Genetically Modified Foods

[Liberated Counties]

My nation uses genetically modified food in Order to provide cheap and healthy food to its workers and also preventing vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition.

IRL I personally wouldn't eat it unless it was labeled what they'd changed.

[Ovisterra]

My nation uses genetically modified food in Order to provide cheap and healthy food to its workers and also preventing vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition.

General is OOC.

IRL I personally wouldn't eat it unless it was labeled what they'd changed.

Tell me, are you a vegetarian?

[Great Nepal]

They are the future and there is no real argument against them.

They're also the past. We've been eating GM foods at least since the Industrial Revolution.

True, I mean in terms of labs rather than cross-breading.

IRL I personally wouldn't eat it unless it was labeled what they'd changed.

Do you also want it to be labelled that food was handled by black people?

[Liberated Counties]

My nation uses genetically modified food in Order to provide cheap and healthy food to its workers and also preventing vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition.

General is OOC.

IRL I personally wouldn't eat it unless it was labeled what they'd changed.

Tell me, are you a vegetarian?

I believe in humane slaughtering and organic free range farming. Though I'm thinking about transitioning from Meat to Qourn.

[Ovisterra]

General is OOC.



Tell me, are you a vegetarian?

I believe in humane slaughtering and organic free range farming.

If you eat farmed meat, you eat GM food. In fact, if you eat farmed anything, you're probably eating GM food.

[Liberated Counties]

I believe in humane slaughtering and organic free range farming.

If you eat farmed meat, you eat GM food. In fact, if you eat farmed anything, you're probably eating GM food.

Yeah. I know, but I never assumed it was that extreme of GM. Is it?

[Ovisterra]

If you eat farmed meat, you eat GM food. In fact, if you eat farmed anything, you're probably eating GM food.

Yeah. I know, but I never assumed it was that extreme of GM. Is it?

What's "extreme GM"? The point is, you said you'd never eat GM food that wasn't labelled as such when, in fact, you already do.

[Liberated Counties]

Yeah. I know, but I never assumed it was that extreme of GM. Is it?

What's "extreme GM"? The point is, you said you'd never eat GM food that wasn't labelled as such when, in fact, you already do.

Well, sorry for not being totally knowledgeable on the topic of genetic modification. It's not a topic that I discuss regularly.

[Great Nepal]

Yeah. I know, but I never assumed it was that extreme of GM. Is it?

What's "extreme GM"? The point is, you said you'd never eat GM food that wasn't labelled as such when, in fact, you already do.

Just put "GM" in every single food...

[Ovisterra]

What's "extreme GM"? The point is, you said you'd never eat GM food that wasn't labelled as such when, in fact, you already do.

Well, sorry for not being totally knowledgeable on the topic of genetic modification. It's not a topic that I discuss regularly.

I'm not asking you to know everything about everything, I'm asking you to know what you're talking about before talking about it.

If you don't know much about a topic, research it before bullshitting about it.

[Immoren]

GMOs? Yes please.

[Liberated Counties]

Well, sorry for not being totally knowledgeable on the topic of genetic modification. It's not a topic that I discuss regularly.

I'm not asking you to know everything about everything, I'm asking you to know what you're talking about before talking about it.

You were the one that decided to interrogate me on my stance on GM. I am aware there is genetic modification I merely expressed that personally I'd like to know in which ways it was changed. Allow someone to atleast express their opinion before claiming their some sort of idiot. And if you don't mind, I'm not to keen on talking to you anymore.

[Ovisterra]

I'm not asking you to know everything about everything, I'm asking you to know what you're talking about before talking about it.

You were the one that decided to interrogate me on my stance on GM.

Posting your opinion in NSG and expecting it not to be dissected and analysed is a tad naive.

I am aware there is genetic modification I merely expressed that personally I'd like to know in which ways it was changed.

True, true. But I don't see why it makes a difference.

Allow someone to atleast express their opinion before claiming their some sort of idiot.

A. I allowed you to express your opinion, then called you out on it. If I hadn't, I'd have nothing to call you out on.
B. I never called you an idiot. That'd be attacking the poster, not the argument, and that's not allowed.

