Another Reason to AVOID CORN - Page 2

Hodie, you almost sound like you work for Monsanto and are reading right out of their PR book.

GMO crops are harmful..Those pest-resistant crops are cross breeding with non GMO crops around them with the dubious benefit of making the seed sterile from the non GMO, just as it is with the GMO.  Some of the GM crops have had staggering failures, sometimes with 100% crop loss.  Where the seeds or pollen have drifted into other neighboring fields, Monsanto has been known to sue the farmers for copyright infringement, which is interesting since they didn't want the GMO anywhere near their fields...It just drifted that way.

To create varieties of cotton, soy, and other crops, they manipulated the plants' genetics to produce chemicals similar to the active ingredients in Roundup (made by Monsanto), so that Roundup can be used on the fields to kill weeds without killing the plants...Great, but what happens when humans consume plants genetically laced with the stuff?

To me, before GMO crops should ever be considered safe for human consumption, they need to be tested for a few decades on a small group of people who are willing to take the risk, and should be isolated from contaminating all other crops like the biohazard they are.

As for soy...Very bad...

I'll dig up some facts for you folks.

crys

I am NOT giving up corn. Even if I didn't love ithe stuff, anyway I can think of preparing it, especially fresh out of the field, raw, it would be plumb unAmerican not to devour at least half my weight in corm every year.

Chrys,

As usual, your mind is closed so I won't debate the issue with you. But wrong, I don't work for Monsanto.

As soon as I saw that Ronnie made a comment I shook my head and said "Now what kind of comment is he going to make this time" lol
You are just too much Ronnie
~L~

No Hodie, not closed minded.  I just looked at some research that didn't come straight from Monsanto's pockets.  Their test plots routinely produce less than organically raised crops, some varieties fail outright.  Fine, I guess, because when you're playing God with genetics, the results are going to be failures much of the time.

Don't get me wrong, I know humans fiddle with genetics all the time...Cross breeding plants and animals is one example.  However, naturally crossing something is one thing...Playing Dr. Frankenstein with genetic codes in a lab setting is quite another.  There is a reason that hybrids and GMO are not used interchangeably by most of the world.  There was panic some time back when a batch of GMO corn was "accidentally" released into the food supply and ended up in Taco Bell's hard taco shells.  They were recalled, en masse, because of fears.  If they were harmless, why the worry?

Simple.  Monsanto hadn't paid enough for favorable research results yet.  Now that they have, you notice that GMO corn is in most of our corn based products, not that they label it so.  Why do they not label it?  Because they couldn't sell it if they did.  By not labeling, even though most people know that it's out there, they don't have to think about it, and thus, they keep supporting Monsanto.

The studies that make the GMO crops look bad are always buried, the scientist discredited by Monsanto's money and influence.  Why would you pay so much to bury everything that looks bad for your company?  Draw your own conclusions, but any company that is worth the masses of billions that Monsanto is, is not likely concerned about feeding the world's poor.  Poor folks don't make you much money...Poor folks aren't the issue.

One other point I would like you to clarify for me, Hodie, please...

If Monsanto's motives are altruistic as you would make them sound, why would they alter their plants so that the seeds are sterile and not able to reproduce?  Is it not the custom of most small farmers to save seed from one year to another so as to have seed to plant the crops the next year?  So what benefit is there to providing seed that grows only the one year, and then its offspring are sterile?

I am trying to be open minded, and I would like to understand how these practices (lacing plants with toxins at the genetic level, creating plants which produce sterile seeds) are going to ease world hunger.  I just haven't been able to understand how this can be.

Crys

 Chrys,

If you truly wanted to understand, you could research the issue, on both sides, and answer your own questions. And to intimate that because people fear something and panic is good reason for recalls and other hysteria is simply idiotic. People fear what they do not understand. And unfortunately, most of the people in this country have such a poor education they cannot understand much of anything except sitcoms on TV. They cannot read, or comprehend what they read, nor can they write. They think the Wikipedia is the final source and have no clue how to do research on any topic, let alone share that serious and properly conducted research. Few people look anymore at issues in totality or even have the background to do so. Such people vote unfortunately too, with a complete lack of understanding about real issues that face us as a nation and as a world.

Whether you like it or not, GM crops are already being used and have been. Whether you like it or not, there is genetic research of all kinds going on. Are there valid concerns? Can some of this research lead to unethical uses? Certainly, but it is not helpful to put half truths out or to refer to research with monikers like "Dr. Frankenstein". To do so says a lot about one being unable to sift through the issue with attention to ALL facts. It is no different with the arguments about climate change, nuclear power, genetic research of all kinds and many other subjects. If I thought it would help, I share a different perspective, but it is not worth the effort when someone has their mind already made up.

And no, I did not say anything about Monsanto, except I don't work for them. You are the one who brought the name up and who questions their motives.

When you speak of GM crops, the name Monsanto automatically comes up, as it is that huge corporation who is at the "forefront" of the GMO controversy.  As for who first mentioned that, BeeTree is the one who mentioned it, because again, they are the ones who spearheaded the push for GMO and who continue to fund/profit from it.

GMO products are out there, you are correct.  From what I have been able to dig up in my research, GMO corn is used in everything from "High Fructose Corn Syrup" to corn chips and corn additives to hundreds of other products.  You say my mind is closed, but when I read your posts, it is equally clear to me that yours is also closed.  You have your mind made up that any alteration of nature by science is a good thing, especially if the people behind it profess to have altruistic motives, such as the elimination of world hunger.

