Update from Alissa: If you don’t see your comment yet approved on this post it’s because we’re saving them for Wookiee to look at. So just hang tight, once Wookiee gets a chance to look at them they’ll be approved (since most of you have specific things directed at him in your comment).
Hey hey GMO squashers!
So, life is strange, right? Here we sit in an event all about the Terwilleger family and GMOs created by the fictional Monsarno Corporation and I can’t help laughing at how art imitates life sometimes. In my life, I usually stay off soap boxes regarding issues unless I find them really important. Of course, I say that and then my favorite mobile game brings out an event all about GMOs. Would it surprise you to learn I actually wrote an essay about them?
It’s been a little since I wrote up a diary here so I figured it might be fun to share my essay with the community. In fairness, I’ll just go right out and say I lean towards the non-GMO camp but as frequent readers know, I’m often away for periods while I knock out college stuff. I thought it might interest some of you to read an example of an essay I’ve written (and gotten an A+ on from my liberal Government teacher lol). The essay follows the break and I completely understand if you’re not interested. It does bear on our current animated conundrum though.
In today’s world, the media barrages us every day with threats both foreign and domestic. Additionally, our entertainment shows us dystopian futures from war and pestilence and even discusses catastrophes in our current time. Mutants and zombies dominate the entertainment landscape. Angels turn on humanity and we even have to “fear” sharknadoes, but this is all fiction, right? It’s not possible that we could all be in danger from a domestic threat involving mutation. In this paper, I am going to be discussing Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, to see if that idea is as farfetched as some would have you believe. GMOs are a reality in today’s world and could quite possibly be the science fiction monster we wish was only on the television.
A GMO is an organism that has been modified from its original state using genetic engineering. Genetic modification involves the mutation, insertion, or deletion of genes. In the history of genetic modification, the organisms affected include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. Some might argue genetic modification began as long ago as 12,000 B.C. when mankind first domesticated animals. Arguably, since the advent of agriculture in 10,000 B.C., people have been seeing how to better raise plants and animals but their genetic advances were of a benign and natural state. It’s certainly laughable to imagine a caveman with a gene gun or microscope.
Natural GMOs have occurred from cross pollination for centuries. Bees and other insects take the pollen from one plant and introduce it to another. Even wind can cause this if different organisms are rooted near each other. Usually, this does not result in new organisms but in increased yields or health of plants. An example is that coffee plants and apple orchards can yield up to 20% more if planted near a forest or wild grasslands.
Another natural example of a GMO closer to home for people living in California is the boysenberry. This delicious fruit is a hybrid plant created by Rudolph Boysen in the 1920s. He combined raspberries, blackberries and loganberries successfully to create the boysenberry. His vines almost died but were acquired by a berry expert named Walter Knott who grew them and eventually creating the famous Knott’s Berry Farm franchise. While the boysenberry was created, it was done by letting the three berry plants combine naturally, the agricultural equivalent of breeding a cocker spaniel and a poodle.
All those examples are well and good, but how can this translate to GMOs being bad? To look at this, we head to the 1970s. In 1972, Paul Berg produced the first recombinant DNA molecules. This basically means he added the genes of different species to form one DNA strand. The resulting organism would be a transgenic organism. In 1973, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen successfully transferred the DNA of one organism into another. These two scientific breakthroughs led to the commercialization of the techniques in 1976 which has since led to genetically modified foods and medicines.
Bacteria were the first organisms to be modified and primarily impacted medicines. Research involving them led to great success in altering human proteins. Treatments for diabetes, hemophilia and dwarfism have been among its successes. Other modification to microorganisms has led to ways to convert starch into simple sugars, clot milk protein for cheese and improve the clarity in fruit juices. Of course it has to be stated that all of these result in processed foods. I’ll leave the opinion about those versus natural foods to you.
Research continued and it was inevitable that it would lead to transgenic plants and animals. Genetic experimentation is all well and good when it leads to medicines or reduces disease but it’s another story all together when you have to think about eating them. According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, “Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.”
This website goes on to list nine other reasons to be cautious regarding GMOs including crop contamination, the inclusion of herbicides in products, possible dangerous side effects and environmental harm. To be fair, there are websites stating other opinions. A recent article in The Guardian, a semi-independent newspaper, on July 16th, 2014, discussed how most negative information about GMOs is provided by non-profit organizations and public opinion is usually much more supportive compared to big business. They point out that classic arguments of GMOs being unhealthy and having untrustworthy research may not be one hundred percent accurate. Another article from the Huffington Post posted a day later discusses Monsanto corporation specifically and arguments for them and their GMOs.
Ultimately, it is up to the consumer what to believe but I do feel it is important to note you will find much more negative or cautionary information online than you will supportive. In the book Dollar Democracy, Professor Peter Mathews points out that most legislation regarding GMOs is controlled by the interest of big agricultural businesses like Monsanto. In California, non-GMO interests were able to put a GMO-labeling initiative (Proposition 37) on the ballot. Basically, while it would not halt the creation of genetically modified foods, it would let consumers know what was modified and make their own decisions. “According to the polls in early October 2012, Prop. 37 was leading by a 3 to 1 margin with California voters. It was finally defeated by a close margin by $45.6 million spent against it by huge agricultural and bio-tech corporations. Monsanto and DuPont together gave $13.5 million of the $45.6 million. The pro-GMO labeling side had only $8.7 million to spend.”
Why would big agriculture be so against just the labeling of their GMO foods? If they’re completely safe and healthy and don’t impact anything, what’s the difference? I don’t know about you, but my red flags immediately are raised when corporate business makes that much effort to stifle something. Reminds me of cigarette ads in the 1930s and 1940s with doctor’s supporting their healthiness. If big agribusiness is willing to spend millions to defeat legislation, couldn’t they also spend money on positive press?
The Non-GMO Project points out that despite promises from Biotech industries, “none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.” As for safety, a large number of Americans aren’t satisfied that we won’t find out in 60 years, like the cigarette, that what we were ingesting wasn’t safe. If GMOs are so good, why have over 60 countries banned or highly regulated them? The Project goes on to report that “Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.”
My opinion is that while there are proven natural ways that the world had modified organisms (ex. we are no longer cavemen and boysenberries are delicious), genetically altering food can be dangerous. Adding herbicides to plants doesn’t seem like a great idea. Salmon should not be modified to breed quicker. I certainly would not spray insecticide on my vegetables before I wash and eat them. Ultimately, it really is up to each consumer to research all the available data and make their own opinion. While you do that, I will still eat vegetables from Farmer’s markets and look for organic labels and I’ll continue to look for my horror stories and mutant monsters in areas that are truly fictional. You are what you eat after all.
WORKS CITED
“Genetically modified organism.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism>.
“Institute for Responsible Technology.” – 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs>..
Gunther, Marc. “Why NGOs can’t be trusted on GMOs.” theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 16 July 2014. Web. 20 July 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/jul/16/ngos- nonprofits-gmos-genetically-modified-foods-biotech>.
Conniff, Michael. “CON GAMES: Do GMOs Make Us Gods or Monsters?.”The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 July 2014. Web. 20 July 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-conniff/do-gmos-make-us-gods-or-m_b_5595253.html>.
Mathews, Peter. “CHAPTER 6, BIG AGRIBUSINESS, PESTICIDES, AND GMO’s: SICKENING OUR FOOD.” DOLLAR DEMOCRACY: with Liberty and Justice for Some. : Amazon, 2014. . Print.
“Your Doctor Wants You to Smoke – Photo Essays.” Time. Time Inc., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. <http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212,00.html>.
“GMO Facts.” The NonGMO Project RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. <http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/>.
So there you have it. An essay by yours truly to think about while you squish away those mutant plant people in your game. Never silly to think about the real world while you tap away virtually in my humble opinion. Now I’m off my soap box ready to upgrade my herbicide squirter lol. TSTO is a game after all.
TTFN… Wookiee out!
Honestly, I’ve had to take this event – and the episode that inspired it – with a grain of salt. Wookiee, while I agree with a lot of the posts and feel that your sources tended to follow a trail of confirmation bias, I’m glad to hear that you still merely “lean” against GMOs. I do think we should carefully consider how the food we eat is produced, but I also believe the focus seems to land too often on the wrong facets of the issue. Here are a few of my ramblings on the matter.
