afcjets
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:46 am

DocLightning wrote:
afcjets wrote:

That sounds remotely true then lol. Anyhow it's nice Monsanto is genitically modifying crops to reduce their revenue from pesticides. ;)


No, not remotely true. Crops are not "drenched" in expensive pesticides. Maybe you can tell me what the acceptable limits are and how much, say, glyphosate is applied per acre or hectare. (I know the answer, but maybe if you have to look it up yourself, you might get a glimpse of how much information there is and how complex this topic is.)

Pesdicides are not really Monsanto's main business. They still market and sell glyphosate under their "RoundUp" brand, but some 20 other manufacturers also sell this product.

Their main business is crops. Not just GE ones, either. Monsanto's business model is to market seeds for cultivars, many of which are heirloom. Part of the technology that GE firms employ is maintenance of strains by using genetic testing to ensure purity and consistency.

Molecular biology is not something that I can teach in a forum post. It's complicated and it takes years of study to understand even the basics of these systems.


I have no clue what the acceptable limit for glyphosate is and I don’t care. I trust farmers are staying within the acceptable limit and when I am at a restaurant I don’t care. At home though I pretty much only buy organic or sometimes greenhouse stuff at Costco when they don’t have organic, I assume there is no need to spray stuff in one but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if I am wrong.
 
afcjets
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:00 am

DocLightning wrote:
You've fallen for the Organic industry's marketing scheme, which would lead you to believe that all organic crops consist of heirloom strains and are grown with nothing more than broken eggshells and coffee grounds as pesticides.


Hybrid crops can be labeled organic but GMOs cannot.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:41 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
There is some doubt that organic farming is a real help to the problems of feeding the world.


Nothing we can do with our food supply is going to help to feed the world. The number of people adopts to the available food, we could magically find a way to make two times the food we are making today, we'd be back to starvation in two generations.
If you want to adress that problem you need to make contraception easily available, and make anyone condemning those liable for child support.
There are only three ways of population control: famine, pest, contraception. We have that 3rd option, if we don't use it, we get one of the others.
40% yield increase via GMO will do nothing. 40% yield increase without growing populations, now that is more interesting as it frees up space for living and having a landscape.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
bennett123
Posts: 8257
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:09 am

IMO, much of the reason they are not shouting from the roof tops about GMO is that people would ask ackward questions.

Ultimately telling people where their is coming from and how it is made is not good for sales.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 am

tommy1808 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
There is some doubt that organic farming is a real help to the problems of feeding the world.


Nothing we can do with our food supply is going to help to feed the world. The number of people adopts to the available food, we could magically find a way to make two times the food we are making today, we'd be back to starvation in two generations.
If you want to adress that problem you need to make contraception easily available, and make anyone condemning those liable for child support.
There are only three ways of population control: famine, pest, contraception. We have that 3rd option, if we don't use it, we get one of the others.
40% yield increase via GMO will do nothing. 40% yield increase without growing populations, now that is more interesting as it frees up space for living and having a landscape.

Best regards
Thomas

There is a way to combat overpopulation. Increase quality of life. Brazil is a good example of this concept at work.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:32 am

VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
There is some doubt that organic farming is a real help to the problems of feeding the world.


Nothing we can do with our food supply is going to help to feed the world. The number of people adopts to the available food, we could magically find a way to make two times the food we are making today, we'd be back to starvation in two generations.
If you want to adress that problem you need to make contraception easily available, and make anyone condemning those liable for child support.
There are only three ways of population control: famine, pest, contraception. We have that 3rd option, if we don't use it, we get one of the others.
40% yield increase via GMO will do nothing. 40% yield increase without growing populations, now that is more interesting as it frees up space for living and having a landscape.

Best regards
Thomas

There is a way to combat overpopulation. Increase quality of life. Brazil is a good example of this concept at work.


Yup. They chose contraception.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
JJJ
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:57 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I asked the FredMeyer produce guy where the apples were, he asked "organic", no, I want the manufactured ones. There is some doubt that organic farming is a real help to the problems of feeding the world. But it is for sure that some of the things organic farmers do should be done by all farmers.


I work in the industry, we do manufacture and sell tons of glyphosate (as someone mentioned before, the patent on glyphosate expired years ago) every year, but at the same time growth now is happening at the organic/non-residual side of the business, especially biopesticides.

Really agriculture is now facing two separate challenges. It needs to become greener (just drop by any area that's been intensely cultivated for decates and you'll see the pattern: polluted groundwater, pesticide residues, tired soils, etc. etc.) but at the same time it needs to cope with the needs of a growing (and more discerning) population. Throw climate change in there (yes, it's happening, it's the BIG game changer for the foreseeable future) and the challenge grows right there.