My world has fewer shades of gray, I guess.  From my education, I know that the genetic structure of plants, animals, and humans are extremely complex, and for every trait that is mapped out and understood, there are thousands or millions that have not been.  With our relative ignorance in such matters, it strikes me as highly dangerous to manipulate genetics in a laboratory, as is being done today, and then to say without any proof at all, that it is safe.  There is no way to know that a strain of GM corn, or soy, is going to have no effect on a human or animal consuming it, nor is there any way to say conclusively that there is no reason to be concerned.  Until these lab strains of crops have been raised, reproducing on their own, with their own, in a controlled biosphere which guarantees they cannot contaminate the outside world, and have been tested on a small test group who is aware of every facet of the project and the risks they take, for a lifetime, then there is no way to say they are safe and harmless to the world.  To study something for only a few weeks or months, bury all the bad stuff and present the good as the sole evidence, is scientific misconduct of the lowest caliber, and the results of such junk science should be called by the terms that best describe them, including the "moniker" Frankenfoods.

To call me closed-minded because I find the above things somewhat suspicious and worthy of concern, has me shaking my head.  A huge, multi-billion dollar (probably more like trillion, but after the first nine zeros, who's counting?) corporation funds genetic research, with the claim that they wish to solve world hunger.  Crop failures, death of animals consuming said crops, all swept under the rug in the name of doing what's best for the world.  Then these products are suddenly in our food supply, and notice, they aren't labeled.  Why is that?  And we aren't supposed to be concerned, because a huge corporation who funds the research creating this stuff that now floods the market, says it's safe, don't worry about it.  OK.  You profit from me buying, and you don't want me to be concerned, so you say it's OK...Why doesn't that work for me? 

I do not fear what I do not understand, for there is no point to it.  I fear what GM scientists are doing, that THEY do not understand.  I don't use Wikipedia as my source for information, as it has been proven to be wrong too many times, too many ways.  No, I dig around, find studies, read research, differing points of view.  I think about subjects from all sides and examine them from all angles, before choosing.  You mentioned that it is not helpful to put half truths out there is correct, but Monsanto has no choice.  The public can't handle the whole truth. 

I respect your right to believe in this science and the course of action being taken in the corporate world today.  But I'm not closed-mind

 Chrys,

As usual, you assume to know what I do and do not believe. My purpose on this post, as in so many posts, is to simply present some rationality to the discussion. I stand by what I said up to now. If you would take a position and write rationally too, it might be different. But you don't. You, more often than not, feed the fear and hysteria, without writing about all angles of a given subject. That, as I said before, serves no one.  Furthermore, I doubt that you know much about the regulatory issues involved, or the history of plant and animal genomic research. As I said before, there are always risks in new technology. But there are MANY positives that are possible.

I am done. Think what you like. I am not going to try to open closed minds. It is a waste of time.

Hysteria and fear...

I guess the many folks in this country join the countries of Europe in shunning the use of GMO products, because we are closed minded and ignorant?

As far as I have been able to determine, there is little to no increase in yields in fields of GMO as compared to traditional hybrids or standard corn.  In fact, according to many studies, there is less yield in GMO, or total failures in some cases.  To continue pushing products that are questionable shows that all that is cared about in the GMO industry is the money to be gained, not the health and well being of the people who buy it. 

It always tickles me when I hear legitimate concerns being called ingorance and hysteria.  I hear it called a lack of education.  Yet I see nothing in your writing that indicates that you even recognize the inherent dangers in playing this game, which tells me that you may be one of the most closed minded people I've ever dealt with. 

I do not and will not follow anyone's point of view blindly, without researching it myself.  I don't care how many degrees a person may have in science, in genetics, in whatever.  They are still people, still subject to incorrect conclusions and mistakes, just as the rest of us are, and when you throw a lot of money into the mix, the pressure to produce favorable results is overwhelming.  Those for whom ethics get in the way, get out of the way, and the rest of them provide what they are paid to provide.

There are two points of view, I guess...

Under-educated:  Someone who is so closed-minded that they refuse to see other points of view, simply because they feel the need to feed the fear and hysteria, and they are too ignorant to know any better. (I believe that this is where I am grouped)

Over-educated: Someone who has spent too much time in school, learning to follow without question, ridiculing anyone who might dare call into question the quality, motives, or ideals of science, or any other establishment, simply because they can no longer see anything on their own. (I believe this is the majority of scientist involved in the GM research for Monsanto)

And then there's where I sit:  Critical examination of EVERYTHING.  Question EVERYTHING.  Accept NOTHING at face value.
Follow only what actually makes logical sense.  Stand by what your conclusions are, without insulting those who disagree.  Yes, I'm done with this discussion as well.

Products containing GMO should be labeled, and the consumer should be able to make an informed decision, at least by choosing whether they are willing to pay for these products or not.  The fact that every attempt to make labeling mandatory has been blocked sure makes me wonder. 

It is my sincere prayer that it is not discovered, a few years down the road, that consumption of GM crops leads to mass health problems or death...I sure wouldn't want to be the one who championed them, in that case.  If half of the world is wrong, and they are safe, and do solve world hunger, then AWESOME!!!!  I would love to be wrong. 

Have a nice day, Hodie...

Crys