First and foremost is the ‘bad health” correlation. The fact is that studies have yet to show any causation between health and GMOs. Many of these studies are performed with lab animals and not humans, though their physiology is similar enough that we should be able to see something in controlled tests. What the fiercer GMO opponents tend to ignore is that so many of the people with ill effects are the children of baby boomers, who lived through the peak of the 20th century and absorbed so many major toxins that took a lot of effort to identify as such. Lead, arsenic, sulfuric acid, and a cocktail of other industrial effluent that industrialists fought fiercely to defend as non-harmful. Also plenty of stuff marketed directly into our homes. Highly processed, preservative-laden foods; a tsunami of fast food, with loads of sugar, salt, fat, and high-temperature carcinogen byproducts. Radioactive materials could be found in everyday objects, such as glowing watch handles. The BPA and phtalates we worry about in our plastics today are small compared to the chemicals leaching out of early synthetics. And let’s not forget tobacco. All these would have much greater genetic and epigenetic effects that would subsequently harm later generations – a notion that HAS been confirmed in lab studies. Mice who ate soybeans with anti-bug gene inserts had no noticeable ill effects, while the damage from industrial pesticides was still evident in the great-grandchildren of the original subjects.
Enough about the actual GMOs. What I consider more worrisome than products such as Monsato’s is their lawyers. They have fiercely hunted down small farmers who “poach” their intellectual property, no matter how unintentionally, and work tirelessly to make sure that people keep paying a premium for their seeds. And that’s about it. At the same time, worries about Roundup have yet to materialize in the real world, and “terminator genes” never made it past an overhyped office memo. Meanwhile, they’ve created a new subsidiary, Seminis, to try make them more like the good guys. Since people were still paranoid about direct gene insertion, they decided to use rapid mass-sequencing to put traditional crossbreeding in fast-forward. Some of their results include supervegetables such as Beneforte broccoli, BellaFina peppers, and Frescada lettuce. All of them could have been produced on any tiny farm by traditional methods, except they wouldn’t have succeeded until at least the mid-2500s.
The thing to remember about big businesses is that none of them are actually “good’ or “evil.” They are modern golems, whose actions are purely determined by those who control them. Those people are in turn motivated by the masses who buy their products. And no matter how much they work to convince us that we crave what they have to offer, at the end of the day we’re the ones making the choice. The more educated and discerning we are, the more they will respond by actually producing what we want.
One last thought. The controversy over GMO labeling has always seemed silly to me. While I agree that we have a right to know what’s in our foods, why do we have to make such a fuss over this one when it can work both ways? We can simply assume that everything has GMOs in it unless it’s labeled otherwise. It’s already an honor to label your products with all the bad stuff they DON’T contain (“gluten-free” diapers, anyone?) Tons of producers are already screaming “GMO-free” from their packages. Proactive advertising is a way better marketing tool than the forced kind anyway, so maybe add a few inspectors here and there to certify that the labels are legit and everyone can have their right to know.
That was a superbly written response! I particularly like the golem analogy.
If I may ask, what do you do for a living (or what are you studying in school, if you’re not working yet)? You seem to be both knowledgeable on this subject and a very good writer, so I’m curious about your background…
Yes. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
If anything, I despise Monsanto more for trying to patent seeds and abuse those patents, especially in developing economies. It’s so harmful to folks who are already struggling, not to mention mindblowingly greedy.
You state: “According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, ‘Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996… Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor… ‘ ”
You later pose the question “Why would big agriculture be so against just the labeling of their GMO foods?”
Not familiar enough with the science to have an opinion on GMOs one way or the other, a non-conspiritoral answer might simply be because these for-profit corporations, quite justifiably, fear a loss in revenue due to thier products being labeled “potentially harmful” when no firm eveidence seems to exist that they are.
That said, I’m not naive enough to believe that Monsanto, et al, are beyond hiding the truth. I’m just pointing out that their anti-labeling stance isn’t proof of obfuscation. 😉
Great essay Wookie. I try to stay away from GMOs. I think the products should be labeled. The fact that people who work for Monsanto have also worked for the FDA and vice versa concerns me. The decision made by the WTO last week makes me angry. As a consumer I feel I have the right to the information they are saying is somehow unfair. Thanks for sharing.
Just needed to say that this is why I love this website. You guys don’t just go through the motions. You guys put a lot of effort into making this a great community and I think it’s really awesome that this website allows for people to share things like this with each other.
