- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Genetically Modified Foods Article...
Posted on 3/1/11 at 8:45 am to BrockLanders
Posted on 3/1/11 at 8:45 am to BrockLanders
I am raising a flock of hybrid meat chickens right now 
Those little bastards grow a pound a week 
As long as you aren't injecting or feeding them steroids and other crap I have no problem with animals bred for rapid growth.
Those little bastards grow a pound a week As long as you aren't injecting or feeding them steroids and other crap I have no problem with animals bred for rapid growth.
0
Posted on 3/1/11 at 8:46 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
Why on earth do you believe a successful business would handicap their sustainability like that?
I don't believe they would intentionally do it, but buying up the seed banks and owning the actual rights to life on the plant, as if that were even possible, has all the potential to do it in the future when the end result is you get down to one or two high yield super varieties that take over the market and end up getting a disease.
quote:
But first, let's get rid of corn subsidies so we can benefit from true market signals like price fluctuations. When the price rises, unhealthy foods the depend on cheap sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup will get more expensive. We'll have fewer fatties who consume less resources off the backs of taxpayers.
I agree.
quote:
<------ Bought Monsanto stock in July at $47/share
I'm sorry.
This post was edited on 3/1/11 at 8:49 am
Posted on 3/1/11 at 8:59 am to BrockLanders
quote:
Well, your efficient might be my unnatural.
know what's really unnatural? vaccines.
And I am not claiming it is the same as genetically modifying foods (the way that term is used), but humans have been breeding plants to create new ones to better suit them for thousands of years. Most plants we eat were not how God put them on earth, LOTS of human intervention has been involved.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:11 am to AreJay
quote:
but humans have been breeding plants to create new ones to better suit them for thousands of years. Most plants we eat were not how God put them on earth, LOTS of human intervention has been involved.
In a sense yes, but nature will do that all by it's own as well if we leave it alone, and do it better. What's new is the level in which we have taken this. Corn that actually destroys any other corn but it's own variety to grow, and the pesticides and chemicals we dump on crops.
Nobody really knows right now what's killing the honey bea populations off, but there are plenty of speculations that it might be chemicals. Might not be, but I'd say one thing. WE DON'T KNOW, and just like all of the genetic food gods out there who think they've perfected something God left imperfect, they don't know either. They are convinced they do, but they don't know what the long term effects of any of this is. It's too early to tell what if any of this will come back to bite us in the long term, but nobody really concerns themselves with that.
In the end, people can convince themselves of whatever they like, and even get a study to say what they want it to say. I'll just stick with the original concept. It's got a longer track record of success to draw from than the current one.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:13 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Exactly.
How did I know that would be your position?
Efficiency is good.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:17 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
Why on earth do you believe a successful business would handicap their sustainability like that?
Well if it happened it certainly wouldn't be intentional.
He does have a point. We could use some more biodiversity.
But in this case I don't really blame genetically modified crops. I blame the government 100% for the lack of biodiversity and the formation of these monopolies.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:17 am to AreJay
quote:
breeding plants to create new ones to better suit them for thousands of years.
There's a difference between breeding a plant for specific traits, and changing the genetics of that plant by adding different chemicals.
Example:
Plant A is highly resistant to disease, but grows slow, with a later harvest and a less than average yield.
Plant B is not as resistant, but grows faster, can harvest earlier giving you the possibility for more harvests in a season, and has a huge yield.
So, the two strains are bred, creating a hybrid that will be resistant, grows faster with an earlier harvest date, and a huge yield.
Monsanto has marketed seeds that contaminate other farms and do not produce offspring seeds so you have to purchase more from Monsanto. You also have to use his line of pesticides and herbicides. If that wasn't enough, if your farm shows signs of Monsanto genetics from wind-borne contamination, you're fricked because you're getting sued.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:19 am to Powerman
quote:
How did I know that would be your position?
Because I'm consistent.
quote:
Efficiency is good.
Of course, but not at the risk to quality, or our soil, the food itself, or any other thing that depends upon it, not the least of which is US.
Look, people can frick with whatever they like, but when it comes to something we all depend upon so critically like our food or water, then that's something that everyone should be very concerned over. I personally believe man is trying to make farming fit into the industrial revolution concept, and I'm not sure that is the ideal model to follow for something so critical as is our food. I agree in production and yield. I just don't agree in the processes we use to get there.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:22 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
but nature will do that all by it's own as well if we leave it alone, and do it better.
no, corn as we know it wouldn't exist if nature was left to its own accord
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:26 am to baytiger
quote:
no, corn as we know it wouldn't exist if nature was left to its own accord
Of course corn as we know it wouldn't exist if nature was left to it's own accord. The corn we now know is hardly what it once was. I'm not even sure we have any original varities of the plant to pull from.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:27 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
In a sense yes, but nature will do that all by it's own as well if we leave it alone, and do it better.
nature doesn't serve the human population. humans do. what's good for nature overall might be bad for us.
anyway it's really interesting to read some of the theories of how corn became domesticated and became the dominant food item in the americas
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:32 am to AreJay
quote:
nature doesn't serve the human population. humans do. what's good for nature overall might be bad for us.
True, because we are space aliens from another planet, and were never intended to live on this planet. That's why we don't go outside anymore, because breathing the air is bad for you. A/C is better for you, and sitting in front of the television set is what nature intended.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:42 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Look, people can frick with whatever they like, but when it comes to something we all depend upon so critically like our food or water, then that's something that everyone should be very concerned over.
Right. But the point that you're missing is: if they didn't frick with it, we wouldn't have enough of it to feed everyone.
You might not like it. But it's necessary. I still don't think you've digested that fact.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:43 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
True, because we are space aliens from another planet, and were never intended to live on this planet. That's why we don't go outside anymore, because breathing the air is bad for you. A/C is better for you, and sitting in front of the television set is what nature intended.
You're right. We would be much better off if it were the year 1437
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:46 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
rue, because we are space aliens from another planet, and were never intended to live on this planet.
You're missing the point. He was right. Humans serve humans. Without human knowledge and technology we wouldn't have the life expectancies that we have today. There wouldn't be anything like vaccines, any sort of health care, etc.
Nature provides the tools for us to make things better but it's up to humans to develop technology to use these resources. The green revolution was just another step in human advancement that has made all of our lives much better.
You just don't like progress.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:47 am to Powerman
quote:
Right. But the point that you're missing is: if they didn't frick with it, we wouldn't have enough of it to feed everyone.
You might not like it. But it's necessary. I still don't think you've digested that fact.
I don't know when it officially became America's responsibility to grow the world's foods, but what might make better sense is for the world to grow it's own foods and harvest it's own proteins. In stead of feeding the world, perhaps a better concept might be to get the world to start growing it's own so they can then feed themselves, and for those countries who can't or won't, then grow GM food for them. I just prefer to eat naturally grown foods, and do.
My issue with Monsanto and their practices comes primarily in the power they have over the small farmer, and in the end what it does to both our food and even more so the free market itself. I don't find them as a help mate to the free market, but rather a hinderance if anything.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 9:49 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I don't know when it officially became America's responsibility to grow the world's foods
You're right. We should stop exporting everything and let our trade deficit skyrocket some more.
quote:
My issue with Monsanto and their practices comes primarily in the power they have over the small farmer, and in the end what it does to both our food and even more so the free market itself.
Right. i.e. 100% the fault of the government that enabled this to happen.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 12:34 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I don't know when it officially became America's responsibility to grow the world's foods, but what might make better sense is for the world to grow it's own foods and harvest it's own proteins. In stead of feeding the world, perhaps a better concept might be to get the world to start growing it's own so they can then feed themselves, and for those countries who can't or won't, then grow GM food for them. I just prefer to eat naturally grown foods, and do.
It's not our job to feed the world, but policies put into place by govts because of the "organic" lobby have basically put a halt to a countries ability to feed itself.
People attack Monsanto for the cross contamination that happens, but give Organic nuts who burn a farmer's fields because he grew GM crops a pass.
Not to mention, wheat as we know it today was GM by the romans. They took two strains that were not very good and cross-bred them. This would not have happened without the Romans because the two strains were seperated by thousands of miles.
and I can guarantee you that if I prepared a GM crop and a natural crop the same way and presented both to you without your knowledge of which was which, you'd most likely pick the GM as having a better taste and texture. This study has been done numerous times. GM always comes out on top.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 12:36 pm to magildachunks
quote:
and I can guarantee you that if I prepared a GM crop and a natural crop the same way and presented both to you without your knowledge of which was which, you'd most likely pick the GM as having a better taste and texture. This study has been done numerous times. GM always comes out on top.
I would venture to say that there is no way that he would actually submit to this test knowing that he might fail.
He'll just sit on his throne and tell you that these people were inferior to him. He would have known the difference and declared the organic to be better.
Posted on 3/1/11 at 12:37 pm to magildachunks
quote:
and I can guarantee you that if I prepared a GM crop and a natural crop the same way and presented both to you without your knowledge of which was which, you'd most likely pick the GM as having a better taste and texture. This study has been done numerous times. GM always comes out on top.
Well, if they do this little Pepsi challenge in NOLA, I'm game for it.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News