And if you don't mind, I'm not to keen on talking to you anymore.

And I'm very happy for you.

[Liberated Counties]

You were the one that decided to interrogate me on my stance on GM.

Posting your opinion in NSG and expecting it not to be dissected and analysed is a tad naive.

I am aware there is genetic modification I merely expressed that personally I'd like to know in which ways it was changed.

True, true. But I don't see why it makes a difference.

Allow someone to atleast express their opinion before claiming their some sort of idiot.

A. I allowed you to express your opinion, then called you out on it. If I hadn't, I'd have nothing to call you out on.
B. I never called you an idiot. That'd be attacking the poster, not the argument, and that's not allowed.

And if you don't mind, I'm not to keen on talking to you anymore.

And I'm very happy for you.

That was a cue for you to stop replying. You can dissect my opinion but telling me to "know what I'm talking about" wasn't cool. I was asking you to explain your opinion mostly and educate me since I am ignorant about genetically modified food. But don't worry now.

[Ovisterra]

Posting your opinion in NSG and expecting it not to be dissected and analysed is a tad naive.



True, true. But I don't see why it makes a difference.



A. I allowed you to express your opinion, then called you out on it. If I hadn't, I'd have nothing to call you out on.
B. I never called you an idiot. That'd be attacking the poster, not the argument, and that's not allowed.



And I'm very happy for you.

That was a cue for you to stop replying.

I'll reply all I like, thanks. You don't have to read 'em.

You can dissect my opinion but telling me to "know what I'm talking about" wasn't cool.

Oh well. I felt it was necessary.

[Liberated Counties]

That was a cue for you to stop replying.

I'll reply all I like, thanks. You don't have to read 'em.

You can dissect my opinion but telling me to "know what I'm talking about" wasn't cool.

Oh well. I felt it was necessary.

I was mostly allowing for you to explain your opinion to me since I am ignorant to the matter of genetic modified foods. But don't worry now.

[Ovisterra]

I'll reply all I like, thanks. You don't have to read 'em.



Oh well. I felt it was necessary.

I was mostly allowing for you to explain your opinion to me since I am ignorant to the matter of genetic modified foods.

If you'd like me to explain things, then say so and I will be happy to oblige as best I can. However, if you don't tell me, I can't do that.

But don't worry now.

I'm not worrying.

[CTALNH]

What is your view on genetically modified foods? Why?

End world hunger!

[Liberated Counties]

I was mostly allowing for you to explain your opinion to me since I am ignorant to the matter of genetic modified foods.

If you'd like me to explain things, then say so and I will be happy to oblige as best I can. However, if you don't tell me, I can't do that.

But don't worry now.

I'm not worrying.

"but I never assumed it was that extreme of GM. Is it?" Yeah I was.
Sorry for being rude. But I didn't set myself up to come across as ignorant. And being told that wasn't alright with me.

[70 Ophiuchi]

I believe that they should be encouraged, as long as they are intensely tested and labeled as GM.

Label them so people can be able to know what they are buying. That is my opinion on the genetically modified foods as knowledge is half of the battle.

They should most DEFINITELY be labeled as such!

People have a right to know what they're buying. It doesn't harm anything, just reduces liabilities and angry customers.

The estimates I've seen indicate that it'll cause about a 10% price increase for absolutely no benefit (genetically modified food is safer and better for the environment).

Because if one wants to eat naturally, then they should be able to. This artificial attack on natural food makes it difficult to tell what's truly natural and what's been artificially toyed with...

There is no such thing as natural food, all food has been genetically modified.

Besides, why should those who don't care about your preferences (and who may be right on the poverty line) have to pay 10% extra just to satisfy someone who doesn't understand basic science?

Not really extra packaging, just either two more printed letters (GM) or not.

There's quite a bit more to it than that, in many cases it means running additional unnecessary production lines, it means storing GMO grains separately from non-GMO ones, it means keeping an audit trail, etc.

Now if someone wants to advertise their food as not containing transgenic products they should be able to and there wouldn't be much of an objection to charging them with fraud should they lie about it, but those who do not care about whether or not the food is our latest technology should not be forced to pay for the measures that would be required for labelling.

It is bad public policy to raise food prices to satisfy rich people with a bad grasp of science, those people can pay more for food if they want, but they should not force the poor who can barely afford food to pay extra.

I don't think it should be labelled, because that would seem to encourage ignorance about GMOs.

That is pretty much all it does.

What's not natural? "Natural foods" is a term devised by the USDA to allow some farmers to charge you up the wazoo for the same food you can by on the next shelf over for a third the price.

Not quite, the higher priced stuff is actually of inferior quality.

I support GM foods myself, but there are some drawbacks. For instance, the insertion of another protein, while contributing to hardiness, could also, for instance, form a chemical that is toxic to the plant's main pollinators. If you have studied much advanced biology, you would know that genetic modification nearly always has unplanned effects.

GMOs are the most extensively tested foods in history and we have yet to have any problems from them (it's really just a more precise way of doing what we've been doing for thousands of years).

Selective breeding and mutation breeding are much more likely to cause us problems given that we don't even know which genes we're changing, even then they have worked pretty well (that the people who oppose GMOs don't oppose mutation breeding is pretty good evidence they don't know what their talking about).

GM foods are short-term, can not effectively assess the risk of human eating GM food for decades.

We've been using transgenic technology for decades and we've been genetically modifying plants for millennia. There's also no scientific reason to suspect that the GMOs that have been approved would have adverse effects (they are the most extensively tested foods in history).

Pictures of rats from another study, who were fed a lifetime diet of GMOs and developed tumors:

Which the scientific community showed to be a bunch of crap within 24 hours of publication (namely that the rats used have a high propensity for tumours).

Crackpots have a tendency of posting crap in low impact journals, people who are as ignorant of science as you are unable to tell that they are crap (the guy who wrote that has a known history of publishing crap).

Read http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ioned.html

Why does man constantly try to play God?

If we don't, who will?

Ban GMOs, or at the very least label them.

Why would you want to ban the safest part of our food supply?

Why would you want to force people on the poverty line to pay 10% more for their food?

Hm, I didn't know that they were tested. still, 90 days is not sufficient testing. Sometimes scientists spend years testing new genomes.

How con you say that?

What needs to be tested with GMOs depends on exactly what modifications have been made, in some cases there will be very little need for testing, in others there will be a lot.

For the most part we test GMOs too extensively (that we haven't had any problems from them is pretty good proof of that) which drives up the cost of bringing a GMO to market to the point at which small companies can't afford it and have to sell out to a big company (the anti-GMO activists think they are opposing Monsanto, but they're actually working for them).

Consumers have every right to be fully informed as to the origin and nature of the products they buy. Hence, GMO foods should be labeled as such. I don't have any inherent issue with GMOs, I do however believe people should be informed regarding their status via labeling so they can make an informed decision.

The problem is that people won't make an informed decision, instead they'll think it's a warning label when it is actually a quality label.

But anyway, if you get your way food will become more expensive, poor people may find they can't afford to eat, do you really want that?

i couldnt care less, just label it and test it

Labelling is a waste of money, testing is already too extensive and should be more focused on what might actually be potential problems.

They should also know the country of origin, use of antibiotics in its production and any genetic modification used in its production as well as any other factors affecting the process from farm to store.

What does it matter where the food comes from? If the country of origin follows the proper procedures it doesn't matter.

Antibiotics are useful in agriculture provided they aren't overused, there is no need to spread fear over it or increase the cost of food.

Like whether or not a black guy handled it?

Be about as relevant as a lot of the labelling the Luddites want.

Nice strawman, but no...many countries exporting foodstuffs to the U.S. have food production and preparation standards well below those set in the United States and our inspectors can only do so much to ensure adherence of imports to our standards, especially with such a limited budget. For that very reason consumers have every right to know where their food comes from before they buy it.

A lot of those countries actually have better standards, party because they'll be more likely to lose their right to export food than a domestic company that screws up.

Not that hard, a standard pack of meat in the US has a good 80-90% of the package being clear cellophane wrapping (which is useless as a determinant for the freshness of meat to begin with).

It isn't the size of the packaging, but the requirement to account for what is a GMO and what isn't and have separate production lines to ensure the stuff that doesn't have the GMO pseudowarning doesn't contain any GMOs.

That being said, a simple description that the product in question is genetically modified is sufficient.

A simple description stating that it is safer and more environmentally friendly would be more accurate.

This is one of the few occasions in which the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies...

10% increase in the cost of food is something to fear.

The whole GMO labelling crap is rich idiots trying to get the poor to subsidise their irrational food preferences.

if the GMO products can't compete in the market with labeling requirements, they either need to change public opinion or their production strategies to ensure compliance with informed consumers' demands.

There is no such thing as an informed customer who demands that their food not be a GMO product.

That's a false equivalency.

No it isn't.

It doesn't matter why the organism was modified, the point is that the product was made from a GMO compared to a conventional product.

Which means it's better, GMOs are safer and more environmentally friendly.

A product made in a factory with black workers vs. non-black workers will be entirely the same assuming the standards in place are the same and similarly enforced whereas GMO products are inherently different from non-GMO products.

All food is genetically modified, there is no such thing as natural food.

I'm pretty sure messing with genetics is just not that simple. There's been talk of promoting antibiotic resistance in bacteria, decrease in nutritional value, vastly increased potential for allergies, and any number of things. There's never been any studies done reguarding the long term effects on rats or other animals, let alone humans.

There is no decrease in nutritional value with GMOs (and significant potential to increase it, e.g. Golden Rice), potential for reduced allergies (by removing the genes that code for the proteins that cause the allergies), of course if you're adding genes from something that causes allergies you do need to test the GMO for it, which is in fact done (and GMOs that cause allergies don't end up on the market, i.e. the testing worked).

People have been eating GMOs for decades, no problems have been found and extensive animal testing hasn't uncovered any reason to suspect that they are more dangerous than normal foods.

Now 'organic' foods, well just look what happened in Germany not too long ago (i.e. people died).

And much more intensive and rapid with unknown long-term consequences. There's a big difference between 10,000 years of selective breeding and compressing that same progress into 10 years' worth.

No, transgenic technology means that we know exactly what we are modifying, with selective breeding you don't actually know what you're going to get out of it and whether any undesirable traits will slip in, but with transgenic technology you know what you are changing and so you can also figure out from that what you need to test (main one is that if you're moving genes from a crop that is known to cause allergies you need to test for those allergies before putting it on the market).

1) There's a huge difference between selective breeding and direct genome manipulation.

Yes there is, direct genome manipulation is less likely to cause traits we don't want to appear.

Simply put, selective breeding allows natural forces to modify the plant... well, naturally.

Who cares? Nature doesn't give a s*** about us.

Whereas direct manipulation is done by people who may have an imperfect knowledge (we still have a lot to learn about genetics), don't really know what they're doing... etc.

They know a lot more about nature, which is not an intelligent entity.

3) I should think that would be obvious: it tells you that a private corporation tampered with it on a basic level.

Why should anyone care?

When it comes to what I put in my body, I don't trust them much farther than I can throw them.

I trust nature even less, those private companies if they poison their customers will lose business, maybe even face lawsuits, nature won't be harmed if it kills you.

How do I know they're not purposefully removing the nutrition from it so that it doesn't make you full, and you buy more?

WTF?

Or modifying it to be addictive? You get the point.

That would be illegal (nothing to say the 'organic' farm run by hippies isn't putting marijuana in their produces to make you buy more of it).

Well, the weeds and bugs are developing resistance to the pesticide. So, more will have to be added anyway.

Not more, different, if they develop resistance then we'll need to switch to something else, in which case having both GMOs and pesticides in our inventory would be much better than only having one (there are also ways to reduce the incidence of resistance, e.g. growing unmodified crops nearby to ensure some pests in the population aren't resistant, pesticide resistance tends to be a recessive trait which helps).

Plus the internal pesticides tend to kill the pollinators...

Like how Bt corn killed the monarch butterfly.

