There is a huge amount of misinformation going around about the topic of “GMO’s”, many articles have been written about this subject, this is just yet another article trying to present some of that information available in a easy to integrate manner for those who wish to understand the objectively verifiable information on this subject.
“GMO” is not even the proper term for what most people are referring to, so i guess i can clarify upon that a bit here..
The current usage of the term “GMO” (Genetically Modified Organism) is both nonspecific and confusing. And often it is used to imply that there is something unsafe or unnatural when in fact it seems to have been occurring for millions of years. It is precisely this confusion that organizations like Chipotle and Whole foods are trying to capitalize on by claiming that its food is healthier solely on the grounds it is ‘GMO-free.’
As our understanding of evolution increases, we’re beginning to see that genetic exchange between species is nothing outside the realm of possibility, a ‘Franken-nothing’ if you will. It doesn’t mean that introducing genetically modified insects does not have any consequences.
We are Not saying that corporate genetic engineering is good, it could be potentially “bad”. Pretty much everything created under capitalism has intrinsic Planned obsolescence, or built-in obsolescence, which in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete (that is, unfashionable or no longer functional) after a certain period of time. The rationale behind the strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as “shortening the replacement cycle”).
That being said, the term “GMO” is misleading, apples, banana’s, watermelon, dogs, cats, broccoli, corn, and a myriad of domesticated organisms we have around and use today are considered “GMO”, are they bad?
The problem with calling these foods “GMO” is that it’s too broad of a definition. geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam at the University of California, says that virtually every food has been genetically modified in some way. If two plants in nature happen to exchange pollen and produce a changed plant, that’s technically genetic modification.
The Food and Drug Administration ( FDA or USFDA) , on the other hand, defines Genetic Engineering as “the name for certain methods that scientists use to introduce new traits or characteristics to an organism.” Those methods include things like the targeted introduction or suppression of genes to get a specific response out of a plant or animal. An example of these types of plants would be herbicide resistant soy beans or corn.
The term it would seem most people are actually using when they say “GMO” is actually “GEO”.
GEO’s – Genetically Engineered Organism’s refer to foods, plants or animals, for which DNA has been altered to create desirable traits; such as a resistance to herbicides, using the previously mentioned targeted techniques have only been in the food supply since the 1990s, whereas “GMO’s” have been around since time immemorial.
GMO’s – Genetically Modified Organisms refer to nearly everything in the environment that has been genetically modified in any manner.
The genetic modification may be either through human manipulation or as a result of traditional plant breeding methods like selective breeding or crossbreeding between plants within the same species.
On the other hand, again, genetically engineered organisms (GEO) foods refer to foods for which DNA has been altered by human manipulation, often by inserting genes from unrelated species, to introduce new, desirable traits to that organism; genetically engineered foods occur artificially in a way that would not otherwise happen in nature.
This is the key difference between GMO’s and GEO’s.
We often hear the age old adage: Ignorance is bliss.
Ignorance most certainly can be seemingly blissful for people who use it for their own benefits especially when those with knowledge use it against those without, or it can even be a wonderful way to ignore reality that contradicts your cognitive biases.
A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input. An individual’s construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality, often times creating a sense of cognitive dissonance.
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.
Take the debate over the safety of Genetically modified foods (GMO). The only reason there is a debate at all is due to the ignorance of people.
Now, first of all, let me dispel some ignorance surrounding the word ignorance. It doesn’t mean dumb. It’s not a bad word. The dictionary definition of ignorance is simply: The lack of knowledge or understanding of something. No one can know everything, omniscience is not currently a reality. We are all ignorant of a great many subjects, here a great quote by Aristotle to that affect – “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.”
As such, we rely on professionals and experts to give us legitimate, and unbiased, objectively verifiable information.
But even then, under our current societal operating construct of competition based economic growth, many so-called professionals prey upon this ignorance by giving us just enough information for the average person to jump to erroneous conclusions, thereby able to profit from said ignorance and pushed ignorance / willful ignorance.
Ok, back to GMO. In an effort to reduce your ignorance on the subject, let’s learn some facts.
- Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops:
- Overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research:
An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research | 可嘉 颜 – Academia.edu
- Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods:
- Prima facie evidence that a phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a toxic risk in the human diet.
- Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion.
- Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition. 2nd communication: glufosinate tolerant sugar beets (roots and silage) and maize grains for ruminants and pigs.
- Nutritional assessment of genetically modified rapeseed synthesizing high amounts of mid-chain fatty acids including production responses of growing-finishing pigs.
- Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops.
- Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines.
- A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants.
The reasons why we even required GEO / GMO products to begin with are directly due to the harmful, outdated and unsustainable methods we currently use for majority cultivation worldwide and the opposition of the negative systemic effects bred from such.
The main reason there is a need for insecticides, herbicides and pesticides are due to these horrible methods of food cultivation such as monocropping and non-silvopastoral livestock practices.
While economically these are very efficient systems, allowing for specialization in equipment and crop production, monocropping and factory farming are also controversial, as these practices can damage the soil ecology (including depletion or reduction in diversity of soil nutrients) and provide an unbuffered niche for parasitic species, increasing crop vulnerability to opportunistic insects, plants, and microorganisms. The result is a more fragile ecosystem with an increased dependency on pesticides and artificial fertilizers.”
The #1 cause of Anthropogenic ecocide is the destruction caused from Mono-culture food production. As it were, more-so than all other issues, is the detriment that monocropping causes to the environment due to the constant degradation of soil, affecting the microbiome, the insects, affecting the plants, thus still further affecting animals, all the way up the chain of this ecosystem as a whole.
This outdated and harmful food cultivation method being used specifically for the forced scarcity effect of capitalism.
This is direct proof that we are in No Way cultivating food production Correctly.
The act of monocropping and non-silvopastoral livestock applications, are the main factors in the destruction of the environment, but yet these are very economically profitable manners of production, as well as long since integrated and operated into societal operations, and will be hard to transition from, but if we do not, then our species is at risk of large areas of uninhabitable land on earth for a majority of our species.
Although thankfully we have numerous Solutions to these very serious issues!
Just to present 3 of those potential solutions..
Here is an article i wrote about Agroecology: Here is an an article i wrote about Biotecture: Here is an article i wrote about science:
APR #12 Agroecology | ThinkandAct.Earth APR #13 Biotecture | ThinkandAct.Earth APR #9 What is “Science” | ThinkandAct.Earth
What the issue the public seems to have is when corporate structures try and monopolize on products and actions in the way it happens in this system of corporatism. The maximization of profit gains has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency, sustainability or wellness, so why would we look at anything created under this pretext as “good”?
Capitalism is the issue here, “GMO’s” are just being exploited as is everything else.
It is called Big Organic.
And they promote and advocate for Misinformation for profit, just like all other “big” corporations.
In fact, the term “big” really means nothing at all, corporatism operates from the foundational basis of the maximization of profit gains.
This means everything produced for profit would have to have the prefix of “big” according the logic presented.
This action of misleading the public for profit generation though, is oppressive, harmful and disingenuous, and will be countered and opposed, using factual information, rationale, logic and critical thought processes.
Just about every particle of food you eat, has been or is still being Genetically Modified, the labeling of and claim of danger of these products are largely unfounded, and debunk claims from regurgitations of ignorance and/or willful ignorance.
Capitalism | `Illusion’ of “capital”/ “property”/ “ownership”: Is a societal economic growth system based upon constant competition to maximize profit gains, utilizing infinite growth on a finite planet, that inherently only semi benefits one percent of the human populace, to the direct detriment of the entire ecosystem as a global societal operating construct.
Capitalism is the socio-economic system that evolved as an alternative to feudalism, and yes, It worked for awhile and brought about lots of great things, as well as lots of horrible things.
We are currently globally under a societal operating model of one form of capitalism or another.
The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion. But many of us don’t trust these assurances. We’re drawn to skeptics who say that there’s more to the story, that some studies have found risks associated with GMOs, and that Monsanto is covering it up.
Yes, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case Against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, bias and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
A common myth is that the crops use “terminator seed” technology (technical name Genetic Use Restriction Technology, GURT) which causes the crops to yield sterile seeds. However, while testing has been conducted on GURT, there is actually a moratorium on its commercial use due to public opposition. Monsanto has also pledged not to use the technology.
Despite all the propaganda, GURT is actually a good thing because it stops planted GMFs from expanding into the wild—one of the few realistic concerns about GMFs. Seeds that cannot be saved for replanting are nothing new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, in wide use since the 1920s, do not produce true copies in the second generation due to the existence of hybrid vigor. Therefore, new seed must be bought every year from a plant breeder to keep its desirable characteristics.