Idealists on each side need to look at the problem globally. GMO has brought both very interesting agronomical solutions but also very questionable business practices associated with how companies recover their investment, and significant risks associated with how GMO crops affect farming practices and the pests they're meant to be a solution to. You can't look at this from a black/white perspective, and the stakes are higher than almost everything else.
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:51 pm

JJJ wrote:
GMO has brought both very interesting agronomical solutions but also very questionable business practices associated with how companies recover their investment, and significant risks associated with how GMO crops affect farming practices and the pests they're meant to be a solution to. You can't look at this from a black/white perspective, and the stakes are higher than almost everything else.


I think that business practices are a key point here, and with this issue they are just not responsible. The USA in particular seems to have a big problem with cross contamination as Glyphosate is found in more and more products, even organic one.

I consciously buy ecological and organic products and don't want glyphosate in my food or drinks. The allowable limit, to answer DocLightnings question, to the safe amount of glyphosate in food should be ZERO. As a doctor you should be aware that people's bodies react differently and there are many, many factors responsible for this. Some people can smoke for 70 years and live to be 90, some people can get lung cancer having never smoked at all and die early. Glyphosate is a toxin, and there should be none in food, zero as some people will get sick with it in their bodies and some wont.

I find it amusing how some people have no issue with having toxins in their food when they are told that they are within 'safe' levels, but for example, if someone told you that your food contains 20.0ppb of human male semen there is no way they would ever eat it. Yet 20.0ppb of human semen is perfectly safe and 20.0ppb of glyphosate can give you cancer.

Here's an interesting article on glyphosate found in wines and beers, including organic ones.

https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-win ... 32957.html
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:22 pm

Redd, did you miss the part where it was established that organic farmers use toxins as well?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21215
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:25 pm

afcjets wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
You've fallen for the Organic industry's marketing scheme, which would lead you to believe that all organic crops consist of heirloom strains and are grown with nothing more than broken eggshells and coffee grounds as pesticides.


Hybrid crops can be labeled organic but GMOs cannot.


I don't like this term "GMO." If I expose seeds to thermal neutrons or chemical mutagens, I can use those crops as "Organic" even though they are genetically modified. However, if I insert or remove a specific gene in a directed way, that is not Organic. What is banned in "organic" is genetic engineering, and there is simply no scientific logic to this rule given that mutagenized strains are perfectly OK.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
JJJ
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:25 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Redd, did you miss the part where it was established that organic farmers use toxins as well?


Precisely. There's no agriculture without toxins.

They may come from plant extracts, or a microbial strain, but ultimately you need to use them.

There are ways to minimise pesticide use (which is what IPM, organic and biodynamic agriculture try to do) but there's no such thing as pesticide free (if you want to get any meaningful yield anyway).
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:25 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Redd, did you miss the part where it was established that organic farmers use toxins as well?



Sure, but Organic farmers are very judicious in their use of chemical pesticides using them as last resort and to create minimal impact on the environment and on the crop. There are 25 approved synthetic pesticides for organic farming in the USA/ less than half of that is allowed in the EU vs. over 900 for regular farming. Organic food has toxin levels much lower than non organic and there are many organic farmers who don't use any chemical pesticides at all. It's at the very least a much healthier alternative, and that's not really disputable.

With the rise in vertical farming/indoor farming is eliminating the need for any synthetic chemicals to be used all together.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:40 pm

DocLightning said it best:

“Organic crops use MORE chemicals that have not been tested for environmental safety as much because they are "naturally-occurring." The trouble with this is that they don't occur naturally in the amounts used in organic farming. Spinosad and rotenone are both organic-approved pesticides.

You've fallen for the Organic industry's marketing scheme, which would lead you to believe that all organic crops consist of heirloom strains and are grown with nothing more than broken eggshells and coffee grounds as pesticides. But that ain't how it is. It costs more money, uses more land, and causes more environmental destruction, all just so that they can sell rich people a thing that is no healthier or more nutritious than a conventional crop. ”
 
JJJ
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:57 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
DocLightning said it best:

“Organic crops use MORE chemicals that have not been tested for environmental safety as much because they are "naturally-occurring."


In the US and developing countries. In the EU, Japan and countries following their system the process to register an organic or "naturally occurring" pesticide is exactly the same as for a synthetic chemical.

Those biopesticides tend to have a much better residual profile and degradation curve anyway, that's why they're substituting traditional chemicals even in non organic farming.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:06 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Nothing we can do with our food supply is going to help to feed the world. The number of people adopts to the available food, we could magically find a way to make two times the food we are making today, we'd be back to starvation in two generations.
If you want to adress that problem you need to make contraception easily available, and make anyone condemning those liable for child support.
There are only three ways of population control: famine, pest, contraception. We have that 3rd option, if we don't use it, we get one of the others.
40% yield increase via GMO will do nothing. 40% yield increase without growing populations, now that is more interesting as it frees up space for living and having a landscape.

Best regards
Thomas

There is a way to combat overpopulation. Increase quality of life. Brazil is a good example of this concept at work.


Yup. They chose contraception.

Best regards
Thomas

It's not just about contraception--although access and education is important there. Impoverished societies need lots of children (high infant mortality, more working hands to support the family, etc.) while prosperous societies do not and consequently have fewer children. We've already seen this as the West and Japan prospered and industrialized. As China and India do the same, so to will we see their population numbers decline. There's some evidence out there that we are in fact already at peak population.
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:33 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
DocLightning said it best:

“Organic crops use MORE chemicals that have not been tested for environmental safety as much because they are "naturally-occurring." The trouble with this is that they don't occur naturally in the amounts used in organic farming. Spinosad and rotenone are both organic-approved pesticides.

You've fallen for the Organic industry's marketing scheme, which would lead you to believe that all organic crops consist of heirloom strains and are grown with nothing more than broken eggshells and coffee grounds as pesticides. But that ain't how it is. It costs more money, uses more land, and causes more environmental destruction, all just so that they can sell rich people a thing that is no healthier or more nutritious than a conventional crop. ”


If you define ''not tested as much'' and show same data backing that claim I'll give you both the ''best'' prize. But considering that in the USA there are 900 chemicals approved for conventional agriculture and Organic agriculture only approves 25, I'd say someone did their homework and narrowed that number down quite a bit in the interest of producing healthy products.

Furthermore, to insinuate that only rich people care about and purchase healthy and more nutritious foods isn't only false, I wonder how you came to the conclusion Organic farming is some conspiracy to destroy the environment and sell us even more toxic food than what conventional farming is producing.

I've personally met many organic farmers as it's a small part of my job, and I can tell you from actually visiting farms and speaking to farmers that it's quite apparent that they really care about what they do and the quality of the product and their actual consumers. If these farmers could make more money using conventional farming, more yield/Ha and ultimately a bigger payoff, tell me what interest would they have in growing and selling organic produce? It's definitely not a purely financial motive.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:19 pm

Redd wrote:

If you define ''not tested as much'' and show same data backing that claim I'll give you both the ''best'' prize. But considering that in the USA there are 900 chemicals approved for conventional agriculture and Organic agriculture only approves 25, I'd say someone did their homework and narrowed that number down quite a bit in the interest of producing healthy products.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. Organic farmers have less toxins to choose from. Of course they have fewer than are available through chemically created means. The fact that they use a smaller overall selection has no bearing on their toxicity or degree of use.

Redd wrote:
I've personally met many organic farmers as it's a small part of my job, and I can tell you from actually visiting farms and speaking to farmers that it's quite apparent that they really care about what they do and the quality of the product and their actual consumers. If these farmers could make more money using conventional farming, more yield/Ha and ultimately a bigger payoff, tell me what interest would they have in growing and selling organic produce? It's definitely not a purely financial motive.

They make more money because they sell at inflated prices to gullible people. Trust me, they know how to play the role.
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:43 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Organic farmers have less toxins to choose from. Of course they have fewer than are available through chemically created means. The fact that they use a smaller overall selection has no bearing on their toxicity or degree of use.


No it doesn't, but actual testing in the USA and in the EU show much lower numbers in ppm of toxins in Organic foods and quite a bit of that percentage has been shown to be chemical drift from conventional farming.

VTKillarney wrote:
They make more money because they sell at inflated prices to gullible people. Trust me, they know how to play the role.


Yes of course, they're theater actors and unscrupulous business men all in one dark organic package....

Organic is more expensive at the store because it's more expensive and labor intensive to grow. It's simple economics, shouldn't be to complicated to understand, but I'll try to explain it to you. Take wine for example and the region of Burgundy, there are regulations on which area's can produce which amount of hectolitres, and while you can buy Burgundy at $20 dollars a bottle some Burgundy will cost you hundreds, it's not because of branding it's because certain area's can produce much less on the same amount of given land. The areas which produce less grapes on the same amount land produce better grapes and in turn better wine, but it's more expensive to produce and the land yields less product. So the price goes ^^^^^^

So when a product, be it wine or produce, is more expensive to produce, that will be reflected in the price the consumer has to pay. Organic produce is more expensive to produce than conventionally farmed produce.