So during my time as a bioengineering undergraduate in the middle of a very liberal California city, I had a lot of discussions that revolved around GMOs. I’m now a graduate student in rehabilitative robotics so I’m not directly in biomolecular field but I TA for a bio-ethics class once in a while and get 50-100 papers that delve into this topic.
First topic I typically start with is the beneficial GMO products like Golden Rice, which provide vitamin A to 3rd world countries reduce the risk of childhood deaths due to vitamin A deficiency. It’s even affordable for those third world families as UNICEF provides it at the same price as regular rice seed. Or for those of you against pesticides being widely sprayed on fields and being washed away into the water system where it can contaminate a number of other ecosystems we have the Bt crops which are plants with inactive toxins that only get activated by the acids within a bugs digestive track(different chemistry than a mammal digestive track, so no harm to mammals). There are a number of others with varying levels of benefit but both of these really don’t have a draw back.
I was actually in the middle of taking the bio-ethics class as an undergraduate when the Prop 37 bill was being set up for voting, so we really delved into it and the vote really divided my friends heavily. It was a bill that packaged different foods into the labeled and unlabeled categories without scientific basis (same thing happened to the tomato back in the late 1800s because the tariff office wanted to get money for the vegetable import tax, even though tomatoes are fruits *grumpy face*). Prop 37s problem was that it was heavily altered by “organic” companies, and a few others that wanted their products not to be considered GMOs (organics are a whole separate pile of knots) and the new classifications had no scientific basis by the time the bill hit the ballots. While the idea of that label might be good it would have been meaningless by the time it was implemented.
Im by no means saying that the GMO industry doesn’t have its issues, Monsanto is great at research but unnecessarily and ruthlessly heavy-handed when it comes to patent infringement, but most of the anti GMO papers I see are very circumspect without much scientific evidence to support it. This was a well put together paper and Im always interested in the subject but it always seems like the anti-GMO crowd wants to ignore that we wouldn’t be making GMOs in the first place if there wasnt some good qualities to them.
Those are just my two cents worth.
Great essay Wookie, you definitely have a talent for writing. Unfortunately though, the sources you used are not so good. The Institute for Responsible Technology for example has a definite anti-GMO agenda and all their ‘claims’ have been rebuked. In fact, all GMO studies that have shown any negative effects at all have been rebuked, multiple times. As for public opinion, unfortunately most people are just uneducated. For example, there was a study this year that showed that over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA”. I found this pretty funny. To each their own though, if people don’t want to eat GMO foods then that’s their right.
Once again great essay, I love the personal touch you guys give to this site, keep it up!
All I would say about sources is….when you’re writing a paper you tend to start with what you want to say and you find sources that’ll back up what you’re saying. Whether great sources or not…if they support what you’re trying to get out there you use them and it’s up to your professor to say if their good or not. And in this case (since he got a a) his prof probably agrees 100% so said ok theses sources work. But if he went the other way and used similar sources his prof probably would have ripped it to shreds.. oh college! 😉
I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that it’s up to your professor to judge whether the source is good or not. There ARE empirical ways to judge the reliability of a source, especially if that source is a scientific study. How large was N? Was it a double-blind study? Who funded the study and who ran it? Was it peer-reviewed?, etc. Plus, it isn’t the professor’s job to look up all of your sources and investigate them to see if they’re sound…that just isn’t practical, especially if it’s a large class.
Having just graduated college 8 years ago…lol trust me…my professors ripped my sources to shreds ALWAYS in my poly-sci classes because I always disagreed with what they said. Hard to say the constitution of the United States isn’t a credible source.
If it’s NOT a science (or research) based class and you’re writing an opinion paper, it’s up to the professor to decide if what you’re saying works.
OMG – I *need* a link to that study! That’s the most depressingly funny thing I’ve heard all week! And it illustrates perfectly the point I made in my response add to why companies don’t want to put GMO labels on their products, even if it’s is safe.
I remember in high school I wrote a “debate” paper, taking the “pro” side to the issue of chemicals in foods. I started my paper by providing a long list of chemicals and then explained that that was a list of the chemicals that made up an unadulterated piece of steak. People are so afraid of the word “chemicals,” that they forget (or don’t realize) that everything is made up of them. (All of the amusing “hydrogen dioxide” stuff comes to mind here, too…) On the flip side, so many people equate “all natural” with “safe,” forgetting there are plenty of poisonous “all natural” things, like arsenic.