Oh wait, it didn't.

However, I do believe prudence in their application and use and information of the consumer as to these products is important.

We've used it for decades without any problems and it can lower the cost of food and environmental impact of food production.

Starvation is a far bigger problem than the imaginary problems of GMOs.

A good chunk of the GMOs made are sterile, it takes a lot of money to genetically engineer a crop to have certain traits, and the companies that do so use everything they can to grind that money out of the farmers. This means forcing them to buy new seeds every year. Its a shitty business practice and my only real gripe against GM foods. Although I do get the reasoning behind it. Its the same reason why many prescription drugs cost a lot to make but have cheap ingredients, the cost of development is massive and they need to make the money back.

Actually the crops can breed, just that the licence agreement says not to.

Hybrid seeds which were the state of the art before GMOs came along don't breed true so if you wanted to use them you had to buy new seeds from a seed company, that means that farmers in the west were already used to doing exactly that.

But even so, a farmer who thinks the biotech companies are ripping them off is always free to use their old non-GMO crops, they just don't get the benefit of the modifications.

GMOs also aren't all that expensive to make, it's the testing that costs a lot of money and I do think we do far too much of it.

A boy with a nut allergy had a near fatal allergic reaction to a GMO wheat taco wrap because that wheat taco wrap had some of the ingredients genetically modified to include genes from nuts but that information was not placed on the wheat taco wrap plastic nor was it labeled GMO so there was no way to guess that there was any chance of that happening.

Source or shut up?

Because the only case I know of in which genes from nuts were transferred into GMO crops didn't go to market because testing found that it caused an allergic reaction (and it wasn't even intended for human consumption either, it was animal feed).

Still, we know what gene causes the protein responsible for nut allergy, so eventually peanuts that don't cause allergic reactions should come on the market. They'll be GMOs (and from my point of view once the patent expires it should be illegal to grow any peanuts that haven't had the genes coding for that protein removed).

When the term GMO is used it is talking about methods of crossing genes between plants and animals that are normally blocked by natural breeding barriers, GMO is not the crossbreeding your parents did.

No it isn't, it's something quite a bit better.

nature knows how to regulate the environment better than man does....

Nature doesn't know anything, it just does whatever it does and we get to suffer the consequences.

the problem is with the real reason they are being genetically modified and introduced. it comes down to making people in poor countries starve so that rich agrachem giants can get richer.

You have this back the front, 'organic' foods are about starving the poor so that the rich can get richer, GMOs are about feeding all ≈10 billion people we are expecting to eventually have on this planet with less environmental impact (we're also going to have to do that with a changing climate that may be less hospitable, you can thank the anti-nuclear movement for that one).

Besides, nothing stopping third world farmers from using the old style crops.

and if that wasn't bad enough, it is the natural diversity of natural food seedstocks are being threatened,

No it isn't, seedbanks still exist while new transgenic strains produce increased diversity of our crops (and also allow to react a lot quicker if we realise we need a different trait due to changing environmental conditions).

meaning more famine for the poor so the very few that are already fatter then they need to be can get fatter.

Actually it's opposition to GMOs that is causing famine (the anti-GMO activists who convinced starving African nations to reject perfectly safe food aid are murders as far as I'm concerned) while GMOs can me made to grow in conditions that the traditional crops won't handle thereby meaning there is less chance of a famine should the weather be bad.

it is the patenting of food genetics and the legal insanity that we are seeing as a result.

With a sensible testing regime there may not be a need for patents on genes, but even so the system has not been as bad as is commonly assumed (I've yet to hear of anyone being sued because their field was accidentally contaminated without them specifically selecting for the GMO (and even then it's doubtful whether the roundup ready canola got there by accident)).

all of these problems need to be solved equitably before genetically modified food stocks are introduced, and the problem is, in a world controlled by corporate economic interests, they're not even being addressed.

The problems with GMOs exist only in your imagination.

when universities were first developing the concept it was a fine romantic notion, to increase food supplies to keep pace with population growth.
if only that had been what it has turned out to be.