But the good news is that you don't have to buy Organic if you don't want to, or good wine.
 
Okie
Posts: 3921
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:45 pm

Redd wrote:
I've personally met many organic farmers as it's a small part of my job, and I can tell you from actually visiting farms and speaking to farmers that it's quite apparent that they really care about what they do and the quality of the product and their actual consumers.

Considering the number of hospitalizations and deaths from contaminating crops with E coli 0157:H7 from manure then one would deduce that Lettuce kills and hospitalizes more people than AR15's.
Maybe 2018 was just a good year for "Organic E coli 0157:H7"?

Okie
 
JJJ
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:57 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Redd wrote:

If you define ''not tested as much'' and show same data backing that claim I'll give you both the ''best'' prize. But considering that in the USA there are 900 chemicals approved for conventional agriculture and Organic agriculture only approves 25, I'd say someone did their homework and narrowed that number down quite a bit in the interest of producing healthy products.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. Organic farmers have less toxins to choose from. Of course they have fewer than are available through chemically created means. The fact that they use a smaller overall selection has no bearing on their toxicity or degree of use.


Your statement would be true if the smaller selection was a random sample, but it's not.

Not all pesticides are created equal. And the worst offenders (wrt degradation, overall toxicity, post harvest interval, etc) are not permitted in organic farming (biodynamic being even more restrictive).

Most pesticides approved for organic farming have post harvest intervals in the single digits (some only one day or three), commonly used pesticides have 30, 45 or more.

It's true that organic products don't have better properties per se, but it's definitely true that their impact on the environment is much lower.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:01 pm

Here’s on of Redd’s myths blown out of the water. It turns out that those sacrificing organic farmers aren’t actually sacrificing.

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/0 ... ventional/

The punchline:
“The authors crunched data from 44 studies involving 55 crops grown on five continents over 40 years and found that organic farming is somewhere between 22 percent and 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional.”

If you were so wrong about that Redd, might you consider that you are wrong about some other aspects of organic farming?

By the way, I love the irony of suggesting that we move away from meat when organic farming depends on manure for its very existence. Conventional crops... not so much. If you were serious about ending the meat industry you’d be eating conventional crops.
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:27 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Here’s on of Redd’s myths blown out of the water. It turns out that those sacrificing organic farmers aren’t actually sacrificing.

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/0 ... ventional/

The punchline:
“The authors crunched data from 44 studies involving 55 crops grown on five continents over 40 years and found that organic farming is somewhere between 22 percent and 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional.”

If you were so wrong about that Redd, might you consider that you are wrong about some other aspects of organic farming?

By the way, I love the irony of suggesting that we move away from meat when organic farming depends on manure for its very existence. Conventional crops... not so much. If you were serious about ending the meat industry you’d be eating conventional crops.


Your link just goes to prove my points on the health of the environment benefits and organic food being less contaminated. If you didn't notice that article also tells you that before growing organic, the land it's grown on has to not be farmed for 3 years, so farmers have to 'sacrifice' 3 years of ZERO income before they can make that scandalous premium you so speak of.

The question looms: If organic is more profitable, why hasn’t it spread far and wide? The authors note that the three-year transition required for certification puts farmers in a bind: Having gone cold turkey from agrichemicals, their yields drop, but they get no price premium for their trouble until year four. I’d add that farmers, like most people, are wary of change. Organic may offer higher profits; but ditching chemicals requires a radically different style of farming. Such leaps aren’t made casually.


And if you love irony, you'll also love that organic farming doesn't depend on manure for it's very existence, it's used extensively as it's a byproduct of the meat industry which is better put to good use rather that piling it up as waste.

I really suggest you do some more reading on the topic.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:42 pm

Redd wrote:
so farmers have to 'sacrifice' 3 years of ZERO income before they can make that scandalous premium you so speak of.

Which they get back in a few years before they start raking in the cash. Not a bad business model.

Redd wrote:
And if you love irony, you'll also love that organic farming doesn't depend on manure for it's very existence, it's used extensively as it's a byproduct of the meat industry which is better put to good use rather that piling it up as waste.

Exactly as I said. Without a healthy meat industry organic farming would collapse. Quite ironic.
 
afcjets
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:55 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Redd wrote:
so farmers have to 'sacrifice' 3 years of ZERO income before they can make that scandalous premium you so speak of.