It would be funnier if it weren’t all so sad….
I like you Sandra, everything I wanted to say on this topic you have already said 🙂
Here’s that link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/
I was curious about Wookie’s use of Wikipedia as a source. In nursing school we were told to NEVER use Wikipedia as a reference because the info can be altered anonymously by users. As this was 9 or so years ago, is this not the case anymore with Wikipedia or is this a rule for certain fields of study? I would never go to Wikipedia for a question about the chemotherapy I’m administering to a patient but I do go to Wikipedia to read about many topics, however I always find myself verifying the info I find.
I think it depends on the professor you have honestly. Personally I was also told to never use Wiki, I dunno what Wookiee’s prof said was ok or not.
Thanks girl. Good point, guess it depends on the prof. I like Wikipedia b/c the info is easily accessible and many times, regardless of the difficulty of the subject, it is written in layman’s terms. Either way I enjoyed Wookie’s write up about GMOs, I think it’s one of those great topics that bring about debate. I am one who loves to talk about controversial topics, conspiracies, politics, religion. I have friends from all walks of life, we are all so close but are so very different in our beliefs and thoughts on life. What side a person takes in a discussion doesn’t matter, we all deserve our own opinion. For me, it’s how one approaches the topic…will they be defensive, offensive, judgmental, etc? To me talking about controversial topics brings out people’s true selves.
Forgot to add…thanks for sharing Wookie. I love talking about controversial topics. It’s always neat to see other’s opinions, to see if people are strongly one way or the other, or if they see both the good and the bad. It looks like we have a bit of it all with this topic.
Also, I love that TSTO added our GMO jelly blob on a broken chain to the mix…set free to drive us all crazy….I have to say, personally, eating drives me crazy, Im one of those shoppers that reads the label on everything I buy. The GMO label is just one more thing to add to my list that freaks me out about food.
This is a topic I am very interested in. I think what freaks me out the most about GMOs is the sprays used to keep them going. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds, especially weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. Commercial crops are being sprayed with tons of glyphosate because weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to the herbicide. I pulled the following information to share as it furthers the previous statement…
“In one test, GE corn was found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GE corn. Besides chelating micronutrients, glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic. What’s worse, glyphosate preferentially affects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over in the human gut. Two doctors, Seneff and Samsel reveal in a recent study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, glyphosate is probably the most harmful chronic toxin we’ve ever encountered, and could possibly be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies today—including Alzheimer’s, autism, Crohn’s disease, gluten intolerance, leaky gut and many others.”
Definitely makes me question it all. Anyways…in my opinion, food intolerance has greatly increased. Terrible health conditions plague more of the population than ever. One thing I do know is the food we are eating is causing an abundance of health issues. I don’t know if it’s related to GMOs or if it’s just because eating healthy is expensive and often time consuming. For many, it’s much easier to go through a drive thru than cook for yourself (or family to those who have kiddies to care for) after a long day on the job. I rarely eat fast food as I’m not a meat eater and bean tacos can only be eaten so much…but wow do I miss that convenience and the prices. I am lucky enough to have the option to choose organic and non-gmo and I do try to eat that way (If the bank account is willing) but many don’t have that luxury. I do feel we need to feed the hungry and if this is the way to do it, then so be it. I can’t argue with that.
Either way, good or bad, I am very interested to see how all this all plays out. Time will tell.
I think that worm-eating corn is the thing I not sure want to eat.
By the way, I experienced a natural GMO of been pollinated some of our Paprika plants which were would be “sweet” to be hot, and they pollinated another one with some purple tomato pollin (Paprika and tomato, and potato are in the same class of vegetables), and it resulted a savory-flavored green Paprika (pepper), which had some purple strands.
nice job. With every crappy blog spitting nonsense to grab reads, this one is a very nice job stating facts and low on opinion. You should share it on other places.
Better check your third sentence – MonsanTo is most definitely not fictional…
Fixed… thanks
that was a really good read bro. Allot of things to consider
Yeah, great essay!
I think it’s unnatural and will have bad results in the future, engineering them not to be diseased and stuff can’t be good in the long run.
I’m not sure if Lisa was right in saying it could end world hunger.
