeding of wheat probably contributes more to that issue than anything else, as according to the paleos, humans are not evolved to eat wheat, “natural” or not.
I’ll bet that the issue with the pigs is that the particular modification of that feed is Roundup resistance; I’m not surprised that such a non-nutritional change to the plant’s chemical makeup might have nutritional consequences. One could call that a bad modification; it doesn’t make GM itself “bad” anymore than all shotguns are now “bad” because of the Navy Yard shooter.
All that said, there does remain reason to be careful with GMO’s, and that’s the unhealthy close relationship between these corps and government. I just know enough not to stupidly misconstrue who is really calling the shots in such relationships.
September 19th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
It’s even simpler than all that.
“GMO” spelled backwards is “OMG”
Hence the hysteria…
September 20th, 2013 at 5:59 pm
I’ll take a chance of diabetes due to eating too much and becoming obese over starvation in a third world hellhole any day. Bring on the high yield, pest resistant GMOs and quit whining.
And I’ll have all the saccharine, real butter and Velveeta I want, thank you, because the science on their evilness was BS and has been refuted.