One of the few dangers of GURT would be in those rare cases if it were to fail. GURT is engineered as a genetic trait, which means it can and will mutate, and a germline mutation that deactivates the GURT geneplex would mean the seeds would be fertile. Were GURT actually implemented in real farms, the farmers would have to maintain the same vigilance they do today against GM seed or pollen escaping into the wild, just in case one of these deactivating mutations were to arise.
Vandana Shiva has claimed that GURT may somehow spread to wild plants and cause the total destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. This is complete lunacy, since by definition sterility is not inheritable.
The central argument of the anti-GMO movement—that prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, food—is a sham. Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.
There are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering isn’t a thing. It’s a process that can be used in different ways to create different things. To think clearly about GMOs, you have to distinguish among the applications and focus on the substance of each case. If you’re concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label won’t tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.
In 1901 a Japanese biologist discovered that a strain of bacteria was killing his country’s silkworms. Scientists gave the bacteria a name: Bacillus thuringiensis. It turned out to be handy for protecting crops from insects. Farmers and environmentalists loved it. It was natural, effective, and harmless to vertebrates.
In the mid-1980s, Belgian researchers found a better way to produce the insecticide. They put a gene from the bacteria into tobacco plants. When bugs tried to eat the plants, they died. Now farmers wouldn’t need the bacteria. Plants that had the new gene, known as Bt, could produce the insecticidal protein on their own.
Environmentalists flipped. What upset them wasn’t the insecticide but the genetic engineering. Thus began the strange backlash against Bt crops. A protein that everyone had previously agreed was innocuous suddenly became a menace. To many critics of biotechnology, the long history of safe Bt use was irrelevant. What mattered was that Bt was now a GMO. And GMOs were evil.
In 1995 the EPA approved Bt potatoes, corn, and cotton. The agency noted that the toxin produced by these crops was “identical to that produced naturally in the bacterium” and “affects insects when ingested, but not mammals.” But opponents weren’t mollified. In 1999 a coalition led by Greenpeace, the Center for Food Safety, the Pesticide Action Network, and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements sued the EPA to revoke its approvals. The suit said Bt crops might create insecticide-resistant insects and cause “direct harm to non-target organisms.”
The coalition claimed to speak for environmental caution. But its caution was curiously selective. Thirty of the 34 farmers who were identified in the lawsuit as victims and plaintiffs affirmed that they sprayed Bt on their own crops. Fourteen of the 16 farming organizations listed as plaintiffs said they had members who used Bt spray. One plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, was a “supplier of organic fertilizers and pest controls” whose business “consists of selling foliar Bt products to conventional apple growers.” Another was “one of the largest suppliers of beneficial insects and natural organisms designed to control agricultural pests,” including “several Bt products.”
We aren’t born with fear. It’s learned through environment, structural violence, experience, and manipulation by others. When knowledge alone ceases to convince someone of an opinion, the weak resort to fear. And no where are scare tactics more employed than with GMO. Below are few of the common frights.
1) GMO isn’t “natural” and natural is always better. An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’, or bad because it is ‘unnatural'”. It can be a bad argument, because the implicit (unstated) primary premise “What is natural is good” typically is irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined in a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.
I hear this argument with everything we eat and, In this case, it holds even less water. A changed gene is a changed gene.Whether a gene changes due to random events or deliberately, the cause is irrelevant. When you turn on a light switch, does the manner in which you turned it on change the quality of the light? Nature does things by accident and randomly. Is this how you really want your food? in most cases, natural just means longer and slower (and in some cases uncontrolled).
2) We don’t know the long term effect of eating GMO. This is the classic cop-out and default argument when you have exhausted any real science. Threaten us with our darkest fear…. the UNKNOWN. If we had followed this argument, we would never have eaten anything (or for that matter created any technology) This is the scientific equivalent of the catch-22. The long term effect can only be studied if it’s IN USE for a long time. We can never know the long term effect of something we don’t use. This argument could be applied to ANYTHING. This is pure bunk.
3) GMO can create foods that are poisonous and contain unnatural chemicals. This is a manner of the Naturalistic fallacy. When the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on what is, or what ought not to be, based on what is not. This is very common, and most people never see the problem with these kinds of assertions due to accepted social and moral norms. This bypasses reason and we fail to ask why something that is, ought to be that way.
The benefit of producing a GM food is that it is in a laboratory setting. Foods that are produced can be analyzed and every chemical in them can be detected. We already know what is in a safe apple. If a GM apple has the same content except say more or less of something that already exists (say sugar), then the new apple is just as safe. This is science..
4) The majority of GM foods are being developed by big corporations that only want to increase profits. This one is true. And most of the genetic modifications seems to be more about making produce yield more and spoil less – things that certainly would benefit the growers and producers. But this is a political and ethical debate and not a scientific debate. Using false science and scare tactics simply to achieve your anti-corporate agenda is not an end justifying the means. GM can also make foods more pest resistant reducing the needs for pesticides, could make them last longer so they can be shipped to places not normally accessible to fresh produce.
Every day you eat foods that were created by both intentional and accidental actions. In fact, occasionally, you’ll even eat a mutated food if it wasn’t caught during sorting and processing. Am I saying we should just go and start making everything in a lab?. Surely not. And any time a food is modified we should know about it and show the safety tests that have been done to verify that. But needlessly scaring people to force an opinion isn’t the answer.
The strangest part of the case against Bt / GMO / GEO crops is the putative evidence of harm. Numerous studies have found that Bt is one of the world’s safest pesticides. Still, if you run enough experiments on any pesticide, a few will produce correlations that look worrisome. But that’s just the first step in challenging a scientific consensus. Experts then debate whether the correlations are causal and whether the effects are important. They ask for better, controlled experiments to validate the pattern. That’s where the case against Bt crops and other GMOs has repeatedly failed.
Anti-GMO zealots refuse to face the truth about Bt. Two years ago the Organic Consumers Association and its allied website GreenMedInfo published the headline “New Study Links GMO Food to Leukemia.” Today that headline remains uncorrected, even though the study was done with Bt spore crystals, which are components of Bt spray, not Bt crops. (The study is a mess. Most of what was fed to the test animals wasn’t Bt toxin, and the write-up, for undisclosed reasons, was withdrawn from an established journal and published instead in a journal that had never before existed.) Meanwhile, last year, Greenpeace published a catalog of “exemplary” agriculture, in which it celebrated a Spanish farm where “the use of Bacillus thuringiensis is being expanded to a greater cultivated surface area.” Both organizations encourage you to buy organic, neglecting to mention the dozens of Bt insecticides approved for use in organic agriculture.
GMO labels won’t clear this up. They won’t tell you whether there’s Bt in your food. They’ll only give you the illusion that you’ve escaped it. That’s one lesson of the Non-GMO Project, whose voluntary labels purport to give you an “informed choice” about what’s in your food.
That’s the fundamental flaw in the anti-GMO movement. It only pretends to inform you. When you push past its dogmas and examine the evidence, you realize that the movement’s fixation on genetic engineering has been an enormous mistake. The principles it claims to stand for—environmental protection, public health, community agriculture—are better served by considering the facts of each case than by treating GMOs, categorically, as a proxy for all that’s wrong with the world. That’s the truth, in all its messy complexity. Too bad it won’t fit on a label.
There is In Fact, horrible and Very Serious Issues we as all face on earth in this liminal time of our culminated existence.
It is quite sad the current reality of the general population, because instead of facing those Actual Issues, many fall victim to the diversionary and divisive tactics that are pushed by counter-intelligence actions of the “government” (old world corporation) that claims “ownership” of its “citizens” (person indebted to state for certain privileges) and the earth’s natural resources.
Including the fools that are Banking off the Alternative bullshit that people immediately go to when turning away from the blatant nonsense that is the mainstream media. Just because the alternative’s sound good, or goes against the mainstream bullshit, does Not mean it is the Way to go or even factual.
This is why we promote Science Literacy, this way you can think for yourself logically to be able to Effectively combat oppression on your own, without falling victim to the many forms of it.
Up to this point, we’ve been focusing on health concerns about GMOs. The stories of papaya, Bt, and Golden Rice demonstrate, in several ways, that these concerns are unfounded. One thing we’ve learned is that fear of GMOs is unfalsifiable. Hundreds of studies have been done, and tons of GE food have been eaten. No amount of evidence will convince the doomsayers that GMOs are safe. You can’t live your life clinging to such unappeasable fear. Let it go.
Another thing we’ve learned is that it makes no sense to avoid GMOs based on standards that nobody applies to non-GMO food. Yes, it’s conceivable that you could overdose on vitamin A or ingest a viral or insecticidal protein from eating fruits, grains, or vegetables. But GMOs don’t make any of these scenarios more likely or more dangerous. In fact, if you look at illness or direct fatalities—or at correlations between food sales and disease trends, which anti-GMO activists like to do—you can make a better case against organic food than against GMOs.