Which they get back in a few years before they start raking in the cash. Not a bad business model.

Redd wrote:
And if you love irony, you'll also love that organic farming doesn't depend on manure for it's very existence, it's used extensively as it's a byproduct of the meat industry which is better put to good use rather that piling it up as waste.

Exactly as I said. Without a healthy meat industry organic farming would collapse. Quite ironic.


Why is that ironic? Organic farming includes poultry and livestock. If I can’t get grass fed and/or organic beef, I at least try to get antibiotic free, and definitely antibiotic free chicken.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:26 am

By the time any cow or chicken goes into food production, there's no antibiotic in its system. Save yourself some money.
 
afcjets
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:09 am

VTKillarney wrote:
By the time any cow or chicken goes into food production, there's no antibiotic in its system. Save yourself some money.


They feed antibiotics to chickens to fatten them up to the point their own bodyweight can crush their legs. I saw it happen on the documentary Food, Inc. That’s why and also overuse of antibiotics in farm animals has led to resistant bacteria infecting humans. Sometimes conventional chicken has a funky taste. I swear I can sometimes tell just by the taste, not sure why though.

At this point I can definitely tell the difference in taste in organic vs. non organic bananas, which is strange because you have to peel a banana.
Last edited by afcjets on Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
afcjets
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:20 am

Btw I hate the terms conventional and organic. IMO the ones with the additives should get the special name. So organic chicken should just be chicken and conventional chicken should be referred to as antibiotic chicken. Organic strawberries should just be called strawberries and non organic ones should be referred to as pesticide berries. :rotfl:
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:26 am

afcjets wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
By the time any cow or chicken goes into food production, there's no antibiotic in its system. Save yourself some money.


They feed antibiotics to chickens to fatten them up to the point their own bodyweight can crush their legs. I saw it happen on the documentary Food, Inc. That’s why and also overuse of antibiotics in farm animals has led to resistant bacteria infecting humans.

If you really want to educate yourself, and dispel much of your misunderstandings, here is a very fair summary:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4517
 
afcjets
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:38 am

I read it, now watch this two minute video from Food, Inc.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VRDWabqAXvU
 
Okie
Posts: 3921
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:43 am

afcjets wrote:
I read it, now watch this two minute video from Food, Inc.

Anti-Agribusiness Group. Same people the best I can tell that are having a "Hairs on Fire" moments over the fact that there are Robots inhabiting more planets in our solar system than planets populated by humans. :roll:

Okie
 
JJJ
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:39 am

VTKillarney wrote:
afcjets wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
By the time any cow or chicken goes into food production, there's no antibiotic in its system. Save yourself some money.


They feed antibiotics to chickens to fatten them up to the point their own bodyweight can crush their legs. I saw it happen on the documentary Food, Inc. That’s why and also overuse of antibiotics in farm animals has led to resistant bacteria infecting humans.

If you really want to educate yourself, and dispel much of your misunderstandings, here is a very fair summary:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4517


You are not rebating what he said. There's absolutely no controversy on using antibiotics as, well, antibiotics when cattle gets sick or is at risk of getting sick.

Use of antibiotics as growth regulators, though, (basically as a food supplement in subtherapeutic doses in animal feed and water) is banned on many countries for very good reasons.

It's not a matter of antibiotics being present in meat (though bad practices have allowed that to happen), antibiotic-resistant bacteria thanks to steady runoff of antibiotics to groundwater through manure is no joke.

Again, organic is not necessarily better for you as a meat consumer, but it's still a major environmental concern.
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:47 am

VTKillarney wrote:
Redd wrote:
so farmers have to 'sacrifice' 3 years of ZERO income before they can make that scandalous premium you so speak of.

Which they get back in a few years before they start raking in the cash. Not a bad business model.


lol. Read the article which you so graciously posted. They sell organic for around a 30% premium, but the article doesn't actually state if they profit 30% more. Assuming that 30% is profit, and as per the article the 4th year/1st after 1st harvest is usually a loss, it will take 9.5 years to break even after going organic to what they would have made if they farmed conventionally.

If you think that's a good business model I have a bridge to sell you.... :lol:

VTKillarney wrote:
Redd wrote:
And if you love irony, you'll also love that organic farming doesn't depend on manure for it's very existence, it's used extensively as it's a byproduct of the meat industry which is better put to good use rather that piling it up as waste.

Exactly as I said. Without a healthy meat industry organic farming would collapse. Quite ironic.


