Had the foresite to wire up the 1946 SC Case 12v negative ground so I can put a Trimble or Garmin on him some day.
Sure...Cry1Ab, Aa, and Ac are the endotoxins common to the soil bacterium B. thurigensis, by nature. It's not uncommon to find plants that are naturally resistant to insect larvae by producing their own methods. And that was the point I was making exactly, it would take decades to hybridize this trait the old fashioned way...planting corn, scouting the fields for undamaged ears, planting those seeds again, repeat, repeat. If this was even possible to do...who knows.
I'm just saying...until there is conclusive, hard, repeatable scientific evidence PROVING that GMO's are harmful in ANY way, I don't see any reason not to use them. I wouldn't even mind labeling them if that's what people want.
The only thing that I fault GMO's on is their public relations effort. I mean we have more people wanting to legalize marijuana, a schedule 1 drug, than ever before all do to the immense PR support. Sometimes, I just don't understand people, that's why I live out in the boondocks.
What people forget is that there is already a study going on with REAL PEOPLE...Millions of real people eating TONS of it everyday with no REAL discernible, attributive effects of consuming GMO's. In fact GMO's are everywhere in food and also used in cosmetics, plastics, fuel and other things. I have no love affair with GMO's other than they increase the profitability of farming grains, reduce input costs and the use of environmentally unsafe chemicals, and they have the ability of increasing food production with out increasing the amount of acres farmed. And as a farmer that is a big deal. It means that growing corn at $4.00/bu is going to bring a profit, rather than breaking even like with conventional corn.
In what used to take years of breeding trials to modify a gene to express a desirable trait, a geneticist can do it in weeks within a lab. This is nothing new. This isn't witchcraft or sorcery. We knew we could do it back in the 1930's but only until recently with high powered computers could we map the entire billions of genetic code to know which protein chains did what.
People will also say "well the long term effects have not been studied thoroughly"...ok..GMO corn came out in 1996..17 years ago...millions of people have been consuming it everyday for the last 17 years. Not lab rats, not monkeys...actual people..millions of them. You, me and that other guy across the room eat it everyday and prob don't even know it. Watch the documentary King Corn, its a real eye-opener.
I'm just saying...until there is conclusive, hard, repeatable scientific evidence PROVING that GMO's are harmful in ANY way, I don't see any reason not to use them. I wouldn't even mind labeling them if that's what people want.
The only thing that I fault GMO's on is their public relations effort. I mean we have more people wanting to legalize marijuana, a schedule 1 drug, than ever before all do to the immense PR support. Sometimes, I just don't understand people, that's why I live out in the boondocks.
On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O. Egeberg wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as a schedule 1 substance,...
"Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."
It's not terribly difficult to compare the health of countries where gmo's have never been allowed to the health of the USA. Countries banning gmo's are not doing so because they fear additional profits from agriculture. But no worries, were healthy in America, right? Oh, wait......not so much. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and on and on and on. I'm sure none of that stuff has anything to do with what we put in our bodies, does it?
Ironic choice in an example:
Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug for one official reason --
Of course the politics of the issue makes that research to resolve the issue difficult to carry out.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Why I changed my mind on weed - CNN.com
If you want to follow the example of marijuana, then GMOs should be banned until conclusive, hard, repeatable scientific evidence proves them safe.
If you think the opposite should apply, then there is no reason for marijuana to be schedule 1.
I'm quite comfortable, just from comments made by supporters in this thread, saying the evidence that GMOs will do harm is clear -- such as rapidly increasing resistance to Bt thus removing an effective organic control from the toolbox of folks who are limited in what they can and will use. Whether they have human health impacts is a considerable void in our knowledge.
You see that's my point.
We understand your points. Most of us also understand that you're a farmer and that your opinions are linked directly to your wallet.
We understand your points. Most of us also understand that you're a farmer and that your opinions are linked directly to your wallet.
My issue mainly centers on the fact that where does all this hatred for GMO's come from? It's not from the scientific community. Even with the fact that it's much easier to prove something is bad for you than to prove something is good for you, we haven't been able to come up with a single example. Not even one. So what is it?
Well by that if you mean that I'm one for making money by growing an inferior product for the consumer, then yes.
Dalmation states that, "I'm quite comfortable, just from comments made by supporters in this thread, saying the evidence that GMOs will do harm is clear."
Really? You get your "evidence" from people off this forum you prob don't even know? And that's good enough for you? Come on Dal, I suggest go to a grower seminar that Monsanto holds and talk to the scientists there with an open mind. Then if you still think that way, well then you have both sides to the story to compare.
Yeah because everyone in Europe is cancer, diabetes, heart disease free due to the fact that the disallow GMO's. What were we thinking? You are right ddh, you have found a link to GMO's and their negative effects while 1000's of scientists all across the world completely missed that.
So are you saying that all the countries which have banned GMO's have done so because they FEAR ADDITIONAL PROFITS from each acre?
It's cute that you're able to ignore facts and magnify hyperbole in your efforts to pimp the GMO's. Shill much?
I know I will never convince anyone otherwise, and that's fine. I'm not some representative from Monsanto. I grow their products and they have a very fine instructional seminars that detail anything you would want to know about GMO products. If you have never been to one then you have a single sided opinion on the matter, in my mind. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That being said, I hope you guys have a wonderful day.
If you care about what your really putting into your body watch this, it's an interview with Dr. Huber on glyphosate(roundup) and the science behind it. It's long but well worth watching. He sums it up great by saying, "Future historians aren't going to judge us by how many tons of pesticides we apply or don't apply, but how willing we are to sacrifice our children in the next generation as well as jeopardize the very basis of our own existence all based upon failed promises and flawed science. The only benefit is it affects the bottom line of a few companies."
Enter your email address to join: