RE: Anti-GMO's for Profit
October 18, 2012 at 8:38 am
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2012 at 8:39 am by thesummerqueen.)
I don't like a lot of Monsanto's practices, nor the heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers. I'm in agreement with you about resource distribution, which I think contributes to much more of the problem than weather conditions. Plants can adapt to weather and so can humans - humans can't adapt to greed.
Also, not a botanist - budding horticulturalist.
As for plants growing their own toxins or responding to chemicals, that's what they do. They're a bag of chemicals all around; no 'common sense' needed. Some are good for humans and some aren't. The argument becomes "will this end up harming humans" up the food chain, and thus far no good science has emerged saying it does.
Plants are far more complicated than the anti-GMO crowd generally let on. Some absorb poisons and filter them out. Some hold on to them. Some are poisonous unless you cook them a certain way. Some are poisonous only a portion of the year. Some are only poisonous in certain areas of the plant itself. Some are only poisonous over time of consumption. If there is a chemical that's genetically engineered into a plant, the question again is not whether the plant can handle it and grow healthy and ripe, but whether or not the "poison" will linger for human consumption. The closest we've seen is a study an organic site threw up that in the end said that some of the chemicals were found...in a pregnant woman...in tiny amounts...and she already had a compromised immune system, but the levels were far below what would have harmed her. But to mislead people, all the site said was "SEE?@!!?!jr THEY'RE LINGERING IN HUMAN SYSTEMS!!"
Also, you have to take into account the chemical used - if the chemical is something that breaks down easily, it's probably not as big a worry as say...hmm, is it arsenic they're finding in rice?
Also, not a botanist - budding horticulturalist.
As for plants growing their own toxins or responding to chemicals, that's what they do. They're a bag of chemicals all around; no 'common sense' needed. Some are good for humans and some aren't. The argument becomes "will this end up harming humans" up the food chain, and thus far no good science has emerged saying it does.
Plants are far more complicated than the anti-GMO crowd generally let on. Some absorb poisons and filter them out. Some hold on to them. Some are poisonous unless you cook them a certain way. Some are poisonous only a portion of the year. Some are only poisonous in certain areas of the plant itself. Some are only poisonous over time of consumption. If there is a chemical that's genetically engineered into a plant, the question again is not whether the plant can handle it and grow healthy and ripe, but whether or not the "poison" will linger for human consumption. The closest we've seen is a study an organic site threw up that in the end said that some of the chemicals were found...in a pregnant woman...in tiny amounts...and she already had a compromised immune system, but the levels were far below what would have harmed her. But to mislead people, all the site said was "SEE?@!!?!jr THEY'RE LINGERING IN HUMAN SYSTEMS!!"
Also, you have to take into account the chemical used - if the chemical is something that breaks down easily, it's probably not as big a worry as say...hmm, is it arsenic they're finding in rice?
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
