FB Thread: GMO food banning. (I Disagree)
I know, this is the third "FB thread" style post I've made. Maybe
this means I'm spending way too much time attempting to level
playing fields against people unwilling to give concessions to any
other ideologies. Granted, I don't either (when talking about
religion) but here, since I doubt anyone posting is actually a
geneticist, papered botanist, etc, each side should be willing to
give concessions when the other side provides evidence that suggests
a viable counter-argument. PFFFT. Like that ever happens.
I like to post them on the blog, because I've done some internet-hoofing to "research" but I am aware I am simply supporting my own opinion since I'm not a not a professional either.
Cest la vie. I think think I'm right here: The outright banning of a technology or process that seeks to save lives should not be considered. Just think, what if Alexander Fleming had said "feed people Penicillin? A bacteria I found killing other bacteria? Why, that sounds ridiculously dangerous! It could do more harm than good!"
It started when The Owl Report (a FB page I quite enjoy following) posted:
Peru Passes Monumental Ten Year Ban on Genetically Engineered Foods | Occupy Monsanto
In a massive blow to multinational agribiz corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients anywhere within the country for a full decade before coming up for another review.
And I shared it:
Weyrcat via The Owl Report While I agree humans overuse pesticides and are harming the farming soil... I disagree that banning genetically modified food is a good idea. While having only a few modified species hearkens to fears of potato-famine-like epidemics of food shortage, genetically modified foods have fed billions of peoples who most likely would have starved otherwise. Humans should be treating the genetic modifications of foods as a "with care" operation, NOT a "omg it's the devil ban it" situation. *imo*
Since the original post is public, and followed by many different types of people, I will only report the comments made to/about my comment(s).
Beebee What frightens me is that it's only a 10 year ban. Thankfully America (and most of the rest of the world) get to continue to be the guinea pigs in a disgusting for-their-profit experiment. What good is ten years going to do for anyone's health, especially given how many farmers have lost everything and/or killed themselves over the likes of Monsanto? And especially given the damage from their specialized checimicals fo their genetically altered food being decades away from repaired? And Weyrcat, most of that food gets exported. In some cases, those "billions" who would have starved otherwise are starving because they harvest it for the privelaged folk in other nations nonetheless.
@ Weyrcat. Indigenous crop species have developed because they are specifically adapted to the microclimate of their particular area. Once gmo crops are introduced to an area they cross-pollinate with existing indigenous species and thus next generations carry the modified DNA, thereby creating new species. The modified portions of DNA REQUIRE pesticide and herbicide use to survive. At the same time, the gmo's practically wipe out the indigenous species, and at the same time genetic diversification. Most scientists agree indigenous crop species are the ONLY defense against famine in drought-stricken Africa. Why force wheat & soy to grow in areas that can easily grow quinoa? In short, gmo's were created specifically to increase chemical use, and due to their specific modifications cannot grow without them. They, in most cases, hinder rather than help in famine situations. And there are many studies showing the undivided cell growth (precurser to cancer) in the pancreas and livers of rats and mice fed gmo's vs no the such observations in rats & mice fed non-gmo's. Please feel free to verify my assertions, but IMO these are all great reasons why they should be banned.
Marcel http://www.bangmfood.org/publications/4-short-leaflets/33-10-reasons-why-we-dont-need-gm-foods
*J* Why didn't I figure I'd be outnumbered? :P
WeyrcatI would like to reinforce that I feel we should be reviewing GMO foods "with care" and not as a black and white situation. Take care when deciding something should be flat out banned, erased, or forgotten; and remember that even the works of Galileo, and the Bible, have been banned historically.
I appreciate the link citing "10 reasons" but do not currently have time to go through and review the citations, so I'll read it later. On first glance the site seems to have alarmist bias with cherry-picked factoids, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt.
I hope YOU will give the benefits of GM crops the benefit of the doubt as well. While I am not a botanist I can refer you to a few links that may take a moment to read but may at least show what food scientists are attempting to do. I PROMISE GM foods where NOT created "specifically to increase chemical use" and the notion is rather "out there." Nor do they "require pesticide and herbicide use" to survive. I believe you're misconstruing the article stating some GMO, with built in pesticides, force the natural selection of resistant pests, thereby forcing farmers to use stronger pesticides on those GMO crops. I agree that's a vicious cycle and the 'built in' pesticide is (imo) a poor choice.
Let us agree that the overuse of pesticides is harmful (as I previously stated so, and as it seems to be your main concern.)
I don't want to create an (even greater) wall of text so I'll skip researching the barrage of anti-gm tidbits tucked in the two posts following mine. While I won't attempt to argue the altruism of all GM food distributers (let's face it, some humans are simply greedy) the genetic modification of plants for increased nutrition and hardiness is an endeavor to feed an overpopulated planet with a delicate and changing climate.
Here's an article from the American Society of Plant Physiologists (in 2000) on "The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry."
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/2/487.full
Here is the Wiki on Norman Borlaug (to the "Production in Africa" section) who is a plant pathologist and geneticist who helped 8 million small-scale farmers double or triple their grain production. Ethiopa saw a 32% increase in food production. This man does not want your money and the food is not shipped away from the people. He's trying to save them, to feed them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Production_in_Africa
Genetic modification of food is NOT a black or white issue. Like anything else there are good ways to do it, bad ways to do it, and maybe at this stage we can't tell the difference. But it would be insane to ban and throw away what might be a monumental increase in the quality and quantity of our food stores simply because there are stumbling blocks along the way. Fear of the unknown is NOT a reason to starve to death in the dark
I also linked them the book "City of Pearl," which is a GREAT sci-fi book, and contains a subplot about what COULD happen in the future if the companies that distribute GM plants are allowed to continue copywriting genetic code and/or trademarking plants they create. Just imagine a future where cross-breeding two tomato plants carried the same penalty as copying a DVD you rented. Terrifying, but right up the "NO GMO"ers alleys.
