Thursday, May 7, 2015

A New Perspective on GMO's

So, any thoughts?


  1. This is interesting, I just listened this one. ha ha

    I thought she seems really nice, and sincere, but there are a few plot holes. Where are all of these peer reviews studies she speaks of? Does she mean the ones paid for by the companies who manufacture these foods? I don't consider that good science. To date, the only third party safety test I know of was published, and lauded, and then retracted by the journal that published it. It showed unequivocally that GM corn was highly dangerous to those eating it. An outcry has been heard by scientists world wide over the unethical nature of that retraction. This outcry included a petition to have the study reinstated as valid science. This has yet to be done. Not only that, but it was published in world wide news that it was the lead scientist of this study who retracted, which is untrue. He and his colleagues stand by their findings in the face of the total ruin of their scientific careers.

    Another thing I find interesting is her insistence that GE foods will save families from pesticide exposure. Take a look at the cotton industry in India at this point. India has had a great cotton crop but was being ravaged by insects. The fields were dual purpose, the farmers would harvest the cotton, and then at the end of the season turn cows loose, and they would graze down the remaining plants. GE/GM cotton was introduced to India, as a plant that created its own insecticide -- thus reducing the need for chemical pesticides. The people continued to release their cattle, and the cattle began dying. And the crops began failing. And they now have serious suicide problems among farmers, because they cannot make these crops work. Also, many crops that are GE, are engineered so that they will survive herbicides. The people using these plants still have massive chemical exposure. To me, these things do not seem as golden as she makes them appear.

  2. Speaking of golden, golden rice is an awesome concept! It is an unfortunate fact, though, carotenes, which are a precursor to vitamin A, are not a reliable source for vitamin A for most humans. The body has to go through several different steps to convert carotenes to vitamin A, and as many as half of the population cannot make that conversion at all. Quite a few among the other half makes the conversion, though, inadequately. And the ability to make the conversion declines with poor nutrition....

    And what about the added cost of having to buy new seed every growing season, because GE seed is not meant to reproduce itself? That is not inexpensive, and is monopolistic.

    Seeing her, I believe she as a person means well, but she is either ignorant of all the facts, or is choosing to make the picture appear more rosy than it actually is. I want those children to eat well too! I pray for them, and have cried for them when thinking of how blessed my own children are. But wouldn't the world be better served by giving these people adequate funds for all of their hard work? We enslave poor populations for the sake of our gluttonous economies, and pay them next to nothing for things we casually throw away. I don't have all of the answers, but I feel fair wages from multi-million dollar economies is a great place to start. Also, being honest about what the release of these genes into the world actually means. Sadly that is not something that can be fully answered at this juncture.

    Some things we do know at least: 1. There is genetic cross over among similar species. Meaning cross pollination does occur, among similar, yet different plants, and the GM genes are being passed to plant types that were not originally genetically altered. 2. GM fields do in fact far out produce organic and conventional fields. Initially this is true, but after five or so years production wanes. 3. The bugs and plants these genetic changes are being engineered to battle are changing rapidly, and in quite a few instances have already made it to the point that they live through the deadly genetically engineered onslaught heaved at them. In short, even if they were good for human consumption, they simply are not a long term solution, in my opinion.

    National Geographic just had an article about GE honey bees, and the other alternative, tiny bee like robots that will do the pollinating as real bees die off. -.- Technology cannot fix everything.

  3. GMO crops are not sustainable. While they may provide a few years of bumper crops, they (or rather the pesticides whose heavy use they make possible) deplete the soil of its minerals nutrients --- calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, and others. (Google Glyphosate). Mineral-deficient soil ----> mineral-deficient food ---> mineral-deficient people ---> chronic disease and weakened immunity to contagions.

    How is the depletion of earth's rich and essential minerals our answer to global hunger? Are we thinking past next year?

    The real answer to global hunger is much less convenient. Those of us in the first world need to overturn our wasteful, exploitative culture of over-consumption. We need to grow our own food and nourish the earth with our kitchen scraps. We need to, as Melissa said, pay fair prices for the goods that come to us at high cost and risk to the poor. The problem has never been that there is not enough food. It's that the food is rotting in the back of enormous American refrigerators instead of finding its way to the tables of the hungry.