If the testing required actually had something to do with proving safety and environmental friendliness instead of merely adding cost so that only big companies could play it'd do a lot more to help.

that's still a fine notion. the problem again is with the corporatization and trying to make it all be about little green pieces of paper, instead of people and other living things being able to eat regular.

Capitalism works better at putting food on the table than communism.

The real problem is that small companies can't afford to bring them to market because there is too much testing required, reducing the amount of testing would mean the biotech startups wouldn't need to sell out to Monsanto and the like.

its natural selection, meaning its suppose to happen that way. But when it comes to regulating any given environment, its better at creating an equilibrium than we ever could.

There is no such thing as a balance of nature, it is just creatures trying to survive and reproduce with a constantly shifting equilibrium.

So what happens when we introduce a new species of corn with an internal pesticide? Either it kills insects (including pollinators) or it allows an environment where the insects are growing a resistance to pesticides and thus make them harder to kill.

Then we change the pesticide we use, having GMOs means we have more options to deal with pests.

Farms cannot regulate themselves, they do not have an equilibrium.

Nothing in nature has a lasting equilibrium either.

The only way a farm can survive prosperously is if there's a farmer constantly tending to his crop. In reality, if there were no farmer to tend to the farm, then nature will overrun the farm and reassert its dominance over the land.

So?

Yes it is. Let me put it like this: Through years of natural selection and co-evolution organisms in an environment know how to sustain their environment. Ex: The grass eat up the nutrients from the soil it is on, the grasshopper eats the grass, the rabbit eats the grasshopper, the fox eats the rabbit, the fox excrements the remains of the rabbit, the excrements enrich the soil, and then the cycle repeats.... The circle of life if you will.

That is called the balance of nature fallacy.

What actually happens is that the animals are all in an arms race to pass on their genes to as many descendants as possible without any regard for those they eat.

Your getting it all wrong, organism don't know how to regulate their ecosystem, but they regulate it nonetheless.

No they don't, they just eat, breed, suffer and die while competing with each other to have the most kids, there is no balance of nature.

You introduce any kind of variable into a self-regulating ecosystem and there's going to be consequences. Whether that by a swarm of locusts eating up all the crop, resulting in a smaller population, or if its done by killing off a certain kind of a consumer, which leads to less competition for food, which leads to overpopulation, which leads to starvation latter on. My understanding isn't "basic", its common sense, which is something you seem to lack.

No, your understanding is based on a fallacy which the scientific community gave up.

Too bad that wasn't grounded in science or logic, unlike mine, which is.

No your's isn't, you are basing what you are saying on a belief that nature has balance, it does not.

Thank's to Mr "I don't want an orbiting Death Machine" Kennedy we sadly don't really have that as a practical option.

Star Wars was a completely do-able and useful program.

That wasn't SDI, the actual proposal that was referring to was a nuclear bomb propelled spaceship that would be able to orbit the earth and drop nuclear bombs on the Soviets (the people who proposed it also proposed exploration ships, pity they never got a chance to build those ones).

We also innovated the nuclear bomb,

If we weren't so squeamish about them we'd have a Mars colony by now.

If we can genetically engineer anything we want to, should we? Should we not abide by a code of ethics when it comes to rewriting the genetic history of a species?

We already do, you don't see Monsanto going around modifying crops to be poisonous to their customers.

Throughout the history of the Earth, most epidemics and ill fates have been caused by human interactions.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

To deny that foreign species can become invasive and disrupt an ecosystem, is to deny fact.

To deny that the ecosystem adapts is to deny fact.

As for protecting ecosystems, I love that idea, but, like any, it can be taken too far. They should be protected to the extent that it benefits our own survival, any further is stupid.

I think we could take it somewhat further than merely benefiting our survival, aesthetic preferences are indeed valid and it does just so happen that most people want to keep some parts of the planet in a state approximating nature without us, just that we need to honest and admit that much of environmentalism is about aesthetics.

It's so those that don't want to eat it don't have to without having to do extensive research themselves

What about the rights of those who don't want to pay 10% extra for their food? Do they count?

What about those who can barely even afford food?

It is bad public policy to increase the cost of food to appease the scientifically ignorant.

I'm living healthy right now because I am cutting GMOs out of my diet, at least as much as i can. Since I've been eating healthy, like not eating fast food, GMOs, and eating organic I've lost quite a bit of weight and feel healthy.

You are now more likely to die from food poisoning.

My problem with GMO's especially seeds is.

Monsanto creates gmo seed , farmer plants seed, farmer has extra seed from harvest, farmer cannot replant the seed because it is genetic property and the farmer can be sued.

The farmer has the option of not using the GMO if they want to replant seeds.

Western farmers were already used to buying seeds from seed companies as hybrids don't breed true (i.e. if you try to replant the seed you won't get the beneficial traits) so it isn't a problem among those used to it.

Even if they could replant them a lot of farmers prefer to let the professionals at seed companies handle it for them.

Patents do have one big advantages: they expire after 20 years.

Well, GMF is not bad, so long the product its not GMF only because resistance.

Whilst it would be better to add some more beneficial traits even that is useful.

If you GMF a product only because have a better resistance is just only useful in the short-term, but a bad step in the long-term.

It's not at all a bad thing in the long term, we can adapt to the pests as well and there are also methods to delay the formation of resistance (leaving some unmodified crops nearby to provide a habitat for pests that aren't resistant, the resistance genes are recessive meaning that they'll get bred out).

Look to antibiotics this days, more and more viruses and bacteria's are resistance for most antibiotics. And on a day, if we not use antibiotics on a wise way, then some viruses and bacteria's are immune for all antibiotics, and are we back to the 1920's.

Which would still be less worse than if antibiotics had never been discovered.

Though we are constantly making new antibiotics, phages also show some promise.

We must accept that harvest sometimes are bad, its not always sunny.

Sounds almost like you're saying that we must accept periodic famine.

[Sociobiology]

Well, GMF is not bad, so long the product its not GMF only because resistance. If you GMF a product only because have a better resistance is just only useful in the short-term, but a bad step in the long-term. Look to antibiotics this days, more and more viruses and bacteria's are resistance for most antibiotics. And on a day, if we not use antibiotics on a wise way, then some viruses and bacteria's are immune for all antibiotics, and are we back to the 1920's.

We must accept that harvest sometimes are bad, its not always sunny. And of course, GMF is not bad, so long its not in the name of: More resistance.

all viruses are immune to antibiotics.
antibiotic resistance in abcteria is due to three things,
1.dumping antibiotic into the environment, which happens because we put antibiotics in things that don't need it.
2. people taking antibiotics who don't need it, if you have a cold antibiotics are not going to help so leave your doctor alone.
3. People who don't take all of their antibiotics when they are prescribed. the dosage is set to kill off all the invading bacteria not just some of them, by stopping your regiment when you feel better you are actively breeding resistant bacteria inside yourself.

[Wikkiwallana]

My problem with GMO's especially seeds is.

Monsanto creates gmo seed , farmer plants seed, farmer has extra seed from harvest, farmer cannot replant the seed because it is genetic property and the farmer can be sued.

That's not a problem with GMOs, that's a problem with copyright laws.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'll keep it in mind should I ever consider injecting MSG straight into my brain; meanwhile, studies of people actually ingesting it in the normal method, via their mouths, show no replicable problems.

not to mention they had to get it to about a 10% concentration, shit I would like to know what doesn't harm the brain at those concentrations.

Intracranial fluid?

[70 Ophiuchi]

That's not a problem with GMOs, that's a problem with copyright laws.

Patent laws actually, though really patenting of GMOs is a perversion of the patent system to be more like copyright (just without the whole lasting forever part).

Interestingly enough biotech is one of the areas where patents actually sort of work, most of it is a lot worse (software patents are an unusually bad case).

[Salandriagado]

Mankind loves itself so much it now believes it can have a say in the composition of the food we eat but we cant feed the hungry.

GMOs are the best shot we've got at feeding the hungry. What with Golden Rice fixing Vitamin A deficiency all over SEA, NERICA improving crop yields in Guinea, and draught-resistant maize in Africa, it's a good start.