I like to post them on the blog, because I've done some internet-hoofing to "research" but I am aware I am simply supporting my own opinion since I'm not a not a professional either.
Cest la vie. I think think I'm right here: The outright banning of a technology or process that seeks to save lives should not be considered. Just think, what if Alexander Fleming had said "feed people Penicillin? A bacteria I found killing other bacteria? Why, that sounds ridiculously dangerous! It could do more harm than good!"
It started when The Owl Report (a FB page I quite enjoy following) posted:
Peru Passes Monumental Ten Year Ban on Genetically Engineered Foods | Occupy Monsanto
In a massive blow to multinational agribiz corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients anywhere within the country for a full decade before coming up for another review.
And I shared it:
Weyrcat via The Owl Report While I agree humans overuse pesticides and are harming the farming soil... I disagree that banning genetically modified food is a good idea. While having only a few modified species hearkens to fears of potato-famine-like epidemics of food shortage, genetically modified foods have fed billions of peoples who most likely would have starved otherwise. Humans should be treating the genetic modifications of foods as a "with care" operation, NOT a "omg it's the devil ban it" situation. *imo*
Since the original post is public, and followed by many different types of people, I will only report the comments made to/about my comment(s).
Beebee What frightens me is that it's only a 10 year ban. Thankfully America (and most of the rest of the world) get to continue to be the guinea pigs in a disgusting for-their-profit experiment. What good is ten years going to do for anyone's health, especially given how many farmers have lost everything and/or killed themselves over the likes of Monsanto? And especially given the damage from their specialized checimicals fo their genetically altered food being decades away from repaired? And Weyrcat, most of that food gets exported. In some cases, those "billions" who would have starved otherwise are starving because they harvest it for the privelaged folk in other nations nonetheless.
@ Weyrcat. Indigenous crop species have developed because they are specifically adapted to the microclimate of their particular area. Once gmo crops are introduced to an area they cross-pollinate with existing indigenous species and thus next generations carry the modified DNA, thereby creating new species. The modified portions of DNA REQUIRE pesticide and herbicide use to survive. At the same time, the gmo's practically wipe out the indigenous species, and at the same time genetic diversification. Most scientists agree indigenous crop species are the ONLY defense against famine in drought-stricken Africa. Why force wheat & soy to grow in areas that can easily grow quinoa? In short, gmo's were created specifically to increase chemical use, and due to their specific modifications cannot grow without them. They, in most cases, hinder rather than help in famine situations. And there are many studies showing the undivided cell growth (precurser to cancer) in the pancreas and livers of rats and mice fed gmo's vs no the such observations in rats & mice fed non-gmo's. Please feel free to verify my assertions, but IMO these are all great reasons why they should be banned.
Marcel http://www.bangmfood.org/publications/4-short-leaflets/33-10-reasons-why-we-dont-need-gm-foods
*J* Why didn't I figure I'd be outnumbered? :P
WeyrcatI would like to reinforce that I feel we should be reviewing GMO foods "with care" and not as a black and white situation. Take care when deciding something should be flat out banned, erased, or forgotten; and remember that even the works of Galileo, and the Bible, have been banned historically.
I appreciate the link citing "10 reasons" but do not currently have time to go through and review the citations, so I'll read it later. On first glance the site seems to have alarmist bias with cherry-picked factoids, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt.
I hope YOU will give the benefits of GM crops the benefit of the doubt as well. While I am not a botanist I can refer you to a few links that may take a moment to read but may at least show what food scientists are attempting to do. I PROMISE GM foods where NOT created "specifically to increase chemical use" and the notion is rather "out there." Nor do they "require pesticide and herbicide use" to survive. I believe you're misconstruing the article stating some GMO, with built in pesticides, force the natural selection of resistant pests, thereby forcing farmers to use stronger pesticides on those GMO crops. I agree that's a vicious cycle and the 'built in' pesticide is (imo) a poor choice.
Let us agree that the overuse of pesticides is harmful (as I previously stated so, and as it seems to be your main concern.)
I don't want to create an (even greater) wall of text so I'll skip researching the barrage of anti-gm tidbits tucked in the two posts following mine. While I won't attempt to argue the altruism of all GM food distributers (let's face it, some humans are simply greedy) the genetic modification of plants for increased nutrition and hardiness is an endeavor to feed an overpopulated planet with a delicate and changing climate.
Here's an article from the American Society of Plant Physiologists (in 2000) on "The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry."
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/2/487.full
Here is the Wiki on Norman Borlaug (to the "Production in Africa" section) who is a plant pathologist and geneticist who helped 8 million small-scale farmers double or triple their grain production. Ethiopa saw a 32% increase in food production. This man does not want your money and the food is not shipped away from the people. He's trying to save them, to feed them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Production_in_Africa
Genetic modification of food is NOT a black or white issue. Like anything else there are good ways to do it, bad ways to do it, and maybe at this stage we can't tell the difference. But it would be insane to ban and throw away what might be a monumental increase in the quality and quantity of our food stores simply because there are stumbling blocks along the way. Fear of the unknown is NOT a reason to starve to death in the dark
I also linked them the book "City of Pearl," which is a GREAT sci-fi book, and contains a subplot about what COULD happen in the future if the companies that distribute GM plants are allowed to continue copywriting genetic code and/or trademarking plants they create. Just imagine a future where cross-breeding two tomato plants carried the same penalty as copying a DVD you rented. Terrifying, but right up the "NO GMO"ers alleys.
Comments
Post a Comment