9 Comments

  1. blank UnyieldingLogic says:

    But nothing is more powerful than first-hand accounts from farmers

    Yeah! Nothing beats anecdotes! Well…nothing except of course for empirical evidence. Empirical evidence trumps anecdotes every time. Maybe the author should spend more time learning about scientific methodology and less time indulging her confirmation bias.

    Here’s some of that empirical evidence:
    A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

    1. blank freedomdove says:

      Um….the “empirical evidence” shows that sales of organic, non-GMO food more than doubled in recent years, from $11 billion in 2004 to $27 billion in 2012. People with common sense know that this means more farmers are having to plant non-GMO crops to keep up with the demand. Therefore, what is written is most likely true–there are more farmers transitioning away from GMOs, and additionally, new farmers are increasingly starting out as organic growers. Farmers are in the business to be in business. If business situations dictate they would be better off growing “conventional” crops, then they’re going to do that to stay in business.

      1. blank UnyieldingLogic says:

        the “empirical evidence” shows that sales of organic, non-GMO food more than doubled in recent years, from $11 billion in 2004 to $27 billion in 2012. People with common sense know that this means more farmers are having to plant non-GMO crops to keep up with the demand.

        Sales of organic produce is not supporting evidence for claims that GMOs are hazardous. That’s simply fallacious. Farmers are responding to market forces, which are not necessarily based on scientific evidence. You’re grasping at straws.

        1. blank freedomdove says:

          That wasn’t the topic of this article. The topic is that there are farmers transitioning away from GM-agriculture. Maybe you should reread the title again closely. Since you were quoting a sentence right before a paragraph that talks about *why* the farmer is transitioning, I mistakenly thought that you were actually talking about the topic of that paragraph. My bad, eh?

  2. I’m a bit confused by this line: ‘In order for a crop to be considered non-GMO, it must contain less than 1% of glyphosate.’ Is that a typo or am I missing something? I assumed that a plant’s GMO status would be decided by its altered genes, not how much herbicide it contains. I would have also thought that the main issue with glyphosate drifting on to other non-GMO crops would be that it would kill or damage them. And I thought the problem with contamination of non-GMO crops came from cross-pollination, not drifting herbicides (When you click on the link in the following quote from the article: ‘Sometimes glyphosate from neighboring farms finds its way onto non-GMO farmers’ crops, for example, making it hard for farmers to keep their crops separate from GMO crops. This is called GMO cross-contamination, and it’s a problem.’, the linked article doesn’t even mention glyphosate as a contaminant).

    I’d appreciate if someone can explain to me the basis of why glyphosate content of a plant affects its GMO status. Thanks!

  3. blank pissed man says:

    GMO’s are failing and it is the technology

    Contrary to modern genetic models where genes are considered fixed and unchanging, All genes are constantly changing due to environmental influences. Because of this, ANY Genetic modifications cannot be counted on to be precise or remain intact. It is known that genetic insertions cause abrupt changes locally and may affect anywhere from 5-25% of the parent genome it is inserted into. The protein expression is usually changed in unintended ways just from the genetic insertion alone, and other toxic proteins are typically released by the abruptly altered structure. Due to the environmental changes, these abrupt changes may or may not show up for several plant generations. Because
    hardly any proteins are made by a single gene and each protein expression requires multiple and complex inputs and interactions, Genetic manipulation is unpredictable, unreliable and highly risky. Because the permutations and combinations are infinite due to the constantly changing genetic structure and expressions, GMO technology will NEVER be reliable or stable and will ALWAYS at the most extreme end of dangerous and catastrophic risk.

    Already we have seen people killed by Showa Denko’s GMO produced L-Tryptophan while inserting a single gene from the parent genome back into the same parent genome. Klebsiella planticola, one of
    the most widely distributed bacteria around terrestrial plant roots, was modified to break down cellulose into alcohol. A few weeks prior to its release into the biosphere it was discovered that this manipulation turned it into a plant killer, which could have destroyed most of the terrestrial plants on the planet. The danger here cannot be understated!

    This catastrophic danger is so far beyond anything known it renders nuclear device technology to second place, as the most catastrophic danger to the human race. The companies that produce this
    technology know the problems, they know it is untrustworthy. After a decade on the market, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Soy was found to have genetic contamination of more than 500 gene pairs which were not in the original parent or inserted genes. After several years on the market Gene VI, a dangerous viral strain, has been shown to inhabit several GMO varieties. Still these dangers
    are discounted and hidden from public view, because if the real dangers were known the public would call for an immediate moratorium.

    Time to BAN all GMO’s and the associated chemicals that are poisoning everyone and causing severe health issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *