The Lies Around "GMO" & Fighting "Willfull" Ignorance Around It

[NuclearID]

"The vast majority of the wheat we consume today has been drastically altered from its original form."

Is this a joke? uh duh, literally everything we eat is. Literally everything with DNA is drastically different from thousands or even just hundreds of years ago.

It's call selective breeding in plants & animals. We been doing it since before Jesus.

Though now we can speed up selective breeding through bio engineering. Same results, just quicker. Instead of taking 200 years to grow a crop that has a better output you can just simply move a genetic marker and get it done in a year.

That's why we're able to feed more people than ever. It's because of this the fears of the world running out of food didn't come true.

We can do now what took our ancestors hundreds if not thousands of years to do in a matter of just a few short months or years in regards to selective breeding better plants that give us better/bigger harvests or plants more hardy to insects and diseases.

GMO is our friend. Don't buy the bullshit about it. Almost literally everything is GMO. without genetic modifications we would all be starving to death, literally.

Old world crops COULD NOT produce enough for 8 billion plus people and counting.

There is also zero scientific evidence that proves anything different/harmful between a GMO product and a non-GMO product. Other than one can outgrow/outproduce/out-survive/use less water to grow than the other.

Be smart and rise above the ignorant fear propaganda meant to make you buy unnecessary and overpriced things like "non-gmo" or "organic" items which are worse in the end for the planet/people.

Nature gave us grass. Human intervention gave us bread.

 

[william]

How Chemical Runoff from Pesticides Kills Fish and Wildlife​

Chemical runoff from pesticides is a major threat to aquatic ecosystems, directly harming fish, amphibians, and other wildlife through both acute and chronic exposure.

Pathways of contamination
Pesticides—especially insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides—are applied to crops, lawns, and other landscapes. Rainwater and irrigation can wash these chemicals into streams, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater, carrying them into aquatic habitats USGS.gov. This runoff can also be carried by stormwater and urban drainage, especially in areas with high agricultural or urban land use San Francisco Estuary Institute.

Impacts on fish
Once in water, pesticides can impair metabolic and physiological functions in fish, leading to:

• Reproductive abnormalities and reduced fertility www.fisheriesjournal.com
• Endocrine disruption, altering hormone systems www.fisheriesjournal.com
• Gill damage such as hemorrhage, clubbed lamellae, and necrosis, which impair oxygen uptake www.fisheriesjournal.com
• Organ damage to liver, spleen, kidneys, and brain, reducing overall health and survival www.fisheriesjournal.com
• Neurological effects like spinal deformities and impaired movement www.fisheriesjournal.com

These effects can cause population declines, reduced growth rates, and increased mortality.

Impacts on wildlife
Pesticides can poison wildlife directly through ingestion of contaminated water or food, or indirectly by killing insects and other prey species Pesticide Environmental Stewardship. Acute exposure can cause mass die-offs (e.g., fish kills from pesticide-laden runoff), while chronic exposure can weaken immune systems, reduce reproductive success, and alter behavior Pesticide Environmental Stewardship.

Case example: 6PPD-quinone in San Francisco Bay
A recent study found that a tire-derived chemical, 6PPD-quinone (6PPDQ), is highly toxic to coho salmon and steelhead trout. Even trace amounts in runoff can be lethal, and high levels occur after winter storms when steelhead return to spawn San Francisco Estuary Institute. This shows how urban and agricultural runoff can introduce potent toxins into estuaries, threatening sensitive species.

Prevention and mitigation

• Best management practices in agriculture, such as buffer strips, cover crops, and reduced pesticide use, can limit runoff USGS.gov.
• Stormwater controls in urban areas can filter out contaminants before they reach waterways.
• Regulatory measures and public awareness can reduce the use of highly toxic pesticides and promote safer alternatives San Francisco Estuary Institute.

In short, pesticide runoff is a persistent and damaging pathway for chemical contamination in aquatic ecosystems, with cascading effects on fish, wildlife, and the health of entire ecosystems.

Chemicals in your food are good for you!

 

[NuclearID]

Chemicals in your food are good for you!

Where did I say “chemicals”? Anywhere infact.

GMO is not “chemicals in your food.” GMO refers to how a crop’s genetics are altered. That can be done to make the plant more resistant to pests, disease, drought, heat, and/or other crop killing problems.

And the real funny part is a lot of genetic engineering exists specifically so farmers use less chemicals for the same or greater output.

If a crop survives insects, disease, or bad weather better, more of it gets harvested instead of rotting, dying, or being thrown away. That is not scary.

People hear “modified crop” and act like nature was handing us perfect food from heaven. It wasn’t. Nature gave us fragile plants, famine, pests, crop failure, and starvation. Human intervention/genetic modification gave us agriculture capable of feeding billions.

So no, I’m not saying “chemicals in food are good for you.” of course not, nor is GMO a chemical.

I’m saying the fear campaign around genetically modified crops is mostly marketing, ignorance, and anti science panic dressed up as fake wisdom.

 

[Publius]

"The vast majority of the wheat we consume today has been drastically altered from its original form."

Is this a joke? uh duh, literally everything we eat is. Literally everything with DNA is drastically different from thousands or even just hundreds of years ago.

It's call selective breeding in plants & animals. We been doing it since before Jesus.

Though now we can speed up selective breeding through bio engineering. Same results, just quicker. Instead of taking 200 years to grow a crop that has a better output you can just simply move a genetic marker and get it done in a year.

That's why we're able to feed more people than ever. It's because of this the fears of the world running out of food didn't come true.

We can do now what took our ancestors hundreds if not thousands of years to do in a matter of just a few short months or years in regards to selective breeding better plants that give us better/bigger harvests or plants more hardy to insects and diseases.

GMO is our friend. Don't buy the bullshit about it. Almost literally everything is GMO. without genetic modifications we would all be starving to death, literally.

Old world crops COULD NOT produce enough for 8 billion plus people and counting.

There is also zero scientific evidence that proves anything different/harmful between a GMO product and a non-GMO product. Other than one can outgrow/outproduce/out-survive/use less water to grow than the other.

Be smart and rise above the ignorant fear propaganda meant to make you buy unnecessary and overpriced things like "non-gmo" or "organic" items which are worse in the end for the planet/people.

Nature gave us grass. Human intervention gave us bread.

Well actually nature gave us a grass and human intervention gave us corn. I also believe gmo seed are and can be a good thing.

Here’s the issue though. GMO can so quickly make fundamental and unforeseeable changes. To our food supply. Both good and bad in a food crop. The consequences potentially could be catastrophic .

It’s just like anything humans do with technological manipulation of our environment. We must always choose to be cautions and show a little forbearance.

The greater damage to the food quality people eat, or don’t eat. Is what is done with it after is harvested, processed foods.
Excess salts and sugars, unhealthy oils preservatives. Thats where the greatest nutritional value damage occurs.

MRE’s are probably horrible sources of long term nutrition because of how they’re processed. But if you’re starving. Your going to bitch because it’s not organic and ethically sourced. An mre won’t kill you, but if that’s the only thing being offered or consumed. Then a lot of people are going to be suffering chronic constipation.

At the presidential Christmas dinner during one of the years of the civil war. Something like 20 of the 23 dishes served that day was some form of a meat organ or animal fat dish. All organically sourced with zero herbicides or pesticides.
But no one today would consider that a long term healthy diet.

 

[Librarylady]

And make sure it is a multigrain flower with lots of smaller seeds so the weevils are well hidden when you make a loaf . With the weevils it is also protein boosted.

My husband and sons won't eat multigrain bread -- I just buy regular flour/bread flour and freeze it overnight to kill any bugs before they hatch. Same for rice. Less protein , but less whining...

 

[willrod1989]

Almost everything we consume has been genetically engineered to one degree or another. Our cereal crops, produce, and livestock have been selectively bred for millennia. I feel that genetically modified plants can be beneficial when used in the right way, such as being modified to be more drought resistant, heat tolerant, etc.

 

[NuclearID]

Almost everything we consume has been genetically engineered to one degree or another.

Our cereal crops, produce, and livestock have been selectively bred for millennia. I feel that genetically modified plants can be beneficial

when used in the right way, such as being modified to be more drought resistant, heat tolerant, etc.

My point entirely. Besides... the small fact that the theory of the world running out of food in the 70-90's didn't come true due to the simple fact of GMO crops greater harvest outputs and higher durability. Paired with better farm equipment too or using satellites. But mostly comes down to GMO crop yeild increases. Just frustrating GMO gets a bad reputation when it "saved the world".

 

[william]

My point entirely. Besides... the small fact that the theory of the world running out of food in the 70-90's didn't come true due to the simple fact of GMO crops greater harvest outputs and higher durability. Paired with better farm equipment too or using satellites. But mostly comes down to GMO crop yeild increases. Just frustrating GMO gets a bad reputation when it "saved the world".

I don't want to get into a big debate about GMOs. I do agree that a lot of good can come from them. What I'm trying to get across is we need to be careful about playing around with nature. It has a way of coming back to bite you. I found this study helpful.

Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies​

Conclusion​

Serious adverse events accounted for 59.46% of the total 37 identified adverse events of GM consumption, which include: mortality, tumor or cancer, significantly lower number of pup deliveries, decreased learning and reaction abilities, and organ abnormalities in the stomach, intestinal adenoma, mammary glands, pituitary, liver and kidney. The interventions/exposures in the adverse event related studies emphasized on GM soybean, maize and rice in specific GM events. Animal studies occupy the lowest hierarchy of evidence, and there are flaws in study design and is not convincing enough. The evidence on the effect of GM consumption on humans is still insufficient. Further clinical trials and long-term cohort studies in human populations, especially on GM food-related adverse events and the corresponding GM events, are still warranted. It is better to prove the safety before they are approved for food consumption and it also suggests the necessity of labelling on GM food so that consumers can make their own choice.

Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies - Environmental Sciences Europe

Objective A systematic review of animal and human studies was conducted on genetically modified (GM) food consumption to assess its safety in terms of adverse effects/events to inform public concerns and future research. Methods Seven electronic databases were searched from January 1st 1983 till...

link.springer.com

 

[NuclearID]

There is no credible evidence that approved GMO foods are inherently “dangerous” or “unhealthy” compared to non GMO foods.

What I see is a lot of fear, poor understanding, and marketing dressed up as wisdom.

And that fear gets used to scam people out of money.

Half the “healthy food” industry would not exist without endless panic around labels like GMO, non GMO, chemical free, organic, natural, and all the other branding tricks designed to make people feel morally superior at checkout.

It is genuinely sad how many people get suckered out of their money because they will not take two gosh dang minutes to research what they are actually afraid of.

Makes me think I got into the wrong business. Too bad I still believe in humanity and have morals.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Genetic engineering is like any other technology, it has potential for such amazing feats and terrible horrors.
Needs strong regulation, like nuclear technology.

All you need is a PhD, $100k and you could butcher millions (or billions) with a super-virus. Or invent a new plant that could solve world hunger. Or copyright it and make billions off of preventing the use of natural seeds and starving millions. Or cure a type of cancer, or make replacement organs

The list is endless.
To reject it out of hand is foolish, but so is to embrace it blindly.

 

[NuclearID]

To reject it out of hand is foolish, but so is to embrace it blindly.

 

[NuclearID]

Genetic engineering is like any other technology, it has potential for such amazing feats and terrible horrors.
Needs strong regulation, like nuclear technology.

All you need is a PhD, $100k and you could butcher millions (or billions) with a super-virus. Or invent a new plant that could solve world hunger. Or copyright it and make billions off of preventing the use of natural seeds and starving millions. Or cure a type of cancer, or make replacement organs

The list is endless.
To reject it out of hand is foolish, but so is to embrace it blindly.

My only frustration is how much bad reputation it gets even though it saved the world from starvation. The theories of the world running out of food from the 70s through the 90s didn't come true simply because of the fact of GMO crops.

To me it's like almost someone made the cure for cancer and then all of a sudden taboo or superstition or misinformation around the cancer vaccine makes people not take it. Hopefully that is a good enough analogy here.

Just sad to see such willfull ignorance around it. Not accusing anyone of that here, it's just something that grinds my gears.

So don't mind me everyone. Just bitching into the void. I know, or it seems, you all understand where I am coming from.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

My only frustration is how much bad reputation it gets even though it saved the world from starvation. The theories of the world running out of food from the 70s through the 90s didn't come true simply because of the fact of GMO crops.

Just sad to see such willfull ignorance around it. Not accusing anyone of that here it's just something that grinds my gears.

It's already a struggle feeding the planet, GMOs make that easier. Problem is unscrupulous companies (cough cough MONSANTO) and insufficient regulation.
If companies were more open about the whole process, testing, safety etc... I think people would be more open to eating GMOs. Really the blame on lack of uptake is on companies and regulators.

 

[NuclearID]

MONSANTO

Fuck them. I can't believe the shit they have gotten away with along with the other chemical companies in America there isn't a single landmass there isn't a single species that doesn't have their toxic footprint. I wish they could be held fully responsible, of course without ruining the economy....


Note: Edited by Torch. Later this language will seem…unseemly.

 

[NuclearID]

MONSANTO

Do you know that company has been cut purposely spreading GMO seeds (they have a legal patent on) on farms who don't use MONSANTO seeds. Then do a quote on quote random inspection find their seed or crop growing in this Farmer's field and then sue them for everything because they're using a patented crop of MONSANTO.

It's actually a really big issue I have a really huge issue with.

I don't have a problem with GMO crops. I have a problem how American corporations like MONSANTO who have essentially enslaved the American Farmer to their products.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Fuck them. I can't believe the shit I've gotten away with along with the other chemical companies in America there isn't a single landmass there isn't a single species that doesn't have their toxic footprint. I wish they could be held fully responsible, of course without ruining the economy....

I wouldn't be surprised if near the end of the century governments set up some sort of tribunal (Nuremberg-style, but without the hanging) for corporate executives who commit ecocide.

 

[NuclearID]

I wouldn't be surprised if near the end of my life governments set up some sort of tribunal (Nuremberg-style, but without the hanging) for corporate executives who commit ecocide.

They have to. Eventually people will realize... I mean there really isn't a single land mass or a single species that hasn't been contaminated by these companies.... Even Antarctica & North Pole, even though N.P isn't a landmass.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Do you know that company has been cut purposely spreading GMO seeds (they have a legal patent on) on farms who don't use MONSANTO seeds. Then do a quote on quote random inspection find their seed or crop growing in this Farmer's field and then sue them for everything because they're using a patented crop of MONSANTO.

It's actually a really big issue I have a really huge issue with.

I don't have a problem with GMO crops. I have a problem how American corporations like MONSANTO who have essentially enslaved the American Farmer to their products.

Completely agree. It's one of my gripes with GMOs, not the technology but the companies that use them.
It's like inventing nuclear power but only using it on ballistic missile submarines in my view.

 

[NuclearID]

Do you know that company has been cut purposely spreading GMO seeds (they have a legal patent on) on farms who don't use MONSANTO seeds. Then do a quote on quote random inspection find their seed or crop growing in this Farmer's field and then sue them for everything because they're using a patented crop of MONSANTO.

It's actually a really big issue I have a really huge issue with.

I don't have a problem with GMO crops. I have a problem how American corporations like MONSANTO who have essentially enslaved the American Farmer to their products.

MONSANTO/Chemical Companies Exposed:

 

[Friendly Engineer]

They have to. Eventually people will realize... I mean there really isn't a single land mass or a single species that hasn't been contaminated by these companies.... Even Antarctica & North Pole, even though N.P isn't a landmass.

I imagine it'll take a while for America as a country to realise unregulated corporations only have a profit motive to worry about, not the good of the people. Hence why I said nearer the end of the century unfortunately.

I don't mean to come over all communist, I do love a good bit of free enterprise but the buck needs to stop with a regulator.