But safety isn’t the only concern that’s been raised about GMOs. There are other criticisms, and one of them is worth your attention. It addresses the world’s most common agricultural application of genetic engineering: herbicide tolerance.
Three-quarters of the corn and cotton grown in this country is engineered to resist insects. These crops have the bacterial Bt gene, which makes them lethal to bugs that eat them. Slightly more than that, about 80 percent to 85 percent of corn and cotton, is engineered to withstand weed-killing chemicals, especially glyphosate, which is sold as Roundup. (The two traits are usually packaged together.) The percentages are similar for soy. Worldwide, insect-resistant crops are grown on about 50 percent of the land allotted to GMOs, while herbicide-tolerant crops are grown on more than 80 percent.
Both applications are considered pesticidal, because weeds, like bugs, are pests. And this is crucial to understanding the debate over whether GMOs, as a whole, have raised or lowered the level of pesticide use. One study, published in 2012 by Charles Benbrook, the most sensible critic of GMOs, calculates that GMOs increased pesticide use in the United States by 7 percent. An international analysis of multiple studies, published last year, calculates that GMOs decreased pesticide use by 37 percent. But the two assessments agree on a fundamental distinction: While bug-resistant GMOs have led to lower use of insecticides, herbicide-tolerant GMOs have led to higher use of weedkillers.
Two factors seem to account for the herbicide increase. One is direct: If your crops are engineered to withstand Roundup, you can spray it profusely without killing them. The other factor is indirect: When every farmer sprays Roundup, weeds adapt to a Roundup-saturated world. They evolve to survive. To kill these herbicide-resistant strains, farmers spray more weedkillers. It’s an arms race.
Despite an ongoing debate about the effects of glyphosate, experts agree that it’s relatively benign. Benbrook has called it one of the safest herbicides on the market. He concludes: “In light of its generally favorable environmental and toxicological properties, especially compared to some of the herbicides displaced by glyphosate, the dramatic increase in glyphosate use has likely not markedly increased human health risks.”
Glyphosate is a synthetic herbicide that is widely used in farming, especially since the introduction of strains of crops rendered glyphosate-tolerant via genetic engineering, and has been historically produced by agricultural biotechnical company Monsanto under the trademark “Roundup”, although many people conveniently forget or are otherwise unaware that the US patent for glyphosate expired in 2000.
Glyphosate inhibits the enzyme EPSP synthase an enzyme needed by plants to make new amino acids. Therefore, glyphosate will most harm plants that are actively growing.
Animal biology (including human biology) does not produce the EPSP synthase enzyme, although some bacteria living in an animal’s gut can produce it. Therefore, glyphosate’s main mechanism of action isn’t harmful to animal biology. The very mild toxicity of glyphosate to animals arises from other reasons.
An important part of herbicide use is persistency, or how long the herbicide lasts before breaking down, and what happens to it before then. Glyphosate binds readily to soil, which has the advantage of not washing away during a rain storm and needing reapplication (and from a public health view, entering a water supply). However, it can enter a water supply if the soil itself washes away via erosion; typically this is exacerbated by poor farming practices (e.g., The Dust BowlWikipedia’s W.svg) and in such a scenario, herbicide contamination is one of the least pressing issues. Ironically the main cause of topsoil erosion, soil tilling, is reduced with the application of herbicides such as glyphosate.
It’s important to note that these issues are not unique to glyphosate, nor does necessarily an “organic” herbicide break down faster nor is it less toxic to humans.
The LD50 rating of glyphosate is estimated at 5600 mg/kg, or about 420 ml for a 75 kg human.. While scary sounding, this is only slightly more dangerous than alcohol’s ~7000 mg/kg. For comparison, the pesticide caffeine has a LD50 rating of 192 mg/kg, making it over twenty times as deadly as glyphosate.
So long as you aren’t using glyphosate as the main ingredient in your potato salad, this isn’t an issue. (Wear gloves and wash your hands.) As for low level risk exposure, no, not only has there been no link found between glyphosate and the number of issues constantly brought up, it’s not even considered a potential risk at this point.
Some studies about Glyphosate:
–Glyphosate General Fact Sheet
–Long-term Study Finds That the Pesticide Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer | The Scientist Magazine®
–Is glyphosate (Roundup) dangerous? #GMOFAQ
Twenty years after the debut of genetically engineered food, it’s a travesty that the technology’s commercial applications are still so focused on old-fashioned weedkillers.
The relentless efforts of Luddites and Anti-GMO activists to block testing, regulatory approval, and commercial development of GMOs are major reasons why more advanced GE products, such as Golden Rice, are still unavailable. The best way to break the herbicide industry’s grip on genetic engineering is to support the technology and push it forward, by telling policymakers, food manufacturers, and seed companies that you want better GMOs.
The USDA’s catalog of recently engineered plants shows plenty of worthwhile options. The list includes drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins, and soybeans that produce less saturated fat. A recent global inventory by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization discusses other projects in the pipeline: virus-resistant beans, heat-tolerant sugarcane, salt-tolerant wheat, disease-resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. Skim the news, and you’ll find scientists at work on more ambitious ideas: high-calcium carrots, antioxidant tomatoes, nonallergenic nuts, bacteria-resistant oranges, water-conserving wheat, corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients, and a flaxlike plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish.
That’s what genetic engineering can do for health and for our planet. The reason it hasn’t is that we’ve been stuck in a stupid, wasteful fight over GMOs. On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public. The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone the objectively verifiable information, facts and data upon this subject.
And to also fill you in on some important info again –
We actually do have the food growth systems that are symbiotic and sustainable as well as regenerative and combats false scarcity, but it also combats climate change. This food growth application goes by the proper term Agroecology, which utilizes methods such as processes presented by “Permaculture” which is slang terminology, but the physical referential equivalent is ‘PPMAAS’ – Perennial Polyculture Multistrata Agroforestry, Aquaculture, Silvopasture / Intensive Silvopasture.
As being Anti-Oppression, we actually oppose oppressive constructs, “governments” (old world corporations) as it is just a systemic effect of the need to enforce corporatism we understand and integrate that reality, but we only care for and utilize Objectively Verifiable Information upon this, and most other, topics of discourse.
Science is an ever-emergent process of information integration and growth.
Let me first clarify what is meant when the term “science” is used:
The Scientific Method – is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and/or the natural universe as we know it, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothesis.
Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses.
The most important part of the scientific method is the experiment.
The scientific method is a continuous process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world.
Learn more about the scientific method here:
The Scientific Method
The Sciences consist of the STEM fields: (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics)
– many different fields and sub-fields, using the scientific method to gain an understanding through repeatability and measure-ability of objectively verifiable actions/information.
Science is seemingly only limited by the amount of information received, or the ability of societal operating methods that could potentially hinder any sort of inquiries..
Agreed not All can conduct the experiments needed for subjective experience, since the funding for most studies comes from corporate / government backing, it is understandable to then get confused about biased science.
Biased science is a thing, yes, But biased science includes the funding of a study of something that is false and trying to spin it as true, or the funding of a study and then only a portion of the data is used for a specific end, usually being a profit maximization agenda.
The issue is Not the information and data obtained by the scientific method, but how that information and data are spun to a specific agenda by those who “claim” “ownership” of said ‘information’ and/or resource/s being exploited/extorted, which such actions are inherent within the paradigm of capitalism.
Technophobia can be justifiable under capitalist modus operandi, but in the same regard, that technology can also get us out of the need to rely upon capitalism if used correctly.
The information the the scientific method obtains, can of course be used for malicious purposes, but then It is not science, but the socio-economic system that is the issue.
Without any form of “science” we would have next to nothing.
Capitalism exploits everything. science just gives verifiable information and data, the corporations choose to use it for a specific agenda.
If one is able to utilize Critical Thought, then one can be able to Understand the Information being presented and know how to discern Fact from Fiction.
Who really cares about who is saying what?
When it comes to actual “Science”, opinions and Agendas mean jack shit.
When we use the term science, it is representative of a process, a method, a tool for understanding the “facts”.
The theories/theorem that come out of scientific processes can then be construed as an objectively verifiable truth/s.
Now why is that important?
If we understood how to understand something, then we could have a foundation of knowledge not built upon ignorance, but physically referential and objectively verifiable information.
And thus we would be able to advance as a species instead of destroy ourselves in blatant willful ignorance.
We try to promote science literacy here at our www.ThinkandAct.Earth foundation.
We are Anti-Oppression.
This would include Mental oppression. Specifically here relating to the mental oppression of “alternative” / pseudo-scientific bullshit.
Be well and nourished.