You got an A for this, huh? Wow. No peer-reviewed scientific studies, Wikipedia, and a few anti-GMO articles. Cognitive dissonance much? As to why not label…what relevant information would be obtained from labeling? It’s a breeding method; it would be like labeling humans conceived via in-vitro. http://gawker.com/is-the-gmo-labeling-movement-just-a-long-con-to-get-you-1699015048?rev=1429716485258. As for pesticides, GMOs require far less than conventional crops, including, and especially organic. The Genetic Literacy Project is a good site to learn more about GMOs (and other things). http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/
Totally digging the genetic literacy project site…Thanks for providing the webpage Lyaia. Pesticides were my main concern about GMOs, as I stated in my post above. However it was nice to read on the genetic literacy project site about GMOs potential to help with pesticide poisoning…”a positive of insect-resistant eggplant that would allow farmers in Bangladesh to spray less pesticide where pesticide poisoning is a chronic health problem.” So thank you for making me feel slightly better about my pesticide ridden diet. 🙂 gosh food makes me neurotic.
Though I haven’t read the full post yet (and I may or may not later) I do appriciate Wookie for taking the time to share is feelings and thoughts regarding this topic mainly for the relation to the Event but even if it wasn’t such as Red Nose Day, it’s refreshing to take a slight break from our true obsession and addiction of TSTO. Sometimes we take this game so seriously that we forget there is a reality out there (speaking for myself).
So once again I don’t mind these little breaks. and for folks whom aren’t interested “Don’t read it”, “Change the Channel” (I know this isn’t TV but you know what I mean).
I must admit some things should be off limits on here and I know that everyone involved (including Wookie) is smart enough to know what those things are.
Now with that being said most of you already stopped reading what it is I am saying now… I look Forward for all relative posts (like this one), and posts about good news and good causes (like Baby News and Red Nose Day) in the future. And most of all allowing us to have the oppertunity to comment on those posts. 🙂
This whole article is just parroting the same outrageous anti-science, anti-gmo bs. You’re actually using the institute of responsible technology and non-gmo project as a source? What a ***** joke. Maybe try paying attention to actual science instead of organic propaganda. Stick to tapped out because science isn’t your forte.
If you want to learn actually learn something
reason.com/archives/2013/02/22/the-top-five-lies-about-biotech-crops
It’s one of the reasons why I like this event so much. I think it’s great when important topics are brought into the mainstream to be discussed. I personally don’t like being the guinea pig. I think we have a right to choose and know exactly what’s in our food and that labeling is a very important right as a consumer. Whether or not you believe GMO’s are bad you should be able to choose for yourself. Thanks for sharing !
that took a lot of time thank you
Gmos are the devils food.
Mmmmm… Devil’s food….with extra-thick frosting…..ghlaaaaaa
Love it! I just feel like we all evolve. . .but as you point out it’s not a fast process. Changing the geonome of all of the packaged food out there over a matter of a couple of decades seems risky
I guess what we can truly learn from this is that GMO’s are truly a mystery we may never fully come to understand. Yup, a true mystery of science.
Great job, Wookie. 👏 A+
Nicely written, but the argument against still seems to be largely conjecture. In terms of the statistics, “correlation is not causation,” add even the concerned scientists pointed out. (BTW, my own guess add to what’s caused the increase in some of medical issues mentioned is the hyper-cleanliness thing our society got into, which both didn’t allow kids to build up proper natural immunity and also, with the use of Triclosan(sp?) and other anti-bacterial products, has helped to breed “super germs.” (Oh, and don’t get me started on the overuse of antibiotics…))
As for why companies wouldn’t want to label their food to reflect that it contains GMOs if they’re perfectly safe, it’s probably because they know that a lot of people are scared that it isn’t safe, just because they’ve heard somebody say that somewhere and haven’t bothered to find out whether it’s true or not. (Remember, this is the same country in which a significant number of people still think that Obama’s a Muslim and other ridiculous, proven false things. People here are easily scared….)
Now all of that doesn’t mean that I’m in any way sure that GMOs are perfectly safe…I haven’t yet seen any significant studies for either side. But I do know that they’ve helped keep a lot of people better fed in third-world countries and I don’t think that increasing the ease, efficiency, and speed of the genetic modifications that, as you point out, we’ve been making for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, should necessarily be a scary thing.
I totally agree with what you are saying about the science not being clear, but my thought is if I am wrong to avoid them I’m just wasting money, but if I’m right I’m potentially extending my life and improving the quality.
Yes it is helping with crops in third world countries, but in this country we produce way more food than is needed to feed everyone and we throw away such a large percentage of what is produced that the argument seems a bit disingenuous.
Until science has shown it to be deadly or horrible for the environment I’m not for banning them, but I am for labeling so we can choose for our selves.
I appreciate seeing this counterpoint here. It may be a minority opinion, but the fact is that there has been absolutely no scientific evidence found of harm to health from GMO foods. Keep in mind that livestock have been eating them almost exclusively for 30 years, so we would absolutely know, with overwhelming evidence, if they were causing a health problem.
In some ways, the anti-GMO position reminds me of those who are anti-vaccine. The world desperately needs all the food we can produce; without GMO developments to boat crop yields, we’re likely to face a world food shortage crisis in the future. We need to be careful not to let fear of the unknown stop us from making needed progress.
Okay, that’s more than enough seriousness to last a year of so! 🙂
Oh, please don’t get me started on dangerous irresponsibility of the anti-vaxers (anti-vaccers?)!
Obama’s not Muslim? 😉
I think one of the main reasons Americans are scared so easily is the media. It seems we can’t get a straight/honest answer about anything. Important topics that should be discussed are hidden or ignored, while topics that should be left alone are blown out of proportion over and over. Sometimes it seems without turmoil people are unhappy.
I agree with the super clean thing we have going on. I’ve seen some pretty nasty infections as a nurse, near impossible to clear because of antibiotic resistant bacterias but then there’s many of us who are colonized with MRSA, carrying it around in our nose or on our skin and are never affected by it. Strange little boogers. My personal thoughts on antibiotics, Id have to be near death before I would ever take another one of those evil pills!
Please tell me you just forgot your winkie face after your first sentence, lol!
Huh, there is a winky face after my first sentence…does the emoticon only show on my iPad?!
Sorry, my bad – I was reading your post in email (rather than on the site) and those types of emoticons don’t show up in my email.
Just glad it was there, lol! 😉
Sandra, you made my point for me! The whole thing is similar to the arguments against various innovations over the years, and is all based on fear. Why have numerous countries banned GMO foods? Because of fear, not science. The problem on the other side of the scale is that some very large corporations have done some very wicked things in the name of profits, so nobody knows what to believe. Examples of this include Big Tobacco claiming their products are safe, manufacturers refusing to recall unsafe products for years or decades, private prison companies funding so-called tough on crime legislation, military arms manufacturers advocating for various wars, and let’s not forget the diamond mining near-monopoly that artificially raises the prices of diamonds by about ten-fold. There are many more similar examples of this type of action, and so it is natural that many people don’t trust what large corporations say anymore.
From the other side, however, the arguments against GMO products strongly remind me of the arguments against di-hydrogen monoxide (DHMO). About 20 years ago, a group started pushing for a ban on this safe substance. They pointed out a number of facts, such as the fact that DHMO is used as an industrial solvent and coolant, and DHMO is used as a fire suppressant, and it can be found in many fertilizers and pesticides, etc. They also pointed out (correctly) that it is found in acid rain, inside the excised tumors of lab rats, and that it is an addictive substance – withdrawal means certain death! They then complained that the US Congress refuses to ban or significantly restrict use of this substance as a food additive. Today (in 2015) this substance is still not restricted as a food additive, and it is still used in a wide variety of commercial, industrial, and even military applications. Written like this, it might seem kind of scary, but I really don’t mind if this substance is in my food or drinks. I know that DHMO is perfectly safe, unless it is contaminated with other chemicals, but then it would be those other chemicals that would worry me. I’ve been consuming DHMO all my life and it hasn’t hurt me yet. I realize that this last statement won’t be enough to convince most people of it’s safety, but maybe this will: DHMO is an alternate way of saying the chemical name of water! Di-hydrogen is the way two hydrogen atoms in a molecule are described by chemists, and monoxide means one oxygen. Most people know that water is H2O but forget that there are multiple correct ways of describing chemical names. This lack of scientific understanding allows those with an agenda to manipule people; the question is which side is doing it more?
@Wookiee – I can certainly see why your essay got a good grade: it does what any good essay is supposed to do in that it leads the reader down the path you want them to follow, it cites its sources, and of course the grammar and spelling are correct. If all of your coursework gets this same attention and effort, I suspect you’ll do quite well!
Hey
Great essay. I agree with you that there is no way adding things like pesticides to vegetables could possibly be good. I am a vegan so I have been aware of what I’m eating for a long time. Its almost impossible to completely avoid any food with gmo’s. I love yr point about if gmo’s are safe why do these corporations continue to fight their products being labeled as such. Anyway, I enjoyed reading yr essay and I was happy to see our little springfields get in the debate. I have always loved how a silly little cartoon can make big statement and even though it’s kept light hearted there is a message that can be found. Lisa Simpson was one of the reasons I started looking into becoming a vegaterian so it can make people think. That’s also why I love this site and I was happy to see an essay like this on here because it will make people think. I know we’re here to have fun but as with the simpsons, it’s good to think sometimes. Thanx and have fun.
A rather cogent and well reasoned essay. I need to look at your sources, and form my own opinions. I am kind of neutral on the subject, as I feel more research is needed. I’m leaning towards pro GMO, but with a big caveat. More research is needed to see if the effects of GMOs is causation rather than correlation. We need to know what the effects are before we wantonly consume, grow, and alter the organisms. The legal, ethical, and scientific issues need to be resolved.
This is a blog about TSTO. I’d prefer to not have articles about social and political topics. The only opinion I value from this site is the opinions about this game, not politics, religion, or social issues. Please don’t let you’re excellent TSTO blog decline into something like the other sites with irrelevant info.
As the title of the post states…it’s a Diary of a Wookiee…i.e. a look into wookiee’s personal thoughts about things. Wookiee has been doing these posts since the start of this site. It’s a Friday night, just something Wookiee wrote up and wanted to share, since everything in the game right now is about GMOs. Sometimes you gotta take some things with a grain of salt my friend…. (especially since he stated his position at the start of the post & said, he completely understands if you don’t want to read it)
Still the article deals with politics. On other occasions you asked not to mix up these kind of opinions with TSTO-stuff, so this post might be disturbing…
Anyway: great blog, very informative and time-saving for people like me who like TSTO without wanting to spend a fulltime job to keep up with everything :). Keep up the good work!
Does it really tho? The only mention of politics is prop 37. Doesn’t say this party is this and that party is that. Controversial? Ok because everyone had opinions on it. But political? Nah. He ends it by saying in the end it’s up to the consumer…and not some push for a worldwide ban. You should read my papers from college….those were political Lol
That’s so rude of you. The update is about GMOs. Wookie wanted to share what he feels about the same topic. Sheesh.
Well…the game itself brought up this particular social and political topic, as does the TV show upon which the game is based. If you don’t want to think about social and political issues, this may be the wrong game for you.
It is not up to the consumer to decide if GMOs are safe or not. All current consumer GMOs are safe, that is a scientific fact. You don’t get to choose facts. The anti-gmo groups are not supported by science and alot of what is quoted is outright not true. The anti-gmo camp is entirely idealogical and not based on any facts. Don’t be antisomething because corporations are behind it. Be anti-something because of the facts support it.
Let’s look at some of the things that were at one point considered safe.
Fen-fen (maybe misspelled, was a weight loss drug)
Thalidomide
Asbestos
Cigarettes (at one point doctors were helping to advertise them)
Lead paint
I could go on.
Science has not yet proven them to be safe, it had only failed to prove them deadly. That takes more time and we’ve got plenty of examples where the scientific answer changed with more time.
You are welcome to continue reading them, the rest of us would just like labels so we can avoid them.
Good work! I’d have given you an A too!
Comparing GMOs to cigarettes is absurd.
Why have so many countries and people in general fear genetically modified food? The gist of it is lack of information. It sounds scary, unnatural and they simply don’t know the actual science of it. The alternative is increasingly powerful herbicides and insecticides on non GMO. Since folks are familiar with those, they don’t fear them as the term “genetically modified,” but it doesn’t make that method better. Organic is great, but won’t feed the masses.
Cool! Now if you’ll excuse me, I will eat some pomato fries with pomato ketchup!