What aren't you getting Einstein? Manure isn't necessary for organic farming, it's used because it's a readily available by-product.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:44 am

Manure is most definitely necessary for organic farming. Without access to manure the organic farming industry would collapse. This is one reason why organic farming can’t feed more than the world’s elite and privileged. There simply isn’t enough manure available.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:52 am

VTKillarney wrote:
Manure is most definitely necessary for organic farming. Without access to manure the organic farming industry would collapse.


Funny, considering that plenty of organic labels here don't allow the use of manure.....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:32 am

tommy1808 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Manure is most definitely necessary for organic farming. Without access to manure the organic farming industry would collapse.


Funny, considering that plenty of organic labels here don't allow the use of manure.....

Best regards
Thomas

You are missing my point. Sure, some individual organic farms can rely on alternatives to manure. But organic farms simply can’t feed anyone other than a fraction of the world’s elite without dependence on manure. The industry as we know it today depends on manure.

But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that organic farming can’t feed the world. People’s privileges are really showing here. Not everyone can afford to waste money on organic food that is scientifically proven to be no more nutritious than conventionally grown food.
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:57 am

VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Manure is most definitely necessary for organic farming. Without access to manure the organic farming industry would collapse.


Funny, considering that plenty of organic labels here don't allow the use of manure.....

Best regards
Thomas

You are missing my point. Sure, some individual organic farms can rely on alternatives to manure. But organic farms simply can’t feed anyone other than a fraction of the world’s elite without dependence on manure. The industry as we know it today depends on manure.

But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that organic farming can’t feed the world. People’s privileges are really showing here. Not everyone can afford to waste money on organic food that is scientifically proven to be no more nutritious than conventionally grown food.



No one is missing your points, your points are just wrong.

You claimed organic farming relies on manure and the organic industry would collapse if manure went away over night.
--> Organic farming does not need manure and can easily transit to being manure free. Manure could never and will never disappear over night therefore your point is invalid.

You claimed that organic farming cannot feed the world
--> Not one person here claimed it can, and it had nothing to do with the discussion.

You said that organic produce is just as toxic as conventional produce
--> As shown time and time again, even by your own links provided, that's just not true.

You said that organic farmers make a killing and extort a gullible consumer base.
--> To switch to organic, farmers have to forgo 3 years of income and wait between 7-10 years before have ROI and can actually benefit from restructuring their business to go organic.

You claimed that organic produce doesn't contain more nutrients than conventional produce
--> Your own links which you have provided say otherwise. So do countless independent scientific studies

You claim that organic produce is only purchased by the elite and the rich.
--> That's just so daft and untrue it doesn't even justify a rational response.
Last edited by Redd on Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:59 am

VTKillarney wrote:
The main issue is that organic farming can’t feed the world. .


We currently throw about 1/3 of all food production away, we could absorb significant production losses if we got the logistics right. Granted, more difficult to do than to say, and conventional farmers will only yield single digits % more than organic farmers for staple food like rice, soybeans and corn.

That there is a vast difference between yield from conventional to organic farming across the board is a myth.

Not everyone can afford to waste money on organic food that is scientifically proven to be no more nutritious than conventionally grown food.


Organic Apples have ~50% more antioxidants conventional farming applies, pretty much all organic vegetables and fruits have higher levels of polyphenols, phenol acids and flavonoids....
Organic Milk has a better fatty acid pattern
Organic Pork is less likely to carry salmonella (we like raw pork here)

There is no international standard saying what "Organic" means, but i am getting the feeling the the US Organic label is just for sh*t and the rules are much to close to conventional farming, i.e. lobbying to water the rules down was very successful.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:13 pm

I’m heading out the door so I don’t have time to respond to all of the misinformation here.

But let’s tackle just one. Antioxidants.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... idant-myth
 
JJJ
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:21 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Manure is most definitely necessary for organic farming. Without access to manure the organic farming industry would collapse.


Funny, considering that plenty of organic labels here don't allow the use of manure.....

Best regards
Thomas

You are missing my point. Sure, some individual organic farms can rely on alternatives to manure. But organic farms simply can’t feed anyone other than a fraction of the world’s elite without dependence on manure. The industry as we know it today depends on manure.


The industry = the agricultural industry as a whole. Far more manure is used on conventional crops than on organic. As others have shown, the most stringent organic certifications are moving away from manure (because of problems with bacteria, heavy metals and antibiotics)

But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that organic farming can’t feed the world. People’s privileges are really showing here. Not everyone can afford to waste money on organic food that is scientifically proven to be no more nutritious than conventionally grown food.


On this you're 100% spot on.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:32 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
I’m heading out the door so I don’t have time to respond to all of the misinformation here.

But let’s tackle just one. Antioxidants.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... idant-myth


Psychology Today is almost definitely the obvious go-to source to get food advice.. :lol:

A simple fact of the matter is that there isn´t, iirc, even a study comparing the effects of having more antioxidants in your food by eating organic food, since studies are focused on supplements. Now we already know that not having enough Vitamins can kill you, but Vitamin supplements do often show no or limited effects...
Most of them are also fairly long term, if you ran it longer, you get to see improvements... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/179 ... t=Citation

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:30 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Psychology Today is almost definitely the obvious go-to source to get food advice.. :lol:

You are attacking the source and not the content. Strike one.

That said, here is a source that is HIGHLY reliable that says essentially the same thing:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-t ... ioxidants/

tommy1808 wrote:
A simple fact of the matter is that there isn´t, iirc, even a study comparing the effects of having more antioxidants in your food by eating organic food, since studies are focused on supplements.

Uh... Thomas. The studies all indicate that a normal diet with conventionally grown foods gives you everything that your body needs and can use. From the article that I just linked: "If there were a clear health benefit to additional antioxidants, our bodies would just make more." Simply put, if organic foods are more rich in antioxidants, there is zero benefit. You are paying extra for something that your body is already taking care of just fine.
 
Redd
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:46 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Psychology Today is almost definitely the obvious go-to source to get food advice.. :lol:

You are attacking the source and not the content. Strike one.


Tsk tsk... You did that as a response to information I posted on the first page.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:53 pm

Redd wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Psychology Today is almost definitely the obvious go-to source to get food advice.. :lol:

You are attacking the source and not the content. Strike one.


Tsk tsk... You did that as a response to information I posted on the first page.

Okay, I guess that I need to flesh out the logical fallacy for you.

It is not always a logical fallacy to attack a source in and of itself. It depends on the nature of the source.

The source you gave was a clearly biased source that does not engage in an objective look at the data. Simply put, they are agenda driven. The same cannot be said about Psychology Today. Big difference.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:53 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Psychology Today is almost definitely the obvious go-to source to get food advice.. :lol:

You are attacking the source and not the content. Strike one.

That said, here is a source that is HIGHLY reliable that says essentially the same thing:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-t ... ioxidants/


Yeah.. it does say the exact same thing: Antioxidant food supplements are questionable at best, and i never claimed that is not true, and your links are completely useless to the topic at hand.
There are very few studies, and thy didn´t ran long enough nor had a big enough study group, but their indications also go into an direction you don´t like.

You just missed the criticism in my post.

tommy1808 wrote:
A simple fact of the matter is that there isn´t, iirc, even a study comparing the effects of having more antioxidants in your food by eating organic food, since studies are focused on supplements.

Uh... Thomas. The studies all indicate that a normal diet with conventionally grown foods gives you everything that your body needs and can use. From the article that I just linked: "If there were a clear health benefit to additional antioxidants, our bodies would just make more." Simply put, if organic foods are more rich in antioxidants, there is zero benefit. You are paying extra for something that your body is already taking care of just fine.[/quote]

I already posted a link to a study that showed improvements in the long term, even with supplements. Feel free to show one that ran for two decades or longer that disagrees.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:55 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Redd wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
You are attacking the source and not the content. Strike one.


Tsk tsk... You did that as a response to information I posted on the first page.

Okay, I guess that I need to flesh out the logical fallacy for you.

It is not always a logical fallacy to attack a source in and of itself. It depends on the nature of the source.


from the guy that failed to notice that both language and the big :lol: would indicate a joke....

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:31 pm

DocLightning wrote:
mbmbos wrote:
Many GMO crops are modified in order to survive weed and bug killing chemicals. Eating GMO foods means you are most likely consuming produce that has been heavily treated with pesticides and herbicides.

That's my problem with GMO foods.


Not even remotely true and this is utter propaganda from the Organic Food industry. The point of GE crops is to reduce the need to spray expensive pesticides and herbicides. That said, certain crops will be killed by herbicides, so resistance genes can be inserted to allow them to be used. Other GE crops are engineered to make their own proteins that are toxic to certain insects (Bt, for example) so as to reduce the need for pesticides.



http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/ ... esticides/
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21215
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:20 pm

mbmbos wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
mbmbos wrote:
Many GMO crops are modified in order to survive weed and bug killing chemicals. Eating GMO foods means you are most likely consuming produce that has been heavily treated with pesticides and herbicides.

That's my problem with GMO foods.


Not even remotely true and this is utter propaganda from the Organic Food industry. The point of GE crops is to reduce the need to spray expensive pesticides and herbicides. That said, certain crops will be killed by herbicides, so resistance genes can be inserted to allow them to be used. Other GE crops are engineered to make their own proteins that are toxic to certain insects (Bt, for example) so as to reduce the need for pesticides.



http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/ ... esticides/


Your statement is that we are eating crops that are heavily treated with pesticides and herbicides. The only herbicide that we've seen a major increase in use with is glyphosate and mostly on cotton. Corn and soy have only seen modest increases and recall that most of these crops are used for livestock feed.

But if you actually look at the amounts of these things used, I take issue with "heavily treated." Look it up, since that's the best way to learn.

For pesticides, Bt is excellent. It's a protein and it's very safe for vertebrates. But for herbicides, it's a very different matter to engineer weed resistance into a crop. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a way to do it at present.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:01 am

VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Manure is most definitely necessary for organic farming. Without access to manure the organic farming industry would collapse.


Funny, considering that plenty of organic labels here don't allow the use of manure.....

Best regards
Thomas

You are missing my point. Sure, some individual organic farms can rely on alternatives to manure. But organic farms simply can’t feed anyone other than a fraction of the world’s elite without dependence on manure. The industry as we know it today depends on manure.

But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that organic farming can’t feed the world. People’s privileges are really showing here. Not everyone can afford to waste money on organic food that is scientifically proven to be no more nutritious than conventionally grown food.

The other issue with organic farming is land use. The amount of arable land that would be required to feed the world's population using organic farm techniques would be staggering. I'm fine with organic as an option...more choice is always good for consumers, but one of the major benefits of GMOs has been the tremendous gains in crop yields per acreage. It's estimated by 2060 land area double the size of the eastern U.S. will be returned to nature owing to increased crop efficiency.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:15 am

flyguy89 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Funny, considering that plenty of organic labels here don't allow the use of manure.....

Best regards
Thomas

You are missing my point. Sure, some individual organic farms can rely on alternatives to manure. But organic farms simply can’t feed anyone other than a fraction of the world’s elite without dependence on manure. The industry as we know it today depends on manure.

But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that organic farming can’t feed the world. People’s privileges are really showing here. Not everyone can afford to waste money on organic food that is scientifically proven to be no more nutritious than conventionally grown food.

The other issue with organic farming is land use. The amount of arable land that would be required to feed the world's population using organic farm techniques would be staggering..


The ~10% more land you´d need to go all organic are not really a staggering amount of extra land, aside of wheat most staple foods even just need single digit more land, and could easily be offset by even a slight decrease in food waste. We do throw 1/3 of all food calories we produce away after all.

And i am pretty sure that using 10% more land without much in the way or herbicides and pesticides will have less negative impact that exchanging one for the other.

At the moment i am paying for the removal of farming leftovers out of my drinking water with my water bill. If the polluter had to pay for it conventional farming would pretty much be finished. I know, we are having that discussion and politics doesn´t want to do it, would be 100% right thing to do, because it would bankrupt a lot of farmers over night.

A solar farm also needs more space than an oil well, solar energy is still superior to oil in everything but storage.Farming isn´t magically the one area without external costs...
https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/files/p ... ates_0.pdf

I am also fine with GMO in organic farming.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
JJJ
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: GMO crops - good or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:25 am

DocLightning wrote:
mbmbos wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

Not even remotely true and this is utter propaganda from the Organic Food industry. The point of GE crops is to reduce the need to spray expensive pesticides and herbicides. That said, certain crops will be killed by herbicides, so resistance genes can be inserted to allow them to be used. Other GE crops are engineered to make their own proteins that are toxic to certain insects (Bt, for example) so as to reduce the need for pesticides.



http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/ ... esticides/


Your statement is that we are eating crops that are heavily treated with pesticides and herbicides. The only herbicide that we've seen a major increase in use with is glyphosate and mostly on cotton. Corn and soy have only seen modest increases and recall that most of these crops are used for livestock feed.


Glyphosate has seen a 15-fold increase in volume since 1996 when glyphosate-resistant crops were introduced. That's where the real danger lies: not GMOs developed to be more resistant to drought, fungi or virus this is just what humanity has been done for centuries with hybrid seeds and artificial selection, but those tied to the use of a certain chemical.

Glyphosate has turned out to be pretty mild, all things considered, but that wasn't known at the time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma and 46 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos